Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[one.opinion]

Perhaps there is a conflation here, because I truly cannot understand your resistance to this concept. 

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Appeals to consensus/majority are technical fallacies, and therefore meaningless arguments, because the majority (or even everyone) can be wrong.

If I were to attempt to use consensus among scientific experts as "proof", that would indeed be fallacious. But to deny that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningful" could only possibly mean that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningless". By extension, we would be doing as much good asking a panel of kindergarten students about the adverse effects of high fructose corn syrup in our diets as a panel of nutritional experts. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that the two are the same, but that is exactly what your are claiming.

Further, you are raising the "logical fallacy alert" over something that is easily accepted. My claim was "A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals." I made no claim of proof, only pointed out that in most cases of animals, the standard definition is the most useful. Yes, there are exceptions. You and I are in agreement on that. But to claim that the species concept is useless is inaccurate.

But let's move on to real issues.

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

“How do you define kind?”

 

As I stated previously, all classification systems are subjective, and dependent upon context. The word “kind” is used by the Bible to define the creatures originally created by God, and later also used to describe the pairs of creatures represented on the ark. They are the ancestors from which all extant species have descended.

So you really have zero working definition for a kind, but yet you claim "an average of 4-5 speciation events per kind" would be required to generate the current terrestrial animal diversity. How did you arrive at these numbers?

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

When did science become a democracy?

I didn't make such a claim. My point is that consensus expert opinion "has meaning", as opposed to "has no meaning". I never use (or have used) consensus expert opinion as "proof", which would indeed be in error.

[ravindran]

On 9/25/2017 at 2:30 PM, one.opinion said:

I was actually looking for something else today, but ran across an article stating that a global flood approximately 4,000 years ago would require "evolution on steroids." The idea is that a very limited number of animals on the Ark would have had to evolved into a huge number in a very small (relatively) time period. John Woodmarappe wrote a book called "Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study". All cards on the table, I have not read the book, but Woodmarappe estimates that 16,000 animals were on board (I don't know his estimates about plants). Recent estimates on numbers of animal species are somewhere from about 1,0000,000 to 1,500,000. So in the last 4,000 years, somewhere around sixteen thousand animals would have had to evolve into at least one million. This math would suggest that if the evolution rate was continuous, a new animal species would have to evolve every 1-2 days.

What do you all think?

This is way over my head! I have seen lot of explanation in answering genesis website. I cannot understand anything in this website! May be you can given it a shot

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/getting-enough-genetic-diversity/

[SavedOnebyGrace]

27 minutes ago, ravindran said:

This is way over my head! I have seen lot of explanation in answering genesis website. I cannot understand anything in this website! May be you can given it a shot

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/getting-enough-genetic-diversity/

It's not meant to be understood.  It's for the YEC masses to accept as we all accept the truth of God's word.  This website is for indoctrination of the Young Earth Creationist to promote their agenda.  Old Earth Creationists or logical thinkers are not welcome there.

[Enoch2021]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

My point is that consensus expert opinion "has meaning", as opposed to "has no meaning".

'Opinions' have NO MEANING in "Science"; it's the ANTITHESIS of it, for goodness sakes.

 

Quote

I never use (or have used) consensus expert opinion as "proof", which would indeed be in error.

So now, after your OP has been PUMMELED six ways from Sunday, you're reduced to waffling between "Meaning" and "Proof"?

 

Quote

By extension, we would be doing as much good asking a panel of kindergarten students about the adverse effects of high fructose corn syrup in our diets as a panel of nutritional experts.

Yea, in fact... I'd trust the kindergartner's 'Opinions' more!!

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Old Earth Creationists or logical thinkers 

Now there's a Contradiction in Terms.

 

regards

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Perhaps there is a conflation here, because I truly cannot understand your resistance to this concept. 

If I were to attempt to use consensus among scientific experts as "proof", that would indeed be fallacious. But to deny that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningful" could only possibly mean that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningless". By extension, we would be doing as much good asking a panel of kindergarten students about the adverse effects of high fructose corn syrup in our diets as a panel of nutritional experts. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that the two are the same, but that is exactly what your are claiming.

Further, you are raising the "logical fallacy alert" over something that is easily accepted. My claim was "A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals." I made no claim of proof, only pointed out that in most cases of animals, the standard definition is the most useful. Yes, there are exceptions. You and I are in agreement on that. But to claim that the species concept is useless is inaccurate.

But let's move on to real issues.

So you really have zero working definition for a kind, but yet you claim "an average of 4-5 speciation events per kind" would be required to generate the current terrestrial animal diversity. How did you arrive at these numbers?

“If I were to attempt to use consensus among scientific experts as "proof", that would indeed be fallacious”

There is no such thing as “proof” in legitimate science, so you are correct that such a claim “would indeed be fallacious”, but not for the reasons you suppose. Proof is an absolutist concept that only legitimately applies to mathematics. Because it is absolutist, it is commonly, yet mistakenly used to exaggerate scientific confidence, but this term will rarely be found in any peer-reviewed research article (unless speaking to the math). Scientific logic employs critical reasoning. That is intensely skeptical. The idea that something should be accepted as verified beyond question or scrutiny is contrary to critical reasoning. The reliance of science upon observation is itself a faith axiom (i.e. that observation can be trusted) – albeit, one that we all generally agree to adhere to in order to make sense of the world. Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny.

