ATTN creationists:
The word kind is used in the story of Noah's Ark. What is a "kind"?
Is it the same as the modern classification species? Genus? Family?
Are lions and tigers the same kind?
Are lions, tigers, and wolves the same kind?
Are lions, tigers, and crocodiles the same kind?
"Kind" and modern classification
Moderator: Moderators
-
agnosticatheist
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
"Kind" and modern classification
Post #1If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
Post #61
Christians have trouble with continuous variables, they (might I say like most primitives) what everything to be binary, on/off, discrete as opposed to smeared. But the real world is not binary, most things are continuous.
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
Post #62
Christians have trouble with continuous variables, they (might I say like most primitives) what everything to be binary, on/off, discrete as opposed to smeared. But the real world is not binary, most things are continuous.
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
-
agnosticatheist
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Post #63
Great post, and a lot of good points. To me, the only way we can handle classification is to go by genetically-based cladograms, and the criterion for deciding if a species has emerged is if the divergent population and the original population can no longer breed and produce healthy offspring. Yes, this means polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species. Oh well, get over itH.sapiens wrote: Christians have trouble with continuous variables, they (might I say like most primitives) what everything to be binary, on/off, discrete as opposed to smeared. But the real world is not binary, most things are continuous.
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
I dont like using arbitary classifications. Sometimes arbitrariness cannot be avoided, but I avoid it whenever I can...As a minor note, I know scientists often use the inability of two populations to interbreed as the criterion for speciation. How do they know the two populations are 100% reproductively isolated? Have they attempted to breed every male breeding member of Population A with every female breeding member of Population B, and every female breeding member of Population A with every male breeding member of Population B? Or, do they just attempt to breed a few of them and after a few breeding pairs fail to breed, they say "case closed, new species"? Also, maybe im off here and they dont go off of whether or not they can get the two populations to breed, but rather go off of what is observed in the wild. If so, then still, how do they know the two populations are 100% reproductively isolated?
I disagree with the DL. I dont think we have to accept the findings of science, and I dont think we should until we can verify them for ourselves. Unfortunately, this means that most of us will NEVER be able to accept the findings of science because we dont have the interest, drive, intelligence, lifespan time, and/or financial means to verify for ourselves the findings of science. The flip side of this is he shouldnt be taking the position(s) that he does on metaphysical possibilities. The rational, reasonable position is to refrain from taking a position on a possibility, and only accept what you can *know* (deduction).
I don't think you can pick and choose which claims to accept and which claims to doubt. Either you accept all of them, or you doubt all of them.
For most or all of you, your standard for deciding what is normal and plausible depends on your experiences. People throughout history have been skeptical of things that turned out to be true, and the reason that they were skeptical is because their experiences told them what turned out to be true was implausible.
What if you were one of those Imperial Japanese soldiers who stayed isolated on an island for 30 years, then in the 70s was discovered? I try to tell you about the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan, and you are going to be skeptical of my claim. On the other hand, if you come to me today and tell me a nuclear missile was fired at a Middle Eastern country this morning, I wouldn't necessarily have a reason to doubt you, because in my experience, that is credulous.
We need a standard that can be applied to all people, regardless of individual experience. That standard is: if you wonder if a possibility is actually the case or not, if a person's claim is true or false, etc, doubt the truth value of the possibility or claim. Even in matters of practical necessity, you can still doubt the claim, but act as if the claim is true, or act as if the claim is false. For example, the sheriff's department stops at your beach house and tells you a tidal wave is headed your way; you can intellectually doubt their claim, but it is in your interest as a goal-pursuing organism (with the goal of your survival being one of the goals you pursue...) to act is if their claim is true and get the heck away from the coast!
I find myself doubting stuff all the time, and I think it's because I am a deeper thinker and am more into epistemology than most people, so by this standard, I would doubt more than the average person, but only because I think more often than the average person about whether an everyday claim ("I went to the gas station this morning to refill my car's gas tank") is true or not. Did the Earth actually progress in real time from 50 million years ago to the present moment, or was it created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of having progressed through 50 million years in time, and with me having memories from 2005, 2006, etc? I don't know either way. Is my family real or are they "bots" and I'm in a full immersion simulation? I don't know either way.
