Clades and Kinds

I think Dr.A put some additional information on the meaning of Clade, and this is where there will be a disagreement.Because in the evolutionnary tree of life, you can always climb further up the tree as to englobe other species, and if you climb al the way up, you get to the base of the tree, where all of life is in the same clade.The difference with the creation point of view, is that it does not consist of a single tree, but of multiple ones that do not interconnect. This is why they often call it a creationist orchard. And so if you climb up one tree, eventually you will get to the base which will englobe all the animal types that are in the same kind/clade. But you will never be able to join all the trees together in the same clade, they will all remain distinct.So in this sense, you are right that if two animals could be traded back to a common ancestor on the ark, they were of the same kind. I find your opening post very accurate in all this.The only place I disagree is at the very end, where cattles grow wings etc. From a creationist perspective, this could never happen. Because although we recognize micro-evolution, we make a distinction between this and macro-evolution. I tried to explain it on another thread, but in brief, macro requires that it is possible to gain information through mutations. If you do not have this in your hypothetical universe, then macro-evolution is impossible. However, even in such a universe, micro would still be possible.

quote:

---

Because although we recognize micro-evolution, we make a distinction between this and macro-evolution. I tried to explain it on another thread, but in brief, macro requires that it is possible to gain information through mutations. If you do not have this in your hypothetical universe, then macro-evolution is impossible. However, even in such a universe, micro would still be possible.

---

So what measure of information are you using ? What are the grounds for saying that creationist macroevolution requires it, and what are the grounds for saying that mutations cannot increase it ?

This "macroevolution" word is not one I am familiar with. Evolution is a very, very gradual process, which takes place over millions and millions of years. In mammals it is imperceptible to us, Progeny resemble their parents. The reason why we can observe bacteria evolving, is that they have a very short lifespan, relative to us.It's like watching the hour hand of a clock: we know it's moving, but we can't see the movement.In an evolutionary sense, all living creatures are "transitional" forms, slowly being modified, as are fossils.Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.Edited by Blzebub, : typoEdited by Blzebub, : No reason given.

But if they did, they'd still be the same "kind", right? Even though you have not explained how to quantify "information" one can easily prove that it is possible to gain information through mutation for any definition of the word "information" such that:* Two identical pieces of DNA contain the same amount of information.* The "null string" consisting of no DNA contains no information.* Some strings of DNA contain information.This is trivial. The fact that it is not obvious to creationists I attribute to their habit of not listening to what they're saying.

I don't want to derail this topic off to another discussion of the word ''information'' and what meaning it can/should/could have. What I can say, is that Shannon information is an incomplete description of the reality of information. I don't really get how you distinguish creationist macroevolution and evolutionist macroevolution, because both are the same. This is maybe one of the few points of agreements, that to go from a unicellular organism up to a microbiologist, addition of information is required no matter how you define 'information'The difference is between creationist view of microevolution and evolutionist view of microevolution. This is were how you define 'information' becomes important, because creationists will argue that micro-evolution is the result of a loss of information, whereas an evolutionist will argue that some microevolution show an increase of information.This is all very debatable, but it is not the focus of this thread. The point is that micro-evolution could happen through a loss of information or a gain of information, whereas macro-evolution requires gain of information. This is the distinction I am trying to make.

quote:

---

I don't want to derail this topic off to another discussion of the word ''information'' and what meaning it can/should/could have. What I can say, is that Shannon information is an incomplete description of the reality of information.

---

I'm not looking for an all-embracing definition. Just to know specifically what this information you are referring to is, and how to work out if it has increased or not.

quote:

---

I don't really get how you distinguish creationist macroevolution and evolutionist macroevolution, because both are the same.

---

No, they aren't. By the standard scientific definition speciation is macroevolution. However many creationists accept that speciation has happened - but call it microevolution. Even the hyper-macroevolution (by evolutionary terms) some creationists believe happened after the Flood is called microevolution, even though it involves the formation of new genera.

quote:

---

This is all very debatable, but it is not the focus of this thread. The point is that micro-evolution could happen through a loss of information or a gain of information, whereas macro-evolution requires gain of information. This is the distinction I am trying to make.

---

That is the creationist definition. The trouble is that "information" seems to be an imaginary quantity used solely to deny evolution.

You are correct that it is heading off topic here but your post shows not the slightest hint that you even read the post you replied to.He was talking about any definition of information that meets the conditions given.You clearly already agree with condition 3. DNA does, to you, contain a thing called information.Which of the other 2 do you disagree with?Does a DNA string of zero length still contain "information" -- however you choose to define it?Do two identical strings of DNA contain different amounts of this "information" thing?Which of them do you disagree with?

