Two animals belong to the same kind if their genetic differences can be attributed to simple genetic recombination. If their genetic differences extend beyond what recombination alone is capable of doing, then we know that they are not of the same kind.
Congratulations: by this definition there is then only one "kind" -- life.
quote: I am arguing that natural selection played no substantial role in the origin or modification of any of these morphologies. I do not exclude the possibility that once the morphologies had been established, selection (including natural selection) may have determined which morphologies became extinct and which did not.
to be situating intrabaraminc differences at the detail that Gould gave to the “morphologies” in the Burgess Shale http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html number 6 . One has to notice that Gould had written this book Wonderful Life (Google Books) as a change from a cone of increasing diversity to a large morphological basis to start (the 90s) with (this does not incorporate what I can cognize between differences of cones and ladders). It appears to me that Wise is using a 90s version rather than a 70s one of form.
This would not seem to permit *any* kind of recombination (for whatever the phenotypes mean genetically) if by that one has had the idea that a point mutation change does not change-the information- (whatever the information is here) content of gene based on bits for interbaramin differences. Perhaps you could say further what you mean by recombination. Croizat (character)recombination is not genetic recombination even though one might think back to that. What is the semantic information value that divides inter and intra baraminic differenes??
If there are numbers of baramins or kinds as Equinox proposes to start this thread @ some kind of magnitude (and any extreme coincidence excluded) then bits could be a way to measure something about em…
quote: In fact, generalizing these observations to all organisms, natural selection acting on mutations is an unlikely mechanism for the origin of biological form throughout the young-age creation model (see Wood 2005, for examples in the Galápagos Islands). The intrabaraminic changes which are evidenced in the fossil record (e.g. for the horses: Cavanaugh, et al. 2003) – and suggested by interspecific hybridization – involve morphologies very, very far outside the range of variation observed in modern organisms (as the morphologies of modern organisms are outside the range of variation observed in the older fossil organisms). And, given the highly infrequent and usually detrimental nature of phenotypically expressed mutations, as well as the complex nature of many of these past morphological characters, it is unlikely that any of these morphologies arose by mutation. Finally, even if the morphology were to arise in one member of the population, natural selection fixes that morphology only by differential death. This incurs a death load on the population, making it impossible to fix such a trait very rapidly (Haldane’s dilemma). Especially in the light of the abbreviated time scale of the young-age creation model, Haldane’s dilemma makes it unlikely to impossible that natural selection is responsible for fixing much or most of the realized biological forms in earth history. It is more likely that the only substantial role natural selection plays is the elimination of deleterious mutations (i.e. minimizing mutation’s damage in a fallen world).
It is crucial how one ‘reads’ the word “outside” here. Is this ‘outside ‘ a 70s or 90s consciousness of fossil and forms?? Is this a bottom heavy or not?