|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: By the definition of "kind" you referred to, any two life forms related by common descent must be in the same "kind". Therefore if all evolution within a "kind" is microevolution ALL evolution is microevolution. That makes the definition pointless - and the argument that macroevolution doesn't happen worthless. So, anyone who wants to use the most common creationist definition of "macroevolution" is implicitly using a definition of "kind" which allows creatures related by common descent to be in different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How is this any different in principle from creationist disagreements? Method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fiver Junior Member (Idle past 4992 days) Posts: 26 From: Provo, UT Joined:
|
quote: The reason why creationists need to have a strict definition is because they are the ones making the claim that we have never observed one "kind" change into another... indeed, that the "kinds" are immutable, and unable to split. Scientists often debate the different definitions of 'species' or 'clade' because they understand this fundamental fact of biology: that all life is in a state of flux, and that the history of life is the story of one species splitting into two, so the boundaries are necessarily often subjective. But having said that, even when considering the myriad of definitions for "species", ALL of them are more strictly defined than the Creationist term "kind", and speciation has been observed in all definitions of "species" which can apply to living animals. Compare this to "kinds", where, as far as any definition of "kinds" go, it could be that all primates are the same "kind" (the Bible doesn't specify).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
There is a Creationist definition of kind, the "baramin". It's just that it produces absurdist theatre when applied to reality, isn't found in the Bible and doesn't actually correspond very well to the common or garden "Kind" used by ignorant Creationists.
I posted a longer piece about it here: The Kind: Comedy Gold. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes: By the definition of "kind" you referred to, any two life forms related by common descent must be in the same "kind". Therefore if all evolution within a "kind" is microevolution ALL evolution is microevolution. I don’t see how this relates. It, in fact, looks like affirming the consequent to me: you went from defining microevolution in terms of kinds to defining kinds in terms of microevolution. The definition I gave---which I feel accurately represents the creationists’ position (an organism* that God made, and all its descendants)---centers on the origin of a lineage, not on the changes within the lineage over time, as the defining characteristic. Any evolution that might happen after God created His archetypal organisms is a peripheral issue to the issue of defining kinds. So, if God created 700 archetypal organisms, then there are 700 kinds, and all organisms can, in principle, be identified with one of these 700 kinds. But, if God created only 1 archetypal organism, then there is only 1 kind. In this case, it does get a bit silly to talk about this as a distinct concept from mainstream evolutionary natural history, but, so what? That doesn’t change the clarity or unambiguity of the term kind: it just makes it usless in practice, not unclearly or ambiguously defined.
*In retrospect, maybe I shouldn’t have singularized this word: I doubt creationists argue that God only made one organism from each kind. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Fiver.
Fiver writes: The reason why creationists need to have a strict definition is because they are the ones making the claim... To make it clear, it is my position that creationists do have a strict definition of kind. -----
Fiver writes: ... they are the ones making the claim that we have never observed one "kind" change into another... indeed, that the "kinds" are immutable, and unable to split. Also to make it clear, I’m pretty sure that---minus the loaded lingo---evolutionists will make this same claim that evolution is cumulative and not saltatory. ----- Scientists often debate the different definitions of 'species' or 'clade' because they understand this fundamental fact of biology: that all life is in a state of flux, and that the history of life is the story of one species splitting into two, so the boundaries are necessarily often subjective.
Fiver writes: But having said that, even when considering the myriad of definitions for "species", ALL of them are more strictly defined than the Creationist term "kind"... I very strongly beg to differ. All descendants of a specific archetype created by God is at least as clear as all descendants of a common ancestor (clade) or a group of organisms that can interbreed (species). If we were there, at the moment of God’s alleged creation, we could very easily identify every single kind as it came off the line. That things have (according to creationists) changed to some degree since that time, such that kinds are not so easy to distinguish anymore, doesn’t mean that the definition of kind lacks clarity or strictness. -----
Fiver writes: ...and speciation has been observed in all definitions of "species" which can apply to living animals. Compare this to "kinds", where, as far as any definition of "kinds" go, it could be that all primates are the same "kind" (the Bible doesn't specify). Again, delimiting the scope of an individual kind is not the same as defining the overall concept of kind. Demarcating the boundaries between species and clades has a history of nebulosity at least as thick as demarcating kinds does, but nobody would say that the definition of clade (all organisms descended from a certain common ancestor) is unclear. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
According to creationist definitions the Herring gull and the Lesser black-backed gull of northern Europe must be separate kinds or evolution is true and the concept of "kinds" is wrong.
The Herring gull ranges west over the North Atlantic where it encounters the almost identical American herring gull. The American herring gull can be found all across northern North America, although there are some differences in apperance from the east of Canada to the west of Alaska. Across the Bering Strait is found the Vega herring gull, and then Birula's gull, Heuglin's gull, the Siberian lesser black-backed gull and finally, back in northern Europe, the Lesser black-backed gull. Where each of these populations meet, there are known to be hybrids, except between the Herring gull and the Lesser black-backed gull. This was formerly known as a ring species. Recent research has shown that during the past ice age the ancestral populations were actually conserved in two different reservoirs further to the south that moved north and re-encountered each other about 10,000 years ago to form the present pole circling population. None of this is a problem for evolution but creationists tend to deny ring species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, I did not define kinds in terms of microevolution, I simply applied your definition. By your definition all descendants of a common ancestor must be in the same kind.
quote: Exactly my point. By that definition a kind CANNOT originate by evolution. The definition rules it out.
quote: You're missing the point. The point is that IF we use your definition of "kind" the common creationist definition of macroevolution is vacuous - and utterly useless. Therefore all those that use that definition are implicitly using another definition of "kind", one which is NOT based on the "kind" originating by divine creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not following your argument, PaulK...
Can you expound on what's wrong with that definition of kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the definition of "kind". What I am saying is that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" (defined in terms of kinds) implicitly uses a different definition of "kind". Therefore we cannot say that all creationists use the definition offered by Bluejay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What I am saying is that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" (defined in terms of kinds) implicitly uses a different definition of "kind". How so? What's different about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, PaulK.
PaulK writes: What I am saying is that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" (defined in terms of kinds) implicitly uses a different definition of "kind". This can't be true. The common creationist definition of macroevolution that you presented in Message 29 is evolution between kinds. In this usage, "macroevolution" cannot specify a definition of kind: it simply uses whatever definition of kind is inserted there. So, it should work equally well, regardless of which definition of kind is used. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But it is obviously true. The definitions do not work together. Using your definition of "kind" this definition of "macroevolution" is an oxymoron. It can't refer to anything. That is pretty obviously not the intent.
quote: No, it only has to work with the definition of "kind" that the user has in mind. And it doesn't work with your definition of "kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It can't define kinds as separate creations. It must allow for "kinds" to share a common ancestor as a logical possibility. If it does not, that definition of "macroevolution" is self-contradictory and ALL evolution is microevolution. Which is not what the creationist wants at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It can't define kinds as separate creations. It must allow for "kinds" to share a common ancestor as a logical possibility. If it does not, that definition of "macroevolution" is self-contradictory and ALL evolution is microevolution. Which is not what the creationist wants at all. I thought that's exactly what they want. Macroevolution, to them, is impossible. One kind cannot become another. I'm still not seeing the problem here... A kind is the whole group of organisms that have microevolved from the earlier, smaller, less diverse group that god created. Macroevolution is the impossibility of the group microevolving enough to become, or yield, a different kind.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024