text:
Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1

Creationary vs. creation vs. creationist
OK, please explain to me:
 * What distinctive nuance "creationary" preserves that "creationist" does not? Otherwise we seem to end up with permutation of the terminology for its own sakes.
 * What scientific credentials Phillip Johnson has, or claims?
 * Why a site's self-description is unwarranted "POV".

I didn't even touch the essential problems with this article, to wit, no representation of the "mainstream" science position whatsoever, and appeals to scripture in an article that purports to be describing a biological theory, so I'm concerned the mass-reverts are setting in so soon. Alai 16:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding "creationary", see creationary/evolutionary
 * I didn't claim that Phillip Johnson had scientific credentials. It's just not relevant, unless one is trying to minimise his relevance.
 * The comment about removing unwarranted POV was not for the article link, but in reference to removing "non-scientist" and "chemist" from references to people. The site's self-description is inappropriate when linking to a particular article rather than a web-site.
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not getting from your link (for which, thanks) any pressing reason for "creationary biologist" over "creation biologist" (similar attributive usage), or "creationist biologist". Both are more standard usages, use words that are actually in the Oxford dictionary and M-W, and seems less manifestly POV.  On credentials:  if this article is to discuss CB as a scientific idea, surely credentials in biology are perhaps the most relevant thing?  If PJ's simply going to appear as an expert opinion to express his philosophical preference for one model over the other, that's one thing, but that's not really the context the article puts it in.  Alai 04:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that it depends on what you consider to be a "pressing" reason. I'm not arguing that "creationist" is totally unacceptable, rather that there is not sufficient reason to change "creationary" to "creationist".  Also, surely NPOV is enhanced by using equivalent words for different views (as the linked article says): creationary and evolutionary, creationist and evolutionist?
 * Re credentials, on the contrary, I think that the context is not one of scientific opinion of the data, but of the philosophy of science and what is considered science and what isn't. And the very inclusion of "non-scientist" in his description smacks of trying to limit the acceptance of what he is trying to say, as anti-creationists frequently do.
 * Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If there's no pressing reason, we should use standard terms, not POV-sounding neologisms. Your suggested "equivalence" seems to me entirely false;  my (Oxford) dictionary lists creationist and evolutionary, but not creationary or evolutionist.  If 'creationist' is inappropriate, why not "creation biologist", "creation scientist", etc?  We should use accepted, encyclopaedic terminology, not try to be in the "usage cutting edge".  As regards Phil, would you prefer non-philosopher?  Firstly, the article's focus ought to be biology, not philosophy of science:  there's a rash of other articles on Johnson and his views.  If he's quoted here, it should be in the context of saying something about biology.  If he's going to be cited to defend CB against being non-science, his credentials seem entirely relevant.  Alai 22:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question
''Creation biology, by contrast, is based on the idea that God created all life on the planet in a finite number of discrete forms, commonly called "kinds," which were specially designed and given particular characteristics which God deemed to be "Good." These kinds were given the ability to vary significantly through microevolution. However, variation can only take place within definite limits. Kinds cannot arise spontaneously, cannot interbreed, and one kind cannot change into another.''

Okay, so I want to know the following:

 * What defines "kind"? Is a kind a species?
 * From the article: "The kinds do not correspond exactly with any one particular modern taxonomic classification, but are usually at a higher level than species."
 * So how is it definied? How do we know what is a kind and what isn't? Is it a genus?
 * my personal definition: "Kinds are animals that were reproductively compatible at and immediately after the time of the Flood." the research on figuring exactly what these ARE will come down to genetics -- and that research hasn't been done yet.  but i think we can do it with chromosome and genetic arrangement.  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be stated explicitly that creationists haven't done this. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it is. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If we interpret "at the time of the flood" to mean on the orders of thousands of years, then by all conventional genetic interpretation that'd be the genus level, or lower, FYI. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * only if we depend on mutation for our variation. creationists depend on latent heterozygosity in the original population ... and the genetic drift to speciate after that could happen in a much-shorter timeframe.  Ungtss 20:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's not right, and the edits you made on that basis are seriously flawed. latent heterozygosity = inability to interbreed.  Creationists haven't proposed (that I'm aware of, or that you've cited) any new mechanisms to explain speedy microevolution -- you're just tried to 'claim' parts of the standard mechanism as in some way particular to CB.  Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i disagree. if the original kind was 14 Camas, it could easily differentiate into camels and llamas.  no new mechanism.  no nothing.  Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * However, creationists do disagree on the timescales invovled. Biology doesn't claim that camels and llamas descended from the same ancestor a few thousand years ago. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, the timescales are different. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This should be noted. It is interesting that many creationist arguments are made to the tune of evolution being an impossible explanation for the diversity of life because they claim that there's no way to create it by evolutionary mechanisms in the time that mainstream science claims it did (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69). Then we turn around and see the idea that that speciation between llamas and camels occured within the last 6000 years. In other words, creationists simultaneously object to mainstream science being to slow and too fast to explain the diversity of life on Earth. I think this should be addressed in the article. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you're arguing two sides of the same coin. YOU are relying on MUTATION.  WE are relying on latent genetic diversity in the original population.  how many million years would it take to MUTATE a gene for blue eyes?  a LONG TIME.  but if the original population is heterozygous for brown and blue, then you can have brown and blue populations within TWO GENERATIONS.  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't rely JUST on mutation. We rely on a wide variety of environmental influences too. If there was only mutation, there wouldn't be any ability to explain diversification/consolidation of species. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no -- environmental influences only encourage or discourage the spread of the mutation. where do the new combinations of dna come from?  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transpons, polyploidy, to name a few observed mechanisms. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * my bad. i thought polyploidy was considered a mutation.  when i spoke of mutations, i meant additions, deletions, transpositions, polyploidy, the whole deal.  the point is, they are chance alterations and additions to the code.  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? You asked where the new combination of DNA come from. I told you where. My problem is that your proposed supergenome is supposed to degrade extremely quickly (faster than it is observed to degrade today). Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * again, i'm saying it degraded much more quickly in the population bottleneck right after the flood than it does today. this thread starting out with different timescales, and i'm telling you that the reason your timescale is longer is that you rely on mutations, polyploidy etc, while i rely on latent heterozygosity that speciated rapidly in the population bottleneck and genetic drift that immediately followed the flood.  Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And you claim to have a measure of such an effect? For example, let's take genetic variation within a population bottleneck species such as the peregrine falcon. Did you see your effect take place with that animal? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds like a good area for research. the research hasn't been done.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * should be noted. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * How "significant" is significant? Can someone offer a quantifiable definition of what this means? Is it in terms of genetic variation? physical appearance? or what? Are all cats descended from one protocat? Are all insects descended from one protoinsect?
 * that's room for further research, i would think. you'd have to check out which segments could have been heterozygous in the original population, and became homozygous after speciation.  short answer, tho, is, "we don't know yet."  Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus on the definition of significant, then maybe we should consider omitting this idea. After all, if we have no idea what the limits are, how do we know that there are limits at all? There has to be at least a guiding principle when deciding for limits.
 * we don't know EXACTLY what the limits are, but we have a starting point. i think all creationists would agree that there's a limit between mammals and reptiles, and dogs and cats.  were cats all one kind, or multiple kinds?  dunno.  i think it's safe to say that camels and llammas were originally a kind, since they are genetically compatible, and their offspring are called "Camas."  they're not perfectly defined, but i think they're still relevent, because they are a line of research that can be pursued.  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We should attempt to outline what's CB 'bottom line', and what they'd consider themselves to be speculation/a research issue, etc. And what research exists to date.  Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Alai is right. It isn't good enough to claim that there are "obvious" examples because science is done in the nitty-gritty of the details. If the creationists won't commit as to what the criterion is for defining kinds, then that should be noted as a major flaw on this page. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * would you be so kind as to define a "transitional form" in such a way as to satisfy your "nitty-gritty" standard? Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A transitional form is an organism that shows characteristics that are similar to parts of two different taxa. It's very easy to define. What you need to define is how DIFFERENT they have to be in order to be different kinds. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm ... so a bat is a transitional form between a bird and a human, because it has wings like a bird and hair like a human? i don't think your definition works.  try again.  Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Bat wings are not bird wings. The similarities we talk about have to be in terms of well-defined delineations of anatomy and physiology. We cannot simply point to superficial similarities and declare a form to be transtitional. The anatomical and physiological support for the similarity has to be there. More than that, the transitional form always occurs after a parent form and before a daughter form. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's my contention that ALL of your transition forms are just as ridiculous, if not more. for instance, the whale related to the pig because it's fin looks like an ankle bone.  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is truly ALL then you should have a critique available of ALL of them. It's not just about the appearance of similarity. There are entire textbooks written on how to best determine transitional forms. You'll have to break it down. Wholesale dismissal is fine (and should be mentioned in the article) but it's not a critique of the endeavor -- it's a rejection of the endeavor. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's a determination that the endeavor has utterly failed. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, such is not a critique, it is a dismissal. You don't say WHY it failed, you just say that ALL of the transistion forms are ridiculous and don't list ALL of the transition forms and say explicitly why. In other words, it's an unverified blanket statement. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * analogous to "the fossil record supports belief in evolution," a "fact" you've been more than willing to share with us on several occasions. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't change the subject. The point is that you claimed that all transitional fossils were ridiculous but have not provided a critique that matches your assertion. My backup? The Fossil Book: A Record of Prehistoric Life.
 * you never asked me to provide such a reference, and this is the first mention you've made of your reference. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the first time in this thread that you claimed one of my facts wasn't a fact. When that happens, it's generally citation time. I'd like to see your exhausitve list now. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds like a good area of research. the research hasn't been done.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be noted. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What are the "definite limits"? Are they based on observations? Are they based on conjecture?
 * based on observations. one limit: cat/dog.  show me the cat-dog and that limit will be gone.  until we have the cat-dog, there's no reason to believe there was one.  Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So is there a list of such limits? Obviously, you believe that canines and felines were never connected (I assume this means you reject fossil evidence). Since modern biology lists classifications in exquisite detail, why don't creationists? Are they afraid of putting up their ideas to critical review?
 * why no exhaustive detail? because we're not tenured professors with genetic sequencers at our disposal -- and the only way to GET to those sequencers is to assimilate evolutionary biology, which we think is fundamentally FALSE.  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Again this is trending off into generalised debate, away from the focus of the article, but the raw data from genetic sequencing experiments is generally in the public domain. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * SERIOUSLY!? any idea where i could get ahold of that stuff!?  Ungtss 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What data, specifically? Read a paper on sequencing experiments -- bioinformatics seems to be very big on this -- see what data set they reference.  The papers themselves ought typically to give the 'crunched' data in terms of numerical similarity, at least (which is a good deal more accessible, as processing the data is hardly trivial).  Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, Alai makes an excellent point. Every scientific finding on genetic sequences is publishes and available through library systems. It is a major cop-out to claim that creationists can't get data. I am not even a biologist and I know that I could go talk to a reference librarian for five minutes and be able to figure out what the genetic differences between a badger and weasel was. That creationists claim not to be able to do this is weird. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, i don't want their papers about it -- their papers blindly accept the evolutionary paradigm. is there some way i could get the dna data itself?  Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can definitely do this through the reference library. Of course, the complete genomes of only a few animals are completed, but there are incomplete genomes available in the literature. I am not your reference librarian. It is up to you to do your own legwork. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i never asked you to do my legwork. Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know where to get it, so be my guest. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since horses and donkeys can interbreed does this mean they are of the same kind?
 * probably originally ... but through reproductive isolation, they lost the capacity to have fertile young. Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So horses and donkeys are not the same kind. And yet they are genetically different enough to be considered to be different kinds now? Yet they are in the same genus.
 * no no -- i'm saying they were originally the same kind -- today, i think they're better understood as separate species, due to their vastly different structures. "kinds" exist separate from taxonomy -- taxa are descriptive.  kinds are historical.  that's why there's no exact overlap.  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it's not the case that CB and MB agree on taxonomy, and the article should change to reflect this. Alai 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * we do agree on taxonomy, just not that taxonomy=common ancestry. i tried to reflect this on the page.  how did i do?  Ungtss 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Needs more work, as phylogeneticness is a goal of 'mainstream taxonomy', so if 'creation taxonomy' is on some other basis, should say so. Alai 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * YES! The point is that if kinds are supposedly the basis for determining ancestory, then taxonomic classifications (which today revolves around genetic differences and genome analysis) is not accepted. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * EVOLUTIONARY taxonomy intends to show common ancestry -- but taxonomy predates evolution. i clarified on the page.  Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * CURRENT taxonomy is evolutionary. If this is the case, you reject CURRENT taxonomy. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, current evolutionists USE taxonomy to infer common ancestry. current taxonomy can ALSO be used without the inference of common ancestry, on a purely descriptive basis.  Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Baloney. The way taxonomic structures are set-up today is to coincide with evolutionary structure. When taxonomers move certain organisms from one taxa to another it is for this reason. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes. they've changed it in an effort to support their theory.  but linnaeus didn't believe in evolution.  taxonomy in its original form merely described characteristics, and didn't claim relation.  no way around it.  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We AREN'T TALKING about the original form. We are talking about modern biology's taxonomic structure. This would be like claiming that since Aristotle coined the term "physics" we can say that someone who believes in a geocentric universe is consistent with modern physics. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i AM talking about the original form. i have no problem with taxonomy as a classification system -- i have a problem with it as a basis for common ancestry among higher taxa.  hence, "creationists accept taxonomy as it was originally used, to classify, but not as a basis for common ancestry among higher taxa."  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then the contention that creationists accept modern taxonomy is false. Creationists should develop their own taxonomy. They can start with kinds. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no. we accept the taxonomic classifications, and refer to them by the same nomenclature.  we just don't think they indicate common ancestries.  to say "creationists reject taxonomy" is another strawman.  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As has been stated earlier, much of modern taxonomy is reliant on common ancestry assumptions this is why certain specied change taxa, for example. You obviously must reject these changes if you reject evolution. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * as stated earlier, we reject only those changes. Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't stated explicitly in the article. It should be. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i tried. it got deleted.  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What does "arise spontaneously" mean? Does it mean that kinds cannot occur without the benefit of supernatural intervention? How does one measure this to confirm its truth or falsehood?
 * yes, they cannot occur without supernatural creative act. that means that there was never a time before there were canines, and then suddenly there were canines.  there are only canines because God created created them, and they will never turn into anything BUT canines.  Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So donkeys and horses cannot be separate kinds because they arose from the same kind and only God and not reproductive isolation can create separate kinds?
 * they are descended from the same KIND, are are currently two SPECIES. but they're both still EQUINE.  you feel me?  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so they will always be the same KIND. So the question is, what prevents cross-over from a single KIND population to becoming two separate KINDS. Is there a barrier that is in place by God to prevent it? Is it a time issue? Is it a matter of KIND being written in stone at the moment of creation and then never being altered? What is it? Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * by our definition, the "Kinds" were original to creation. any descendent of those original kind is a member of the kind.  an equine will always be an equine.  it'll never be a unicorn.  Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Still haven't answered the following questions: Is there a barrier that is in place by God to prevent transition between kinds? Is it a time issue? Is it a matter of KIND being written in stone at the moment of creation and then never being altered? What is it? Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the boundaries were not deliberately created, but are a function of different design. amoebas and humans can't breed, not because of any deliberate boundary by God, but because they are incompatible.  Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop evading the question. Is there a barrier that is in place to prevent transition between kinds? I'm not asking if there is a barrier between kinds, but rather whether it is impossible for a kind to "microevolve" into two separate kinds. If there is no barrier, then why don't creationists accept that such things could occur? If so, then what is the nature of the barrier? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * one KIND can evolve into one or more SPECIES. kinds are historical -- you can't have new ones.  that's on the page.  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What prevents new kinds? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * what prevents new models of car? very simply, new models of cars don't come around without a designer, and neither do new kinds.  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Cars don't have the ability to reproduce. I'm surprised you think this is a reasonable comparison. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm ... perhaps an imperfect analogy, but i can't think of a better one. kinds have a particular genetic framework -- there's room for variation, but you can't change the framework without breaking the whole machine.  i don't know quite how to articulate it beyond "common sense."  i need to come up with one.  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for it. I'm very interested in knowing why new kinds are prevented from forming. I don't understand the "framework" analysis because I always thought the framework of life was DNA. Obviously it must be more than this. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the number of discrete forms for these kinds? Since kinds are allowed to go extinct, does God have to replenish the world with kinds from time to time? Or do the number of kinds serve as a kind of clock on the age of the ecosystem?
 * as far as i know, extinction is a one-way-trip. once they're gone, they're gone.  .  Ungtss 16:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So, does God replinish the world with kinds, or is kind production over?
 * well ... there's no record of new kind production in genesis -- there certainly might be ... but i have no reason to believe there is. my experience tells me that we're in the midst of a mass, unidirectional extinction.  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So is it the opinion of creation biology that there have only been two extinction epochs in history, now and at the great flood and that's the ultimate description of the biological history of Earth? If that's the case it should be stated.
 * that's not necessarily the opinion of creation biology. there could have been other ones -- gap creationists believe in a big one, and there could have been a great deal of extinction before the flood.  no go.  Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So, there could have been extinction before the flood, there was the great flood extinction and there was extinction after the flood. There was never a time when new kinds were created. Is this a fair characterization? Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * YECs would argue that there have been no mass extinctions of kinds, except of sea creatures during the flood. The flood killed most of the land-based creatures, but representatives of each kind were preserved on the ark, thus they didn't go extinct.  Admittedly, depending on how much speciation there was before the flood, there there could have been mass extinctions of species, but not kinds.  There could have been extinctions of individual kinds before the flood, and definitely some since the flood.  Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * YECs would argue that there have been no mass extinctions of kinds, except of sea creatures during the flood. --> So dinosaur extinction is not considered to be a mass extinction? Or is it just that dinosaurs were members of other kinds that still currently exist? Have there been no extinctions of any kinds since the flood? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the point mr rayment was trying to make was that the dinosaurs that were carried on the boat did not die out completely in the flood -- they died out in the environment afterwards (although not before leaving us a lot of legends about dragons). Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question if there have been extinctions of any kinds since the flood? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * certainly there have been extinctions of kinds since the flood. many, many, many.  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. So the extinction rate of kinds serves as a clock of creation? Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * um ... it would if extinction rates were constant, but obviously they're not. Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Still, it provides for a meaningful upper and lower bound assuming you can place a lower and upper bound on extinction rates. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't know how we could do that -- how can you quantify extinction rates when there's no fossil record after the flood to record it? Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, you claim there is no fossil record after the flood? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * might be, but i'm not aware of any. how many fossils do we have that we can date < 6000 years?  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * None, but apparently creationists believe that Neadertals lived after the flood (according to your little jog below). So we have fossils for them. Maybe you believe in fast fossilization too? Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * how were the fossils you're referring to fossilized? Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * fossil Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another question comes to mind, if the entire fossil record was deposited by the flood, according to creation biology there must be no distinction between the pre-cambrian, paleozoic, mesozoic, and cenozoic eras, right? The boundary distinctions are completely arbitrary and the explosions seen in the fossil record are simply coincidences (as are the extinctions). Is this a correct characterization? If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the article. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the fossil record is explained by mass liquefaction. Ungtss 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't answer the question because sorting is well understood. Liquefaction is a well understood process geologically, but I don't see an explanation in the article for how you can see coincidental fossil layers. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * coincidental fossil layers? Ungtss 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, fossil layers that coincide in different parts of the world with sorting of the fossils. Why should all the trilobites hang out in only one layer, for example? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well i don't know much about trilobites, but i suppose they could have lived on or near the ground before the flood, so that they were buried lower. now how do YOU explain the Cambrian explosion?  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In brief, the Cambrian explosion is easy to explain in terms of timescales and evolutionary diversification due to new available environments. Multicellular organisms are niche-adapted to be able to take advantage of specified environments. More than that, the Cambrian explosion is also a result of evolution of organic material that is more easily fossilized. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so Punk Eek basically:)? don't tell Dawkins:).  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Punctuation Equilibrium states that evolution occurs quickly. This doesn't say anything about the rate of evolution, it merely states the observed facts of the environment in the Cambrian as well as the observed evolution of exoskeletal remains. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * PE states that it occurs quickly as lifeforms evolve quickly to move into new niches, particularly after major environmental change. if that's not what you mean, then how exactly do you think the necessary genetic change occured which allowed the lifeforms to fill those niches?  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's nothing about the speed of evolution in my comment. Whether they evolved quickly or not, we cannot say. As it is, the Cambrian explosion is not necessarily fast (a fact which creationists cannot admit because they claim all the dating is incorrect in any case). Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The flood would have gone through a number of stages, meaning that the flood deposits would not expected to be one homogeneous deposit. Is that what you were getting at?  Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Close, but not quite. Why should the fossil layers be so well defined. Obviously there isn't one well-defined deposit, but why would certain layers contain a lot of fossils and other layers not so many? What explains the vast amount of evidence regarding the number, type, and order of the fossil layers? Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * defined fossil layers are explained by liquefaction lenses. haven't gotten that on flood geology yet -- gonna get to it eventually.  Ungtss 14:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain sorting. Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * look on the Flood geology page. an experiment was conducted, which replicated well-defined strata, through repeated periods of liquefaction and non-liquefaction, which caused liquefaction lenses and sorting of the fossils and the strata.  now how do you explain the laying of strata of single minerals, like the St. Peter Sandstone?  Ungtss 18:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this the same experiment that has no citation except to be quoted in a book where they say "yep, that's what we found: sorting according to type of animal!" Pardon me if I don't take your word for that one.
 * i wouldn't expect you to. but you asked for my explanation and i gave it.  pardon me if i don't believe we evolved from amoeba.  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But I have references that extend beyond some quote in a book to an experiment that hasn't been repeated or evaluated as having actually occurred. When it comes to confirming your own beliefs, I guess that skepticism with which you look at evolution goes right out the window. You find the tens of thousands of pages of literature on common descent to be unbelievable. I find a single quote of an unpublished experiment to be unbelievable. That's the difference. Joshuaschroeder 05:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by your next question. Sandstone isn't a mineral. Joshuaschroeder 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm asking you, "how do you think the st. peter sandstone formed?" this question remains unanswered, along with "how did oil get there?" and "how did fossils get there?"  flood geology answers those questions for me.  how do you answer them?  Ungtss 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, what you asked was how I explain the laying of strata of single minerals and then refered to a rock made of many minerals. Now you want to know how sandstone is formed. Well, it's formed either by shallow sea deposition or by desert deposition (in the case of this particular deposit, geologists have evidence that it is from a shallow sea). If you want to know more you can check out a sedimentary geology text, for example. They will also have information on fossilization and petroleum deposits if you get a broad enough text. Alternatively, you can look on this very encyclopedia for the answers you seek. Joshuaschroeder 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so you're telling me that a sandstone of 99.7% purity formed under an ocean, without experiencing any mixing at all? Ungtss 13:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What is this 99.7% purity? How can a rock be measured to be pure? Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * read up on the st. peter sandstone. the sandstone in eastern missouri is 99.4% pure sicila.  how?  Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the silica (that's only part of the sandstone now) was created plutonically rather than by volcanism. That's how you get pure crystals. Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * are you telling me you can get 99.4% purity from a sea drying out? no impurities?  no mixing with sediments from rivers or dead plant and animal matter?  nothing else?  pure 99.4% sandstone from a sea?  you can really say that with a straight face?  Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The purity of silica is due to how it crytsalizes. The purity of the mineral silica is in reference to the fact that it is nearly pure SiO2. It has nothing to do with its sedimentation. There's no such thing as a "pure rock". A rock is a mixture. Your continued insistence on "pure sandstone" is nothing short of willful ignorance. Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 03:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Example kinds
Notice there is an example 'kind', but I agree it could benefit from being tightened up a good deal. Is there general agreement on Felinae as a kind? Are YECs happy with kinds at the family level? Do any CBs cite genetic or geologic evidence for the (d)evolution from proto-Felinae into cheetah and kitty-cats? (Specifically that distinguishes it from evolutionary processes they assert are unevidenced and/or impossible, say from proto-Carnivora.) Note that in the intro, we have that CBs agree with MB on taxonomy, so it ought to be possible to discuss kinds in conventional taxonomic terms, at least broadly. Alai 04:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are YECs happy with kinds at the family level?

