To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj: Baramin? saramin! ARTHUR BIELE to MARTY LEIPZIG on 090594 01:01 re

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: LARRY SITES Posted: 9 Sep 94 21:40 To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj: Baramin? saramin! ARTHUR BIELE to MARTY LEIPZIG on 09-05-94 01:01 re: "COLLAPSE OF MARTY L. AB>If there is no Creator, then baramins do not exist. Since the existence AB>of a Creator who created all living things, each according to their AB>kind, is axiomatic to the creation model I proposed, baramin is simply AB>working definition. Creation scientists are working on determining the AB>exact nature of the original baramins, which is similar to evolutionist AB>tracing species back to their distant ancestry. Is a "baramin" any different from creationist "kind"? How do you know that humans are a different "baramin" from apes? Do you have any scientific evidence? Even one of the great creationists, Gish shoots himself on this one. Read it and weep: Area # 256 ORIGINS *(Talk) 07-04-94 23:43 Message # 730 From : KEN SMITH To : ALL Subj : RE: EVOLUTION AS FACT/TH In article <2v9vhl$> (New Man700) writes: >In article <2v9edv$>, (Warren >vonRoeschlaub) writes: > >>Certainly...but first, would you please provide a detailed >scientific >>definition of a species? > >::If you cannot look up this definition in a high-school level >::biology book why do you feel confident about knowing the "problems" >::with evolution? > >Leave it to the evolutionists to come off with a patronizing remark >like that. Typical evolutionists' tactic. But, my dear man, you're >evading the point. The point is not my ability to read a high school >textbook. The point is that evolutionists have a lesser grasp on >what constitutes a species in a SCIENTIFIC sense than Creationists >have on what constitutes a "kind." You see, I maintain that there >Besides, I could always return tit-for-tat and say that you should >have the ability to consult Duane Gish on the definition of a "kind," >or else, leave the discussion. Ah, so now we are enlightened. You are a relative newcomer to t.o Rich, and are probably not aware that various people have archives or snippets of stuff on creationism which we refer to or dig out as appropriate. I think it was last year sometime that I posted some extracts from Gish himself about *his* ideas on kinds. So that you don't miss out, here are the relevant (well, some of the relevant) paragraphs from _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_. They are on pages 18 and 20 - page 19 is occupied by what Gish labels "A hypothetical phylogenetic tree". I scanned the book rather than typing it in, so species names are not shown in italics, and end-of-line hyphenation is as in the original. Have fun reaqding it, Rich. Equally important to our discussion is an understand- ing of just what we are not talking about when we use the term evolution. We are not referring to the limited vari- ations that can be seen to occur, or which can be inferred to have occurred in the past, but which do not give rise to a new basic kind. We must here attempt to define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic animal or plant kind would include all animals or plants which were truly derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool. All humans, for exam- ple, are within a single basic kind, Homo sapiens. In this case, the basic kind is a single species. In other cases, the basic kind may be at the genus level. It may be, for instance, that the various species of the coyote, such as the Oklahoma Coyote (Canis frustor), the Mountain Coyote (C. Lestes), the Desert Coyote (C. estor), and others, are of the same basic kind. It is possi- ble, even likely, that this basic kind (which we may call the dog kind) includes not only all coyote species, but also the wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis familiaris). The Galapagos Island finches provide another exam- ple of species, and even genera, which are probably of one basic kind. Lammerts has pointed out that these finches, which include various "species" within the "genera," Geospiza, Camarhynchus, and Cactospiza, intergrade completely and should probably be included within a single species, certainly within a single genus, at the very least. These finches apparently have been derived from a parent finch stock, the basic kind having been broken up into various forms as a result of chance arrangement of their original variability potential. The warbler finches, or Certhidea, on the other hand, are distinctive, and may have been derived from a basic stock separate from that which includes the other three finch "genera." Another example which may be cited, this one from the plant kingdom, is that of the various varieties of corn. These include sweet corn, popcorn, dent corn, starch corn, pod corn, and flint corn, all of which are probably merely varieties of the corn kind. In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a separate kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles) and ichthyosaurs (aquatic rep- tiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be in- cluded in a different basic kind. I particularly like his phrase "The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed." It must take a very special type of mental gymnastics to observe more divergence between chimpanzees and gorillas, than between chihuahuas, great danes, coyotes and wolves. >--Rich Ken Smith -- Dr. Ken Smith | snailmail: Department of Mathematics, email: | The University of Queensland, Mathematician by profession; | St Lucia, Qld. 4072. reason sometimes rules. | Australia. --- Courtesy of Silver Xpress ! Origin: E & S Systems fido <-> unix gateway (1:202/217) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * Purgamentum Init, Exit Pergamentum --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank