Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 136 of 425 (540472)
12-25-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
12-25-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Kind
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
A pangolin, is a anteater kind.
Anteaters are xenarthrans.
Pangolins are not xenarthrans. They are more like carnivorans (cats, dogs, bears, seals and weasels), so if you want to group them anywhere, that's where you should group them.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 9:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 137 of 425 (540478)
12-25-2009 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
12-25-2009 9:50 AM


Re: Kind
Hi, ICANT
ICANT writes:
caffeine writes:
There is a big problem with defining kinds this way, just by using their common names.
Why?
Why? What is the following insect: a june bug, a love bug or a boxelder bug?
It depends on who you ask. However, all three of those names refer to multiple types of insects. The "june bug" is actually a species of beetle. The "love bug" is a species of fly. The above is a boxelder bug.
However, some people still call it a "love bug" or a "june bug." So, if I started talking about june bugs, I would be referring to a beetle, but my wife would think I was talking about a boxelder bug. A systematic naming system, such as is used by scientists, alleviates this problem.
-----
Here is a picture of not a blue jay:
This is a scrub jay. The real blue jay is not native to the western United States. Westerners all think I was named after the blue bird pictured above, when in fact, I was named after the real blue jay, which they have never seen before.
That's why you don't use common names in classification: it's imprecise. So, you soon find yourself not recognizing certain distinctions (e.g. between pangolins and anteaters), and you don't work hard to put things exactly.
Edited by Bluejay, : My boxelder bug picture didn't show.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 9:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 138 of 425 (540479)
12-25-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
12-25-2009 10:02 AM


Keeping track of the monkeys.
ICANT writes:
Squirrel monkeys are of the monkey kind.
So should capuchins be able to interbreed with squirrel monkeys, since they're both of the monkey kind? Or are they of different kinds now? Do mean to say that since capuchins and squirrel monkeys are both of the monkey kind that therefore there only had to be one pair of monkeys on the Ark, representing all of the monkey kind? That would also mean that every monkey on the planet, no matter how different, would have descended in the last 4000 years from just one single pair.
In other words, this guy:
looked just like these guys:
as well as these guys:
just 4000 years ago or so? They would have to be, since you're saying that they're all of the monkey kind.
Or would you tell me just what it means to be of the monkey kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 10:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 139 of 425 (540480)
12-25-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
12-25-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Kind
A Okapi, is a giraffe kind.
So, why does it not resemble a giraffe? Giraffes have long ass necks and are orange/yellow with brown spots. Seems like the Okapi changed quite a bit, eh? Why? How?
A pangolin, is a anteater kind.
What about an Armadillo? Still an anteater kind as well? Why did an anteater get armor in the case of the pangolin? Seems like a pretty far reaching thing to have happened in 4000 years, don't you? If god made them a certain way, why did nature see fit to give them armor?
An armadillo Girdled lizard, as the name implies is a lizard kind.
If god made lizards, why did nature give this one armor? Shouldn't, then, all lizards have armor like this one?
May pasta be with you

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 9:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 140 of 425 (540547)
12-26-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 7:41 AM


hooah212002 writes:
So you know more about genetics than geneticists? Ever heard of the Human Genome Project?
im not claiming to know more then them, of course not.
But science is not the ultimate truth. They have been wrong about things in the past so i think its wise to take what they say with a grain of salt.
their research into genes has shown that all people are decended from one pair and they give certain dates for when these ancestors lived but is their calculation accurate??? Can you be sure they are 100% accurate in their dates??
personally, I dont think they can be and for this reason i remain doubtful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 7:41 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2009 2:22 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 141 of 425 (540549)
12-26-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Nuggin
12-20-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Kind
Nuggin writes:
You asked ME to define "kind" because you were unwilling to do so. Therefore, since I am the sole arbiter of "kind", I determine what IS or IS NOT a member of which "kind".
You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".
the point about the genesis 'kind' is that it is refering to 'interfertility'
if a gernsey and a herford can breed, according to Genesis, they are the same kind.
its that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 11:01 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 6:35 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 142 of 425 (540550)
12-26-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by bluescat48
12-20-2009 11:24 AM


bluescat48 writes:
Except that Mitochondial Eve was not the earliest, female ancestor, just the most recent, common female ancestor.
if you believe humans evolved from lower life forms, i guess so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by bluescat48, posted 12-20-2009 11:24 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 6:36 AM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 143 of 425 (540551)
12-26-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Peg
12-26-2009 6:21 AM


Re: Kind
the point about the genesis 'kind' is that it is refering to 'interfertility'
if a gernsey and a herford can breed, according to Genesis, they are the same kind.
its that simple.
It really isn't.
There are seagulls represent ring species. The ones which live close to one another can breed. The ones other the opposite ends of the range can not breed.
Are they one kind? Two? 15?
Obviously, a couple of goat herders who've never been more than a days walk from their village can't possibly know that gulls living in Nova Scotia can't reproduce with the same species of gull living in Greece. So the RATIONAL answer is: "Well the people that made it up don't know as much as we do now. They were wrong."
Some how, though, I don't think "they were wrong" is going to be your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 6:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 7:24 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 144 of 425 (540552)
12-26-2009 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Peg
12-26-2009 6:23 AM


if you believe humans evolved from lower life forms, i guess so.
Sort of like "believing" that gravity is the force which attracts two masses toward one another.
Or believing that fire puts off heat as a by product of combustion.
These aren't really things that require belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 6:23 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 145 of 425 (540555)
12-26-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-22-2009 5:01 AM


JumpedupChimp writes:
If you think that all species or "kinds" were created entirely independently, then presumably a penguin is not related in any way to an ostrich. So what does it mean to classify either of them as a "bird"?
Well to answer your question its important to note that the bible doesnt classify animals into groups, it mentions kinds in the general sense.
eg
"living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind"
"the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth"
"the great sea monsters ...which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds/genus"
"every winged flying creature according to its kind/genus"
What genesis shows is that many 'kinds' of animals were created. Not just one type/variety of bird, but different varieties of birds. The ones that are of the same 'kind' or variety are the ones that can interbreed and multiply.
And according to RADZ 'definition of species' thread, the definition of a 'species' is:
"a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
This would be in harmony with the Genesis 'kind'
JumpedupChimp writes:
So what does it mean to classify either of them as a "bird"? Is a penguin not more similar to a seal than it is to an ostrich or a robin?
I can only speculate here, but can a penguin and an ostrich reproduce? If not, they are a different genesis 'kind'
That is how I understand it to be. As i said, Gensis does not classify animals into groups in the way scientists do today so its impossible for me to give specifics, but it does classify them into 5 broard categories:
1. sea creatures
2. winged creatures
3. domestic animal
4. wild beast
5. human
in terms of humans, an asian and an african have many differences, but they can reproduce...this would mean they are of the same genesis kind.
it would be the same for other animals...tigers and lions are normally considered to be two different species, but the fact that they can reproduce shows that they must have come from the same kind at some point in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-22-2009 5:01 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 10:56 AM Peg has replied
 Message 330 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-04-2010 4:41 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 146 of 425 (540557)
12-26-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Nuggin
12-26-2009 6:35 AM


Re: Kind
Nuggin writes:
There are seagulls represent ring species. The ones which live close to one another can breed. The ones other the opposite ends of the range can not breed.
Are they one kind? Two? 15?
i think this has more to do with modern definitions, and the way evolutionists have determined what a species is, rather then what a genesis 'kind' is.
I've said previously that genetics can send animals into different directions...for example genetics have produced many varieties of dog...but all the varieties are still dogs, right?
With regard to ring species, my personal opinion is that its genetics that causes the phenomenon rather then a new species of bird being created but again it depends on what the modern definition for species really means....some will say that a doberman and a terrier are different species whereas i'd call it a variety within a 'kind' or 'species' (and even then i'm not sure if species is the right word)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 6:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 12-26-2009 11:25 AM Peg has replied
 Message 150 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 1:50 PM Peg has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 147 of 425 (540562)
12-26-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
12-25-2009 10:02 AM


Fully formed and fully grown my ass
ICANT writes:
Each was created fully functional and full grown.
Answers in Genesis had this to say:
From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would ensure continuity and stability for the times to come.
Ridiculous. Continuity and stability are ensured by life's ability to adapt. This notion of things appearing "fully functional and full grown" is simply ludicrous, and there has been no evidence presented here or anywhere else to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 10:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 148 of 425 (540563)
12-26-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Peg
12-26-2009 7:09 AM


That is how I understand it to be. As i said, Gensis does not classify animals into groups in the way scientists do today so its impossible for me to give specifics, but it does classify them into 5 broard categories:
1. sea creatures
2. winged creatures
3. domestic animal
4. wild beast
5. human
This would be exactly what one would expect primitive men to postulate since they had no knowledge of animal relationships and could only go on certain external characteristics. Since that time there has been much work on relationships among animals. The bronze age listing are totally worthless in regards to the animals' relationships. ie: there is no separation between wild oxen and domestic oxen, the wild oxen were domesticated by men. All winged creatures aren't related, nor are all sea creatures related. One must realize that the men who first told these stories had limited knowledge of anything outside the Fertile Crescent and North Africa. Their stories show this.
Edited by bluescat48, : sp

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 7:09 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 8:43 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 149 of 425 (540567)
12-26-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Peg
12-26-2009 7:24 AM


Re: Kind
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
With regard to ring species, my personal opinion is that its genetics that causes the phenomenon rather then a new species of bird being created...
So, what's the difference between genetically-caused reproductive isolation and speciation?
Just in case you didn't know, "genetically-caused reproductive isolation" is probably one of the most commonly-used definitions of the word "speciation" in scientific circles.
-----
Peg writes:
...but again it depends on what the modern definition for species really means...
Peg, the example of ring species is not a matter of definitions or semantics. It's an actual, natural phenomenon: these are real animals that show gradients of interfertility between populations, not words or viewpoints or interpretations of data!
Do you understand that?
Reproductive isolation is not a clean, clearly-defined thing! herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls cannot interbreed with one another. But, each can interbreed with a series of other species that are not reproductively isolated from one another.
We can't figure out how to distinguish one species of these gulls from another, because, any definition we use will either include some that cannot interbreed, or exclude some that can interbreed, both of which kind of violate our definition of "species" and your definition of "kind."
It has nothing to do with definitions!

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 7:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 150 of 425 (540581)
12-26-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Peg
12-26-2009 7:24 AM


Re: Kind
With regard to ring species, my personal opinion is that its genetics that causes the phenomenon rather then a new species of bird being created but again it depends on what the modern definition for species really means....
Forget the modern definition of species. Let's stick to your definition of "kind".
You said that a "kind" is two animals which can reproduce together.
Imagine we have a ring species of an imaginary species (A "blosort") which stretches across the USA.
The ones in California can breed with the one's in Arizona which can breed with the one's in Texas, etc. All the way to the tip of Maine.
The ones in Maine can't breed with the ones in California (just like other ring species found all over the world).
Now, a volcano erupts and blankets the middle of the country with ash, killing all the Blosorts from Texas through Maryland.
All that is left are the Western Blosorts and the Eastern Blosorts - neither of which can reproduce with the other.
By your definition of "kind" these are now two different "kinds". Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 7:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 8:50 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024