 

“But to deny that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningful" could only possibly mean that "consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningless". By extension, we would be doing as much good asking a panel of kindergarten students about the adverse effects of high fructose corn syrup in our diets as a panel of nutritional experts. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that the two are the same, but that is exactly what your are claiming”

I am absolutely claiming that arguing a “consensus of experts in a particular field is meaningless”. The fallacy is a criticism of the argument you have provided, not the potential argument the scientists could provide if asked. Legitimate confidence can only be derived from the rational support provided for a claim (i.e. the argument and evidence by which the experts have reached their conclusions), not the fact that they are experts, or the fact of their agreement – both of which are always meaningless.

Your analogy continues to confuse the distinction. If the scientists say, “Believe us because we are scientists and we all agree”, then their position is no stronger than anything the “kindergarten students” might have to offer.

 

“Further, you are raising the "logical fallacy alert" over something that is easily accepted. My claim was "A great majority of biologists would agree that the most useful definition of species would be a group of reproductively compatible individuals." I made no claim of proof, only pointed out that in most cases of animals, the standard definition is the most useful. Yes, there are exceptions. You and I are in agreement on that. But to claim that the species concept is useless is inaccurate”

Did I use the terms “useless” or “inaccurate”? My term was simplistic. Many animal species have been shown to hybridize between species (either naturally, or artificially) – not to mention the other complex scenarios I described. These complexities at the species level seem more common to me than the simplistic scenario you describe with “exceptions”. So what constitutes “most useful” seems very subjective. Apart from giving students an easy definition to remember, the usefulness of this definition is limited in the real world.

My point in bringing this up is that your opening post relied on a solid number range for extant species, but your argument doesn’t seem to account for the fact that classifications systems are subjective, or that the species concept itself is fluid. The actual standards by which each taxonomist, and/or geneticist, determines a species are highly debated within the systematics community.

 

“So you really have zero working definition for a kind”

This is not fair minded. If you look up definitions for Order, or Class, or Family etc. you’ll most commonly find some general definition along the lines of a classification rank between the preceding and following category. They might tell you the sub-categories within each (i.e. defining the next level down), but there is no agreed upon “working definition” for each, apart from their relation to each other (i.e. each merely represents a rank in a hierarchy)– especially for the middle categories. It is common for groups to be moved within or between these categories, or even to invent new sub or super categories to account for the complexity of biological reality.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not critical of the system, but it is not as solidly nailed-down as your impression suggests.

Kind, like Class, Order, Family etc., is simply the rank of classification describing the original animals created by God. To suggest this is less valid than any other classification category is Special Pleading.

 

“yet you claim "an average of 4-5 speciation events per kind" would be required to generate the current terrestrial animal diversity. How did you arrive at these numbers?”

From your cited reference, there would be 16,000 kinds of creatures on the ark. There are now an estimated 70,000 species of like-creatures descended from those on the ark. That’s roughly 4-5 speciation events per kind.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

The reliance of science upon observation is itself a faith axiom (i.e. that observation can be trusted) – albeit, one that we all generally agree to adhere to in order to make sense of the world. Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny.

I can agree with this. So it is reasonable to conclude that if experts in a given field predominantly agree on something, then that lends support to what they agree on. I think it's safe to say you are more rational than other posters that claim that they would trust nutritional advice from kindergartners over experts in the field.

Regarding "species", the definition that works in a vast majority of "is animal X a different species than animal Y" questions is "can they mate to produce fertile progeny?" To dismiss the standard definition by claiming a fluid nature misrepresents the facts. Regarding other taxonomic terms, they are artificial, but there is a clear hierarchy among the different terms. Regarding "kinds", there is no definition (Biblical or otherwise) that tells us what they are - if indeed, the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew is what Young Earth Creationists claim it is. If you think this is not fair, then please provide evidence to support the biological basis of "kinds".

[Enoch2021]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can agree with this. So it is reasonable to conclude that if experts in a given field predominantly agree on something, then that lends support to what they agree on.

  What on Earth??  Ahhh NEGATIVE, "Science"--

The Scientific Method is Objective.

'Agree/Disagree' is Subjective.  

SEE the Difference ?? 

Agree/Disagree "Acceptance" is Subjective and hallmarks of: Political "science", Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions.  Scientists are in the business of explaining "Cause and Effect" Relationships via rigorous Hypothesis TESTING (Objective)... NO EXCEPTIONS!  

 

So your ambiguous "Experts in a given field AGREE on something" appeal is no better/holds no more veracity than priests or politicians pushing agendas or 'Beliefs'.

 

Quote

I think it's safe to say you are more rational than other posters that claim that they would trust nutritional advice from kindergartners over experts in the field.

"Rational" ??  If the "Experts" didn't come by their Pontifications as a result of Experiments (Hypothesis TESTING), then their 'Opinions' and 'Agreements' are no better than that of kindergartners. 

