Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 1 of 143 (530804)
10-15-2009 1:17 AM


When discussing evolution with a creationist, one particular roadblock keeps cropping up. Namely, the distinction between "micro"-evolution and "macro"-evolution. Typically the discussion will go something like this:
Evolutionist*: Evolution is a fact. It can be observed in the natural world.
Creationist: Ah! But that's microevolution. Species can only evolve within "kinds"
Evolutionist: There you go again! What the *bleep* is a kind?
Creationist: A group of species that are related through evolutionary relationships.
Evolutionist: ...
This is an old argument that I'm sure most of us have seen many times. But I have never come across a creationist definition of a "kind" (except for the circular argument in my above example).
So as I was reading through the forum I started thinking of a way to define "kind" in taxonomic terms, and all of a sudden it hit me. Kinds are clades!
Here's my understanding of what creationists believe: After the Great Flood, Noah released one species of each "kind" from his ark. These kinds then "microevolved" (nevermind the unfeasability of this) into all the diverse species we have today. In other words, any group of species that can trace their common heritage back to one of the noachian species is a kind.
And then I realized something. This is exactly how taxonomists define clades. And by definition, no species that is part of a clade can ever give rise to a species outside of that clade.
So here are my assumptions (and I'd like any creationists to dispute them if I'm wrong)
1. A "kind" is any group of species that can trace a common descent back to one species from Noah's Ark. (Not the opinion of the author, but assumed for discussion)
2. A "kind" is therefore a clade.
3. Micro-evolution is an observed fact that occurs within "kinds", or clades.
Conclusion: Since evolutionists and creationists agree that species can only evolve within "kinds" (clades) we can now drop the ridiculous distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Creationists were right, it's all micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
Now, would anyone like to tell me why I'm wrong? Or perhaps someone would like to propose an alternative definition of "kind"?
Edited by Meldinoor, : Some clarification
Edited by Meldinoor, : Removed macroevolution from title. It was confusing, and a little misleading.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 10-15-2009 3:56 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 10-15-2009 4:49 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 10-15-2009 9:10 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 2:09 PM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 36 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-15-2009 8:19 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 4 of 143 (530812)
10-15-2009 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
10-15-2009 3:56 AM


I don't see what point you're trying to make here. My post is not trying to prove anything. It's just providing creationists with a reasonable definition of kinds. Now, if you define a kind as a clade you've eliminated the arbitrary barrier between micro and macro evolution. As far as evidence is concerned, life is a clade.
I'm trying to show how evolution does not predict that animals should speciate beyond their kinds (read clades).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 10-15-2009 3:56 AM Larni has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 5 of 143 (530816)
10-15-2009 4:34 AM


Some clarification
The point of the thread, which may not have been perfectly clear in the OP is that the Creationist strawman that evolution expects speciation across clade boundaries is false. I'm also trying to compare the concept of kinds with the concept of clades. If the two are equivalent, then the argument that species reproduce (speciate) only within their kinds can be shown to be consistent with evolution, not an argument for creation. Lastly, defining micro-evolution as evolution within a clade eliminates the need for macro-evolution, or any distinction at all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 10-15-2009 11:59 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2009 1:04 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 7 of 143 (530819)
10-15-2009 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by cavediver
10-15-2009 4:49 AM


You're still a member of the same clade. You of all people on this forum should appreciate the fish in you
Some similarities between clades and kinds:
1. No defined level in the hierarchy. Clades can be used at any level, from domain, all the way down to species. Incidentally, that's the range most definitions of "kind" fall into.
2. Creationists often (not always, but enough for comparison) define "kinds" as a group of species with a common ancestor. Like an ancestral horse "kind" giving rise to zebras and other closely related species. Clades are defined as an ancestral species, and all of its descendants.
Creationists will not accept common descent for all life. But they do believe that animals can be grouped into clades at a low level. The fact that these animals never speciate outside their "kind" is not an argument.
"Humans are still Eukaryotes."
(A quote I think I borrowed from you cavediver. I don't remember. Some thread. But the idea indirectly inspired this topic.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 10-15-2009 4:49 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2009 7:35 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 9 by Peepul, posted 10-15-2009 8:02 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 12 of 143 (530887)
10-15-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tuffers
10-15-2009 9:10 AM