I don't think so. I bet they think that weasles and badgers are different kinds, even though they're the same family: Mustelidae. Joshuaschroeder 16:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i dunno ... do they show similar genetic characteristics? do we have any reason to believe they were ever reproductively compatible?  Ungtss 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "reason to believe". Most of the data that I would offer you would probably be labeled as "too evolutionary" for your liking. Joshuaschroeder 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'll take that as a no. Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You reject genomic comparisons, embryology, transitional forms, and generally any other piece of evidence not to your liking. It's you who has the "no". Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * we reject them not because they're "not to our liking," but because they're meaningless and utterly fail to make your point. Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If CBs reject all of the above, that's worth noting in the article space. (The genomic stuff especially, given the discussion of kinds.)  Alai 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds good. let's be clear on exactly why.
 * 1) genomic comparisons and embroyology because they don't indicate common ancestry against common design, since the volvo and the toyota both have similarities, but were designed separately.  transitional forms because we haven't seen any that impress us.  Ungtss 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, though if the Toyoto started to exhibit more than 95% blueprint similarity, the Volvoists might sue. OK, good, this is worth clarifying in the article.  Do (any) creationists propose a criterion by which to judge what degree (or sort) of genetic similarity is evidence of descent from the same original kind, and what is evidence of a parsimonious creator?  I don't know, for example, on what basis creationists are happy to entertain proto-crocs, but not proto-carns.  It'd be nice if we could discuss if this is done on the basis of genetic of other quantifable data, scriptural evidence, or intuition.  BTW, "impress us" isn't really a testable challenge, either...  Alai 19:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * not in a definitive sense (and thank you for helping to draw out the ambiguities here) -- just off the top of my head, one could say, "genetic similarity is a necessary but not sufficient indicator of common ancestry. the sufficient condition would be some evidence of reproductive compatibility in the past.  without evidence of reproductive compatibility, it is POSSIBLE that animals are related, but also possible that they are not.  the greater the genetic differences, the less likely common ancestry appears to be.  i wouldn't put it on a definitive "yes or no" basis ... but i think there are degrees of reasonable belief in common ancestry.  somewhat similar to phylogenetic trees, i would think.  there's no definitive "ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TREE" -- there are just most-parsimonious and maximum likelihood tress that are the most reasonable indicators of common ancestry.  i think this is an area of inherent ambiguity, but i do think we can come to some very reasonable hypotheses.  i think cats are a SOLID bet for common ancestry.  whales and pigs?  i just don't see it.  Ungtss 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Given 6000 years, I wouldn't see it either. 60,000,000, now...  Surely genetic similarity is evidence of reproductive compatibility in the past?  I still don't see how it's even in principle possible even to construct maximum likelihood;  you haven't given even probabilistic criteria.  Alai 02:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1


