Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Creationary vs. creation vs. creationist

OK, please explain to me:

  • What distinctive nuance "creationary" preserves that "creationist" does not? Otherwise we seem to end up with permutation of the terminology for its own sakes.
  • What scientific credentials Phillip Johnson has, or claims?
  • Why a site's self-description is unwarranted "POV".

I didn't even touch the essential problems with this article, to wit, no representation of the "mainstream" science position whatsoever, and appeals to scripture in an article that purports to be describing a biological theory, so I'm concerned the mass-reverts are setting in so soon. Alai 16:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding "creationary", see creationary/evolutionary
  • I didn't claim that Phillip Johnson had scientific credentials. It's just not relevant, unless one is trying to minimise his relevance.
  • The comment about removing unwarranted POV was not for the article link, but in reference to removing "non-scientist" and "chemist" from references to people. The site's self-description is inappropriate when linking to a particular article rather than a web-site.
Philip J. Rayment 13:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not getting from your link (for which, thanks) any pressing reason for "creationary biologist" over "creation biologist" (similar attributive usage), or "creationist biologist". Both are more standard usages, use words that are actually in the Oxford dictionary and M-W, and seems less manifestly POV. On credentials: if this article is to discuss CB as a scientific idea, surely credentials in biology are perhaps the most relevant thing? If PJ's simply going to appear as an expert opinion to express his philosophical preference for one model over the other, that's one thing, but that's not really the context the article puts it in. Alai 04:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I guess that it depends on what you consider to be a "pressing" reason. I'm not arguing that "creationist" is totally unacceptable, rather that there is not sufficient reason to change "creationary" to "creationist". Also, surely NPOV is enhanced by using equivalent words for different views (as the linked article says): creationary and evolutionary, creationist and evolutionist?
Re credentials, on the contrary, I think that the context is not one of scientific opinion of the data, but of the philosophy of science and what is considered science and what isn't. And the very inclusion of "non-scientist" in his description smacks of trying to limit the acceptance of what he is trying to say, as anti-creationists frequently do.
Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If there's no pressing reason, we should use standard terms, not POV-sounding neologisms. Your suggested "equivalence" seems to me entirely false; my (Oxford) dictionary lists creationist and evolutionary, but not creationary or evolutionist. If 'creationist' is inappropriate, why not "creation biologist", "creation scientist", etc? We should use accepted, encyclopaedic terminology, not try to be in the "usage cutting edge". As regards Phil, would you prefer non-philosopher? Firstly, the article's focus ought to be biology, not philosophy of science: there's a rash of other articles on Johnson and his views. If he's quoted here, it should be in the context of saying something about biology. If he's going to be cited to defend CB against being non-science, his credentials seem entirely relevant. Alai 22:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Creation biology, by contrast, is based on the idea that God created all life on the planet in a finite number of discrete forms, commonly called "kinds," which were specially designed and given particular characteristics which God deemed to be "Good." These kinds were given the ability to vary significantly through microevolution. However, variation can only take place within definite limits. Kinds cannot arise spontaneously, cannot interbreed, and one kind cannot change into another.

Okay, so I want to know the following:

What defines "kind"? Is a kind a species?
From the article: "The kinds do not correspond exactly with any one particular modern taxonomic classification, but are usually at a higher level than species."
So how is it definied? How do we know what is a kind and what isn't? Is it a genus?
