RAZD
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 2 (411844)
07-22-2007 7:47 PM
|
|
|
For the {Is it Science} forum: We have often asked for some definition of what the creationist concept of "kind" involves. Doing a google on "biblical kind" I found the following information:
the first definitionThe Biblical Kinds Defined(Ted Plaisted, U. of N. Carolina)
quote:
The Biblical Kinds Defined Creationists are often asked for a precise definition of the Biblical kinds, namely, which groups of organisms have descendend from a single organism present at the Creation. This question is not necessarily easy (or possible) to answer, but I now believe that an answer may be possible. Based on assumed evolutionary time scales and rates of mutation of mitochondrial DNA, which may not be correct, scientists estimate that the human race is about 200,000 years old. (Actually, the assumed rate of mutation is not directly observed, but is inferred based on assumed evolutionary time scales, and may be far from the true value. Many different rates of mutation are given by different biologists. From a literal reading of Scripture, we know that the true age of the human race is much less than 200,000 years. However, it is useful to speak in terms of time scales as assumed by scientists in order to obtain a usable criterion.) In a recent study, scientists conclude that wolves and dogs separated between 60,000 and more than 100,000 years ago, based on their mitochondrial DNA. Thus, one would place wolves and dogs in the same kind, because scientists estimate their separation at less than 200,000 years ago. So a general definition would be that if scientists estimate a separation of two organisms within the past 200,000 years, based on their mitochondrial DNA, then they are in the same Biblical kind. If scientists estimate a separation significantly earlier than this, under conventional evolutionary assumptions, then the two species are in different Biblical kinds. If the estimated separation date is slightly longer than 200,000 years, then the case is doubtful. Under creationist assumptions, one would expect the estimated separation time to be either about 200,000 years or less, or much larger than this. (Of course, from the Scripture, the true ages are much less.) This kind of investigation might also shed some light on the human-ape connection.
This of course means that all the current Equus genus species (horses, donkeys, zebras, ass, onager, etc) are of a different kind than Hyracotherium from which it evolved.
quote:
It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth). Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
quote:
Hyracotherium was a dog-sized perissodactyl ungulate that lived in the Northern Hemisphere, with species ranging throughout Asia, Europe, and North America during the Early to Mid Eocene, about 60 to 45 million years ago. [2]
http://horsecare.stablemade.com/articles2/horse_origins.htm
quote:
The evolutionary stages of the Equidae family serve as a classical illustration of the zoological evolution, because it is possible to observe a step by step change in the shapes of the body, the build of the limbs, the structure of the teeth etc. In accordance with the changes in the environment, development continued from a five-toed mammal the size of a fox, to the present size of a horse.
At the "door-step" of this evolutionary line, it becomes very difficult to recognize the ancestors of horses from the ancestors of tapir and the rhinoceros. Both of them have obviously similar origins, and similarities in the structure of teeth, odd-toed limbs, obvious mobility of the upper lip and other similarities according to which they join the evolutionary line of odd-toed hoofed mammals, the Perissodactyls. The tapirs and rhinoceroses remained “faithful” to their original style of life and also kept their original forms suitable for life in the tropical forests, however the evolutionary line of horses led to life on dryer land in much harsher climatic conditions of the steppes. The first predecessors of horses needed to walk on several spread-out toes to accommodate for living in the primeval forests, walking mostly on soft and moist ground.
http://extension.missouri.edu/...r/agguides/ansci/g02740.htm
quote:
A horse's hoof is composed of the wall, sole and frog. The wall is simply that part of the hoof that is visible when the horse is standing. It covers the front and sides of the third phalanx, or coffin bone. The wall is made up of the toe (front), quarters (sides) and heel. The digital cushion is a mass of flexible material that contributes to the formation of the heels (Figure 3). This structure is one of the primary shock absorbers of the foot. When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump.
Changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, including the addition of a new feature not in the original "Hyracotherium Kind" over 45 million plus years -- a period vastly in excess of 200,000 years (and thus a different kind by the above definition). Note that the differences between human and chimpanzee include changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, without the addition of any distinct feature similar to the Equus foot pump.
the second definitionTurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal LustJason Browning, Dr. Gerald Lenner, Mark Rajock
quote:
SPECIES AND THE BIBLICAL "KIND":
The Old Testament of the Bible employs the Hebrew word min 21 times to speak of the "kinds" of animals. In Genesis the created min were said to reproduce each after its own kind thus suggesting strict reproductive limits. It is not clear exactly where in our present system of classification we would draw the line for a min. All birds (the class Aves) are clearly not one min, because in the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy we find min applied respectively to the raven, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron. On the other hand, the species classification as used today is perhaps generally more limited than the Old Testament min. It would seem appropriate to include all dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and dingos as a single kind or min, for example, though this group includes several different species. In like manner, all true cattle of the genus Bos would represent one kind since they can interbreed. This would combine seven species of cattle: B. taurus (Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns), B. indicus (the zebu), B. grunniens (the yak and grunting ox), B. Gaurus (the gaur), B. frontalis (the gayal), B. banteng (the banteng) and B. sauveli (the kouprey) as all are known to hybridize. B. taurus and B. indicus, for example, have been crossed to produce the breed Santa Gertrudis, but is this a new species or an example of evolution in action? Even the African buffalo Syncerus caffer, the American bison (Bison bison) and the European bison (Bison bonasus) can be crossed with one another, and with true cattle, suggesting that all of these animals, though representing different genus and species, could be considered to be of the cattle kind or min. All varieties of horses, asses and zebras can cross breed and in like manner could be considered a horse kind.
Here we essentially have "kind" defined by the ability to breed hybrids (even if they are all sterile), and we could even extend this to include all those genetic experiments where the "breeding" was done in a lab -- Lions/Tigers, Whales/Dolphins, Zebras/Donkeys, Camels/Llamas and Cattle/Buffalo -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above. While it would be interesting to do some lab breeding of the birds listed above, we can also look at the amount of genetic differences involved in the breeding experiments already listed: whales and dolphins have greater genetic differences than humans and chimpanzees, and we also see the same kind of difference in chromosomes between horses and donkeys that we see between humans and chimps. This of course leads to problems for creationists that insist that chimpanzees are not part of the "human kind" ... do we need to do lab experiments to determine this? We also know that sheep and goats were known to the ancient Hebrews (as were horses and donkeys), and they can produce hybrids as well: Sheep—goat hybrid - Wikipedia
quote:
A sheep-goat hybrid is the hybrid offspring of a sheep and a goat. Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated together, they belong to different genera. Goats belong to the genus Capra and have 60 chromosomes, while sheep belong to the genus Ovis and have 54 chromosomes. This mismatch of chromosomes means any offspring of a sheep-goat pairing is generally stillborn.
This would mean that all sheep and goats would be the same "kind" ... But there are problems here with how far we can go with this: Chimera - Wikipedia(genetics)
quote:
Hybridomas are not true chimeras as described above because they do not result from the mixture of two cell types but result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory. Hybridomas have been very important tools in biomedical research for decades.
In August 2003, researchers at the Shanghai Second Medical University in China reported that they had successfully fused human skin cells and dead rabbit eggs to create the first human chimeric embryos.
In 2007, scientists at the University of Nevada's School of Medicine created a sheep that has 15% human cells and 85% animal cells. [5]
That would mean that humans and rabbits are of the same "kind" ... and sheep ... and we can go even further: Worm (web serial) - Wikipedia
quote:
A parahuman is a human-animal hybrid. Technically such hybrids already exist; for example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. This surgery effectively makes the recipient a human-animal chimera, though there is no visible effect. Scientists have also done extensive research into the combination of genes from different species, e.g. adding human (and other animal) genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silk proteins. Note that individual genes can be transplanted between species without the transplantation of whole cells.
This would extend the "kind" to include humans and bacteria -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above. There does not appear to be any reproductive barrier when such combinations are made. The logical conclusion is that "Life" is the biblical "kind".
Conclusion Either new kinds have already evolved (first kind above) or all life is of one "kind" (second kind above). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : human chimp differences in (1)
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
™ Version 4.2
