Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, dwise1, ringo (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,704 Year: 16,740/19,786 Month: 865/2,598 Week: 111/251 Day: 64/24 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 31 of 450 (538259)
12-04-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
12-04-2009 9:38 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
Link to ICZN:

http://www.iczn.org/

Link to ICBN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBN

I'm not sure how cladistics is going to bear on taxonomy. That's something that I haven't done much research on. DNA testing is the way of the future, I believe, for both plants and animals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2009 9:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM penstemo has responded

    
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 32 of 450 (538261)
12-04-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by penstemo
12-04-2009 10:10 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
From a brief read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon

I don't believe cladistics is going to have much effect at the species level and the next two higher taxonomic ranks- genus and family. But at the higher levels of class, phylum etc. it probably will be important. Field botanists like myself work at the lower levels- species, genus, and family- and leave the higher levels to the so-called experts who often disagree. That's why I think DNA testing will be important in sorting out some, if not all, taxonomic problems.

Edited by penstemo, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:10 PM penstemo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 11:38 PM penstemo has not yet responded

    
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 33 of 450 (538266)
12-04-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by penstemo
12-04-2009 10:41 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
Some clarification why I don't think cladistics is going to have much effect on lower taxonomic levels. Plants in a single genus usually have a close phylogenetic relationship, i. e. they evolved from a common ancestor. Plants in a single family usually have a close phylogenetic relationship, i. e. they evolved from a common ancestor. So it seems to me that this is consistent with cladistics.

I offer the following quote from Wikipedia in support of the above statements. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics)

Since the early 20th century, Linnaean taxonomists have generally attempted to make at least family- and lower-level taxa (i.e. those regulated by the codes of nomenclature) monophyletic.

A monophyletic group is one which evolved from a common ancestor. Thus we see that under the Linnaean system of taxonomy a basis for a cladistic interpretation is in place at the lower taxonomic levels, although there are probably some exceptions.

Despite the growing popularity of cladistics, the traditional Linnaean
system is not likely to be replaced in the near future.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode

Edited by penstemo, : More info added

Edited by penstemo, : Added more info


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM penstemo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 8:06 AM penstemo has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 34 of 450 (538459)
12-07-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by penstemo
12-04-2009 11:38 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
Despite the growing popularity of cladistics, the traditional Linnaean system is not likely to be replaced in the near future.

I disagree. There are already university's that teach Linnaean classification only as a historical interest. Plus pretty much all recently published classifications use cladistic approaches.

At the Genus-species level, it'll continue, above that it's already broken down. A fixed number of named ranks simply doesn't make sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 11:38 PM penstemo has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 35 of 450 (539991)
12-21-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
11-28-2009 3:02 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
Hi Razd - I have finally been able to spend some time on this and post a response. I also found several other threads on similar subjects and have read through them. So here are my thoughts, observations, ponderings, questions, etc.:

First of all, I see defining a species is very subjective and difficult to nail down precisely, since there is no one "perfect" rule to apply. It seems to me that it is important define species accurately and with a fair amount of precision. Someone commented that species is the only thing that matters in an ecosystem, but a deeper, more accurate understanding of species and what makes them different would help us understand how life has developed and why.


{ramble}
Wouldn't it be easier to use genetics to define a species similar to the morphological definition, as "a population of individual organisms with 99% identical DNA" for instance?
What about: "a species is a population of individual organisms with similar hereditary traits in common, separated from other species by different hereditary traits and biological barriers preventing breeding."
In both cases it comes down to how much needs to be the same and how much needs to be different to differentiate one species from another.
{/ramble}

I wasn't sure what you were meaning by this (the {ramble} part made it confusing what your intention was), but yeah, maybe in some ways it would be more accurate to classify organisms that way, although the amount of work involved would certainly not make it "easier". And, as you pointed out, it still comes down to subjectivity - "how much needs to be the same and how much needs to be different?"


We also see with horses, donkeys and zebras, that there is a genetic barrier to hyridization that has occurred since they separated from a common ancestor, one that results in infertile or poorly fertile offspring that most ofted die without reproducing, thus demonstrating genetic reproductive isolation being acquired.


That is similar to the genetic species concept in Message 1, using one specific gene. I think I'd want to do some kind of cladistic analysis of more units, perhaps at a chromosome level, and then focus on the one showing the most difference to provide the cutoff information.
This would have to be done first for species that are closely related but just not breeding compatible -- horses/zebra/donkey and whitetail/mule deer -- to see what a genetic level of difference was necessary.

This hasn't been done? Kinda surprising that it hasn't.

