"Kind"ly Creationism

Within the creationist "kind" argument, it seems that the number of kinds can not increase. If the definition of kind rests on interbreeding, then the definition of a new kind would be organisms that could at one time interbreed but are no longer able to.This has been observed. One good example is the polychaete worm Nereis acuminata. A breeding group was split between two laboratories, and they were kept isolated for 27 years. When the two groups were brought back together they produced 0 offspring. By using the qualification of interbreeding, wouldn't this qualify as a new kind? It would appear so. This would qualify as macroevolution.source:http://www2.eou.edu/~jrinehar/bio102/specevnt.htm

Brad,I am not really sure how light has anything to do with speciation and the formation of new kinds. I took the following assumptions from the creationist camp:1. God created the kinds, all species are derived from these kinds.2. No other kinds have ever been made.3. Organisms are not able to evolve outside of their kind, only adapt within their kind.4. Kinds are defined by an interbreeding group.I have shown, witht the above worm, that interbreeding is a discontinous process. In the worms, although previously one interbreeding population, are now not able to produce viable offspring. This is, by definition, a new kind. This does away with assumptions 2 and 3 above. If crossing the kind barrier is macroevolution, then this is an example of macroevolution, evolution above the level of kind and species.It has been asserted by myself and others that the kind designation is nothing other than an arbitrary assignment of organisms to fit an already assumed hierarchy. What evidence says that common ancestory stops at a certain point? None. Kinds is something taken from the Bible and forced on to the data.

quote:

---

If gene duplication PREVENTS speciation IN THE SAME PROBABLE 1-D sequence the 3-D relations of multiclocks to multirods could be upset such that there is a stop even if migration is larger than mutation or selection.

---

Any genetic change could lead to speciation, either by morphology or assortive mating. If the gene sequence goes on unaltered, then I would say that speciation is impossible.Just for an example, say a gene duplication causes darker feather patterns in some bird species. If I remember correctly, bird species are very adept at assortive mating, or pre-mating isolation. Such a cue, a difference in feather plumage, could cause pre-mating sorting in a parapatric or allopatric scheme. Duplications can cause speciation, at least in my opinion.There are also genes that are not functional, such as ERV's and pseudogenes, that can be traced due to their surrounding sequence. It is easy to pick out the duplications, since their position in the genome will be different than the parent sequence. This allows one to trace common ancestory, and also tie in neutral mutations in non-coding regions such as pseudogenes. Genetics is a strong tool, and ties species together outside of their current Kind baramin.Added in edit: Just for a little analogy. Baraminologists construct thier discontinous trees in a way that resembles a buried bush, with only the top branches sticking out. They might be surprised what happens when they start to dig a little deeper.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-23-2004]

quote:

---

The key will be knoweldge of differntial genetics of sound vs light propagation in the BEHAVIOR of these creatures per genes sequenced.

---

Are you using sound and light as an analogy? Or are you using the properties of sound and light as direct evidence for the behavior of DNA?