my personal definition: "Kinds are animals that were reproductively compatible at and immediately after the time of the Flood." the research on figuring exactly what these ARE will come down to genetics -- and that research hasn't been done yet. but i think we can do it with chromosome and genetic arrangement. Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It should be stated explicitly that creationists haven't done this. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
it is. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If we interpret "at the time of the flood" to mean on the orders of thousands of years, then by all conventional genetic interpretation that'd be the genus level, or lower, FYI. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
only if we depend on mutation for our variation. creationists depend on latent heterozygosity in the original population ... and the genetic drift to speciate after that could happen in a much-shorter timeframe. Ungtss 20:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not right, and the edits you made on that basis are seriously flawed. latent heterozygosity = inability to interbreed. Creationists haven't proposed (that I'm aware of, or that you've cited) any new mechanisms to explain speedy microevolution -- you're just tried to 'claim' parts of the standard mechanism as in some way particular to CB. Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i disagree. if the original kind was 14 Camas, it could easily differentiate into camels and llamas. no new mechanism. no nothing. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However, creationists do disagree on the timescales invovled. Biology doesn't claim that camels and llamas descended from the same ancestor a few thousand years ago. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yes, the timescales are different. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This should be noted. It is interesting that many creationist arguments are made to the tune of evolution being an impossible explanation for the diversity of life because they claim that there's no way to create it by evolutionary mechanisms in the time that mainstream science claims it did (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69). Then we turn around and see the idea that that speciation between llamas and camels occured within the last 6000 years. In other words, creationists simultaneously object to mainstream science being to slow and too fast to explain the diversity of life on Earth. I think this should be addressed in the article. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
you're arguing two sides of the same coin. YOU are relying on MUTATION. WE are relying on latent genetic diversity in the original population. how many million years would it take to MUTATE a gene for blue eyes? a LONG TIME. but if the original population is heterozygous for brown and blue, then you can have brown and blue populations within TWO GENERATIONS. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We don't rely JUST on mutation. We rely on a wide variety of environmental influences too. If there was only mutation, there wouldn't be any ability to explain diversification/consolidation of species. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no -- environmental influences only encourage or discourage the spread of the mutation. where do the new combinations of dna come from? Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transpons, polyploidy, to name a few observed mechanisms. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
my bad. i thought polyploidy was considered a mutation. when i spoke of mutations, i meant additions, deletions, transpositions, polyploidy, the whole deal. the point is, they are chance alterations and additions to the code. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You asked where the new combination of DNA come from. I told you where. My problem is that your proposed supergenome is supposed to degrade extremely quickly (faster than it is observed to degrade today). Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
again, i'm saying it degraded much more quickly in the population bottleneck right after the flood than it does today. this thread starting out with different timescales, and i'm telling you that the reason your timescale is longer is that you rely on mutations, polyploidy etc, while i rely on latent heterozygosity that speciated rapidly in the population bottleneck and genetic drift that immediately followed the flood. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And you claim to have a measure of such an effect? For example, let's take genetic variation within a population bottleneck species such as the peregrine falcon. Did you see your effect take place with that animal? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sounds like a good area for research. the research hasn't been done. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
should be noted. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How "significant" is significant? Can someone offer a quantifiable definition of what this means? Is it in terms of genetic variation? physical appearance? or what? Are all cats descended from one protocat? Are all insects descended from one protoinsect?
that's room for further research, i would think. you'd have to check out which segments could have been heterozygous in the original population, and became homozygous after speciation. short answer, tho, is, "we don't know yet." Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If there is no consensus on the definition of significant, then maybe we should consider omitting this idea. After all, if we have no idea what the limits are, how do we know that there are limits at all? There has to be at least a guiding principle when deciding for limits.
