Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2019 6:25 AM
25 online now:
caffeine, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,107 Year: 7,143/19,786 Month: 1,684/1,581 Week: 63/443 Day: 3/60 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   What is a "kind"?
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 1 of 42 (528295)
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


For the interest of actual debate, certain terms need to be clairified. The one I'm having the most trouble with is the term "kind".

Is there a generally accepted definition for "kind"?

Thanks for your time.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2009 5:42 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 10-05-2009 5:50 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 10-05-2009 6:04 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2009 6:25 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 10-05-2009 8:09 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 3:38 AM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 2 of 42 (528301)
10-05-2009 5:25 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What is a "kind"? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 42 (528304)
10-05-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


Is there a generally accepted definition for "kind"?

Yep, a kind includes the original created kinds created by YHWH/elohim and named by Adam (and their descendants) which did not evolve from any previous organisms.

As to how we know what organism belongs to what kind - no that's largely impossible. Creationists seem to take a view similar to that famous quote about pornography: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 4 of 42 (528307)
10-05-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


The most common definition that you will most likely hear is the species level, but I don't think you will get much mileage out of this one as the kind as described in xian mythology appears to have categories that include obviously different species as the same kind.

AIG writes:

Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area.../ch2-species.asp

or some creos believe:

CreoWiki writes:

Hypothesized kinds

Creation biologists have proposed a number of possibilities for the created "kinds":
Humanity — Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neandertals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homininae with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.
Felidae — Creationists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original kinds were comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Similar to the kind associated with cats, it is proposed that all canines had a common ancestor.
Camelidae — Including both the camel and the llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of alligator, crocodile, and gharial.
Elephants — African and Indian elephants can hybridize yet they are not even classified in the same genus.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity.

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 5 of 42 (528312)
10-05-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


The problem with "kind" as I've seen it here is that Creationists tend to equate the word kind with a taxonomically useless grouping. For instance, we have the word "bats" that covers a wide range of species with a lot of variation, but since we have a word for it, and there is a general morphological equality between them, it must be a kind. We also hear "Dogs are always going to be dogs," so this time, the type is at a species level, assuming the creationists are honest enough to allow wolves in the category.

The problem with this type of classification is that we end up with categories based entirely on historical morphological similarity recognition, and based on genetics, or any other science, these terms are quite useless. It's how Creationists can say, "It's still a bat." or "It's still a mosquito."

We also run into the problem of creationists not understanding evolution or cladistics. The biological response to the above statements is, "Yeah, I know, that's how evolution requires it to be."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 42 (528315)
10-05-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


Kinds and baramins
In order to gain scientific respectability, which "kinds" lacks, some creationists are pushing "baraminology." (The term baraminology means study of created kinds.)

Here are some guidelines for baraminology (Source):

Guidelines

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.

2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible

6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. [Emphasis added]


So recent attempts to dress up "kinds" in scientific wrappings turn out to be a colossal failure because the definitions still rely on the bible.

Oh, the definition of "kinds?" Whatever one's interpretation of the bible suggests.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5387
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 7 of 42 (528319)
10-05-2009 6:57 PM


One of the most striking things about "kinds" is that they typically get much more inclusive as they get more unfamiliar to the average armchair baraminologist (and I do realize that ALL baraminologists are actually of the armchair "kind"). Dogs or cows are pretty well-known, so soecies = kind for them. Fish might comprise a half-dozen "kinds" for all but the sophisticated kindologist, so they are somewhere around Order or Class = kind. Wormy things likele mix phyla - annelids, nematodes, and flatworms all mixed into one. Bacteria and Archaea are different Kingdoms, but I'll bet that they're the Germ Kind to most users of "kind" - and viruses and typanosomes are probably in there, too.

Someone once said that a "kind" is the classification of critters used by a bright three-year-old kid. Good definition, say I.


    
subbie
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 8 of 42 (528331)
10-05-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


"Kind" is the hardest working word in "science."
The difficulty in defining "kind" arises, in part, on the multiple different things that cdesign proponentists need the word to do.

First, and perhaps most important, is that humans are a different kind from everything else. I truly suspect that most cdesign proponentists would be content to accept everything in biology if we could separate humans from the rest of life. Humans are a "special creation," and that's the crux of a cdesign proponentist's objection to biology.

The second, and next most important, thing that cdesign proponentists use "kind" for is to try to save the flud myth. They've ultimately come to grips with the fact that the flud story is more difficult to believe than Santa Claus if the ark had to include every species on the planet. So, they invoke "kind" and argue that only a very small percentage of all current species were on the ark, but there were massive, extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes afterwards to get where we are today.