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
Post #64
The fact that they can interbreed I think is irrelevant (though interesting in terms of the closeness of relationship). I would argue that the criteria should be, "would breed in the natural environment." Zoo based breeding is irrelevant and gene flow (the boundaries of which are the proper species fence) often does not occur even when breeding is possible.agnosticatheist wrote:Great post, and a lot of good points. To me, the only way we can handle classification is to go by genetically-based cladograms, and the criterion for deciding if a species has emerged is if the divergent population and the original population can no longer breed and produce healthy offspring. Yes, this means polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species. Oh well, get over itH.sapiens wrote: Christians have trouble with continuous variables, they (might I say like most primitives) what everything to be binary, on/off, discrete as opposed to smeared. But the real world is not binary, most things are continuous.
Platonic Idealism was (is) binary. Aristotle's views on varieties were binary. Every Western "thinker" through John Ray and Carl Linnaeus were binary. Species were not understood to be continuous and were viewed as immutable and discrete all the way up until Lamarck, who undertood that varieties were no immutable and who got the phenomena right, but the who got the mechanisms ever-so-wrong.
Finally Darwin and Wallace hit the nail on the head, species are not discrete, species are not immutable, as noted in wiki (above) Darwin wrote, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."
But today, despite Darwin's clear rejection of the binary and discrete view, that being the religious, classical and medieval view, rank ignorance stalks the land. Many people are starting with their archaic religious view of varieties and careless assuming that their cherry picking force fit of the data has a basis in reality. It is an easy to understand misapprehension made pathological by the Christian belief in Biblical inerrancy. Consider how much more rational the planet would be if Christians were to follow the dictates of the Dalai Lama XIV: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science."
Anyway, we now have a situation where more than two millennia of Western thought, two millennia of Abrahamic "common sense," is in collision with scientific analyses that conclusively demonstrate that core claims held dear by many Abrahamic sects, such as Biblical of Koranic inerrancy, has been shown by science to be false. The Dali Lama insists that we must accept the findings of science, yet Christian and Muslim fundamentalists would rather shut their eyes, cover their ears and pour their brains into a cesspool than even consider that "common sense" can, at times, be quite uncommon.
More later, that about covers "what is" the more interesting question is "why is it."
Reproductive isolation often has more to do with things other than "can."agnosticatheist wrote: As a minor note, I know scientists often use the inability of two populations to interbreed as the criterion for speciation. How do they know the two populations are 100% reproductively isolated? Have they attempted to breed every male breeding member of Population A with every female breeding member of Population B, and every female breeding member of Population A with every male breeding member of Population B? Or, do they just attempt to breed a few of them and after a few breeding pairs fail to breed, they say "case closed, new species"? Also, maybe im off here and they dont go off of whether or not they can get the two populations to breed, but rather go off of what is observed in the wild. If so, then still, how do they know the two populations are 100% reproductively isolated?
Since absolute proof is never really possible, can anything that is not concrete (e.g., gravity) ever be actually "known?" "Probably" is the best we can actually do.agnosticatheist wrote: I disagree with the DL. I dont think we have to accept the findings of science, and I dont think we should until we can verify them for ourselves. Unfortunately, this means that most of us will NEVER be able to accept the findings of science because we dont have the interest, drive, intelligence, lifespan time, and/or financial means to verify for ourselves the findings of science. The flip side of this is he shouldnt be taking the position(s) that he does on metaphysical possibilities. The rational, reasonable position is to refrain from taking a position on a possibility, and only accept what you can *know* (deduction).
No, knowledge is a buffet, not a 12 course meal, though often the acceptance of one dish will define a suite of dishes that go with it.agnosticatheist wrote: I don't think you can pick and choose which claims to accept and which claims to doubt. Either you accept all of them, or you doubt all of them.