we don't know EXACTLY what the limits are, but we have a starting point. i think all creationists would agree that there's a limit between mammals and reptiles, and dogs and cats. were cats all one kind, or multiple kinds? dunno. i think it's safe to say that camels and llammas were originally a kind, since they are genetically compatible, and their offspring are called "Camas." they're not perfectly defined, but i think they're still relevent, because they are a line of research that can be pursued. Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We should attempt to outline what's CB 'bottom line', and what they'd consider themselves to be speculation/a research issue, etc. And what research exists to date. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Alai is right. It isn't good enough to claim that there are "obvious" examples because science is done in the nitty-gritty of the details. If the creationists won't commit as to what the criterion is for defining kinds, then that should be noted as a major flaw on this page. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
would you be so kind as to define a "transitional form" in such a way as to satisfy your "nitty-gritty" standard? Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A transitional form is an organism that shows characteristics that are similar to parts of two different taxa. It's very easy to define. What you need to define is how DIFFERENT they have to be in order to be different kinds. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hmm ... so a bat is a transitional form between a bird and a human, because it has wings like a bird and hair like a human? i don't think your definition works. try again. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bat wings are not bird wings. The similarities we talk about have to be in terms of well-defined delineations of anatomy and physiology. We cannot simply point to superficial similarities and declare a form to be transtitional. The anatomical and physiological support for the similarity has to be there. More than that, the transitional form always occurs after a parent form and before a daughter form. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
it's my contention that ALL of your transition forms are just as ridiculous, if not more. for instance, the whale related to the pig because it's fin looks like an ankle bone. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If it is truly ALL then you should have a critique available of ALL of them. It's not just about the appearance of similarity. There are entire textbooks written on how to best determine transitional forms. You'll have to break it down. Wholesale dismissal is fine (and should be mentioned in the article) but it's not a critique of the endeavor -- it's a rejection of the endeavor. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
it's a determination that the endeavor has utterly failed. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, such is not a critique, it is a dismissal. You don't say WHY it failed, you just say that ALL of the transistion forms are ridiculous and don't list ALL of the transition forms and say explicitly why. In other words, it's an unverified blanket statement. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
analogous to "the fossil record supports belief in evolution," a "fact" you've been more than willing to share with us on several occasions. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't change the subject. The point is that you claimed that all transitional fossils were ridiculous but have not provided a critique that matches your assertion. My backup? The Fossil Book: A Record of Prehistoric Life.
you never asked me to provide such a reference, and this is the first mention you've made of your reference. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is the first time in this thread that you claimed one of my facts wasn't a fact. When that happens, it's generally citation time. I'd like to see your exhausitve list now. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sounds like a good area of research. the research hasn't been done. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Should be noted. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What are the "definite limits"? Are they based on observations? Are they based on conjecture?
based on observations. one limit: cat/dog. show me the cat-dog and that limit will be gone. until we have the cat-dog, there's no reason to believe there was one. Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So is there a list of such limits? Obviously, you believe that canines and felines were never connected (I assume this means you reject fossil evidence). Since modern biology lists classifications in exquisite detail, why don't creationists? Are they afraid of putting up their ideas to critical review?
why no exhaustive detail? because we're not tenured professors with genetic sequencers at our disposal -- and the only way to GET to those sequencers is to assimilate evolutionary biology, which we think is fundamentally FALSE. Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again this is trending off into generalised debate, away from the focus of the article, but the raw data from genetic sequencing experiments is generally in the public domain. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
SERIOUSLY!? any idea where i could get ahold of that stuff!? Ungtss 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What data, specifically? Read a paper on sequencing experiments -- bioinformatics seems to be very big on this -- see what data set they reference. The papers themselves ought typically to give the 'crunched' data in terms of numerical similarity, at least (which is a good deal more accessible, as processing the data is hardly trivial). Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, Alai makes an excellent point. Every scientific finding on genetic sequences is publishes and available through library systems. It is a major cop-out to claim that creationists can't get data. I am not even a biologist and I know that I could go talk to a reference librarian for five minutes and be able to figure out what the genetic differences between a badger and weasel was. That creationists claim not to be able to do this is weird. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no, i don't want their papers about it -- their papers blindly accept the evolutionary paradigm. is there some way i could get the dna data itself? Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I said, you can definitely do this through the reference library. Of course, the complete genomes of only a few animals are completed, but there are incomplete genomes available in the literature. I am not your reference librarian. It is up to you to do your own legwork. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i never asked you to do my legwork. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, now you know where to get it, so be my guest. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since horses and donkeys can interbreed does this mean they are of the same kind?
