Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 5:18 PM
22 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,041 Year: 7,077/19,786 Month: 1,618/1,581 Week: 440/393 Day: 31/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 1 of 40 (352164)
09-25-2006 3:28 PM


How do I tell if two living or fossil species are the same "kind", or belong to two different "kinds"?

With thanks in advance to anyone who's willing to take a crack at answering this, or who can provide me with a link.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2006 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 09-26-2006 6:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 6:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 5:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 35 by dan4reason, posted 12-13-2011 12:16 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 4 of 40 (352285)
09-26-2006 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
09-25-2006 11:39 PM


Yes, but nothing is "undeniable", because creationists can deny anything.

Some of them are still denying speciation, in which case every kind would be a monobaramin.

On the other hand, if you merely mean irrefutable evidence, then life is a kind; but that's not what creationists think.

This is why a criterion is needed which doesn't depend on the beliefs of the person applying it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2006 11:39 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 8 of 40 (352382)
09-26-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mjfloresta
09-26-2006 11:37 AM


My definition for the Kind, as I have oft pointed out, is that individuals of the same kind CAN produce offspring, not that they necessarily will in nature.

But doesn't this make "kind" the same as the biological species concept? --- "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (Ernst Mayr, my italics).

If so, then:

(1) It doesn't solve the Noah's Ark problem.

(2) We don't need a new word for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mjfloresta, posted 09-26-2006 11:37 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mjfloresta, posted 09-26-2006 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 16 of 40 (352465)
09-26-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mjfloresta
09-26-2006 5:52 PM


Your defintion seems at odds with at least one popular brand of creationism. The following is taken from AiG:

Take a hypothetical created kind A—truly a biological ‘species’ with perhaps a tremendous genetic potential. See Figure 1. (For the sake of simplicity, the diagram avoids the issue of what is meant by two of each kind aboard the Ark—however, the basic point is not affected.) Note that A may even continue as an unchanged group, as may any of the subgroups. Splitting off of daughter populations does not necessarily mean extinction of the parent population. In the case of man, the original group has not diverged sufficiently to produce new species.

Hence, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, P1, P2, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 are all different species, reproductively isolated. But all the functionally efficient genetic information they contain was present in A. (They presumably carry some mutational defects as well). *

You see the dodge? By their theory of evolution-but-we-don't-call-it-that, they can have reproductively isolating speciation starting from just one kind.

Other creationist websites I've looked at seem to concur. So mere interbreeding would be a sufficient condition for two animals to be the same kind, but not a necessary condition.

So what is?

You'll notice that the author I reference does not answer that question, preferring to put up a flimsy smokescreen of lies and rhetoric.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mjfloresta, posted 09-26-2006 5:52 PM mjfloresta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ggghg7, posted 12-09-2011 9:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 17 of 40 (352509)
09-26-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mjfloresta
09-26-2006 11:37 AM


On the other hand, the ICR seem to be leaning the other way:

"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances." (ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981)

My italics; so their definition of "kind" is more stringent than yours.

Will the real creationism please stand up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mjfloresta, posted 09-26-2006 11:37 AM mjfloresta has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 19 of 40 (352566)
09-27-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-27-2006 12:18 AM


FSTDT.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-27-2006 12:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RickJB, posted 09-27-2006 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 23 of 40 (621755)
06-28-2011 4:56 PM


Bump
* bump *
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 26 of 40 (621849)
06-29-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 6:33 AM


Re: Define Kind?
That tells me that this particular group of creationists aren't identifying "kinds" with some particular taxonomic rank, but it doesn't tell me how they should in fact be identified.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 6:33 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 29 of 40 (643653)
12-09-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ggghg7
12-09-2011 9:03 PM


Re: Baraminology
Hello,
Perhaps the most specific reference to baraminology (the creation science version of taxonomy) can be found here: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/baraminology.html

Essentially it does seem like a regurgitation of the biological speces concept, but it's an elegant attempt by 'creation scientists.'

Objective Ministries is a parody site, albeit a subtle one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ggghg7, posted 12-09-2011 9:03 PM ggghg7 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 34 of 40 (643825)
12-12-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Bin a long time
For me the solution is simple. I would place creatures of obvious phenotypic similarity into the same Kind ...

But there are lots of obvious phenotypic similarities. Mammals, for example, all have obvious phenotypic similarities, that's what makes us group them together as mammals. At what point would you like to start ignoring the similarities (and, apart from being a creationist, why)?

This would allow for the diversity created by simple speciation, without requiring the problematic increase in genetic complexity which, as we all know, has never been observed or documented.

Polymer-metabolising microbes not withstanding, of course.

If you wish to be wrong about this, start a new thread or revive an old one where it's on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 5:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019