text:
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 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:

Talk:Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Creation biology/Archive 3

up for discussion
i readded the diagram josh deleted in a "kneejerk" style.

i added this to clarify josh's concern that these are "superligers."
 * The kinds in their original form are hypothesized to be of a significantly superior genetic structure and much more genetically diverse than the species of today. Many of them were created with sufficient latent heterozygosity to speciate.

i removed this because it is plainly untrue. creationists point to the profound gap between chimps and humans as "yeah right" evidence against common ancestry.
 * (which the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus mostly on religious grounds).

i changed
 * "missing links,"

to
 * extinct common ancestors between higher taxa,

to explain that just as creationists have a hard time identifying the boundaries of kinds, evolutionists have a hard time figuring out who, exactly, our common ancestor with the monkeys was.

i readded this to explain the fundamental difference between the models.
 * While mainstream evolutionists emphasize the importance of mutations in providing new genetic diversity and speciation, creation biology hold that mutations are only a minor cause of speciation, and instead credit the bulk of biological diversity to the effects of reproductive isolation, inbreeding, natural selection, and genetic drift. It is further proposed that the original kinds exhibited greater heterozygosity than present species.

i replaced this because the first is vague and does not address the issues.
 * there are no mechanisms that are presented by mainstream science that they accept as explanations for how such things could have occured.::

with
 * they posit that the mainstream scientific mechanisms proposed to explain these theories are unreasonable, impossible, or falisified by observations.

alright fellas, let's hash this out right here. Ungtss 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I removed the following:

 * While mainstream science infers from degrees of genetic similarity and the fossil record that all life shares a common ancestor, creation biology infers from scriptural evidence, for which it finds support in the degrees of genetic differences and an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record that all cats may share a common ancestor, but dogs and cats do not.

 * While mainstream science theorises that speciation is due to an increase in genetic diversity and complexity through random mutation, creation biology holds that speciation is due to a decrease in the same respects from an original design.

 * While mainstream evolutionists emphasize the importance of mutations in providing new genetic diversity and speciation, creation biology hold that mutations are only a minor cause of speciation, and instead credit the bulk of biological diversity to the effects of reproductive isolation, inbreeding, natural selection, and genetic drift. It is further proposed that the original kinds exhibited greater heterozygosity than present species.

 * And replace it with what is currently there. First of all, mainstream science mainfestly DOES NOT theorize that speciation is due to an "increase" in genetic diversity. That is a creationist misnomer. Genetic diversity is created and destroyed in mainstream biology not just created, and the concept of "genetic information" is one that is misused by creationists and doesn't apply in thisinstance at all. Secondly, mainstream scientists don't ephasize the importance of mutations: mutations are not what allow the evolution of species, it is all the effects that according to the last paragraph creationists think are important as well. The fact is that mutations in-and-of-themselves are not what evolution is about. It is a mischaracterization to include such a statement. The current paragraph is correct from a mainstream scientific standpoint. If you think it is NPOV with respect to a creationist standpoint, edit the points you need. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * summary dismissal doesn't cut it. how do evolutionists think we got from bacteria to humans?  by an INCREASE in genetic information.  justify your misrepresentation of evolution in order to hide from reality, please.  Ungtss 21:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not simply an increase in genetic information: it's specialization to an environment. Since "genetic information" is an ill-defined term as genetic complexity, it's difficult to determine exactly what you mean when you say that information had to be added to the genome in order for single-celled organisms to be the ancestors of multicellular organisms, for example. Specialization can carry the appearance of increase in information when really it's an adaptation to a specific environment (thus making the organism more vulnerable to environmental changes and catastrophes, for example). Evolution is not about genetic information, though AnsersInGenesis wants it to be cast in that way --> it's about natural selection and interactions with environmental factors.
 * Was information added to the genome in order for bacteria to be the ancestors of human beings? It's hard to say because a quantifiable measurement of genetic information isn't offered by anybody that is consistent. The genetic code of multicellular organisms is full of junk DNA that serve only no functional purpose in day-to-day interactions. Does this stuff count in the "genetic information" of the organism? There are indications that highly-specialized multicellular organisms may have less "information" in their genome than smaller multicellular organisms that are not as specialized. The analogy could easily follow through between multicellular and unicellular. Since the specific amount of information required to encode a single-cellular eukaryote and a multicellular eukaryote is difficult to determine, we really cannot make anything other than handwaving judgements to this regard and so the criteria is not used in modern evolutionary theory. This is especially true if you consider the symbiosis evolution that we know occured, for example, between mitochondria and chloroplasts and other cells.
 * <>
 * nobody said it was SIMPLY an increase in genetic information -- the increase is necessary, but not sufficient. beyond that, you're evading the simple fact that humans have more genes than bacteria, so there WAS an increase by definition.  you're talking about natural selection and genetic drift, but those do nothing but strip OUT BAD material -- the only way to get NEW material is through mutation.  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you reject transposons and polyploidy? These are considered mutations that have the potential to add genes. We know they had to occur since mitochondrial DNA is different from the parent cell.Joshuaschroeder 20:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''Secondly, mainstream scientists don't ephasize the importance of mutations: mutations are not what allow the evolution of species, it is all the effects that according to the last paragraph creationists think are important as well. The fact is that mutations in-and-of-themselves are not what evolution is about. It is a mischaracterization to include such a statement.''>>
 * once again, summary dismissal doesn't cut it. where does the RAW GENETIC MATERIAL come from within the evolutionist standpoint -- the ONLY source of new material is mutation, which is then shaped and shaved by selection and genetic drift.  tell me why i'm wrong, please.  Ungtss 21:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * RAW GENETIC MATERIAL that is added to a genome is a misnomer. It doesn't exist. We don't have the stuff just floating about in the ecosystem that latches on to other genomes. We do observe processes whereby strings of DNA and even entire chromosomes are added to genomes, however, these processes are not the sole means by which evolution occurs. What is required is a mutation that is environmentally beneficial. Sometimes the REMOVAL of genetic material is environmentally beneficial. Sometimes pseudogene activation, for example, is what is beneficial. It's all contextual, but it's by no means ALL mutations. Joshuaschroeder 23:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * once again, you're evading by throwing a strawman. nobody said it was the ONLY way it happened -- it's necessary but not sufficient -- but there is NO OTHER WAY THAT NEW GENES AND INFORMATION COME ABOUT.  natural selection + genetic drift are purely negative.  or am i wrong?  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See above, I would say that you are wrong. Joshuaschroeder 21:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

finally, why did you delete this: <> leaving creationists only with the bible, and no rational basis for their belief? what possible justification could you have for such an edit? Ungtss 21:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since creationists don't define transistional forms, how do they know there is an absence of them? You can't just posit a lack without providing evidence. Joshuaschroeder 23:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'll tell you what a transitional form is. a transition form is a form that is identifiable as having significant characteristics of two higher taxa -- like a hairy lizard, or a dog-cat.  they're easy to define.  you just don't have any.  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you reject all of the ones stated. I posted the entire transitional record between reptiles and mammals. Obviously you contest every single one of those transitional forms. "Hairy lizard" is ridiculous because hair evolved late in the transition. In actuality, it was dog/bear/weasles that branched from cat/civet/hyenas, so the transitional form isn't between cats and dogs but rather between catcivets and dogbears. The Eocene provides the transitional forms. This is rejected by creationists. Joshuaschroeder 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please address these points
Here's some major problems with kinds. Please respond Ungtss.

Since evolution says organisms came from a common ancestor and since they lived in a continuity of environments, we should see a continuum of organisms. There should be a continuous series of animals between cats and dogs, so that one could not tell where cats left off and dogs began. Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 70-71.

The claim might be true if there were no such thing as extinction. But since species do become extinct, intermediates that once existed do not exist today. Since extinction is a one-way street, species can only become less connected over time. This is clear if we look at the fossil record, in which early members of separate groups are much harder to tell apart.