probably originally ... but through reproductive isolation, they lost the capacity to have fertile young. Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So horses and donkeys are not the same kind. And yet they are genetically different enough to be considered to be different kinds now? Yet they are in the same genus.
no no -- i'm saying they were originally the same kind -- today, i think they're better understood as separate species, due to their vastly different structures. "kinds" exist separate from taxonomy -- taxa are descriptive. kinds are historical. that's why there's no exact overlap. Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then it's not the case that CB and MB agree on taxonomy, and the article should change to reflect this. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
we do agree on taxonomy, just not that taxonomy=common ancestry. i tried to reflect this on the page. how did i do? Ungtss 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Needs more work, as phylogeneticness is a goal of 'mainstream taxonomy', so if 'creation taxonomy' is on some other basis, should say so. Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
YES! The point is that if kinds are supposedly the basis for determining ancestory, then taxonomic classifications (which today revolves around genetic differences and genome analysis) is not accepted. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
EVOLUTIONARY taxonomy intends to show common ancestry -- but taxonomy predates evolution. i clarified on the page. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
CURRENT taxonomy is evolutionary. If this is the case, you reject CURRENT taxonomy. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no, current evolutionists USE taxonomy to infer common ancestry. current taxonomy can ALSO be used without the inference of common ancestry, on a purely descriptive basis. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Baloney. The way taxonomic structures are set-up today is to coincide with evolutionary structure. When taxonomers move certain organisms from one taxa to another it is for this reason. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yes. they've changed it in an effort to support their theory. but linnaeus didn't believe in evolution. taxonomy in its original form merely described characteristics, and didn't claim relation. no way around it. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We AREN'T TALKING about the original form. We are talking about modern biology's taxonomic structure. This would be like claiming that since Aristotle coined the term "physics" we can say that someone who believes in a geocentric universe is consistent with modern physics. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i AM talking about the original form. i have no problem with taxonomy as a classification system -- i have a problem with it as a basis for common ancestry among higher taxa. hence, "creationists accept taxonomy as it was originally used, to classify, but not as a basis for common ancestry among higher taxa." Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then the contention that creationists accept modern taxonomy is false. Creationists should develop their own taxonomy. They can start with kinds. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no. we accept the taxonomic classifications, and refer to them by the same nomenclature. we just don't think they indicate common ancestries. to say "creationists reject taxonomy" is another strawman. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As has been stated earlier, much of modern taxonomy is reliant on common ancestry assumptions this is why certain specied change taxa, for example. You obviously must reject these changes if you reject evolution. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
as stated earlier, we reject only those changes. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This isn't stated explicitly in the article. It should be. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i tried. it got deleted. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What does "arise spontaneously" mean? Does it mean that kinds cannot occur without the benefit of supernatural intervention? How does one measure this to confirm its truth or falsehood?
yes, they cannot occur without supernatural creative act. that means that there was never a time before there were canines, and then suddenly there were canines. there are only canines because God created created them, and they will never turn into anything BUT canines. Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So donkeys and horses cannot be separate kinds because they arose from the same kind and only God and not reproductive isolation can create separate kinds?
