Roberts: Principles of Created Kinds

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from The First Principles of Created Kinds:

An important conversation started that I wanted to continue in a more protected way. To keep this conversation on track, there are a few rules at play in this conversation. In general, give @AJRoberts and @Agauger time to respond. As actual OEC scientists who are outnumbered here, do not spam the thread with a Gish Gallop of questions and objections. Give them time to respond. Wait till outstanding questions are answered before following up.

Once their point it out there, then there may be space for larger discussion. However, give priority to scientists using their real names here. Anonymous posters should only comment on a side thread.

The Starting Point

@Timothy_Horton writes:

@Timothy_Horton

Evolution predicts we’ll find the top phylogenetic tree arrangement. Creation of “kinds” predicts we’ll find the bottom arrangement.

The empirical data from the fossil and genetic records finds this arrangement

phylo.gif650x599 19.1 KB

Which model is better supported by the evidence?

One Alternate Option For Nested Hierarchies

@swamidass

This is ultimately about the distribution of shared and modified adaptations among created kinds. Why do we see this type of pattern, and not some other? Why does everything with fur also have three middle ear bones? Why does everything with feathers also have flow through lungs? Why do we always find certain features together but not others?

Ontology is also nested. Perhaps this is what was in the “mind of God.” I think this might be a plausible explanation for some of these features, but not all.

@T_aquaticus

I think that would be a promising starting point for a creation model, even if it isn’t successful in the end. It may run into problems with concepts like omniscience and omnipotence, but at least there is some biology to build from.

@swamidass

I think in this specific context, CD might be a bit of a biased term. It is easy to imagine an OEC model that has shared history , where species are created based on species already around. OEC and CD would just have different explanations for that shared history.

The Principles of Created Kinds

@AJRoberts writes:

@AJRoberts

I think one thing that might be helpful is to continue thinking along the line posited by T_aquaticus.

I want to throw out a few of my own thoughts without connecting them to RTB’s particular model… although they may be identical, I don’t want to have to fact check first to throw the ideas out here.

If we are starting with an Old Earth (I really don’t like this term) Creation model (I prefer progressive creation model), then the uninitiated need to understand several things about this.

• God created some organisms by fiat. (I do not know which ones.)
• God allows creation to continue through secondary causes which encompass adaptations and capacities for diversification built into living systems and some level of genomic plasticity.
• Much of evolution theory will overlap with creations that continue through secondary causes.
• God created progressively, in the sense that he was preparing Earth for sustaining thriving, advanced human communities. (microbial life precedes more complex life, photosynthetic life precedes oxygen respiration, creation of modern humans (A&E) ends God’s creation of kinds by fiat and leaves only continuing creation through secondary causes, adaptations and diversification.)
• He created ecosystems, not isolated individual organisms.
• Created kinds may only be able to be determined by examining extensive genetic relationships across entire genomes and comparing multiple different kinds of organisms simultaneously. (We do not have the data or computing power to do these types of comprehensive comparisons yet.)
• A “God did it” answer is not a scientific answer BUT it is an answer that can be consistent with scientific data based in rigorous human reasoning. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, this does not need to stifle scientific inquiry at all.
• I think the universality of the DNA code and roughly 20 canonical amino acids is intentional on the Creator’s part… because of his intent for humanity to steward and care for creation in all the technical ways we might be able to do so as science continues to advance our understanding.
• Most science can be done without any commitment to a LUCA or Darwinian-modified connections of origins of all of life to common ancestors.
• Asking where a fossil fits in a tree may be interesting, but I would argue, at least on one level, maybe not all that interesting.
• It might be far more fascinating to understand for example how similar yeast and fish and human proteins function similarly and differently. I don’t need any concept of any possible hierarchical historical account to ask relevant functional questions, or to be able to detect similarly designed proteins, regulatory elements, physiological or metabolic processes. And identifying these similarities AND differences are CRITICAL to steward creation well.

This is a start. Just to give you all something to think about from a progressive creationist model. I am willing to engage and want to when I can, but I’m not going to put out a billion little fires and I’m not going to try to defend this model on the basis of another model.

I think it’s helpful to remember there are a variety of (creation and non-creation) models for origins. There will be overlap between most models in some areas. Created kinds would be an overlap, but with far different outcomes perhaps, between YEC and OEC models. There is overlap between YEC and evolutionary models (perhaps in historical origin relationships of Homo hominids). And there are overlaps between OEC and evolutionary models (speciation, for example)… and yes, even some that would be contained in all three types, no doubt (e.g. microevolution, microbial evolution, molecular adaptations, epigenetic modifications, etc.).

I hope this doesn’t bring more confusion than clarity.

At this point, we can pick up the conversation here.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@John_Harshman

Sadly, I think it brought much more confusion than clarity. The supposed principles are a mixed bag of assertions and hopes, none of them detailed enough to make any sort of principle for doing science, and none of them having much to do with investigating hypothesized created kinds. Best to start over.

First, I think you are setting the the bar too high. There are religious theme at work here, I don’t think we can expect anything comparable to the ZFC axioms.

Second, let the case be presented before criticizing, as Joshua requested. Comments along these lines will end up in side comments until we have established the subject.

[John_Harshman]

Sure, but how can we pick up the conversation? So far there’s nothing to pick up.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@John_Harshman

Sure, but how can we pick up the conversation? So far there’s nothing to pick up.

If you are in such a hurry, go read some Hugh Ross books.
Otherwise, we just have to wait until people have time to contribute.