Obviously, the fossil record becomes even more imprecise and speculative and subject to error.


Part of the problem is the degree of dis-similarity that can occur in a species, whether you are a lumper or a splitter, and how good the evidence. Add the ego-boost of being able to describe a new species fossil for the first time, and you can see that defining species for fossils can be a problem.

Not that this is definitively wrong, we need to be able to categorize them in some way - in the best way we know how. But there are just too many unknowns in the fossil record to be certain that species are categorized correctly. For example, the marsupial flying squirrel and the placental squirrel example you gave me. If fossils were found of these animals they would most likely be considered very similar animals. Like wise the Tasmanian wolf and common grey wolf would be thought to be very close cousins. However, we know they are very different animals. Similarly, if fossils for a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua were found they would certainly be classified as quite unrelated, however we know them to be of the same species. (maybe Saint Bernard and Chihuahua aren't great examples because I can't imagine them actually breeding in the wild - or in captivity for that matter ) But, if these types of situations could be known in the fossil record, it would quite probably completely uproot the entire evolutionary tree, or at least break some major branches. I know that this a "what if" situation and not something we can plausibly test because soft tissue is rarely preserved and we have virtually no way of knowing for sure whether fossilized species were reproductively isolated or not. But, never-the-less, I see it as a real possibility that there would be many such instances. There is just too much we can't know about the fossil record.

Secondly, I realized that I was actually trying to define "kind" and I now see that it is just not that simple. Our observations in nature don't seem to match up to any idea of a kind. But I am thinking it is important how we classify organisms.

I see you are a fan of cladistic classification. Doesn't this system assume common ancestry? What I mean is you may have sufficient evidence that a horse and a zebra have a common ancestor, but is there that degree of certainty for all known species. Where would you put species that were uncertain? Would they be left out or placed in an approximate or assumed clade? Would it be noted that they were uncertain until sufficient evidence was presented? I do need to have a better understanding of cladistics, so I'm not drawing conclusions, just questioning.

A newer system of classification I found some information on is Baraminology. You probably have already looked at it and drawn your own conclusions but here is the link:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

It is a system of classification that some are trying to develop. It is highly criticized and considered to be junk science. But, all the criticism I read was in regard to their conclusions and starting assumptions not the actual data or the "science" they were doing. This is a very new line of research and I would think it should be given a chance, unless there are fundamental flaws in how they do the research.

This quote:

quote:
Some creationists have tried to reprove me for accepting too much evolution. To this I can only respond with the results of my research. I have no preconceived notion of how much evolution could or could not occur. In fact, when I began baraminology research, I expected to find very narrow baramins, at most a few genera in each. I could not find evidence to support that view, so I changed my position. If future work showed discontinuity at the level of genus or even species, I would accept that result also. On the other hand, if I found continuity between different mammalian orders, I would accept that result.

http://www.creationresearch.org/.../43/43_3/baraminology.htm

gives some degree of confidence that they are willing to base their conclusions on the data and not pre-conceived notions (whether they do what they say is another matter). You could say that they believe in creation is a pre-conceived notion. But I would also include that I feel evolutionists base their conclusions on the fact that they believe evolution to be true. Its all a matter of perspective - but, I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

Their research has confirmed equid fossil series is a legitimate example of species evolution. This is a series that creationists have long been critical of. They have also verified the evolution of the subtribe Flaveriinae. The problem is that he interprets both cases as post-flood diversification. So not only did he say the "f" word, but the biblically implied <6000 years since the flood is considered insufficient for such evolution to occur. First of all, I personally am not convinced that the bible really says that the flood occurred <6000 years ago, but that is the position of most creationists. But that too is a different discussion. And secondly, the possible explanation for the rapid transformation of C3 to C4 photosynthesis that was presented was that the information for the C4 pathway was already contained in the DNA code and was turned on like a switch by some stimulus. This makes much more sense to me personally than gradualism. I would like to discuss this idea a bit later. Here is a quote from Woods:

quote:

Related to accepting "too much evolution" is the objection that there is no mechanism capable of producing intrabaraminic diversity in the short chronology (<6000 years) implied by the Bible. I agree completely (Wood, 2002b; Wood and Murray, 2003), but I do not believe that this is a legitimate argument against baraminology. Demanding a mechanism seems to be a prerequisite for acceptance among scientists, but it is not always necessary or even prudent.

A mechanism for Darwin's theories was not known for what, 50 years after his publication of Origin of Species, when DNA was discovered. Yet his theories weren't arbitrarily thrown out.

So, could you give me a brief overview of your opinion of Baraminology and an idea of where I can find some objective information on the subject? One problem with the debate between creation and evolution is it is so polarizing. There just doesn't seem to be a neutral side. It's one or the other.

Anyway, I think it is good and beneficial to our understanding of life that we are exploring different ways of classifying and identifying organisms. With our ever increasing understanding of how complex and interconnected life is, we need better and more accurate ways to identify, at the very basic level, species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 3:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 12-21-2009 1:36 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 12:28 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2009 1:12 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 36 of 450 (539998)
12-21-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by herebedragons
12-21-2009 12:23 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
But there are just too many unknowns in the fossil record to be certain that species are categorized correctly. For example, the marsupial flying squirrel and the placental squirrel example you gave me. If fossils were found of these animals they would most likely be considered very similar animals. Like wise the Tasmanian wolf and common grey wolf would be thought to be very close cousins. However, we know they are very different animals.

This is completely untrue. Any trained palaeontologist could easily distinguish a marsupial from a placental mammal because they don't look at crude morphology but at much more taxonomically useful features such as the structure of bones in the skull and the teeth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by herebedragons, posted 12-21-2009 12:23 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 12-21-2009 6:44 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 10:29 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 37 of 450 (540040)
12-21-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
12-21-2009 1:36 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
Yes, Mr.Jack, I am sure they could and I certainly didn't mean to imply that a trained palaeontologist couldn't do their job. But those particular examples are modern specimens and I wasn't meaning that we find modern specimens that we know what the differences in structures should be. I was using it as an example of the information that is missing from the fossil record. Scientists regularly debate as to how to classify a fossil specimen and often ultimately disagree. It is not easy to classify fossils for the very reason I cited - missing information. But your point about not just looking a crude morphology was well taken.

Thanks

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 12-21-2009 1:36 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 38 of 450 (540120)
12-22-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
12-21-2009 1:36 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
Mr. Jack, I have some more evidence to support my statement.

quote:
If the bones of a fossil animal are the same as those of an extant form classified as a marsupial, then one can confidently classify the fossil type as a marsupial. But such is not the case when a fossil form is now extinct. R. A. Barbour, an expert on marsupial anatomy, says "the marsupial skeleton is essentially mammalian and has few unique features present in all species."

Even among living mammals, traits typical of marsupials are not found in every kind of marsupial ... Therefore, when we look at the fossil remains of an extinct animal, we cannot be certain the bones in question are those of a marsupial. Even on the basis of soft anatomy, Marsupialia is a rather poorly defined category ... And yet, when remains of extinct mammals are discovered in regions where marsupials predominate today (e.g., Australia and New Guinea), or are assumed to have predominated in times past (South America), it is often assumed the fossils in question are those of marsupials. Mammalian specimens found outside those regions are typically categorized as placental.

(edited for length)


http://www.macroevolution.net/marsupials.html

Again, my primary point was the difficulty of categorizing extint fossil specimens accurately. So, clearly, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the fossil record.

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 12-21-2009 1:36 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 10:49 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 39 of 450 (540123)
12-22-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by herebedragons
12-22-2009 10:29 AM


Quality sources
Please use credible sources as opposed to crank websites.

I particular like the way your source neatly elides the difference between "few" and none, and the differences common to all marsupials and features that can be used to distinguish marsupials - that quality quote mining.

Again, my primary point was the difficulty of categorizing extint fossil specimens accurately. So, clearly, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the fossil record.

Yes, there's a large amount of uncertainty in the fossil record, but let's not exagerate the kind of uncertainty or the nature of that uncertainty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 10:29 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 2:50 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 40 of 450 (540133)
12-22-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by herebedragons
12-21-2009 12:23 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
Hi, Herebedragons.

I don't think I ever welcomed you to EvC. So, welcome to EvC!

It's good to read true open-mindedness for a change!

HBD writes:

First of all, I see defining a species is very subjective and difficult to nail down precisely, since there is no one "perfect" rule to apply.

On this, I agree. There is a fair amount of subjectivity involved in biological classification, no matter which system you use.

-----

HBD writes:

It seems to me that it is important define species accurately and with a fair amount of precision.

On this, my agreement is not so strong. As an entomologist, it irritates me to no end that many people with advanced degrees in entomology do not know how to distinguish families or even orders of insects from one another, and I am a strong proponent of requiring insect taxonomy for all aspiring entomologists.

However, as an ecologist, I also do not deal directly with taxonomy on a frequent basis, beyond identifying small arthropods under a microscope. In ecology, the only purpose in classifying organisms is the organization of biological information so that we can generate predictions that help in testing our hypotheses. In the end, classification only needs to be precise enough that we can predict which groups of organisms can serve as models for our predictions about the behavior and function of other organisms, and so we can predict which hypotheses apply to which organisms.

Within phylogenetics, the point of classification is to uncover the history and principles of the evolution of life. But, all biologists acknowledge that this is not really a means of objectively delineating the boundaries between species or other organisms. Quite the contrary, in fact: if phylogenetics has taught us anything, it is that such boundaries simply do not exist. That is why our attempts to classify are inevitably saturated with subjectivity: because the entire concept of categorization is itself subjective, and does not actually represent the reality of the situation.

-----

HBD writes:

A newer system of classification I found some information on is Baraminology.

“Baraminology” is actually just a new name for the oldest system of classification that exists. The concept is essentially identical to the concept used by Linnaeus: it groups things according to patterns in morphology, then groups those groups according to coarser patterns.

The only difference is that baraminology asserts that there will eventually be found a point beyond which groups cannot be combined together into larger groups, and the primary thrust of baraminology is to identify these points of distinction.

My complaint with this field of study is that valid, empirical reasons for suspecting the existence of such breaks have never been presented, and so, the entire field of baraminology can be summarily defined as the search for something that we have no reason to suspect even exists.

As a lifelong Christian, I would be very interested if such data were uncovered, but I cannot honestly characterize the basis of the field of baraminology as anything greater than wishful thinking, so I am required by my personal sense of integrity to reject it as a legitimate academic pursuit. Maybe the future will change my mind, I'm not sure, but my skepticism for that is currently very high.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by herebedragons, posted 12-21-2009 12:23 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2009 2:21 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 41 of 450 (540155)
12-22-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
11-28-2009 3:02 PM


Re: for herebedragons - speciation, definition first, discussion second
Belief that the term species and other taxonomic categories represent real distinctions in nature and not just subjective divisions for human convenience is difficult to pin down and defend with any certainty.
quote:
the apparent need for a pluralistic species concept raises the question of whether there is indeed anything "real" about species. If different examples of species require different causes and different definitions, then maybe our intuition that "a species is a species is a species" is misleading. It may be just an arbitrary convenience after all, and we should be separately distinguishing "phenetic species" and "reproductive isolation species" and "mate recognition species".and "ecological species" and "cladistic species" without any implication that they are all, somehow, the same thing.

http://www.zoology.siu.edu/king/304/species.htm#15.3

Although the most popular and widely excepted definition seems to be the Biological species concept,

This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

but both speciation and reproductive isolation remain problematic issues. "Reproductive isolation", widely considered an essential ingredient in defining the word species, is itself vaguely and inconsistently defined. Exactly when does reproductive isolation occur? what are the actual mechanisms that bring it about? is geographic isolation enough to develop reproductive isolation? what does “potentially” interbreeding individuals actually mean? etc. Truly “reproductive isolation” is quite ill defined.

quote:
"Despite more than a century of deliberation on the origin of species, evolutionary biologists remain undecided as to the mechanisms by which reproductive isolation is generated. Whether geographic isolation, or allopatry, is a prerequisite to speciation has been hotly debated ..., and there is is not even consensus as to the nature of the reproduction isolation that accumulates in allopatric populations" (Zoology 304)

Then throw into the mix hybridization. If you fail to observe interbreeding in a given case, is it safe to assume there no members of the population that do not interbreed? It is possible that interbreeding does occur at some place other than what has been observed or that it may occur at some other time? There are numerous cases of forms that are treated as separate species and were not previously known to hybridize but are now know to do so.

Some examples here:
http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html

The author gave an analogy that I think clearly illustrates the problem and also the problem of presupposing or historically considering a form to be a separate species despite there ability to interbreed as are the Spanish sparrow (P. hispaniolensis) and the house sparrow [P. domesticus].

quote:
If it were widely supposed that an animal could not be a dog if it had fleas, then it would be hard to show that dogs often do have fleas. For suppose everyone agreed a particular animal was a dog and someone subsequently discovered that it had fleas. The discovery would be to no avail because as soon as it was announced everyone would say "That is not a dog! Dogs do not have fleas!" Since in everyone's estimation the animal would no longer be a dog, everyone would be free to go on believing dogs do not have fleas. Such would be the case even if most, or even all unexamined dogs were heavily infested with fleas. (Eugene M. McCarthy, Ph.D.)

