Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 8:29 AM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,110 Year: 5,147/19,786 Month: 1,269/873 Week: 165/460 Day: 10/97 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Ring species
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 1 of 22 (619241)
06-09-2011 4:42 AM


Ring species are species that have a clear line of descent a clear line of "micro evolution" from one to another. Usually this line traces on 2 sides of a barrier and each species can interbreed with its neighboring species except where the 2 lines meat at the end of the barrier there the the 2 species at the end of each line can no longer interbred with each other

Like the greenish warbler

There is a clear descent pattern visible in all neighboring "versions" of the greenish warbler And all neighboring species can interbreed except where the 2 lines come together as the arrows show in the picture those 2 "versions" of the greenish warbler cannot interbreed.

What do ring species say about the creationist "Kind" theory?

Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 10:47 AM frako has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 22 (619243)
06-09-2011 10:07 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Ring species thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2203 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 22 (619252)
06-09-2011 10:26 AM


I'm not sure that ring species say anything to the concept of kinds. Creationists don't usually have a problem with microevolutionary changes within a kind which I'm certain is how they would classify the greenish warbler example.

If they do object to the example it would probably be on the basis that they are only reproductively isolated due to pre-mating/pre-zygotic behavioural differences rather than actual genetic/physiological incompatibility, which is often used as a stricter more hard core form of species distinction.

TTFN,

WK


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 10:45 AM Wounded King has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 22 (619261)
06-09-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
06-09-2011 10:26 AM


Well technically this micro evolution has gone far enough to be a macro evolution the only difference between Ring species is that they still have living ancestors. They can mate with all their ancestors who can mate with the Cousin line up to the top where the 2 cousins cant mate. I believe there is a too large genetic difference. If it is not for this particular species i can find a ring species that has a to large genetic difference.

Something that is expected from the theory of evolution but brings up huge questions to creation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2011 10:26 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2011 11:25 AM frako has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 22 (619263)
06-09-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
06-09-2011 4:42 AM


What do ring species say about the creationist "Kind" theory?

Not much. The greenish warbler kind has experienced some micro-evolutionary changes, but its still a greenish warbler. No macro-evolution is seen as expected.

If anything, it supports creationist kinds because this kind has gone through this much change and its still just a warbler, not a warthog.

(for some reason you have to use alliteration when making that point)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 4:42 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 11:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 6 of 22 (619281)
06-09-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 10:47 AM


So what you are saying after all of our evolutionary changes we are still apes still the same kind ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 11:58 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2203 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 22 (619283)
06-09-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
06-09-2011 10:45 AM


the only difference between Ring species is that they still have living ancestors.

Which means they can still undergo significant gene flow, which is a massive difference in terms of population genetics.

I believe there is a too large genetic difference.

Reproductive isolation in warblers has been demonstrated to be due to mating song variation. There is also an increased genetic distance as one goes around the ring complex, but there is no evidence that there is a genetic basis giving rise to reproductive isolation.

Similarly in the Ensatina complex the evidence suggests pre-mating behavioural isolation based on sexual selection for colour.

If it is not for this particular species i can find a ring species that has a to large genetic difference.

That may not be as easy as you think.

Something that is expected from the theory of evolution but brings up huge questions to creation?

What questions does it bring up for creation? Creationists often tend to think that all birds are of the same kind based on scripture, why would they worry about further sub-divisions arising within that kind?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 10:45 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 11:27 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 8 of 22 (619286)
06-09-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
06-09-2011 11:25 AM


What questions does it bring up for creation? Creationists often tend to think that all birds are of the same kind based on scripture, why would they worry about further sub-divisions arising within that kind?

Well because if all birds are the same kind so are all apes the same kind including human who is supposed to be special.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2011 11:25 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 12:24 PM frako has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (619300)
06-09-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by frako
06-09-2011 11:24 AM


So what you are saying after all of our evolutionary changes we are still apes still the same kind ?

No, "ape" would be too broad to be a kind. A human is a differnt kind than a chimp.

But a warbler is in the same kind as another warbler, probably something around the level of Passerine Nope, not that high up, that's half of all birds >.<, depending on how much evolution you want to allow.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : strike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 11:24 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 22 (619310)
06-09-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by frako
06-09-2011 11:27 AM


frako writes:

What questions does it bring up for creation? Creationists often tend to think that all birds are of the same kind based on scripture, why would they worry about further sub-divisions arising within that kind?

Well because if all birds are the same kind so are all apes the same kind including human who is supposed to be special.

There is no scriptural reason to believe that all birds are of the same kind. For example, Genesis 7:14 says that "every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort" was on the Ark. Genesis 8 specifically mentions a dove and a raven leaving the Ark.

So what is a "sort"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 11:27 AM frako has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1884 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 11 of 22 (619322)
06-09-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 11:58 AM


Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
No, "ape" would be too broad to be a kind. A human is a differnt kind than a chimp.

Chimpanzee's are classified in the Hominidae Family along with Gorillas and Orangutans and...Humans. We ARE part of the classification known as the "Great Apes".

As far as comparing Humans with Chimpanzees, we share about 96% of our genes with them, so I have to wonder what degree of difference you would consider for being a 'kind'. (of course that topic has been brought up many times here...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 11:58 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 1:47 PM DBlevins has not yet responded
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 2:28 PM DBlevins has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 12 of 22 (619326)
06-09-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 1:29 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
(of course that topic has been brought up many times here...)

Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.

The wiki article about kinds does not shed any light on the matter either because every animal has an evolutionary relationship to one another. And by this definition we are the same Kind as all other Apes because it has been proven that we share an evolutionary relationship with all apes.

So for easier understanding and guessing that a creationist dint know what he was talking about when he mentioned evolutinary relationship in his statment we will leave that part out.

And thus come at a noter snag in his statement where ring species can interbreed with their neighbors up both lines but the 2 variations at the top of the line cannot interbreed with each other, so are they the same kind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 1:29 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 22 (619341)
06-09-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 1:29 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
Chimpanzee's are classified in the Hominidae Family along with Gorillas and Orangutans and...Humans. We ARE part of the classification known as the "Great Apes".

No doubt, but that cannot be a kind because it is too broad. (and I don't see any reason to force the evolutionary classifaction system into the definition of kind).

As far as comparing Humans with Chimpanzees, we share about 96% of our genes with them, so I have to wonder what degree of difference you would consider for being a 'kind'. (of course that topic has been brought up many times here...)

I suppose that different kinds are going to emcompass different degrees of difference. I don't think we're going to identify one overarching definition of kind that would fit with all the varying degrees of difference between the kinds.

So, with a ring species like these warblers, there's no problem for creationists because they are all one kind.

Too, we know that humans and chimps must be different kinds so an evolutionary classification like Hominidae isn't going to work as a kind either.

I wonder, though, if there's any correlation between how complex a particular evolutionary class is, and how many degrees of difference there are within it.

Like with apes (complex), we have four kinds: human, chimp, gorilla, orangutang

But with, say, ants (less complex), there's probably a lot more diversity in that grouping so we might expect 10+ different kinds.

In the end, I think it does depend on how much micro-evolution is capable. With a lot of it, we could maybe trim down the ant kinds into just 2 of them, the large ants and the small ants (or whatever), that have diverged into all the different types of ant we see today.

On the other hand, if not very much micro-evolution is possible, then a lot of those different types of ants would all be their own kinds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 1:29 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1884 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 14 of 22 (619353)
06-09-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 2:28 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
...I don't see any reason to force the evolutionary classifaction system into the definition of kind.

I'm not forcing an evolutionary classification on to the definition of kinds. I am trying to understand what you mean by the definition of 'kind'.

Too, we know that humans and chimps must be different kinds so an evolutionary classification like Hominidae isn't going to work as a kind either.

How do we know they are different kinds if we don't have a definition of what constitutes a 'kind'?

Who is "we"?

In the end, I think it does depend on how much micro-evolution is capable. With a lot of it, we could maybe trim down the ant kinds into just 2 of them, the large ants and the small ants (or whatever), that have diverged into all the different types of ant we see today.

On the other hand, if not very much micro-evolution is possible, then a lot of those different types of ants would all be their own kinds.

Are you confusing the mount of genetic change that has taken place with the degree of genetic change possible?

What limits the amount of micro-evolution possible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 3:43 PM DBlevins has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 22 (619372)
06-09-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
I'm not forcing an evolutionary classification on to the definition of kinds. I am trying to understand what you mean by the definition of 'kind'.

It looked to me like you were expecting some sort of parallel to the evolutionary biological classification.

How do we know they are different kinds if we don't have a definition of what constitutes a 'kind'?

Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind. (but the contrapositive isn't necessarily true)

Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds.

Who is "we"?

The proverbial we... the royal we.

Are you confusing the mount of genetic change that has taken place with the degree of genetic change possible?

I dunno. Obviously though, if an amount of genetic change is impossible then it couldn't have taken place.

What limits the amount of micro-evolution possible?

I don't know. I guess it would be nature, itself.


Hey, I found a link for you if you care to look into it:

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kinds#Hypothesized_kinds

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:13 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 18 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019