"Best" evidence for evolution.

There are two populations of morphological identical mosquitoes, one carries malaria and the other doesn't. They don't interbreedThey're call cryptic species in biology.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added missing criteria

From the Britannica

quote:

---

taxonomy - The objectives of biological classification | Britannica
...The butterflies of a region, for example, might first be separated into those with a lot of white on the wings and those with very little; then each group could be subdivided on the basis of other characters. One disadvantage of such classifications, which are useful for well-known groups, is that a mistake may produce a ridiculous answer, since the groups under each division need have nothing in common but the chosen character (e.g., white on the butterfly wings). In addition, if the group being keyed is large or given to great variation, the key may be extremely complex and may rely on characters difficult to evaluate. Moreover, if the form in question is a new one or one that is not in the key (being, perhaps, unrecorded from the region to which the key applies), it may be identified incorrectly. Many unrelated butterflies have a lot of white on the wingsa few swallowtails, the well-known cabbage whites, some of the South American dismorphiines, and a few satyrids. Should identification of an undescribed form of fritillary butterfly containing much white on the wings be desired, the use of a key could result in an incorrect identification of the butterfly. In order to avoid such mistakes, it is necessary to consider many characters of the organismnot merely one aspect of the wings but their anatomy and the features of the various stages in the life cycle. ...

---

Have you looked at how biologists do taxonomy before you had this realization?

I looked at the Linnaean chart. But I think it's fair enough to work out my own observations.

Yes, a lot of taxonomic classification gets into characteristics I consider quite secondary. I think structure is the basic definition of a Species or Kind. Sure some will disagree with how I see structure, but white butterfly wings are way down in the subspecies category. The body parts of the butterfly are what make it a butterfly and maybe if I got into insects I'd put the butterfly with some other insects based on structure but I don't know. It's a lot easier to do with birds and reptiles and mammals.Creationists are always being asked what a Kind is since biblically we understand all creatures to belong to a Kind that is separate from all other Kinds. So that's what I'm doing here. For a long time I assumed it was impossible to determine a Kind by observation, but I argued that evolution uses up genetic variation and eventually runs out and where it runs out is the boundary of the Kind. I still think that's true. But now I'm trying to find descriptive criteria as well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, a lot of taxonomic classification gets into characteristics I consider quite secondary. I think structure is the basic definition of a Species or Kind

---

Which would be entirely consistent with defining tetrapods as a kind. But it is not consistent with considering humans as a separate kind as we have seen - repeatedly.

quote:

---

Creationists are always being asked what a Kind is since biblically we understand all creatures to belong to a Kind that is separate from all other Kinds.

---

No, the question is what a kind is biologically. Which seems to be what you are attempting to answer since you ignore and contradict the Bible except with regard to humans. Even your obvious excuses in that case) deal with biology - or rather your idea of biology since you denied that chimps had fingernails or hair.

quote:

---

For a long time I assumed it was impossible to determine a Kind by observation, but I argued that evolution uses up genetic variation and eventually runs out and where it runs out is the boundary of the Kind.

---

But your boundaries have nothing to do with any such observations. Your criteria are morphological, not genetic.I should also point out that reading Linnaeus is hardly sufficient to tell you how modern biologists do taxonomy, Linnaeus is cited for the history, not current practice.

I certainly hope you don't mind if I disagree with you. Defining the Kind by morphology seems very useful to me. The Bible gives no guidelines but the creatures themselves aren't hard to classify. Just as the dog body is different from the cat body and the horse body is different from the deer body, the human body is different from the ape body. I really do not care if I disagree with you or with Linnaeus. I do know what I mean by structure and could not care less if you agree with it or not.Most cheery cheers to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Defining the Kind by morphology seems very useful to me.

---

I’m sure it’s convenient to you, but it is not the same as defining it by genetics.

quote:

---

The Bible gives no guidelines...

---

Because your idea of kinds is not in the Bible. Indeed the raven and the dove are clearly different kinds in the Bible, but not to you.

quote:

---

... but the creatures themselves aren't hard to classify. Just as the dog body is different from the cat body and the horse body is different from the deer body, the human body is different from the ape body

---

And as the heron body is distinct from the hawk body. (Hamlet claimed the ability to tell a hawk from a handsaw - a heron - was a sign of sanity). Clearly your idea of structure is incredibly subjective and inconsistently applies to a level that makes it useless for anything resembling science.

quote:

---

I do know what I mean by structure

---

I don’t believe that. There certainly isn’t any coherent thinking behind it.

Yes the raven and the dove are different kinds (lower case) and there are lots of other similar examples. Doknkeys are different from horses for instance. That's fine, they are strikingly different from each other, but MORPHOLOGICALLY ravens and doves are birds and birds simply has to be the original Kind. The genetic picture should also show that. All the Bible says is that God created original Kinds. They aren't defined.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes the raven and the dove are different kinds (lower case) and there are lots of other similar examples.

---

If the Kinds are those taken on Noah’s Ark - which was the original point of it, then they are separate Kinds too.

quote:

---

That's fine, they are strikingly different from each other, but MORPHOLOGICALLY ravens and doves are birds and birds simply has to be the original Kind.

---

That is a distinction that is not found in the Bible. Nor is there any Biblical support for such an idea. It is not even consistent with your own ideas as applied to the mammals.

quote:

---

The genetic picture should also show that.

---

You assume so. But of course genetics does not show any distinct kinds.

quote:

---

All the Bible says is that God created original Kinds.

---

The Bible does not have any concept of original Kinds versus ordinary kinds. The distinction is not made.

way back a few years ago there was a thread about genetics on which I specifically asked the geneticist constributors if they could identify say a dog from DNA alone and as I recall they said they could.yes the "kinds" taken on the Ark may have included what I would call subkinds, not sure.There's nothing wrong from the biblical point of view with sorting the Kinds by their morphology."Each after its own Kind" refers to the original Kinds. We know evolution didn't happen, what happened was that God created animals according to something we call a Kind. The word is simply English for "species."

quote:

---

way back a few years ago there was a thread about genetics on which I specifically asked the geneticist constributors if they could identify say a dog from DNA alone and as I recall they said they could.

---

Which doesn’t help you at all. Your assertion is that there is a hard boundary which just happens to coincide with where you happen to draw the lines. The fact that we can make distinctions within that boundary - dogs aren’t the only species you assign to the dog kind - only shows that there are genetic distinctions at the species level.

quote:

---

yes the "kinds" taken on the Ark may have included what I would call subkinds, not sure.

---

According to you they definitely do.

quote:

---

There's nothing wrong from the biblical point of view with sorting the Kinds by their morphology.

---

I never said that there was. There is, however, certainly something wrong with saying that the Bible makes a distinction between the original Kinds and later kinds or even implies that they are different.There are also big problems with saying that highly subjective morphological groupings present any sort of genetic boundary. But that is a different issue.

quote:

---

Each after its own Kind" refers to the original Kinds.

---

So you assume. But it could as easily refer to the observation of species breeding true.

quote:

---

We know evolution didn't happen

---

You know that it did. That’s the whole point of inventing the distinction between original Kinds and ordinary kinds.

quote:

---

The word is simply English for "species."

---

No. It may well refer to modern species (or rather something close enough, without the fine distinctions made by taxonomy). But the word is vaguer than that.

The morphological groupings are really quite exact, specific, not just "subjective."

quote:

---

The morphological groupings are really quite exact, specific, not just "subjective."

---

Obviously they are incredibly subjective, to the point where morphology is more an excuse than a criterion. There is nothing even resembling an objective standard. Why do the unique features of owls not qualify then as a kind ?

The idea is to identify as many recognizable points of similarity between the structures as defining the Kind into which they fit. Uniqueness like the owl's makes it a subkind or subspecies since it would no doubt share all the points that identify birds. I haven't been working on this lately but the idea is to find as many such points of morphological identity as I can.