they are descended from the same KIND, are are currently two SPECIES. but they're both still EQUINE. you feel me? Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so they will always be the same KIND. So the question is, what prevents cross-over from a single KIND population to becoming two separate KINDS. Is there a barrier that is in place by God to prevent it? Is it a time issue? Is it a matter of KIND being written in stone at the moment of creation and then never being altered? What is it? Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
by our definition, the "Kinds" were original to creation. any descendent of those original kind is a member of the kind. an equine will always be an equine. it'll never be a unicorn. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Still haven't answered the following questions: Is there a barrier that is in place by God to prevent transition between kinds? Is it a time issue? Is it a matter of KIND being written in stone at the moment of creation and then never being altered? What is it? Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the boundaries were not deliberately created, but are a function of different design. amoebas and humans can't breed, not because of any deliberate boundary by God, but because they are incompatible. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stop evading the question. Is there a barrier that is in place to prevent transition between kinds? I'm not asking if there is a barrier between kinds, but rather whether it is impossible for a kind to "microevolve" into two separate kinds. If there is no barrier, then why don't creationists accept that such things could occur? If so, then what is the nature of the barrier? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
one KIND can evolve into one or more SPECIES. kinds are historical -- you can't have new ones. that's on the page. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What prevents new kinds? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
what prevents new models of car? very simply, new models of cars don't come around without a designer, and neither do new kinds. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Cars don't have the ability to reproduce. I'm surprised you think this is a reasonable comparison. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hmm ... perhaps an imperfect analogy, but i can't think of a better one. kinds have a particular genetic framework -- there's room for variation, but you can't change the framework without breaking the whole machine. i don't know quite how to articulate it beyond "common sense." i need to come up with one. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll wait for it. I'm very interested in knowing why new kinds are prevented from forming. I don't understand the "framework" analysis because I always thought the framework of life was DNA. Obviously it must be more than this. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is the number of discrete forms for these kinds? Since kinds are allowed to go extinct, does God have to replenish the world with kinds from time to time? Or do the number of kinds serve as a kind of clock on the age of the ecosystem?
as far as i know, extinction is a one-way-trip. once they're gone, they're gone. <nod to the environmentalists>. Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So, does God replinish the world with kinds, or is kind production over?
well ... there's no record of new kind production in genesis -- there certainly might be ... but i have no reason to believe there is. my experience tells me that we're in the midst of a mass, unidirectional extinction. Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So is it the opinion of creation biology that there have only been two extinction epochs in history, now and at the great flood and that's the ultimate description of the biological history of Earth? If that's the case it should be stated.
that's not necessarily the opinion of creation biology. there could have been other ones -- gap creationists believe in a big one, and there could have been a great deal of extinction before the flood. no go. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So, there could have been extinction before the flood, there was the great flood extinction and there was extinction after the flood. There was never a time when new kinds were created. Is this a fair characterization? Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sounds good. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
YECs would argue that there have been no mass extinctions of kinds, except of sea creatures during the flood. The flood killed most of the land-based creatures, but representatives of each kind were preserved on the ark, thus they didn't go extinct. Admittedly, depending on how much speciation there was before the flood, there there could have been mass extinctions of species, but not kinds. There could have been extinctions of individual kinds before the flood, and definitely some since the flood. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
YECs would argue that there have been no mass extinctions of kinds, except of sea creatures during the flood. --> So dinosaur extinction is not considered to be a mass extinction? Or is it just that dinosaurs were members of other kinds that still currently exist? Have there been no extinctions of any kinds since the flood? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the point mr rayment was trying to make was that the dinosaurs that were carried on the boat did not die out completely in the flood -- they died out in the environment afterwards (although not before leaving us a lot of legends about dragons). Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question if there have been extinctions of any kinds since the flood? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
certainly there have been extinctions of kinds since the flood. many, many, many. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. So the extinction rate of kinds serves as a clock of creation? Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
um ... it would if extinction rates were constant, but obviously they're not. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Still, it provides for a meaningful upper and lower bound assuming you can place a lower and upper bound on extinction rates. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i don't know how we could do that -- how can you quantify extinction rates when there's no fossil record after the flood to record it? Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wait, you claim there is no fossil record after the flood? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
might be, but i'm not aware of any. how many fossils do we have that we can date < 6000 years? Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
None, but apparently creationists believe that Neadertals lived after the flood (according to your little jog below). So we have fossils for them. Maybe you believe in fast fossilization too? Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
how were the fossils you're referring to fossilized? Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
fossil Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another question comes to mind, if the entire fossil record was deposited by the flood, according to creation biology there must be no distinction between the pre-cambrian, paleozoic, mesozoic, and cenozoic eras, right? The boundary distinctions are completely arbitrary and the explosions seen in the fossil record are simply coincidences (as are the extinctions). Is this a correct characterization? If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the article. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the fossil record is explained by mass liquefaction. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't answer the question because sorting is well understood. Liquefaction is a well understood process geologically, but I don't see an explanation in the article for how you can see coincidental fossil layers. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
coincidental fossil layers? Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, fossil layers that coincide in different parts of the world with sorting of the fossils. Why should all the trilobites hang out in only one layer, for example? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
well i don't know much about trilobites, but i suppose they could have lived on or near the ground before the flood, so that they were buried lower. now how do YOU explain the Cambrian explosion? Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In brief, the Cambrian explosion is easy to explain in terms of timescales and evolutionary diversification due to new available environments. Multicellular organisms are niche-adapted to be able to take advantage of specified environments. More than that, the Cambrian explosion is also a result of evolution of organic material that is more easily fossilized. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
so Punk Eek basically:)? don't tell Dawkins:). Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No. Punctuation Equilibrium states that evolution occurs quickly. This doesn't say anything about the rate of evolution, it merely states the observed facts of the environment in the Cambrian as well as the observed evolution of exoskeletal remains. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PE states that it occurs quickly as lifeforms evolve quickly to move into new niches, particularly after major environmental change. if that's not what you mean, then how exactly do you think the necessary genetic change occured which allowed the lifeforms to fill those niches? Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I said, there's nothing about the speed of evolution in my comment. Whether they evolved quickly or not, we cannot say. As it is, the Cambrian explosion is not necessarily fast (a fact which creationists cannot admit because they claim all the dating is incorrect in any case). Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The flood would have gone through a number of stages, meaning that the flood deposits would not expected to be one homogeneous deposit. Is that what you were getting at? Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Close, but not quite. Why should the fossil layers be so well defined. Obviously there isn't one well-defined deposit, but why would certain layers contain a lot of fossils and other layers not so many? What explains the vast amount of evidence regarding the number, type, and order of the fossil layers? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
defined fossil layers are explained by liquefaction lenses. haven't gotten that on flood geology yet -- gonna get to it eventually. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't explain sorting. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
look on the Flood geology page. an experiment was conducted, which replicated well-defined strata, through repeated periods of liquefaction and non-liquefaction, which caused liquefaction lenses and sorting of the fossils and the strata. now how do you explain the laying of strata of single minerals, like the St. Peter Sandstone? Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is this the same experiment that has no citation except to be quoted in a book where they say "yep, that's what we found: sorting according to type of animal!" Pardon me if I don't take your word for that one.
i wouldn't expect you to. but you asked for my explanation and i gave it. pardon me if i don't believe we evolved from amoeba. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But I have references that extend beyond some quote in a book to an experiment that hasn't been repeated or evaluated as having actually occurred. When it comes to confirming your own beliefs, I guess that skepticism with which you look at evolution goes right out the window. You find the tens of thousands of pages of literature on common descent to be unbelievable. I find a single quote of an unpublished experiment to be unbelievable. That's the difference. Joshuaschroeder 05:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your next question. Sandstone isn't a mineral. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i'm asking you, "how do you think the st. peter sandstone formed?" this question remains unanswered, along with "how did oil get there?" and "how did fossils get there?" flood geology answers those questions for me. how do you answer them? Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, what you asked was how I explain the laying of strata of single minerals and then refered to a rock made of many minerals. Now you want to know how sandstone is formed. Well, it's formed either by shallow sea deposition or by desert deposition (in the case of this particular deposit, geologists have evidence that it is from a shallow sea). If you want to know more you can check out a sedimentary geology text, for example. They will also have information on fossilization and petroleum deposits if you get a broad enough text. Alternatively, you can look on this very encyclopedia for the answers you seek. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