Obviously, for the word "kind" to do either of these things, precision of meaning is not only unnecessary but can actually be a detriment. If "kind" is too broad, it will result in humans being biologically related to other primates; too narrow and the flud story becomes (more) ludicrous. The fact that there is no middle ground where the term can do both jobs at the same time probably has not escaped the more educated among cdesign proponentists. This is why it is so difficult to pin them down to one definition, there simply isn't one that will do everything they want it to.

There are a few other needs as well. We saw Calypsis insist that the bats are included in the "kind" referred to as "fowls," with other things that we now know to be birds. "Kind" is also used to describe the way all of life was created. Genesis describes the creation events in terms of the different "kinds."

The bottom line is that "kind" means whatever a cdesign proponentist needs it to mean at a particular moment. And by necessity, it can never be any more specific than that.

Please bear in mind that I wrote this rather off the cuff and at least two beers into my Vikings pregame ritual, so one or two of the details might be a bit dodgy, but the overall analysis is sound.

I think.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 42 (528424)
10-06-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evlreala
10-05-2009 4:13 PM


The Biblical “kinds” constitute divisions of life-forms where each division allows for breeding within its limits. This means the boundary between “kinds” is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. IOW, if they can not breed, they are differnt kinds.

kind is translated from:
Hebrew. lemi.noh'
Greek ge'nos
Latin ge'nus

English-Genus

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evlreala, posted 10-05-2009 4:13 PM Evlreala has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 AM Peg has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 10 of 42 (528426)
10-06-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
10-06-2009 3:38 AM


Peg writes:

The Biblical “kinds” constitute divisions of life-forms where each division allows for breeding within its limits. This means the boundary between “kinds” is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. IOW, if they can not breed, they are differnt kinds.


So, when you said this in Message 204 in the thread TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Peg writes:

no, for the reason that they are both spiders. the are different 'types' of spider.

I would say different species would be a fly and a spider...they are different species.


You meant that the tarantula and the balck widow are different kinds.

Also, you said this in the same messag:

Peg writes:

an example might be a Chawaa and a doberman....size makes it impossible for them to mate.


So, they're also different kinds.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 3:38 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:31 AM Huntard has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 11 of 42 (528433)
10-06-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Huntard
10-06-2009 4:00 AM


and this is where the confusion arises...its hard to know exactly what everyone means.. When i said the black widow and the trancula are the same kind, i did also mean species

it looks like i've been caught in the kind and species trap.

the bible 'kinds' are those that can reproduce together. They were sent forth 'according to their kinds' to multiply

Yep now im confused! You tell me what a species is currently defined as.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 10-06-2009 5:36 AM Peg has responded
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2009 5:39 AM Peg has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 12 of 42 (528434)
10-06-2009 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
10-06-2009 5:31 AM


You know tarantula and black widow spiders can't reproduce together, right?

You tell me what a species is currently defined as.

There is no single, clearly defined and universally applicable definition of what a species is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:31 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:50 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 13 of 42 (528435)
10-06-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
10-06-2009 5:31 AM


Peg writes:

Yep now im confused! You tell me what a species is currently defined as.


No problem.

The best definition for species I think is this:

Creatures that interact together in the wild, and can interbreeed and produce fertile offspring.

Kinda close to your "kind" definition.

Bear in mind though that there are always exceptions though. (bacteria for instance)


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:31 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:47 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 10-06-2009 5:50 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 42 (528436)
10-06-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Huntard
10-06-2009 5:39 AM


do you beleive there are exceptions other then bacteria?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2009 5:39 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 10-06-2009 4:52 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 15 of 42 (528437)
10-06-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Huntard
10-06-2009 5:39 AM


The Biological Species Concept is not what species mean
Creatures that interact together in the wild, and can interbreeed and produce fertile offspring.

This is the Biological Species Concept, and it's a very good working definition for the tiny proportion of life we can apply it to: that is, to extant life which reproduces sexually and does not readily hybridise - in other words, to a subset of animals, a few plants and some fungi. And even among these it's more a theoretical one that a practical one: it's just not workable to reliably test it in the field for the majority of species.

As you rightly point out it's useless for bacteria; add to that Archaea, the majority of single cellular eukaryotes, and many multicellular eukaryotes and, of course, it can't be applied at all to any extinct organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2009 5:39 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019