Behavioural traits and created kinds

In a recent thread, Faith brought an interesting point up. She thought it may be possible to gain clues about 'Kinds' by looking to behavioural characteristics of an organism rather than its morphology. From this postI thought the concept interesting, and feel it might be justifiable to start a new thread on it. Obviously this only applies to organisms that have behavioural traits.Can we identify a Kind by its behaviour? If we managed to breed a (for example) dog that did not have the majority of the 'dog defining' characteristics, would this be further evidence of the extent that macroevolution?This is a type of discussion we have seen a few times before, that is to say a thread about instinct. Normally the discussion is 'could insinct have evolved'? This time, it is 'Is instinct linked to kinds?'I suppose the discussion will be based partially around the devolpment of instincts, and the loss of instincts. What behavioural traits would define a dog, and have any behaviours been completely bred out of a species before? I appreciate there probably isn't a massive amount it discuss, and the subject is beyond my ken, though I would think the domestic cow could provide some interesting insight.***I suppose this would fit nowhere, so 'Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution' seems a good place.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, most of the traits mentioned can also be applied to felines. They form packs, hunt cooperatively, bare their teeth (as do many other species including humans) slobber and drool, need to be execised, sniff the ground, mark their territory and I had several cats that loved to fetch. Ball up some aluminum foil and you could keep them entertained for hours chasing it, batting it around, then bringing it back for you to throw again. They wagged their tails. They didn't bark but then neither do Basenjis and, as I pointed out to Faith before, Schipperke's don't even have a tail to wag.And then there are Hyenas.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Well, most of the traits mentioned can also be applied to felines. They form packs, hunt cooperatively, bare their teeth (as do many other species including humans) slobber and drool, need to be execised, sniff the ground, mark their territory and I had several cats that loved to fetch. Ball up some aluminum foil and you could keep them entertained for hours chasing it, batting it around, then bringing it back for you to throw again. They wagged their tails. They didn't bark but then neither do Basenjis and, as I pointed out to Faith before, Schipperke's don't even have a tail to wag.

---

The whole quote attempted to make a distinction between dogs and cats. I once had a dog-like cat too. It would hear my car coming from down the hill blocks away and wait for me to get home at the foot of the steps up to the house. However, that's not DISTINCTIVELY dog-like behavior, which is what I was trying to define. Cats love to chase things but they normally don't return them to you as dogs do. And dogs won't bat things around to amuse themselves as cats do. Aluminum foil, forget it. Cats switch their tails very expressively but don't wag them. I've never seen a cat bare its teeth. Lay its ears back, slit its eyes and do a low throaty yowl before it sinks its claws into its enemy or rival is more its style. Female lions do the hunting I believe, and although there are a number of them it's not pack hunting. Perhaps somebody who knows more about the two animals can make the necessary distinction about hunting methods.As for breeds that have no tail, the question still is whether there is any sign of the wagging behavior in the requisite part of the anatomy nevertheless, which you never answered, and dogs that don't bark -- do they make no noise at all? I would subjectively classify hyenas as dogs but on the other thread I gather they are not considered to be dogs. Internet says related to civits. Is this taxonomically determined or genetically known? How about their behaviors/instincts -- more civit like or at all dog like?Also eliminating or modifying one characteristic won't do it. The whole complex of behaviors is what is defining.But of course if nobody agrees that there are distinctive clusters of traits for the different animals, there's no thread. What do you think Modulous? It's hardly worth arguing over the list itself, though I'd think one could add something to it or refine something. Boring concept if everybody's just going to insist it's all the same. Yawn.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-01-2005 08:08 PM

How do you define "kind"? An essence? Dogness, whaleness . . .

Nobody has a clear idea how to define a Kind in terms of currently living creatures. Rough ideas what's related to what is about it. This thread came about because I made the remark that it seemed to me that the behaviors listed are pretty definitive of dogs and cats and might be part of the picture of a Kind. I figured that if this were so it would be impossible to eradicate them completely from a breeding program, that even though you might be able to breed a cat or dog that looked a lot like a rabbit or something else, a raccoon perhaps, it wouldn't act like a rabbit or raccoon but like a cat or dog in the ways described. It's a conjecture. A game.

The biggest problem with behavior as a measure of "kind" is the convergent evolution of behavior by different species to fill similar niches in different areas of the world.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, just how similar do those behaviors get to anything that is a candidate for a Kind? If a whole cluster of behaviors is used to define a Kind, do you see the whole cluster in such niches or just the occasional specific behavior that is say catlike or doglike or whatever?

Since behaviors don’t fossilize too well, we are left looking at only extant species within any phylogenetic grouping (Class, Order, Family, Genus, or “Kinds”). You use cats and dogs as an example of two distinct kinds, which as I see it, means you basically think that “Kinds” is most closely related to Family.So now, what sort of behaviors do you consider to be cat and only cat like? Same for dogs . what are these behaviors that you think are unique to dogs? Let’s assume that you come up with a behavior that we see in dogs but not in cats. What if we can show you the same behavior in a weasel of a raccoon, or any other carnivore for that matter? Would you accept this as an example of common descent? What if we see a behavior in Wolves (but not dogs) and any other carnivore? What I’m trying to ask is: Where do we draw the line?Make sure you come up with an actual behavior though. A dog bark is not really a behavior, just as a meow is not a cat behavior. Both of these are a result of physiology. However, both species often perform this behavior in identical situations. A dog will bark and growl when startled or frightened, just as a cat will meow and hiss in the same situation. To me, this suggests a common ancestor that responded similarly in the same situation.I’m not trying to put you down or insult you in any way. Honestly, I would like it if anyone could come up with a behavior unique to any given Family. Not species, not Genus . but Family ("Kinds"). I like animal behavior and would enjoy trying to discover and learn of (and then debate if they’re true or not) behaviors that fit this model.

A Kind may be a Family in one case, a Genus in another etc., straddle a couple or three categories even, who knows?I CASUALLY WROTE A LIST of a GROUP of behaviors that TOGETHER I believe characterize dogs and cats and MIGHT be a clue to a Kind. I ask others to contribute to the list. I said if you can breed these responses out I'd be impressed. All domestic breeds of dogs and cats I'm aware of exhibit all of them (except that nobody will tell me if a tailless dog wags its butt).Finding ONE or TWO of these behaviors in other animals would be meaningless. Finding ONE or TWO of them missing from dogs and cats would be meaningless. I treated it as a cluster that occurs together, which I thought I made clear in Message 8, but perhaps didn't emphasize enough.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-02-2005 11:33 AM

Definitely I would assume phyisology is invovled, why not? The bark or yap distinguishes a dog as the cat is distinguished by the meow/roar. A cat's threatening or threatened yowl is very different from a dog's howl. Perhaps these need better describing but I couldn't confuse the sounds and behaviors myself and I doubt you could either. A domestic dog will bark at strangers, a threatened cat will hide.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-02-2005 11:47 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-02-2005 11:51 AM

Seems to me that "kind" is a term of convenience. It gets applied to whatever happens to be the debate of the momment. Or whatever the propenent "feels" is a kind.The word has a subjective, arbitrary, quality about. It doesn't seem to really define anything at all.ABE: I don't think "kind",as being used by the YECs, means anything usefull at all.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-02-2005 12:43 PM

I'm sorry, but I must have misunderstood.Was this the list? Because if so, then jar seemed to address them in the third post. Those behaviors are certainly not unique to canids.

Fine. End of topic. End of thread.

Because the sound they make is a result of their physiology. The sound is not a behavior. The behavior is used to communicate some sort of message. Dogs bark, cats meow...same behavior, different sound. Remember, we’re using the behavior as a classification tool. I think your oversimplifying the behaviors. A cat will not always hide. I've had many a cat hiss or yowl at me.Also, if we're attempting to use behaviors to classify organisms, then why are you only focusing on domestic dogs and cats. Aren't all dog-like things considered members of the "Dog-Kind"? For example, If I say: “yeah, but wolves show many of the same behaviors as domestic dogs”, would you not then claim that they do so because they are all "dog-kinds"? So if I can show that many organisms (that I presume you would initially NOT classify as "dog-kinds") also do many of these behaviors, how would you respond? If your claim would be that God also gave them those same behaviors, then using behaviors to classify organisms would be futile.That's why I think it will be difficult to come up with even ONE unique behavior, let alone a whole suite of them.