(November 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm)professor Wrote: Chas, your post above makes me recall the phrase:
"Science falsely so called".
The shoe fits.

Esq, I think I have seen KUSA's dog pic before, and it's great.
Sure, we could still have wolves and dogs together- that would fit in both Evolution and Creation sequences.

Your posts remind me of the stubbornness of an ignorant child.

(November 17, 2014 at 8:59 am)professor Wrote: Cheech, the mechanism limiting micro from becoming macro is the genetic code.

...there's no difference. Micro doesn't "become macro" it already is. You have a conceptual misunderstanding that's led you to state that something -we have directly observed many times- does not happen.

Quote:Just like your computer.
The pre-existing code allows different programs (genetic variations) to run. It doesn't allow Mac programs to run on Bill Gates' stuff,

-snipped to save you face.

The difference that -used to exist- between a PC and a Mac had nothing to do with code. It was hardware architecture-

A PC was originally a system that was IBM PC architecture compatible. IBM PC-DOS, or Microsoft MS-DOS would run on these systems. It later came to mean Windows PCs with an Intel x86 chip. There was (and had never been) anything "windows only" about a PC. Now, Mac didn't use an Intel chip, they used a Power PC chip and relied on a different architecture. So you couldn't just load up Windows on a Mac. Since 2006, however, Mac has transitioned to the Intel chipset and a whole host of other hardware providers that are precisely the same as you would find in a PC, in addition to similar (sometimes identical) drivers....making them "wintel pc compatible". That's why you can run Windows on a Mac now. Or Mac OS X on a PC. You can even take a Mac and a PC and cannibalize the boards to create a third system that you might then run Linux on.

Not all PCs are Macs, but all Macs are PCs. "Bill Gates' stuff" runs better on a Mac than it does on a PC, in my experience....and it's cheaper to run "Steve Jobs' shit" on a PC than it is on a Mac.

For all these reasons (and many more) the analogy was a poor choice on your part.

Also..because it's as good an opportunity as any-

(November 17, 2014 at 8:59 am)professor Wrote: Cheech, the mechanism limiting micro from becoming macro is the genetic code.

No no, we're 'on need more than that. Because, see, we know that micro steps are possible from the genetic code, and a macro step is just a bunch of micro steps considered in sequence. So you're factually wrong when you point to the genetic code as though that's going to limit it; based on everything we can observe, it won't.

Which, of course, doesn't alter the fact that you still haven't given us a definition of "kind," which is a big part of your definition of "macro" evolution. Do you just not know what a kind is? If you do, don't you think it's a little unfair to be getting into a discussion while keeping the meaning of a key phrase from the other side?

Quote:Just like your computer.
The pre-existing code allows different programs (genetic variations) to run.
It doesn't allow Mac programs to run on Bill Gates' stuff, which is why the only crockaduck you will find
is an illustration in logic.

This is the problem with arguing from analogy; not only, as Rhythm so rightly pointed out, is the analogy flawed in that everything you said can't happen actually can, but the analogy doesn't even match the situation you're using it to describe, since computer programs don't usually reproduce with inherent variation, and are designed, meaning you're begging the question too. But even if it matched perfectly, the analogy isn't a representation of the state of reality; at best all you'd have is a scenario which mirrors what you think about the genetic code, not what actually is.

Also, please tell me you were joking about the crocoduck. Please tell me you don't actually think that's an accurate representation of evolutionary theory.

*Checks in after 50 posts*

Has anyone actually given a defintion of "kinds" yet?

No?

Yeah, actually, in a roundabout sort of way. Prof is likely using the term as a replacement for Genus. He mentioned that dogs and wolves can breed. That applies to g Canis (with notable exceptions), but not f Canidae (no exceptions). We would expect dogs and wolves to be able to breed, as dogs are domesticated wolves. Amusingly, until very recently even though the members of g Canis -could- interbreed the offspring of those pairings appeared to have had very little in the way of fitness (hence wolves and coyotes remained distinct populations). Coywolfs have changed that - and we have a pretty good understanding of why.

For clarity, Prof, would you say that domestic dogs and foxes are "different kinds"? How about wolves and african hunting/wild dogs?

I wonder if Prof would agree that kind = genus.

(November 17, 2014 at 11:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, actually, in a roundabout sort of way. Prof is likely using the term as a replacement for Genus. He mentioned that dogs and wolves can breed. That applies to g Canis (with notable exceptions), but not f Canidae (no exceptions). We would expect dogs and wolves to be able to breed, as dogs are domesticated wolves. Amusingly, until very recently even though the members of g Canis -could- interbreed the offspring of those pairings appeared to have had very little in the way of fitness (hence wolves and coyotes remained distinct populations). Coywolfs have changed that - and we have a pretty good understanding of why.

For clarity, Prof, would you say that domestic dogs and foxes are "different kinds"? Wolves and african hunting dogs?

No, that can't be it. At least, not consistently, because kind apparently means species when we get to humans, who are in their own kind according to the Professor.

Homo. We would be in our own "kind".

(November 17, 2014 at 12:16 am)Chad32 Wrote: But then where are all the crocoducks?

they cannot exist.. that is 2 different species thats like saying i want a being that is part cat and part human.. could it happen... maybe in a lab with people messing with genetics. so no crocoduck in nature two species cannot mix. if they could however get hybrids in nature well that would be interesting, so no crocoduck.

creationism and god getting defeated with -> very extensive fossil record in the 21st century.

there is no such thing as biblical kinds. a kind by definition is the lazy word for species and theists use
kinds because they say god made kinds which is wrong really wrong. so just a recap kinds really lazy
way for saying species only different with kinds is... is that god made those kinds of animals but species
is the correct term for various different types of animals and plant life that existed for millions of years through
genetic diversity and evolution.

(November 17, 2014 at 11:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Homo. We would be in our own "kind".

But then that'd include all those older, more primitive Homo species, which I'm sure the creationists won't like. We have to be specially created exactly as we are now, after all.