Clades and Kinds

The odds of this are as close to zero as you can get. The paths to get from a specific starting point to a specific ending point that's so different is practically zero. I'm not going to say it can't happen, but I feel confident in saying it won't. It almost certainly wouldn't be called a cow, and it certainly wouldn't be called a bird. It would get a scientific name, and that scientific name would either be what people used, or some common name would be developed. The cow-bird-thing would still be in the same clade as cows, it would belong to the vertebrate clade, the mammal clade, the cattle clade, and quite probably the bird-like cattle clade.

There are two possibilities:
1) There is no evolutionary possible path from current cows to anything even a bit like a bird.If I had to choose I'd say that this is the case but there is no way that I can think of of knowing.That is, the odds are actually zero. Period -- zero.2) There is a path but it has a pretty small but not calculable probability.This is also a "I don't know" path. Again if I had to choose I'd pick an utterly astronomically small likelyhood but still admit it isn't calculable.If it looked just like a bird in all ways then a taxonimist would have nothing to go on to classify it as anything but a bird. However, by the definition of clade (as I understand it) s/he would be wrong.The difference between a creationist's answer to this and that of a biologist now becomes a joke. Who cares if the creationist say chance of the path "theoretically" described is zero and the biologist says it can't happen by normal evolutionary processes in 10 universe lifetimes. The difference between the two views is close enough to zero.However, why make up silly things to discuss?As noted we have real world examples in convergent evolution.♠

That is because you didn't catch the nature of my question, it is in a direct link with the OP in which he asked if we could equate kinds and clades.My question was just to know how far clades can go, and get the whole view of what it is. It isn't as much as is it possible for such and such a thing to happen, but rather if it did happen, how would that affect it's classification.

A simple primer on clades:Take the "tree of life." At the base of every branch is the last common ancestor of all the species attached to it. If you cut the branch at the point it connects to the tree or a bigger branch, you've just cut off a clade. You'll notice, unless you get way out to the tiny branches or leaves, you've got more places you can cut off clades.Each clade encompasses all the branches attached to it, so it's the last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor. As such, there is no way to have a clade where smaller branches are cut off from it. For example, you can't have a clade that encompasses all mammals but not humans, since humans share a common ancestor with other mammals that is more recent than the last common ancestor of the other mammals.

Hi ICANT,I think our disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of what a clade is. All animals belong to multiple clades. To take it to the really absurd extreme, you could say an animal belongs to as many clades as he has ancestors. When evolutionists say that animals speciate, they are not saying that the animal leaves its clade and joins a new one. But it can start a clade inside the old clade.So the first life-form would be the clade, "life". Later on, inside that clade, you'll get clades of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Much further on, the first vertebrates will form a clade inside the eukaryote clade, which is inside the "life" clade. Eventually you'll wind up with the clade "tetrapod", and further down the line we have a clade called mammals. These clades are inside each other. They are subdivisions of the higher clades. So a population of animals may well speciate to form new clades, but they will never leave their old clades, and they will certainly not join another pre-existing clade (like cows becoming birds).That's how you get diversity without crossing clade lines. Now, on to your other questions... We don't know if Neanderthals were able to interbreed with modern humans. As far as I'm aware, DNA tests suggest not. I assume they must have been of a different kind then, despite the fact that they are almost identical to us morphologically?As for my analogy where I used close relatives to represent clades, I only assumed that families could not interbreed to make the analogy as simple as possible. Analogies do not have to be 100% realistic in order to work. Careful now, ICANT. Why would it disprove evolution? Even if God created horses and asses separately, why do mules prove that evolution doesn't take place? Even if you could prove that God created life 6000 years ago, much like it is today, you still wouldn't have shown that evolution doesn't work from that point on. No, it is not meaningless. You may not realize it, but even in your world kinds are clades. Do you, or do you not believe that a few representatives of each kind was aboard the ark? Do you believe that all animals today are descendants of those animals? In that case they are clades. Low-level clades, but clades nonetheless. And this is where evolutionists and creationists agree: "No matter what, the descendants of these kinds will never evolve such that they do not belong to the same clades as their ancestors." Dogs will stay dogs. Cattle will stay cattle. To say that evolution says otherwise is to build a strawman. Actually, what you are describing is magic. If you think this is an example of biological evolution, then you really don't know enough to participate in this thread. Fortunately, I don't think you're being ignorant, you just decided not to take the question seriously.Let's give it one more try:
Could you give me your definition of macro-evolution please? Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen. Aha, now we're getting somewhere. So when a "critter" becomes a "totally different critter" we have macro-evolution. Well, that doesn't happen either. Fish and humans are not "totally different". They share a lot of traits. Slime molds and humans are not totally different.I think you agree with evolutionists a lot more than you think. Your rejection of many of the processes by which evolution does NOT work brings you closer to becoming an evolutionist yourself. Now you just need to figure out how it does work for your "training to be complete".Join the dark side. We get free cookies, or something...God bless you too, ICANT-Meldinoor

Aha. So all members of a kind today do not share a common ancestor on the ark. I guess Bible believing literalists think the flood did not destroy all the rest of the world then. Yes, yes, young apprentice. Continue to agree with evolutionists and to shun mainstream creationist views and together we can rule this forum as evolutionist and evolutionist. Join us! Mohahahahahaha!!!-Meldinoor

slevesque,As I illustrated with my orchard of life analogy, it really does not matter how far back we think clades go. You agree that all members of a kind share ancestry, and that makes them a clade. Descendants of these kinds will remain in the clade, and this is predicted by both evolutionists and creationists.That's all-Meldinoor