Calling Peg... Calling Peg...
You're right, tuffers. Maybe it's foolish of me to try to define a word that creationists won't even agree on.
But if we ignore the distant past, if we don't argue common ancestry for now, and simply focus on something that creationists and evolutionists can agree on, there were animals 4000yrs ago and their descendants are alive today. Many creationists will argue that those species will have diverged by now, but everyone agrees that those species and their modern descendants constitute some kind of clade.
One person on this post who likes to use the argument "dogs always produce dogs" is Peg. And despite me having addressed the argument a couple of times, she has continued to use it. What I'm trying to say here is yes, the descendants of dogs will always be dogs. Not modern dogs necessarily, but always some member of the dog/wolf clade. They will still be easily recognizable as descendants of dogs for a long time, and will retain traits in common with other members of their clade, just like humans have many traits in common with fish.
I had hoped Peg would have given her opinion here. Namely, she could have tried to explain why her argument isn't a strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 10-15-2009 9:10 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by tuffers, posted 10-15-2009 12:49 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 28 of 143 (530986)
10-15-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
10-15-2009 1:04 PM


Nested clades
Hi ICANT.
Thank you for being the first creationist to provide feedback on this topic. I will try to answer your questions best I can.
ICANT writes:
1. A clade is a group having a common ancestor.
Spot on.
ICANT writes:
2. There is more than one clade.
Yup.
ICANT writes:
3. Those clades have boundary's specition don't cross.
Yes. This is true by definition. My grandmother and all of her descendants constitute a kind of clade that includes me. Now, if my family was a different species from yours, such that my descendants could not interbreed with yours, it is impossible for any of my descendants to join your family, to cross the clade boundary.
However, we may both share a common great-great-great-great grandfather. So we are both a part of the clade that includes him. As you can see, clades are nested inside one another. While my species can never cross over to yours, we're both part of the same clade at a higher level.
This is called nesting, and that's why an animal never has to change its clade to "macro-evolve".
ICANT writes:
4. Creationist believe those boundaries have to be crossed if evolution is true.
Peg writes:
donkeys horses and mules are another example of how two of the species can breed to a point but no further. They are all still equine though
I think the above quote from Peg will do as an example. Here she (implicitly) defines equines as a "kind". Equines are actually a fine example of a clade. The descendants of horses will always belong to the equine clade. In other words, the fact that equines never become non-equines is not an argument against evolution, and should not be used as such.
ICANT writes:
I have no idea what other creationist so call believe.
I simply believe God created everything we see today. Simple statement. Not really.
Indeed. This seems to be one of the few things that creationists agree on. But you can't argue a point based solely on belief. You must have an argument, and the purpose of this thread is to show how at least one common argument against evolution is based on a misconception.
Do you understand what I mean when I say that equines will always be equines, just like cetaceans will always be cetaceans, and tetrapods will always be tetrapods? If we agree on this concept, then you should concede that Peg's argument (and all other variations of it) is a lousy argument indeed.
ICANT writes:
Now if creationist want to reduce them down to get a smaller number to be on the ark that is their problem not mine.
If you believe the animals were all on the ark, then getting them to fit is very much your problem. Just wanted to point that out though, I'm sure there's a thread more suitable for a discussion of that issue.
ICANT writes:
Hopefully this will give insight to those here as to my beliefs and the reason I argue like I do. Like the argument about the bacteria, it makes no difference how much they change as long as they are bacteria macro evolution has not happened.
Could you define macroevolution please? Do you believe bacteria constitute a single kind? (If they are, then cladistically you might as well make humans and mushrooms the same kind)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2009 1:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 10-15-2009 5:58 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 10:56 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 30 of 143 (530996)
10-15-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
10-15-2009 2:09 PM