 

This is why your continuously pushing your Pseudo-Science "agreement" Appeal to Consensus Fallacy...

Quote

Regarding "species", the definition that works in a vast majority of "is animal X a different species...

...la la la Species Nonsense  that's laying back at the beginning of this thread in ashes!! 

 

Quote

Regarding other taxonomic terms, they are artificial

ERGO...any extrapolation thereof is a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon.  As explained and illustrated to you ad nauseam, but you just can't let your Pseudo-Science 'Narrative' go.

 

Quote

Regarding "kinds", there is no definition (Biblical or otherwise) that tells us what they are

Yes, that's right.  BUT that fact (that you already knew before you asked the question) doesn't give you warrant to wantonly go about spreading your "Species"/"Experts in a given field" Pseudo-Science Nonsense as containing any semblance of veracity.

 

Quote

the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew is what Young Earth Creationists claim it is. If you think this is not fair, then please provide evidence to support the biological basis of "kinds".

Here you go again with your prearranged "Agenda". 

"Kinds" is not a 'Biological Term', it's a 'Biblical Term'.  So your fallacious question is a purposeful mixing of 'apples and orangutans' from jump street.

 

ps.  Your "OP" is "TKO'd"...and has been ever since you posted it. 

 

regards

[Tristen]

On 03/10/2017 at 11:28 AM, one.opinion said:

I can agree with this. So it is reasonable to conclude that if experts in a given field predominantly agree on something, then that lends support to what they agree on. I think it's safe to say you are more rational than other posters that claim that they would trust nutritional advice from kindergartners over experts in the field.

Regarding "species", the definition that works in a vast majority of "is animal X a different species than animal Y" questions is "can they mate to produce fertile progeny?" To dismiss the standard definition by claiming a fluid nature misrepresents the facts. Regarding other taxonomic terms, they are artificial, but there is a clear hierarchy among the different terms. Regarding "kinds", there is no definition (Biblical or otherwise) that tells us what they are - if indeed, the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew is what Young Earth Creationists claim it is. If you think this is not fair, then please provide evidence to support the biological basis of "kinds".

“So it is reasonable to conclude that if experts in a given field predominantly agree on something, then that lends support to what they agree on.”

Absolutely not. It is generally “reasonable” to assume that experts have a supporting argument, but until they present that argument, it remains an assumption. And until I have the opportunity to scrutinize their argument, I am under no intellectual obligation to give any weight to their conclusions - none whatsoever.

 

“I think it's safe to say you are more rational than other posters that claim that they would trust nutritional advice from kindergartners over experts in the field.”

I think that somewhat misses the point. If kindergarteners were debating scientists, and all the scientists had to say is, “we are the experts and we are in agreement”, then I have no logical reason to agree with the scientists any more attention than the kindergarteners.

 

“Regarding "species", the definition that works in a vast majority of "is animal X a different species than animal Y" questions is "can they mate to produce fertile progeny?" To dismiss the standard definition by claiming a fluid nature misrepresents the facts”

I did not “dismiss” any definition. I designated your definition to be overly-simplistic when compared against biological reality. What you claim occurs in the “vast majority” of cases does not account for the many cases and contexts that don’t adhere to that definition. For example, species commonly hybridize with other species to “produce fertile progeny” (which is not the original definition you provided btw). So how can that simple definition define species when many species don’t adhere to the definition? If anything, the over-simplicity of the definition “misrepresents the facts”.

 

“Regarding other taxonomic terms, they are artificial, but there is a clear hierarchy among the different terms.”

So there is a hierarchy between terms. Is that all that is required? There is an implied hierarchy between the original created kinds and extant living species – i.e. modern creatures descended and speciated from the original created kinds – exactly the same as is assumed down the Linnaean “hierarchy”.

 

“Regarding "kinds", there is no definition (Biblical or otherwise) that tells us what they are - if indeed, the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew is what Young Earth Creationists claim it is.”

The Bible tells us that God made every creature “according to its kind” – that’s the definition. Gibberish about “the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew” is meaningless – unless you have an argument against “the human interpretation of the ancient Hebrew”. Does Genesis not claim that God created every creature “according to its kind”? We “Young Earth Creationists” (spit and curse the ground they walk on) are simply adopting the terminology used in Genesis to refer to the same things described in Genesis - then taking the Word of God for what it says.

If Genesis is history, then God created many “kinds” of creatures during the creation week.

 

“If you think this is not fair, then please provide evidence to support the biological basis of "kinds".”

We all have the same facts. We just interpret them differently. We both interpret similarities and differences (morphological or genetic) to indicate relatedness (or not). Where we differ is in how we interpret the large gaps in the record. We “Young Earth Creationists” (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits), interpret the overt gaps between groups (e.g. obvious genetic gaps) as indicating differentiation between the kinds. Secularists interpret those gaps as indicating more distant relatedness. Secularists interpret the facts to fit the faith presupposition that all life on earth is related through a common ancestor. We “Young Earth Creationists” (may their choc-chips be raisins and their raisins be flies) interpret the very same facts to fit the faith presupposition that Genesis can be trusted to mean what it says.