Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reproductive Viability as a definition of "kind"
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 1 of 20 (153447)
10-27-2004 4:56 PM


I recently asked a friend of mine what he thought the definiton of biblical kind was, and how to determine if two organisms were in the same kind. He replied that if two organisms can reproduce they are in the same kind. What I want to discuss is how good a defintion this really is.
The most likely problem I can see to this definition is the situation with three (or more, but i'll use three in this example) organisms, lets name them A, B and C. If A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but C cannot breed with A. If this were true then there would be no unique "kind", and species would be in many kinds at once. Does anyone have an example of species that fit this situation?
Alternatively, are there any other problems to using this as a definition of kind?
(Added in edit)This doesn't just have to be an attack on reproductive viablity as a definition of "kind". If any creationists want to defend this definition i'd like to hear that side of it too.
This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 10-28-2004 08:18 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2004 8:17 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 8:26 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-29-2004 9:17 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 4 of 20 (153499)
10-27-2004 8:18 PM


Thank you, i was wondering what the term for that would be. Without knowing the term it was pretty much impossible to search for.

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 6 of 20 (153538)
10-27-2004 10:20 PM


Yes, i'm not sure what he would make of the new kinds, or even the multitude of extinct kinds.

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 8 of 20 (153612)
10-28-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
10-27-2004 10:42 PM


Re: Ring species
Yes, i'd definately be interested in reading that. I might have to go gatecrash my old university library to view it if it's not available free online though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2004 10:42 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 10-31-2004 9:32 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 9 of 20 (153767)
10-28-2004 3:01 PM


I've received my friends reply to ring species....he says that according to Romans 8 there was a period of decay. It is obvious that the ring species used to be able to breed, but genetic decay now prevents them. I was about to argue with that, but then realised that he's pretty much describing evolution anyway! "Genetic decay" sounds very much like random mutation to me (if you wanted to put a negative slant on it).

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2004 4:28 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 7:09 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 13 of 20 (154131)
10-29-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by derwood
10-29-2004 9:17 AM


I was about to take it in that direction actually. I'm sure that if I asked him, he'd say that humans were in a kind of their own and couldn't reproduce with anything else. I was going to ask which primates we could sucessfully breed with. Ethical issues aplenty here! lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-29-2004 9:17 AM derwood has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 14 of 20 (154672)
10-31-2004 9:20 PM


Unfortunately my friend has backed up his claims about degenerating genetics by claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics claims this is what happens. How disappointing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 10-31-2004 9:58 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 17 of 20 (154774)
11-01-2004 7:36 AM


Actually I did something just like that Lam. I gave him Boltzman's and Gibb's equations and asked him to use them to show how evolution is impossible, then I asked him to define "disorder" and show how the definition applies to either of the equations. (Statistical mechanics seemed so much more fun than Thermodynamics )

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 18 of 20 (154775)
11-01-2004 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
10-31-2004 9:32 PM


Re: Ring species
Hehehe, those godless commies seem to get their hand in everywhere don't they! I pretty much have given up on him, he's quoting trueorigins at me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 10-31-2004 9:32 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 19 of 20 (156706)
11-06-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by derwood
10-29-2004 9:17 AM


Do you have a reference for this, i'd be interested in reading it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-29-2004 9:17 AM derwood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024