so you're telling me that a sandstone of 99.7% purity formed under an ocean, without experiencing any mixing at all? Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is this 99.7% purity? How can a rock be measured to be pure? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
read up on the st. peter sandstone. the sandstone in eastern missouri is 99.4% pure sicila. how? Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because the silica (that's only part of the sandstone now) was created plutonically rather than by volcanism. That's how you get pure crystals. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
are you telling me you can get 99.4% purity from a sea drying out? no impurities? no mixing with sediments from rivers or dead plant and animal matter? nothing else? pure 99.4% sandstone from a sea? you can really say that with a straight face? Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The purity of silica is due to how it crytsalizes. The purity of the mineral silica is in reference to the fact that it is nearly pure SiO2. It has nothing to do with its sedimentation. There's no such thing as a "pure rock". A rock is a mixture. Your continued insistence on "pure sandstone" is nothing short of willful ignorance. Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 03:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Example kinds

Notice there is an example 'kind', but I agree it could benefit from being tightened up a good deal. Is there general agreement on Felinae as a kind? Are YECs happy with kinds at the family level? Do any CBs cite genetic or geologic evidence for the (d)evolution from proto-Felinae into cheetah and kitty-cats? (Specifically that distinguishes it from evolutionary processes they assert are unevidenced and/or impossible, say from proto-Carnivora.) Note that in the intro, we have that CBs agree with MB on taxonomy, so it ought to be possible to discuss kinds in conventional taxonomic terms, at least broadly. Alai 04:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are YECs happy with kinds at the family level?

I don't think so. I bet they think that weasles and badgers are different kinds, even though they're the same family: Mustelidae. Joshuaschroeder 16:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i dunno ... do they show similar genetic characteristics? do we have any reason to believe they were ever reproductively compatible? Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "reason to believe". Most of the data that I would offer you would probably be labeled as "too evolutionary" for your liking. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i'll take that as a no. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You reject genomic comparisons, embryology, transitional forms, and generally any other piece of evidence not to your liking. It's you who has the "no". Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
we reject them not because they're "not to our liking," but because they're meaningless and utterly fail to make your point. Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If CBs reject all of the above, that's worth noting in the article space. (The genomic stuff especially, given the discussion of kinds.) Alai 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sounds good. let's be clear on exactly why.
1) genomic comparisons and embroyology because they don't indicate common ancestry against common design, since the volvo and the toyota both have similarities, but were designed separately. transitional forms because we haven't seen any that impress us. Ungtss 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sure, though if the Toyoto started to exhibit more than 95% blueprint similarity, the Volvoists might sue. OK, good, this is worth clarifying in the article. Do (any) creationists propose a criterion by which to judge what degree (or sort) of genetic similarity is evidence of descent from the same original kind, and what is evidence of a parsimonious creator? I don't know, for example, on what basis creationists are happy to entertain proto-crocs, but not proto-carns. It'd be nice if we could discuss if this is done on the basis of genetic of other quantifable data, scriptural evidence, or intuition. BTW, "impress us" isn't really a testable challenge, either... Alai 19:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
not in a definitive sense (and thank you for helping to draw out the ambiguities here) -- just off the top of my head, one could say, "genetic similarity is a necessary but not sufficient indicator of common ancestry. the sufficient condition would be some evidence of reproductive compatibility in the past. without evidence of reproductive compatibility, it is POSSIBLE that animals are related, but also possible that they are not. the greater the genetic differences, the less likely common ancestry appears to be. i wouldn't put it on a definitive "yes or no" basis ... but i think there are degrees of reasonable belief in common ancestry. somewhat similar to phylogenetic trees, i would think. there's no definitive "ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TREE" -- there are just most-parsimonious and maximum likelihood tress that are the most reasonable indicators of common ancestry. i think this is an area of inherent ambiguity, but i do think we can come to some very reasonable hypotheses. i think cats are a SOLID bet for common ancestry. whales and pigs? i just don't see it. Ungtss 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Given 6000 years, I wouldn't see it either. 60,000,000, now... Surely genetic similarity is evidence of reproductive compatibility in the past? I still don't see how it's even in principle possible even to construct maximum likelihood; you haven't given even probabilistic criteria. Alai 02:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)