Environments (and ecological niches) are not really as continuous as the claim pretends. Dogs bring down their prey through long chases, and cats ambush their prey; dogs are made for long-distance running, and cats are made for short sprints with high acceleration from a standing start. These requirements are quite different, and it is hard to achieve both in a single body. Compromises between the two have disadvantages in competition with specialists for either type, and thus natural selection culls them. Intermediates are competitive only so long as specialists are absent; so when specialists evolve, the intermediates are likely to become extinct.
 * 1) they should leave fossils, since they were around for millions of years.
 * 2) if they were superior to their ancestors (as the many mutations leading to homo erectus or whatever the fictional missing link of the day is should have been superior to the chimps) should beat out the lower forms, and be "better able" to survive. there are many species of fish that are not reproductively isolated and inhabit the same niche.  why would natural selection permit this?  Ungtss 13:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if there's fossil evidence for proto-carnivores? Or are you asking for evidence of something that meets your characterisation of a 'cat-dog'?
 * any true protocarnivore would do the trick. all i've seen are "rodents" or "dogs" or "cats" -- their "kind" is plainly identifiable just by looking at them.  if dogs evolved with bears, then where are the BEAR-DOGS?  Ungtss 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And who gets to define 'true'? Rodents aren't carnivores, they're in fact more closely related to man.  "Plainly identifiable"?  Is the gold standard going to be 'creationist common sense', then?  The bear-dogs are extinct, what did you think?  Are you about to ask me to dredge up references to the fossil and genetic evidence for their relatedness?  Are we, in short, veering increasingly away from the focus of the article?   Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm just addressing the questions as i've been instructed. "creationist common sense" is probably a good name for it.  you tell me the bear-dogs are extinct, but i haven't seen the fossils.  i've seen bears, and i've seen dogs, but no bear-dogs.  Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see hiw it's helping with regard to the state of the article. So in other words, yes, you want me to go on a evidenciary hunt for eocene proto-carnivores, so's you can tell me after the fact what criteria you'll be using to dismiss them?  (The genetic similarity point you don't address at all.)  Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI the standard model cites 'Miacis' as an eocene proto-carnivore, and there's fossil evidence for it. (On the basis of some more google-grade research.)  Now obviously, this won't be a "true proto-carnivore" for you, for some reason or another, but just to let you know.  Alai 03:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't follow; isn't natural selection on your list of things that CBs and EBs agree on?  What precisely is the point at dispute here?  Alai 18:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * he's trying to explain why the intermediates are gone by saying they went extinct. i'm wondering, if the intermediates had an evolutionary advantage over the originals, why didn't natural selection PRESERVE them while eliminating the originals?  i.e. if homo erectus was superior to the branch that remained chimps, then why didn't it wipe out the chimps?  Ungtss 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Different environments. And please note the originals were not "chimps", thus they could not have "remained" chimps.  I realize you don't want to taint yourself by reading about evolutionary biology, but are you familiar with the maxim, "know your enemy"?  If we're going to have to go over basics of EB, which you've decided in advance you can't accept, this is going to be very long drawn out and painful.  Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * different environments can't do it i don't think -- that's what i said in the original -- there are many different animals that are in the same ecological niche. Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the point; you asked about "chimps" (forest-dwelling primates) vs. homidids (plains-dwellers).  This is key to the acccount of hominid evolution, so if you're bringing it up here, it's either a pretty tacky straw man, or indicates you're not at all familiar with the evolutionary model you want to poke holes at, in circuitous defence of CB.  Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In part, distinctness is an illusion caused by our choice of which groups to give names to. Groups with unclear boundaries tend not to get separate names, or groups in which intermediate forms exist are chopped in half arbitrarily (especially obvious if fossil forms are considered; e.g., the line between dinosaurs and birds is arbitrary, increasingly so as new fossils are discovered).

There are indeed several cases of continua in nature. In many groups, such as some grasses and leafhoppers, different species are very hard to tell apart. At least ten percent of bird species are similar enough to another species to produce fertile hybrids (Weiner 1994, 198-199). The most obvious continua are called ring species, because in the classic case (the herring gull complex) they form a ring around the North Pole. If we start in Western Europe and move west, similar populations, capable of interbreeding, succeed each other geographically. When we have traveled all the way around the world and reach Western Europe again, the final population is different enough that we call it a separate species, and it is incapable of interbreeding with herring gulls, even though they are connected by a continuous chain of interbreeding populations. This is a big problem for creationists. We expect kinds to be easily determined if they were created separately, but there are no such obvious divisions: They are mistaken, who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seemed to be true, so long as a genus was imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment. (de Condolle, quoted in Darwin, 1872, chap. 2)

