This is still a little ambiguous; because, even though something is a mammal it still might not necessarily be the same kind. This is why there is so much contention between creation and other world origin theories.
Blame evolution. If there were discrete "kinds", we'd have nice clean classifications with no ambiguity. The ambiguity, with many "in between" cases, is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Darwin pointed this out in
The Origin of Species.
I wish there was a cut and dry point in the classification system that we could say, "this is where the kind ends." For the most part, I would probably agree that the kind cut-off is at the family level of classification,
Years ago, I was discussing this with John Woodmorappe of "Ark Feasibility Study" fame. He had the same opinion. New species, genera and families evolved, in his opinion, but that was it. Order was the limiting taxon for "kind", he thought. Problem is, we have transitional forms between orders and genetic data indicates relationships.
but the lines are still hard to draw at times. Would it be ok if we resolve to use "kind" and "species" interchangeably to mean at the family level of classification (unless otherwise specified) for any future conversation between us?
I have no problem with using "kinds" that way, but for sexually reproducing species, "population of interbreeding organisms" would be the proper term.
I believe there may have been a misunderstanding here. When I replied, I was referring to Hyracotherium and Orohippus being classified as different families, not your post with Orohippus and Mesohippus. I should have specified, I apologize.
No problem. But Hyracotherium and Orohippus are classified in different genera, but the same family.
It seems that most creationists are opposed to any type of evolution. As soon as you say "evolution" they bring up a cross and hiss at you.
I think they object to the word "evolution." However, most of the prominent creationists seem to accept speciation and new genera and families appearing, as you suggested. The ICR and "Answers in Genesis" positions accept speciation as a fact.
There are types of evolution that are scientific, speciation being one of them, but it only goes so far before you step out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion. I fully admit that what I believe about the origin of the world is a religion, it is not scientific, but it seems impossible for most to admit that any world/life origin theory is a religion and not science.
Evolution is not about how the world began, or how life began. It's about how living things vary over time.
I do not see why not... All we have to go on is the fossils of such animals; so, as far as what we observe from the evidence, I believe that they probably are "extreme" variants of a single species. I do not doubt that every variant that you would show me would not be a variant of a single species: but, that is my point, I believe that is all that they are; variants of a single species.
Hyracotherium and Orohippus could be extreme variants of a single species. Orohippus and Mesohippus are alike enough to be extreme variants of a single species. But Hyracotherium and Mesohippus are a little beyond the range of variation in a single species. I'm sure you've already figured out what the point is. As we go forward in time, these incremental changes that are small enough to admit in one species, add up to rather drastic change over time. Which is why Kurt Wise mentions that the horse series is strong evidence for evolution.
That is as far as science goes when it comes to such evidence. As far as I am concerned, my objection of the evidence is not that they all appear to come from a single species; rather, my objection is the timeframe in which the supposed transitions took place. This is why I proposed the topic of the age of the earth without a biological component. It would seem that evolution (in the broadest, most general sense of the word) hinges on the age of our universe/planet.
This is true. If the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, there is no time to have all these different species. For that matter, there's no space. If all of them existed at one time, there would be extreme crowding. Just for the ones we know about, one calculation figured a large mammal for an area the size of a football field over the entire earth, including water.
Extinction is most certainly a fact, and organisms that go extinct certainly did exist in the past. Creation also allows for that. You seem to be pretty honest, and I would expect that, if I could give you a plausible alternative to the evidence, you would admit that creation could be a viable theory.
Creation is a fact. But it's miraculous, an act of God, and therefore not a theory. Creationism, if it's presented as a scientific theory, open to evidence, could be so. But theories stand or fall on evidence alone, not faith. Could God have, as some creationists suggest, produce evidence for evolution to perhaps test our faith? Yes, God is omnipotent, and could do anything. However, the God I worship is truth embodied, and would not have done that. Still, I could be wrong about God being truthful, although I would never believe it.
Is that a fair assumption? I'm not trying to turn you into a creationist, I would just like to know that you would respect creation as a viable theory.
Dr. Wise is doing a great deal of work trying to develop a consistent baraminology (biology based on "kinds") I respect his work, although he has not yet produced a theory. Theories are ideas or groups of ideas that have been repeatedly validated by evidence. If he succeeds, I'd be willing to grant that he had a valid theory.
I would also grant that creationism is a valid religious doctrine, much as Arminianism and Calvinism are valid religious doctrines, although it seems that they can't both be true. They are Christian beliefs, and while they may be wrong, they are not contrary to Christian belief. Nor is YE creationism; the only YE doctrine that is contradicted by the Bible, is the "life ex nihilo" belief, and it seems fewer and fewer creationists hold to it these days.
I truly believe that evolution (again in the broadest, most general sense of the word) is an incorrect theory, but I do respect it as a viable theory, and that is all I ask in return. I am not here to prove evolution wrong, I am here to show that it is not the only viable theory.
It's the only viable scientific theory at present. That's not to say that something might someday overturn it. This is what Kurt Wise is looking toward. My guess is that it is, like Newton's Theory of Gravitation, so fundamental that it will remain valid long after better theories (like relativity) have been confirmed.
They do not tell us that... They allow us to theorize that the trend in horse speciation was toward larger size, more robust teeth adapted to grazing, and reduction in toes with a less flexible spine. And I would be inclined to agree with that theory.
Theories are ideas that have sufficient evidence to support them that it's perverse to deny them. But we do know that such changes are those that permit grazing, and life in the open, where speed is a better way of avoiding predators than hiding.
This was a great observation, and I believe that he made many great observations, but I wonder why it is that so many people consider Darwin such a great scientist when his only formal education was in Theology...
Because he had such a grasp of biology. It's stunning to read his books and realize how much of biology he had learned by reading, observing, and discussing it with others. His research on barnacles, for example, is the foundational work in that field. He was the first to correctly identify the cause of Pacific atolls, which had been a problem for geologists.
An amazing man.
Sorry this is just a rant. It has always bothered me though.
Read The
Origin of Species the detail is overwhelming. And it's not just citing the work of others, although there's a lot of that. There's an amazing amount of personal research in his theory. It was his first love; his father made him study theology, as being an Anglican priest was a good career at the time.
You are quite correct, and I applaud you for making sure you said that the dating of fossils is accurate in the context of geologic ages.
There are lots of problems with the process, not the least of which is we rarely can directly date fossilized material; we have to date other things in the same strata. Ideally, igneous rock above and below gives us good information.
That is what it really comes down to is it not? The accuracy of the geologic ages?
Isochrons have made that pretty accurate. But even if it didn't, the temporal sequence of horses shows the process regardless of how long it took.
Thank you for taking the time to continue our discussion, especially when this subject has been hashed out so badly over and over again.
No problem. Good to hear from you. I won't take it badly if you strongly assert your ideas; I value bluntness, and do not feel offended if one disagrees with me. As far as the age of the Earth is concerned, you might want to check how dating works at some of these sites.
Joe Meert's site:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
A nice summary of the way it works, based on his own work in geochronology.
http://www.sciencecourseware.com/virtualdating/
This one is a bit simplistic, aimed at HS or introductory college level, but it is interactive and interesting.
lain:
