Define "Kind"

In another thread, it was proposed that evolution outside of "kinds" was not observed, and was predicted to be impossible within the Creationist model.I asked for a definition of "kind", as it is not a scientific term, and one was not forthcoming from the claimant.As it was somewhat off-topic, I thought I'd start yet another topic on this subject, this one rather narrowly focussed.I would like to know the definition of "kind".I would also like to know the consistent system by which I can identify what "kind" an organism is.I suppose this should go in "Biological Evolution"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 08:20 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think it might be a good idea to point out why a definition is needed, though you do hint at it.One comeback I hear time and time again is "I'll define 'kind' if you define species and genus and order". I remember Hovind making this argument, just to give some perspective on how wrong it is.The reason we need to define "kind" is because definite statements are being made about it, and definite statements cannot be made about indefinite terms. Faith (the poster) has almost entirely stepped out of science for now, so she can use the term easily. When it gets put forward as a scientific argument against evolution, that's when a definition needs to be put forward.Scientists make definite claims about species, but they will define what they mean by species before they do.

So would I, Schraf, so would creationists in general. All anyone has at the moment is the hypothesis that such a classification exists, but how to define and identify it for sure is not yet known. I've argued my own notion that there are built-in limits to the processes that lead to speciation, having to do with overall reduced genetic potentials with each selection event, and that this will define the natural limits of a Kind. The answer usually is that mutation overcomes this effect, and some have supposedly "proved" this. To my mind it's still quite open.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 09:01 AM

I actually had randman in mind as the poster, but any and all are welcome to offer a definition.

quote:

---

So would I, Schraf, so would creationists in general. All anyone has at the moment is the hypothesis that such a classification exists, but how to define and identify it for sure is not yet known.

---

If there is not in existence a definition of "kind", nor any method in place for differentiating the "kinds" from each other, then it is a useless term and should not be used at all.At least, it should not be used in any sort of scientific discussion regarding the origin of species, biology, or the like.Would you agree?

When I said 'Faith (the poster)', I didn't meant the poster you were referring to, I was just clarifying that I meant the poster Faith, not the noun. Typically, I added a new layer of ambiguity

Of course I wouldn't agree. For the purposes of the debate engaged in at EvC it is essential. Otherwise you stack the deck against us creationists and the debate is over before it's started. It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.

quote:

---

It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.

---

Of course, but without a definition, there is no basis for using the word at all.It is so vague as to be meaningless, and therefore useless in science.It's not scientist's fault that your side can't get it's act together.If you are hindered, it's by your own doing.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 09:33 AM

What stacks the deck against you is that your ideas are wrong, but that's neither here nor there. But not when you're asking your opponents to prove you wrong. You don't see anything inherently ridiculous when your side of the debate says "we say that there are these 'kinds', but we can't tell you what that means or how to discern them; nonetheless, you have to prove that we don't see them in nature"?

Arguing that evoluton outside "kinds" is impossible is not valid unless there is:a) A definition of "kind" that does not entail that all evolution is within a "kind"b) allow the identification of "kinds" so that we can tell if a particular example of evolution is "outside" of a "kind".Without such a definition the assertion is simply unfalsifiable - we could conclusively prove universal common descent of all earthly life and still not have shown evolution outside a "kind".Disallowing such arguments would only handicap creationists if creationists have to use rhetoric to make up for a lack of rational arguments. I do not think that you want to claim that that is the true state of affairs.

I agree. However, it is one thing to say "I believe that organisms will only reproduce after their kind" and another to thing entirely to say "Evolution is wrong because organisms only reproduce after their kind".

Well, but that is the hypothesis, it is all within a Kind. Can't be done as yet. And I'm not sure why it matters as the current wisdom based on the ToE is that there are NO natural limits to evolution anyway. It's not as if anybody's fussing about where the boundaries of the Kind should be located -- there simply are none. We aren't at the point where this makes any kind of argument. The arguments so far are attempts to establish the boundaries, not insist on any particular boundaries.

Well, it is , but we don't say it if we're smart.

So do you consider there to be any scientific use for the concept of Kind currently?All you seem to be saying is that if a barrier is ever found to the variation genetic mutation can generate which would prevent evolution above a certain unsepcified 'level' then the related organisms on one side of that barrier would be a 'kind'.Creationists seem to have simply made up a term for something which has no evidence to support its existence, and seem to think that refering to such a term has some value in debate.TTFN,WK