 * i don't have a problem with the above facts, only the above groundless conclusion. once again, KINDS can produce many many species, and those species may or may not be reproductively compatible (but will usually be close).  the above conclusion that "this is a problem for creationists" is simply not true.  you evolutionists persist in saying that "creationists deny that speciation can take place."  that's simply not true, as indicated on the page, and by me a dozen times.  i don't have a problem with those birds being related.
 * my PROBLEM is with the rather silly belief that those birds differentiated through MUTATION and selection alone ... rather than from preexisting heterozygous characteristics that allowed some raw material for selection to work on. you're saying that each of those birds evolved its independent characteristcs by chance after all the bad ones were selected out.  i'm saying each of those birds came from ancestors who had the preexisting ability to create ALL of those species.  my theory is more parsimonious.  Ungtss 13:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But we're not here to discuss your theories; we're here to describe CB.  I keep asking you to try and keep the advocacy in check, and you respond in "advocacy, what advocacy?" terms, then keep right on going.  In a more moderate tone in the article space, but there nonetheless.   I think it's not a good model of for the article to structure it on the basis of, let's give the CBs the last word on everything, regardless of the status of the detail of their proposals, the amount of research behind them, or indeed the factuality thereof.  But that's how it's going:  we can't even get rid of one piece of POV before the next "yes, but" rolls on in.
 * I don't believe anyone has at any point editted the article to say "creationists deny that speciation can take place.", so I don't see the standing of the above objection. (Then again, it does EBs no good ultimately to refute CB models of speedy-speciation, since they always have the option of moving the 'created kind' back to the species level in any given case.)  You're speaking (here, and in the article) as if CBs propose some mechanism for speciation that EBs don't:  this is not the case.  The CB list is simply the EB one, minus mutation.  ('Mutation' let's use for the time being as an umbrella for all chance non-reproductive perturbations to the genome, which is to gloss over a lot of details, but they're probably not very material here.)
 * You keep throwing in 'heterozygous' as the cure for all CB speciation's ills, but you're very short on specifics. What sort of genome would be able to code for all the characteristics for a modern family -- much less that of a whole order?  Hz gets you two sets of characteristics for free;  from a liger/tigon population, interfertility willing, yes, you'd be able to back-breed a reasonable-looking tiger (or lion).  But how do you get a lion/tiger/leopard/jaguar/puma/geoffrey's cat/caracal/housecat/cheetah/etc, etc, etc hybrid, containing the information of all?  Do you have one copy of each chromosome per 'target' species, on the liger model?  Do you have 'stretch' chromosomes?  Recall that genetics is one the list of things that CBs agree with the 'mainstream' on...  Alai 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * 1) my goal is not to advocate it on the PAGE, but i was baited on the talkpage, so i took the challenge. Ungtss 18:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * 2) creationists have 14 individuals (7 pairs, as reported by genesis) with 2 pairs each -- that allows for 28 completely homozygous combinations, and any number of combinations between them in the original genepool. secondly, you've got many polygenic traits or linked traits (for instance, the "masking" gene that provides for more eye-colors than blue or brown).  third, not ALL cats have to be related (for instance, the sabertooth might have come in separately as proposed by AiG).  fourth, all cats off south america have the exact same number of chromosomes -- only the south american cats have had a chromosome link up -- creationists and evolutionists agree on that, no?  Ungtss 18:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * And how exactly does that help? How do you 'engineer' genomes that code all those different characteristics, and yet are still interfertile?  Are you suggesting this is possible with conventional genetics, or are special circumstances involved here?  (I don't see how the number of individuals figures here, I didn't even mention that as a possible constraint.)  Sabretooth isn't a felidae, that's not pertinent.  Numbers of chromosome pairs I don't know off the top of the head, I'm talking about overall content of the genome.  What I was asking was if you were invoking some sort of hyper-polyploidy in your ancestral cats, not modern cats.  (South American cats?  Which?)  "Evolutionists"?  If you mean evolutionary biologists, please say so.  Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * heterozygosity. i'm hypothesizing that the distinctly "tiger" and "lion" segments of the code could exist in a heterozygous state in the original kinds.  for instance, a pair of ligers can contain a FULL GENOME for both a lion AND a tiger, without any additional engineering, because they have TWO of each chromosome.  one chromosome contains the uniquely "tiger" genes, and the other chromosome contains the uniquely "lion" genes.  no additional genetic material.  just carrying a mixture of what we now only see separately.  whereas evolution sees the changes happening through mutation and selection, i see the changes happening through the SORTING of those characteristics.  that's why the number of original animals is relevent.  i've got the potential for 28 COMPLETELY DISTINCT FELINES coming off the ark, and a good amount of room for blending.  Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please stop saying 'heterozygosity' as if it's the answer to anything, rather than the question at hand. You keep throwing up the liger example, but what about much less related felidae? What possible set of genes can a) breed with each other, and b) (d)evolve into all of the felines I've mentioned within a hundreds of generations? I repeat my question about which south american cat(s) you were referring to. Oh, and can can you please also STOP SHOUTING SO MUCH? Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i actually find that fact to be very interesting, and i'd like to know more specifics about the species of birds.

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 3


text:
Humber Pig

The Humber Pig is a lightly armoured truck used by the British Army from the 1950s until the early 1990s. The Pig saw service with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) chiefly as an armoured personnel carrier from late 1958 until early 1970. The Pig became particularly well known from its presence on the streets of Northern Ireland during the worst of the Troubles.

Official designations

 * FV1601, FV1602 — un-armored Cargo GS and FFW (fitted for wireless) Humber CT trucks.
 * FV1609 — c1956 Prototype APC vehicle with removable rear roof, canvas roof, and removable windscreens.
 * Mk 1 FV1611 and FV1612 plus FV1609 vehicles converted to Mk 1 Pig spec with fully integrated rear roof and armour. Side storage boxes in Northern Ireland to prevent terrorists from placing explosives.
 * FV1620 — Humber Hornet, a dedicated converted FV1611 to Malkara missile-launching platform.
 * Mk 2 FV1611 and FV1612 —Additional armour for protection against small-arms fire and rocket propelled grenades, "barricade removers" (heavy-duty bull bars) which enabled them to force their way through barricades erected in the streets.

Unofficial designations
Some vehicles were equipped with the machine gun turret from the Shorland ISPV. All below were developed for use in Northern Ireland:
 * Flying Pig — FV1611 with extending riot screens either side and roof.
 * Holy Pig — fitted with rooftop hatch surrounded by perspex screen (reference to the Popemobile)
 * Kremlin Pig — fitted with wire screening for protection against rocket propelled grenades (RPG-7)
 * Squirt Pig — fitted with a water cannon beside driver for riot control.
 * Foaming Pig — fitted with a foam generator to diffuse bomb blasts.
 * Felix Pig — modified for bomb disposal duties.
 * Turret Pig — Has the machine gun from the Shortland armored vehicle installed for operation in the Armagh area.

title: Humber Pig


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decentralization (postmodern definition)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decentralization (postmodern definition)
Original research. -Seth Mahoney 04:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Essay, not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopaedic. - TB 12:53, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)