Talk:Creation biology/Archive 2

Felid kinds

What I'm driving at is, is a Felidae an example most CBs would acknowledge, even as a good speculation/working assumption? Conventional biology would put proto-F much earlier than YEC would allow. Likewise proto-Mustelidae. All taxonomy is based on the questions you pose here, so the answers would be "yes", and "yes", but you'd need to be more specific for this to be meaningful. There's specific genetic sequence-similarity research on this family and close relatives, as the status of for example skunks and red pandas has been revised relatively recently on said basis. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, creationists have suggested that there may be two cat kinds. The principle is correct, so using Felidae as a possible example is legitimate, but this particular example is not one that is universally agreed upon. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands misrepresents the position, then. How do creationists decide whethere there are one, two, or more cat kinds? What's their criteria? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three'd be the most obvious, I'd have thought: Acinonyxchinae is very much differentiated from Pantherinae. But as Josh says, how would creationists settle this among themselves, even to their own satisfaction? Is there a cut-off in terms of permissible types of differentiating genetic change? Do we reverse engineer from the thousand-of-years available? And what's the majority position as to this among CBs currently? Alai 01:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

right. but mainstream protoF LACKS the genetic characteristics of today, so has to gain them through mutations over a long period. creation protoF is a Liger, with all the characteristics already there, and the capacity to inbreed into lions a tigers within a few generations. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

but mainstream protoF LACKS the genetic characteristics of today, so has to gain them through mutations over a long period. --> The cat of today also lacks genetic characteristics of the protoF. Information is lost and gained not only gained.

creation protoF is a Liger --> would it be possible to get a list of all the protokinds? Is the modern housecat a descendent of the Liger? How about the cheetah? The hyena? etc... Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your liger is a singularly bad example. The cross-breeding severely impairs their fertility (they were for quite some time thought to be 'mules'); hence the problem with the 'heterozygosity' panacea. And a tiger and lion are (at most) slightly above the species level, nothing like the amount of variation shown over a whole family. A animal able to 'devolve' into a jaguar on the one hand, a lynx on the other, and a cheetah on the third tentacle, a) without any mutation, and b) within a thousand generations, would be a genetic impossibility. (And CBs agree with 'mainstream' genetics, right?) Alai 02:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

why a genetic impossibility? again, the kinds weren't exactly like the ligers + tigons of today -- a lot of material was lost along the way -- that's why ligers + tigons have genetic problems -- but the original kinds had all the material that's been lost. why impossible? Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So when creationists say "liger" they really mean "superliger"? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes. it was LIKE a liger, but without all the "pieces" that have been lost through speciation and genetic drift. a superliger if you will:). and we were superhumans. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article point this out AND that the article point out that this is a falisification possibility for the idea. In particular, genetic information that is preserved from before the flood should look like it is better than after the flood, shouldn't it? Do you have any evidence to this effect? If not, it definitely should be noted. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i dunno ... do they show similar genetic characteristics? do we have any reason to believe they were ever reproductively compatible?

I cannot answer if they show similar genetic characteristics because I don't know what the creationist thinks is "similar" or "different". They haven't defined their terms. This is unlike the mainstream biologist which uses genome-comparisons (a technique universally rejected by creationists). As to whether they were ever reproductively compatible, as Alai said, I don't think the YECs would accept the answer that would be provided by non-creationist investigators into the question. So, it looks like there can be no consistent answer here since you haven't given me a good guideline for how to view the terminology and words you are using. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from "views" page

I have editted the stuff at the bottom of this page which was very much the same from the views page and included long quotations which are present in wikiquote. This article needs NPOV work. I'm also putting on a dispute tag because the article needs some input to make it more balanced.

do you have any specifics, Grand Inquisitor, or just more vague objections about people saying things that you don't like? Ungtss 00:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your ad-hominems notwithstanding, I have pointed out some of them above, that remain unresolved. I'm also distressed by the inclusion of obvious copying-and-pasting from the old "Views compared" page which was an obvious POV inclusion. In particular, there is a lack of balance for what the creationists claim to be true and what actually is true. I don't just mean what is the opinion of "anti-creationists", I mean we need to compare creationists statements to reality if we are going to be able to make this NPOV. Right now, that's not going on.

For a good example on how this might be done, look at Modern geocentrism.

oh i see. NOW you want to compare views. what is it with you, man? THIS page is not views compare. THIS page is creation biology. now you want to turn creation biology into "why creationists are wrong." ad hominem? no sir. you called a viewed compared page a witch, oppressed it, deliberately mutilated it, and ultimately burned it at the stake. you've earned the title. if you want to say why you think it's wrong, you will put it AFTER the description of what it is.

No, I DON'T want to compare views. I want to compare creationist statements to reality, not to views. Joshuaschroeder 00:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

so you have absolutely no concept of NPOV, i see? Ungtss 00:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My record stands for itself. You have yelled about it quite a bit. I have plenty of people who support me. You have your own followers. Joshuaschroeder 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i have no followers. i'm a member of a group who happens to think similarly. no witchburnings here. no renaming of pages after you, no admissions that "i'm gonna make this page ridiculous" or "i'm gonna compare this to REALITY!" yes, your record stands. but how tall? Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have a beef with me, you can take it up via Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Joshuaschroeder 03:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

as to the quote, that's by no means an absolute rule. your deletion of that quote reduces article quality. explain why your deletion improves article quality. Ungtss 00:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is more concise without the quote which is rather redundant. Joshuaschroeder 00:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

where is the issue of the "scientificness" of CB covered elsewhere on the page, in order to make it redundant? Ungtss 00:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The article posits from the very beginning that CBers believe in their own "scientificness". Joshuaschroeder 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

where? Ungtss 01:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For example: According to its proponents, it is a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw from both sources in developing its ideas. If this doesn't mean that CBers believe in their science credentials, I don't know what does. Joshuaschroeder 06:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't address its scientific VALIDITY -- only the METHODS of its PROPONENTS. try again. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you're changing the subject? You asked: "where is the issue of the "scientificness" of CB covered elsewhere on the page", I told you. Now you are concerned about "VALIDITY". If someone believes in something, don't they generally consider it to be valid? After all, belief in something that is invalid is rather rare, don't you think? Please make your criticism clearer, because I can't make heads or tails of it. Joshuaschroeder 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cummon back, man. the first sentence says it's an effort to integrate science and faith -- it doesn't say whether it's actually scientific or not -- in fact, it's explicitly called pseudoscience in the next sentence. i could certainly attempt to integrate science with paganism, and the result would almost certainly be unscientific. the quote you mentioned asks "what are they trying to do?" the last one asks "is what they're doing science?" mainstream science is by definition naturalistic. creationism is not. is that valid? ask johnson. two different issues. the issue of the "scientificness" of creation science is addressed nowhere on the page now that you've deleted that quote? explanation? Ungtss 18:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can think of counterexample, I have never heard of someone trying to integrate science while simultaneously claiming to be unscientific about it.

Why do you automatically assume that an integration of science with paganism would be more unscientific than creationism?

If you want an NPOV account of whether creationism is scientific or not, it's generally not a good idea to rely on someone who isn't a scientist. I can understand why you like the quote (you've included it in other articles), but the issue is well-addressed by the first sentence. More than that, the other part of Johnson's quote, that the scientific community is not scientific is also mentioned in the article. So the quote is redundant. Joshuaschroeder 03:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

we want to avoid duplication between Wikiquote and Wikipedia if we can. Nanobug

Since this is obviously possible in this case, that's the way it goes. Joshuaschroeder 00:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this isn't the first time we've had this discussion...

Please see here:

Unjustified, unexplained edits...

Talking of those, can you talk me through the rationale of the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_biology&oldid=10176480, if not simply to add back in some more POV, and muddy the relationship between kinds, clades, and taxons?

A basic problem here is that we're arguing against Ungtss's ideas of the moment. I think we need to reference a notable creation biologist, or school of thought, or better yet several such, and describe (the range of) their theories, models, evidence, data. (Describe, note, not argue in favour of. Since when is Wikipedia supposed to be a platform for different views that must not be "silenced"? It's supposed to be neutral point of view.) Alai 02:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm specifically concerned that the CB authorities being referred to are a lawyer and a chemist. This especially reinforces the impression that CB is a few notes on the back of an envelope marked "to do list", rather than a field of study per se. Alai 02:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

basically yes:). may i suggest that the best way to address this creationist pseudoscience and nonsense is with a well-developed "counterpoints" section, ala Flood geology? Ungtss 03:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "equal time" and "neutral point of view". It's first of all necessary to describe what CB is about (or would like to be about), without undue rhetoric about what a great idea it is. Alai 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the muddying:

Creationists believe that life was originally created in a discrete number of forms, called "kinds."

Kinds are analogous to clades, in that they indicate lines of ancestry among forms of life. However, whereas mainstream cladistics attempts to trace life back to a single protocell, the common ancestor of all life, creation kinds trace life back to a finite number of discrete kinds of life.

this means that they are analogous to clades, in that they track common ancestry, but different from clades, because they have an identifible stopping point, not UNIVERSAL common ancestry.

No, you're confusing results and assumptions. Clades and cladistics are perfectly capable of modelling the situation you describe. Cladistics doesn't 'force' things to be related if there's no data supporting that they be. You're describing a situation where cheetahs and tigers exist in a common clade, but there exists no clade of dogs and cats. That's completely well-defined in terms of cladistics; it's just not something that cladistics finds evidence for. (To wit, they do indeed have a high genetic as well as anatomical similarity.) Alai 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creationists use taxons as they were originally intended, to classify organisms by physiological attributes. However, creationists reject the later interpretation of taxonomy as an indication of common ancestry.

taxonomy was developed before evolution. we have no problem with taxonomy. we have a problem with taxonomy as applied to evolution.

