Re: Creation Model (was: The correct definition.)

"On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
<0ef264fb-b854-402d-bba9-711678dc9ff9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
rokimoto@xxxxxxx stated..."

On Mar 18, 5:57=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:30:47 -0700, in article
<sEUvl.15872$as4.14...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman stated..."







[M]adman wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:0qzvl.16569$i9.14497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

[snip]

In fact i see two (possibly three with the Cambrian) separate and dist=
inct
creations. The first creation much larger and much older with many cre=
ated
kinds that gave rise to others after their own kind. These created kin=
ds
adapted as the earth changed over the eons. Some survived the meteorit=
e
impacts, the ice ages, and the upheavals the earth has suffered to con=
tinue
the life cycle.

Then, a second (or possibly third) creation in the garden of Eden as
described in the Hebrew bible (and other texts) which happened much la=
tter.
This second creation marks the last eon or earth age that we are curre=
ntly
in.

I would be interested in more details for this creation model. Just what
-- how many species, which ones -- was created in the Eden event? How
can products of earlier creatiosn be distinguished from products of the
later ones? If the first creation was the Cambrian and the third was
Eden, what was the second?

I'm curious what it is like when a species (or is it a "kind"?)
is created.

Here are some possibilities:

1. An adult individual (or maybe a pair, male and female) appears
from nothing (or maybe "from thin air", or in pre-existing space-
time), with all the appearances as if it had a prior life, as if
it had grown to that stage of life.

Not that YECers are rational or logical, but if you believe the 6
literal days of creation you have to either believe in very rapid
generation times or new kinds popping into existence fully grown to be
brought to Adam to name. Probably one of the best experiments that
they could do over at the Discovery Institute's Biologic Institute is
to set up a bunch of sealed containers (make them at least elephant
sized just in case) of air and or water (shades of Pasteur except
forget the broth) and see if they can document kind creation. If they
had done that when they started the ID "science" scam outfit back in
1995 they would have over a decade of observation by now and might
have had something earth shaking to announce to the world. Instead
they became bait and switch scam artists.


2. A fertilized egg of a new species is produced by a female of
an old species. The egg of the new species could be nurtured by
the mother of the old species.

Ruled out for 6 day YECers unless you have accelerated growth and
reproduction.


3. A whole functioning, interacting ecological system of several
new species appears. Maybe even a new physical environment, too.

There is this story about the garden of eden....


4. Individuals of an old species grow new organs (like
vertebrate-style eyes in a non-seeing vertebrate), crossing a
barrier which cannot be crossed by natural means. Somehow, the
organ-less precursors managed to thrive without the new organ,
and the predator-prey relationships were not disrupted when this
change takes place.

They would have to do it in 6 days to develop the basic kinds. Some
of them do claim that in just a few thousand years after the flood the
few thousand "kinds" that were taken onto the ark evloved into the
millions of species that we observe today. That is more than a boat
load of evolution. These guys claim that the kinds that were on the
ark included extinct species like the dinos, mammalian megafauna,
likely the Permian anapsids and synapsids. The ark had an interesting
menagerie.

Ron Okimoto

I can understand what it means for individuals to be created/designed.

But what does it mean for a "kind" (or a species, or a population)
to be created/designed?

When a kind is created, I can think of only a few ways that that
makes sense:

a. All of the individuals which belong to that kind (which now
exist, or which ever will exist) are created.

b. The founding individuals of that kind are created. That is, the
individuals which are the first of that kind, and which are the
ancestors of all the later individuals. The later individuals
arise by biological reproduction from the founders.

c. Some sort of typical individuals of that kind are that kind.
All other individuals arise by some sort of a copying mechanism
other than reproduction.

(a), (b), and (c) mean that the creation of the kind needs that
there is creation of individuals. There is no such thing as a
kind which exists apart from the individuals. In particular, it
doesn't make sense to speak of an "empty kind".

d. There is a creation of an abstract kind, which is some sort
of a definition, an idea, a set, or a template; and individuals
may exist at some time which are instances of the kind. Unlike
(a-c), it does make sense to speak of an "empty set". (There
could be a "unicorn kind" even though there are no unicorns.)

It seems to me that if there is any intent to be at all serious
about creation/design of kinds/species/populations, one of the
first steps would be to give some hint at which of these (a-d)
is meant. Or, maybe I've overlooked something, and there is yet
another sense:

e. none of the above.

In listing my examples (1) through (4) above, I was ignoring
possibility (d) (and (e)), assuming that the only sense of
kind was a collective for individuals. I was assuming that to
create a kind meant that there were individuals that were
created.

Anyway, whatever. I am unaware of even this most elementary
issue ever being taken seriously. I know that we don't know
whether a kind is a species, or a genus, or a family. But we
don't even know *what sort of thing* is a kind, do we? We
don't know whether it has existence apart from the individuals
which belong to the kind, we don't know what happens when a
kind comes into existence.


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Few Simple Questions: the contradictions of YECism
    ... that all of the animal species on Earth were on the Ark? ... God Himself uses special creation to create the nature that we have ... such a thing suggested, much less stated, in any of the Bibles I have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creation Model (was: The correct definition.)
    ... upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the life cycle. ... This second creation marks the last eon or earth age ... The egg of the new species could be nurtured by ... few thousand "kinds" that were taken onto the ark evloved into the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creation Model (was: The correct definition.)
    ... upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the life cycle. ... This second creation marks the last eon or earth age ... I'm curious what it is like when a species ... few thousand "kinds" that were taken onto the ark evloved into the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Few Simple Questions
    ... comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is. ... every animal species that exists on Earth today. ... that all of the animal species on Earth were on the Ark? ... evolutionist authors freely use the term "special creation" the exact ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creation Model (was: The correct definition.)
    ... upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the life cycle. ... This second creation marks the last eon or earth age ... The egg of the new species could be nurtured by ... the few thousand "kinds" that were taken onto the ark evloved into ...
    (talk.origins)