Hi Meldinoor, Its a good thing I don't get to grade you on your reading skills.Just in case you was reading too fast I will restate my positionICANT'S position is that every living kind that is present today was on the ark. Young I wish, but at 70 I sure don't feel young.As far as a Bible litteralist there are none I know that are my equal, they probably exist though.Buzzsaw would be the closest and he is not around much anymore.I am old earth creation. As in a lot older than science believes it to be today. Some of the expanding then crunch then expanding hypothesis's get close.ICANT'S position is that the universe has always existed infinitely in all directions in some form.Do I care what mainstream creationist so called believe and preach?Not in the least. I don't have to answer to God for what they teach.I just wish they would teach what the Bible says. Instead of their interpertation of what the Bible says.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."

Then, per definition, a kind is a clade.

Hi Meldinoor, Well the problem there is I don't think or believe God created all life 6,000 years ago.I don't think or believe God created mankind, plants, animals and birds 6,000 years ago.I do believe God created modern man some 6,000+ years ago. The only other creature created at the same time was whales. NoI believe all kinds were on the ark. What I described would be the evolution of metal comparing it to biological evolution.Lead to gold would be called transmutation. The lead ceasing to be one thing and becoming something competely different. They were created by the same entity out of the same materials therefore they should have a lot of things similar. I wonder: SourceDinosaurs can evolve into birds but cows could not evolve into birds.Why is that?If you can't believe its possible for cow's to evolve into birds why do you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds?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."

Hi ICANT,Irony can be so delicious: Exactly what I said A few representatives of EACH kind = ALL KINDS.Now... But it doesn't matter!!! That's what I'm trying to tell you. Kinds will be clades no matter when they were created, or if they evolved. You can call it transmutation if you like, but it has nothing to do with speciation and diversity within life. Indeed. So you agree that they are not completely different. Perhaps you would like to explain how different two hypothetical species must be in order for the one to have "macro-evolved" into the other rather than "micro=evolved"? Birds never stopped being archosaurs. They didn't "evolve away" from it, but merely formed a sub-clade within that clade.Cows can not join the bird clade because they would have to share an ancient bird ancestor with the birds, which they don't. However, in theory, a cow could change into something similar to a bird. It is just extremely unlikely that it will happen. It was very unlikely that dinosaurs would become birds, they could have taken any route, but they had to pick one. Cows could become bird-like, but there are so many other paths to take that it's extremely improbable for them to take that specific route.God Bless,-Meldinoor

More likely you wish they would teach your interpretation of what the bible says.If there was only one "what the bible says" there wouldn't be so many tens of thousands of separate denominations, sects, and branches of Christianity.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi ICANT, I can see you are struggling with this concept, when it is really very simple. If we say there were N kinds on the ark, then this would define N clades that exist today where all modern species can trace their lineage back to an original kind on the ark. Speciation since the ark landed and the animals dispersed would account for the number of species in the world today, but speciation is a branch in a line of descent from a common ancestor. Because the dinosaurs that birds evolved from and mammals are different clades, and you cant evolve back into your ancestry to then go up a different branch, nor can one branch cross over and connect to another branch.What cows could evolve into would be something analogous to a bird, they could become small (like your midget horse?) and then grow a membrane like a flying squirrel, and then take the step to be similar to a bat.They would then be members of the yellow clades below:

 dairy cow -- double udder dairy cow
\
     
midget cow -- flat foor midget cow --|extinct|
\                   \
      
gliding cow        burrowing cow -- otter-like cow
\                   \
        
flying cow          mole-like cow

They would NOT be members of the flat-foot cow clade, although flying cows, burrowing cows and their descendent mole-like cows and otter-like cows would all be members of the midget cow clade and the dairy cow clade.and the end result is that flying cows, mole-like cows and otter-like cows would be noticably different even though they are related by common ancestry. When dinosaurs evolved into birds there were no birds for them to "cross-over" to, rather what they evolved was a system of flight that was analogous - but not identical - to pterosaurs. Those dinosaurs could not evolve into pterosaurs, only something similar in ability for flight.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : pterosaurs

---

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'll make it even easier for you.Some time back a man named Noah had three sons, Ham, Shem and Japhet. Catch us up a few years and we have you and me. I'm clearly a descendent of Ham. As preachy as you are you must be a descendent of Shem.We are both of the Noah clade. I, as a member of the Ham clade, can never ever become a member of the Shem clade, nor you a member of the Ham clade.Now, you and I may be spitting images of each other you poor, poor man but all the convergent morphing in the world can't move back the clock and make either of us a descendent of someone who isn't an ancestor now: discounting magic.AbE: I just noticed that I had replied to Meldnoor instead of ICANT. I know you get it, Meldnoor.And since I'm here:To Coyote: I assumed you were speaking to the masses and took no offense I'm much harder to offend then that (though my need for approbation from my betters is nye on an addiction) I too was speaking for the masses. I'm sure by now you know my stance.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar & header.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

This is an easy problem! Just take some DNA samples and you'll be able to trace your respective ancestries back to the exact Noah kin from whom you are descended. With Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis you should have just eight individuals to choose from!(Except that it doesn't work that way in the real world. The data show that the Noah/eight individuals story is a myth.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.