Google is your friend. Unfortunately, it’s not mush help in explaining them.
Just trying to keep this thread from closing, in hope against hope that something will come of it. What happened to all the RTB fans all of a sudden?
The conversation drifted towards actual empirical science. Seems to have frightened them off.
Don’t be snarky. When I indicate patience is required and a sincere interest in the topic, I likely mean more patience than 5 days.
If it wouldn’t be too much of a death blow… it might be better to let this thread close for now and rebirth it when I (and possibly others at RTB) might invite and have time for this very helpful dialogue and discussion to move forward. This is not a delay tactic. I am sincerely interested in this dialogue. I simply do not have time to prioritize it right now. I would love to continue with the participation of @Dan_Eastwood, @jongarvey, @T_aquaticus, @T.j_Runyon, @Agauger, @Argon, @swamidass, @Michael_Callen, @colewd, @SueD, @swamidass at a future date.
I hope you will continue at some point. It would be contrary to all my experience with creationists, and thus quite refreshing.
No snarkiness intended. I understand you don’t have time now and that’s fine. Could you at least recommend a good source to read about these first principles of created kinds, including maybe a definition of kind? As someone above noted a Google search doesn’t provide any useful info. Thanks.
It doesn’t seem that you read what I post when I post… I am using “kind” as a placeholder. I don’t like the word b/c of baggage associated with it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINE IT a priori. If God created some organisms de novo and if these organisms are founding “kinds” that diversify over very long periods of time by innate capacities for adaptation and diversification, then the only way to identify them is by empirical observations and comparisons. Linnaeus’ system is (somewhat) arbitrary. The demarcation of any single “kind” must be empirically determined. Some “kinds” may fall at a phylum level, others at a class level, others at an order level, etc. And yes, at least one assertion is being made in the case of humans from the RTB model, that one created “kind” falls at the current species level. I have stated all of this before (maybe not in this thread, but at least parts of this were stated in this thread). If you can’t understand this b/c you keep trying to import my assertions into your evolutionary interpretations of the data, I can’t help you there. So stop asking me to define kinds.
Kinds sound to me like clades. It’s possible to define what a clade is without saying which organisms or groups of organisms comprise any given clade.
A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
I’m just don’t understand how you can claim “gaps are predicted by the first principles of create kinds” when you yourself say we have no idea what “kinds” even means. I’m honestly trying to understand your reasoning.
Yes, but hopefully not your experience with fellow scientists, which I am also. I find it a bit disconcerting that I am “labeled” first a creationist so that I can be lumped together with all your past experiences under this label. This is part of the problem, from my vantage point, when others choose to disregard direct dialogue (i.e. I do not have time right now), making assumptions not in current dialogue (she’s a creationist, not to be taken at face value of what she said, and not honest but disingenuous in wanting to dialogue about data). Some even insist that I defend things I have not stated; it is beyond aggravating. You are not guilty of that here, other than the mere lumping and minimal snipe.
^^^ more of the same. Snarky was a euphemism; I was trying to keep it “nice”.
These types of comments do not invite continued dialogue; and no my skin is NOT that thin that they scare me off, but they do nothing to motivate me to prioritize my time to dialogue with these types of (wearisome, albeit minimal) snipes.
If you are arguing for created kinds doesn’t that make you a creationist? Isn’t an OEC still a C?
@Mung, thanks for trying to bring clarity to our dialogue. I think clade will also have various meanings or applications. I am most familiar with “clade” in terms of HIV molecular biology. So that would cloud my use of it in this respect. Per your definition it seems helpful and possibly useful, but In the context of HIV it would be absolutely unhelpful, since all HIV would have a single origin and yet encompass multiple clades.
Yes, but if I want to emphasize your “naturalism” over your ability to converse about the science… then we’re in a disagreement about philosophies and not in a mutually respectful dialogue about the science/data. You wouldn’t suffer from that “labeling” in this environment, but the contrary is not true as your snarky comment already implies about my (their) leaving when the conversation is on the science. Are you so blind to the language you use? And blind to your own claims of unintended snarkiness? Or are you disingenuous and just trying to irk others? Why don’t you try to understand the point I’m trying to make before you ask such a ridiculous question; OF COURSE THE C in OEC stands for creationist. If you’re trying to irritate me out of the dialogue, keep it up. You’re almost succeeding.
I’m fairly sure that Timothy understands what a kind is. He is just unsure of which organisms are in which “kind,” which, as you say, is an empirical question not to be decided by definition. I think what he wants to know is which organisms share a common ancestor and which do not and how to tell the difference.
ETA: as which organisms are in which clade is likewise an empirical question. No one set out with a bunch of predefined names of clades and then set about trying to fit organisms into them. Or if they did it failed.
What point are you trying to make? You seem to get overly irritated any time someone asks you clarifying questions. That’s not conducive to a mutually respectful dialog.
Why don’t you define it for us then Mung? No one else in the thread has. Since you’re jumping in as a self-appointed expert why not tell us the first principles of created kinds too.
A kind is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
So “kind” = “clade”. That means “kinds” can fall into nested hierarchies. The canine “kind” and the feline “kind” and ursine “kind” all fall within the carnivore “kind”, right? Humans and chimps and gorillas are in the primate “kind”.
What are the first principles of the Mung Created Kinds?
That they are created.
Unless it’s a created kind, yes.
ETA: Actually, even created kinds can be placed into a nested hierarchy. Just not one of nested phylogenetic relationships. Timothy is confusing cladistics with phylogenetics.