Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 3:12 AM
22 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Define "Kind"
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 300 (289035)
02-21-2006 8:20 AM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 8:53 AM nator has responded
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 8:58 AM nator has responded
 Message 33 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-21-2006 11:26 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 281 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 04-22-2006 2:10 PM nator has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 300 (289042)
02-21-2006 8:34 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 300 (289047)
02-21-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-21-2006 8:20 AM


Why?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 8:20 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:09 AM Modulous has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 300 (289049)
02-21-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-21-2006 8:20 AM


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 8:20 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:12 AM Faith has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 300 (289054)
02-21-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
02-21-2006 8:53 AM


Re: Why?
I actually had randman in mind as the poster, but any and all are welcome to offer a definition.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 8:53 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 9:16 AM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 300 (289056)
02-21-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
02-21-2006 8:58 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 8:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM nator has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 300 (289061)
02-21-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
02-21-2006 9:09 AM


randman
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 :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:09 AM nator has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 300 (289064)
02-21-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
02-21-2006 9:12 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:12 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 9:49 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2006 10:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 10:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 35 by FliesOnly, posted 02-21-2006 11:42 AM Faith has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 300 (289070)
02-21-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
02-21-2006 9:24 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 300 (289076)
02-21-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
02-21-2006 9:24 AM


Otherwise you stack the deck against us creationists and the debate is over before it's started.

What stacks the deck against you is that your ideas are wrong, but that's neither here nor there.

It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.

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"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 11 of 300 (289080)
02-21-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
02-21-2006 9:24 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 10:20 AM PaulK has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 300 (289081)
02-21-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
02-21-2006 9:24 AM


It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 10:21 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 300 (289085)
02-21-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
02-21-2006 10:13 AM


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"

Well, but that is the hypothesis, it is all 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".

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.

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".

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2006 10:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2006 10:34 AM Faith has responded
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2006 10:38 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 300 (289086)
02-21-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
02-21-2006 10:13 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 10:13 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2268 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 300 (289088)
02-21-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
02-21-2006 10:20 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 10:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:35 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019