Clades and Kinds

When discussing evolution with a creationist, one particular roadblock keeps cropping up. Namely, the distinction between "micro"-evolution and "macro"-evolution. Typically the discussion will go something like this:Evolutionist*: Evolution is a fact. It can be observed in the natural world.
Creationist: Ah! But that's microevolution. Species can only evolve within "kinds"
Evolutionist: There you go again! What the *bleep* is a kind?
Creationist: A group of species that are related through evolutionary relationships.
Evolutionist: ...This is an old argument that I'm sure most of us have seen many times. But I have never come across a creationist definition of a "kind" (except for the circular argument in my above example).So as I was reading through the forum I started thinking of a way to define "kind" in taxonomic terms, and all of a sudden it hit me. Kinds are clades!Here's my understanding of what creationists believe: After the Great Flood, Noah released one species of each "kind" from his ark. These kinds then "microevolved" (nevermind the unfeasability of this) into all the diverse species we have today. In other words, any group of species that can trace their common heritage back to one of the noachian species is a kind.And then I realized something. This is exactly how taxonomists define clades. And by definition, no species that is part of a clade can ever give rise to a species outside of that clade.So here are my assumptions (and I'd like any creationists to dispute them if I'm wrong)1. A "kind" is any group of species that can trace a common descent back to one species from Noah's Ark. (Not the opinion of the author, but assumed for discussion)2. A "kind" is therefore a clade.3. Micro-evolution is an observed fact that occurs within "kinds", or clades.Conclusion: Since evolutionists and creationists agree that species can only evolve within "kinds" (clades) we can now drop the ridiculous distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Creationists were right, it's all micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.Now, would anyone like to tell me why I'm wrong? Or perhaps someone would like to propose an alternative definition of "kind"?Edited by Meldinoor, : Some clarificationEdited by Meldinoor, : Removed macroevolution from title. It was confusing, and a little misleading.

Thread copied here from the Clades and Kinds: How to disprove Macroevolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

So when you track back to the common ancestor of the horse and cow, do we find evidence of that organism on the ark?

I don't see what point you're trying to make here. My post is not trying to prove anything. It's just providing creationists with a reasonable definition of kinds. Now, if you define a kind as a clade you've eliminated the arbitrary barrier between micro and macro evolution. As far as evidence is concerned, life is a clade.I'm trying to show how evolution does not predict that animals should speciate beyond their kinds (read clades).

The point of the thread, which may not have been perfectly clear in the OP is that the Creationist strawman that evolution expects speciation across clade boundaries is false. I'm also trying to compare the concept of kinds with the concept of clades. If the two are equivalent, then the argument that species reproduce (speciate) only within their kinds can be shown to be consistent with evolution, not an argument for creation. Lastly, defining micro-evolution as evolution within a clade eliminates the need for macro-evolution, or any distinction at all.

Exactly - I mean, when I get down on all fours and creep along the ground, I can really believe I'm Tiktaalik. Ok, I've lost the tail, but otherwise I'm just a plain old tetrapod. And I've never seen a tetrapod give birth to anything but a tetrapod...

You're still a member of the same clade. You of all people on this forum should appreciate the fish in you Some similarities between clades and kinds:1. No defined level in the hierarchy. Clades can be used at any level, from domain, all the way down to species. Incidentally, that's the range most definitions of "kind" fall into.2. Creationists often (not always, but enough for comparison) define "kinds" as a group of species with a common ancestor. Like an ancestral horse "kind" giving rise to zebras and other closely related species. Clades are defined as an ancestral species, and all of its descendants.Creationists will not accept common descent for all life. But they do believe that animals can be grouped into clades at a low level. The fact that these animals never speciate outside their "kind" is not an argument."Humans are still Eukaryotes."
(A quote I think I borrowed from you cavediver. I don't remember. Some thread. But the idea indirectly inspired this topic.)

Hi Meldinoor, I've said for some time that the argument is not really evolution but common ancestry, and the argument is over how many original common ancestors were involved.Clades are a great way of expressing it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I'm no creationist, but I believe that kinds would be a subset of clades - only those at the level on the ark. High-order clades wouild not equate to kinds.

Hi MedinoorTo me this argument is all about semantics in classification and there can never be any overall agreement between Creationists and Evolutionists on that issue.Creationists can classify organisms however they may wish, since they make up their own rules about how the organisms were created and to what extent, if any, they may be permitted to evolve.Evolutionists aren't so lucky. They can only classify organisms based on evidence of their place in the tree of life.

Sorry, got the wrong end of the stick .

You're right, tuffers. Maybe it's foolish of me to try to define a word that creationists won't even agree on.But if we ignore the distant past, if we don't argue common ancestry for now, and simply focus on something that creationists and evolutionists can agree on, there were animals 4000yrs ago and their descendants are alive today. Many creationists will argue that those species will have diverged by now, but everyone agrees that those species and their modern descendants constitute some kind of clade.One person on this post who likes to use the argument "dogs always produce dogs" is Peg. And despite me having addressed the argument a couple of times, she has continued to use it. What I'm trying to say here is yes, the descendants of dogs will always be dogs. Not modern dogs necessarily, but always some member of the dog/wolf clade. They will still be easily recognizable as descendants of dogs for a long time, and will retain traits in common with other members of their clade, just like humans have many traits in common with fish.I had hoped Peg would have given her opinion here. Namely, she could have tried to explain why her argument isn't a strawman.

What I'd like to hear from the Creationists is precisely where they set their limits on the future divergence within kinds/clades/whatever. Presumably it is at least to such an extent that none of us will live long enough to be able to prove them wrong - or right. Whatever divergence is witnessed within a human lifetime will presumably always be within their rules.

Hi Meldinoor, Explain please if these 4 things are true.1. A clade is a group having a common ancestor.2. There is more than one clade.3. Those clades have boundary's specition don't cross.4. Creationist believe those boundaries have to be crossed if evolution is true.How we can have all the life forms on earth we do today when we started with one life form as a common ancestor, without those boundaries being crossed?After reading this thread I think I am beginning to understand my problem with understanding many things discussed at EvC.I have no idea what other creationist so call believe.I simply believe God created everything we see today. Simple statement. Not really.The horse and zebra is what opened my eyes. You see I believe God created the horse. I also believe God created the zebra. I believe the horses have speciated especially with the help of man and there are many different species of horses.So to me there would be a horse kind and a zebra kind, etc.
There would be an alligator kind and a crocodile kind, etc.
There would be a bluejay kind and there would be a sparrow kind, etc.
There would be a human kind, an Ape kind, a chimpanzee kind, etc.Now if creationist want to reduce them down to get a smaller number to be on the ark that is their problem not mine.Hopefully this will give insight to those here as to my beliefs and the reason I argue like I do. Like the argument about the bacteria, it makes no difference how much they change as long as they are bacteria macro evolution has not happened.I think the proper word is transmutation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Everything you just said is completely true, but your understanding of it is completely false.A clade is any group of organisms such that no organism outside that group is more closely related to an organism inside that group than the members of the group are related to each other. For example, humans are a clade. Humans, chimps, and bonobos are a clade. Primates are a clade. Mammals are a clade. Tetrapods are a clade. Vertebrates are a clade. Animals are a clade. Life is a clade.From this definition it is evident that no evolutionary event can take place which shifts a lineage from one clade to another. Every lineage must, by definition of "clade", always remain in every clade that it's in. So, for example, evolution did not stop humans from being primates, or from being mammals, or from being tetrapods. And so long as you're still a vertebrate, the fact that you're descended from fish needn't trouble you.