It seems to me the concept of species is very illusive and there is no “one size fits all approach”. In addition, I’m not sure it has any value in the real world other than for our convenience in discussing different animals. IOW when I say ‘zebra’ you know I am talking about an animal that lives in Africa and has black and white stripes and when I say ‘horse’ you know I am talking about a domesticated animal that is primarily used for human recreation. Whether they are clearly distinct species may be irrelevant. The problem with a statement like that, from an evolutionist’s point of view, is that if a species distinction is irrelevant, that kinda makes speciation irrelevant too, since after speciation occurs the results would be irrelevant.

penstemo writes:
DNA testing is the way of the future, I believe, for both plants and animals.

I have been doing some reading about DNA sequence analysis and feel there is a lot of promise to resolve some of these problems and give us a clearer picture of lineage and thus history, but I have a feeling evolutionists (specifically gradualists) and creationists alike are going to be disturbed by the results. Any other input on DNA sequencing would be helpful as I know very little about the terminology or theory behind it.

Good Day All


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 3:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2009 12:44 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 450 (540157)
12-22-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
12-22-2009 12:28 PM


Baraminology
“Baraminology” is actually just a new name for the oldest system of classification that exists. The concept is essentially identical to the concept used by Linnaeus: it groups things according to patterns in morphology, then groups those groups according to coarser patterns.

The only difference is that baraminology asserts that there will eventually be found a point beyond which groups cannot be combined together into larger groups, and the primary thrust of baraminology is to identify these points of distinction.


Actually baraminology seeks to justify the biblical concept of kinds, and to make it sound scientific at the same time.

It is not a field of research because no conclusions can be arrived at other than those specified in scripture. It is pure religious apologetics.

An example: From "Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms," by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and which appears on the christiananswers.net website.

quote:
Guidelines

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. ...



Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 12:28 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 3:20 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 5:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 43 of 450 (540167)
12-22-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
12-22-2009 10:49 AM


Re: Quality sources

Please use credible sources as opposed to crank websites.
I particular like the way your source neatly elides the difference between "few" and none, and the differences common to all marsupials and features that can be used to distinguish marsupials - that quality quote mining.

My apologies, Mr. Jack, but what consitutes a "credible" source as opposed to a "crank website"? I am avoiding "creationist" sites as they are "crank" or "bogus". But this was not a creationist site. I don't believe I quoted anything out of context. I did edit some content because I felt it was unnecessary to the discussion and sorta lengthy. So I don't see how I am guilty of quote mining. I looked over the entire site, and the author appeared to be credible, at least as credible as I could determine. So what is a "credible" source? Does it have to agree with popular or prevalent ideas?

I will concede the point regarding distinguishing marsupials, as it is actually irrelevant to the disscussion, but would like clarification on "credible". I am trying to be a responsible and thoughtful part of this forum and don't feel that I am just spouting nonsense that is "cut and pasted from creationist propaganda".

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 10:49 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 5:17 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 44 of 450 (540174)
12-22-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
12-22-2009 2:21 PM


Re: Baraminology

It is not a field of research because no conclusions can be arrived at other than those specified in scripture. It is pure religious apologetics.

Thanks Coyote, but thats the criticsm I've already heard. I don't think scripture puts a huge "restaint" on the research though as there are very few "types" actually described. That man is a seperate "type" seems to be the most problamatic for evolutionists. I was hoping there would be something a bit more condemning, like "they don't wear gloves when they handle evidence." lol

The scripture only sets the outer boundaries, not the entire realm of possible conclusions they could arrive at. So I'm not sure it's fair to say "no conclusions" because scripture really doesn't draw too many conclusions on it's own. For instance, the horse evolution series and the subtribe Flaveriinae both confirmed evolution. I'm sure many a creationist will be uneasy about those conclusions.

Creationists are constantly being asked to define what a "kind" is. I personally am not sure it is really necessary or practical or maybe even possible, but if a group of creationists are attempting to come up with a definition, maybe their work should be based on the data, not on the fact they are trying to define "kind".

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2009 2:21 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2009 3:57 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 12-22-2009 5:50 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 450 (540184)
12-22-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by herebedragons
12-22-2009 3:20 PM


Re: Baraminology
Creationists are constantly being asked to define what a "kind" is. I personally am not sure it is really necessary or practical or maybe even possible, but if a group of creationists are attempting to come up with a definition, maybe their work should be based on the data, not on the fact they are trying to define "kind".

If creationists are trying to define "kind" they first need to determine whether they are trying to arrive at a scientific definition or one that must agree with scripture above all.

If it is the latter case, then they are doing religious apologetics, not science.

They can only claim to be doing science if they follow the scientific method and accept the results, whether or not those results agree with scripture.

The method determines which of these two fields of endeavor is being practiced.

When one is required to conform to scripture one is doing religious apologetics--the exact opposite of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2009 3:20 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019