Kinds, therefore, do not coincide with any particular level of taxon. In some cases, such as humanity, kinds coincide with species. In other cases, such as Felidae, they may be equivalent to the family level of taxonic classification. The defining element of a kind is common ancestry.

this explains that kinds are different than taxons.

where's the problem? Ungtss 03:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now you're just repeating yourself from the edit on the page, essentially, not explaining anything. if you can't explain any specific problems with my version, immediately prior to the edit I've referred you to, I'm extremely inclined to revert back to that one. Alai 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i don't think there was anything wrong with yours ... i thought it was good. i just wanted to flesh out the comparisons a bit, to make things clearer. did my edit make things worse? Ungtss 03:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I feel a bit better about the intent, then, if not the actual edit. :) I think the problems are: you unduly watered down/muddied the comparison with clades: see above. 'attempts to trace life back to a single protocell' False. You introduced new material, in the context of that discussion, "defending" the CB take on taxonomy historically, digressing off the matter of describing it factually. POV. 'The defining element of a kind is common ancestry.' The defining element of a clade is common ancestry; the implied distinction is severely POV.

You introduced a spurious comparison between the 'difficulties' facing EB and CB. Biased. Alai 04:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay ... lemme try again:). Ungtss 04:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, these are not my "ideas du jour" -- they're straight off answersingenesis. scroll down to "Created Kind." Ungtss 03:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better link than either existing one, thanks. Good start. Extra points if you find one thats makes, or at least exemplifies, kind-hypotheses. I don't wish to be dismissive of your own particular views, but the focus of the article should be describing CB idea in general, not picking out a defensible subset (and duly defending them). Alai 04:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

good thoughts all. i really appreciate working with you alai -- thanks for seeking npov above all in describing our crazy ideas:). Ungtss 04:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That section looks a lot better now, yes. I think it clearly has to lose the 'holds' on cladistics, though: as I said, if there was genetic evidence of multiple spontaneous biogenesis, you'd expect that to show up in the data; nothing in the methodologic of cladistics precludes that. The section does still need some more description as to the 'state of the art' in proposing kinds, though. Even 'TBD' would be an improvement on the current, which is just entirely unclear, as Josh's questions I think make evident. Alai 06:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Restoring my edit

I know that Ungtss thinks I "know nothing about the subject", but this is just plain false. I am trying to edit and write to the best of my NPOV ability (which ungtss doesn't believe I possess, but no matter). I don't mind him adding his own edits, but his knee-jerk reverts do nothing. Joshuaschroeder

I think we could certainly do with some restraint in such respects (and more besides); I'm still quibbling with U's edits of my text comparing kinds and clades, and meanwhile, we've had numerous subsequent edits, and reverts, all in a rush. Can I suggest we break out small sections one at a time, try and deal with the 'issues' in those, before either a) moving on to another topic, or b) adding outright new material? (At least on a trilateral basis, can't speak for anyone else, obviously.) And please (and Ungtss, I've asked you this before): Always fill the summary field. Furthermore, 'However, edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content.' (Slightly further down the same section.) Alai 05:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question about definition

The defining element of a kind is common ancestry.

How do creationists decide what is common ancestory? What criteria are used to determine that all animals in the feline family have common ancestors but that chimpanzees and human beings do not have one? Joshuaschroeder 06:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

signs of genetic compatibility -- i appreciate all these questions, they will definitely refine the page a great deal -- but let's confine them to the talkpage until we have a definite answer, okay?

What are signs of genetic compatibility? If two animals cannot interbreed, how do you determine if they are genetically compatible? You cannot simply "confine" these problems to talk because they seem to be fundamental flaws in creationist ideology. Joshuaschroeder 20:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

per alai's suggestion

i think it would be a good idea to focus our efforts on the "biological kinds" section -- since it's the heart of CB, let's try + get it sharpened up, then move on, eh? further, to avoid stupid edit wars, let's ask questions and propose changes IN FULL, and HERE FIRST, so we can come to consensus and not have to revert edits wholesale. it's giving me carpal tunnel. Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For starters, I think you really, really really need to tighten up the (growing) list of possible kinds. You cite no supporting references, which is why I made the comment about you apparently making them up as you went along. (I'm sure you're not, but you need to show sources for this stuff. The article you mentioned on the talk page was a start, but it does not give these example kinds.) Frankly, the idea of an order as a kind on a several thousand years scale, is beyond problematic in genetic terms, but the article throws these things out as if it's no big deal. Alai 17:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this link lists dogs, cats, bears, and horses. the other one listed alligators. this one lists tigons + wholphins]. obviously the research hasn't been done yet, but the page notes that -- what else are you looking for? Ungtss 18:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I missed the one on crocodilia, it's mentioned very much in passing and tentatively. These should be attributed in the text; last thing I want is any suggestion these are straw men put up by 'anti-creationists'. Alai 22:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)