Well, if they did, it would falsify the creationist position. Because if that happened, it would mean the ToE is possible.Imagine they developped wings, and then feathers, and then bills, and then an aerial-respiratory system, etc. etc. and in fact its descendants would be what everyone today would call a 'bird'. Would it be rational to still call it the same 'kind' ?Would they be of the same clade as their cattle ancestors ? Are you familiar with Gitt's information theory ?

The misunderstanding here is that I was not replyin to Dr. Adequate's post, but to PaulK's

I am indeed familiar with the ludicrous posturing antics of that particular worthless charlatan. I have debunked his arrant hogwash here.Don't tell me you've fallen for that nonsense. That's just sad.

Yes. It is impossible to "evolve out of" a clade. Once a lineage enters a clade, it is there for ever and ever, amen. Even if we lost all our limbs and rolled on the ground, we'd still be in the primate clade.

What is "macroevolution", other than a lot of very small changes over time? Is it anything else? Is it even a real concept? Isn't the whole thing just known as "evolution"?The "information" gain nonsnse has been covered elsewhere by MRSA acquiring a new gene which SA doesn't have.The "kind" or "species" arguments are just semantics. These are both human constructs: convenient ways for us to classify living things. If one organism changes sufficiently over time such that later generations are reclassified into a new species, it's only because we (taxonomists) choose to reclassify it. IOW, "speciation" is completely arbitrary.

Hi ICANT.Thank you for being the first creationist to provide feedback on this topic. I will try to answer your questions best I can. Spot on. Yup. Yes. This is true by definition. My grandmother and all of her descendants constitute a kind of clade that includes me. Now, if my family was a different species from yours, such that my descendants could not interbreed with yours, it is impossible for any of my descendants to join your family, to cross the clade boundary.However, we may both share a common great-great-great-great grandfather. So we are both a part of the clade that includes him. As you can see, clades are nested inside one another. While my species can never cross over to yours, we're both part of the same clade at a higher level.This is called nesting, and that's why an animal never has to change its clade to "macro-evolve". I think the above quote from Peg will do as an example. Here she (implicitly) defines equines as a "kind". Equines are actually a fine example of a clade. The descendants of horses will always belong to the equine clade. In other words, the fact that equines never become non-equines is not an argument against evolution, and should not be used as such. Indeed. This seems to be one of the few things that creationists agree on. But you can't argue a point based solely on belief. You must have an argument, and the purpose of this thread is to show how at least one common argument against evolution is based on a misconception.Do you understand what I mean when I say that equines will always be equines, just like cetaceans will always be cetaceans, and tetrapods will always be tetrapods? If we agree on this concept, then you should concede that Peg's argument (and all other variations of it) is a lousy argument indeed. If you believe the animals were all on the ark, then getting them to fit is very much your problem. Just wanted to point that out though, I'm sure there's a thread more suitable for a discussion of that issue. Could you define macroevolution please? Do you believe bacteria constitute a single kind? (If they are, then cladistically you might as well make humans and mushrooms the same kind)

Well, given that as you posted before, your side's finest Barimonologists think that the emergence entirely novel biochemical and anatomical structures doesn't consistute a different kind (that'd be those C3 and C4 plants) and that over doubling in size, losing 4 toes, altering the dentition, changing from a browser into a grazer and acquiring specialised energy conservation mechanisms in the leg joints doesn't constitute a different kind (that'd be the transition form Hyracotherium to Equus, I'd say that if your finest Bariminologists count as rational people then we've empirical evidence that, yes, it would.

Hi slevesque, thank you for your contribution. Let's, for the sake of argument, go with your "orchard of life". Feel free to bring out a saw and cut off branches, twigs, section of trunk from the free of life wherever you like, and plant them separately. It won't make a difference to the argument I'm trying to make.Now let's take your tree representing cattle, their relatives and common ancestor. Let's sit down and watch it grow for 30 million years. ................................Ah, that didn't feel too long. Now, let's have a look at your tree. Oh my, it's grown quite a lot, and the branches have really spread out and diversified. But guess what? It's still the same tree. The cattle tree. Are the branches still cattle? You bet! Do they look like cattle did 30 million years ago? Probably not. (Although some branches might have not have diversified as much).They are still the same kind, even if they cruise around in moocedes benz and eat manburgers at the drive-thru. The fact that animals never ever change their kind did not get in the way of evolution.Now, I know your first reaction will be that this is pure speculation. You will tell me that animals can't evolve in this way, or that there's no way to prove that they can. To that I say fine, a topic for a different thread. But that's not what we are discussing. The important thing that I'm trying to show you with my thought experiment is that if evolution does occur, the fact that animals never speciate outside their kinds is not a meaningful argument against it.If you agree with me on that point, then we can finally throw that old argument out the window and laugh together at creationists who continue to use it.