Hi slevesque, thank you for your contribution.
slevesque writes:
The difference with the creation point of view, is that it does not consist of a single tree, but of multiple ones that do not interconnect. This is why they often call it a creationist orchard. And so if you climb up one tree, eventually you will get to the base which will englobe all the animal types that are in the same kind/clade. But you will never be able to join all the trees together in the same clade, they will all remain distinct.
Let's, for the sake of argument, go with your "orchard of life". Feel free to bring out a saw and cut off branches, twigs, section of trunk from the free of life wherever you like, and plant them separately. It won't make a difference to the argument I'm trying to make.
Now let's take your tree representing cattle, their relatives and common ancestor. Let's sit down and watch it grow for 30 million years. ................................
Ah, that didn't feel too long. Now, let's have a look at your tree. Oh my, it's grown quite a lot, and the branches have really spread out and diversified. But guess what? It's still the same tree. The cattle tree. Are the branches still cattle? You bet! Do they look like cattle did 30 million years ago? Probably not. (Although some branches might have not have diversified as much).
They are still the same kind, even if they cruise around in moocedes benz and eat manburgers at the drive-thru. The fact that animals never ever change their kind did not get in the way of evolution.
Now, I know your first reaction will be that this is pure speculation. You will tell me that animals can't evolve in this way, or that there's no way to prove that they can. To that I say fine, a topic for a different thread. But that's not what we are discussing. The important thing that I'm trying to show you with my thought experiment is that if evolution does occur, the fact that animals never speciate outside their kinds is not a meaningful argument against it.
If you agree with me on that point, then we can finally throw that old argument out the window and laugh together at creationists who continue to use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 2:09 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 11:24 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 32 of 143 (531000)
10-15-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
10-15-2009 3:35 PM


Let's try to avoid another information discussion
slevesque writes:
Would they be of the same clade as their cattle ancestors ?
They would, by taxonomic definition, be of the same clade. By creationist definition, they would be of the same "kind".
Thank you slevesque for not making this another discussion about information theory. It's interesting in other threads, but it muddles up the discussion in this thread. I'm surprised that NosyNed was willing to engage you in going off topic, but I hope I've made it clear that this thread is not about whether we believe evolution from microbe to man is possible. I say yes, you say no, and all of a sudden information theory and terms like "macro" and "microevolution" start flying around.
The real question is whether microbes and humans would still be of the same "kind" if one assumes that the one evolved from the other. Or whether cattle 30 million years from now are still of the same "kind" as modern cattle.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 3:35 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 34 of 143 (531020)
10-15-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
10-15-2009 7:02 PM


Re: macro semantics
Interesting. I thought micro and macroevolution were creationist concepts. I guess I've learned something today.
Note that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are still distinguished only by scale.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2009 7:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2009 7:41 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 37 of 143 (531032)
10-15-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AnswersInGenitals
10-15-2009 8:19 PM


Re: Persuade the clade to evade the shade.
As far as I know (and that isn't much) eukaryotes are considered a good monophyletic clade, and eukaryotes are the "gobblers" in this case. Since we usually define a species and its place in a clade using nucleic DNA, the gobbler and all his descendants will constitute a clade. However, one can also classify mitochondria and other organelles containing DNA into clades by the same reasoning. So the mitochondria in our cells, and the ancestor of all mitochondria may well be considered their own clade. The shape of their tree should also coincide with the shape of the tree based on nucleic DNA (biologists, correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't know about kinds. Ask a creationist.
ABE: Horizontal gene transfer shouldn't actually be a problem here, I think, since we're talking about individuals (ancestors and their descendants) and not specific genes.
Edited by Meldinoor, : ABE: Horizontal gene transfer shouldn't actually be a problem here, I think, since we're talking about individuals (ancestors and their descendants) and not specific genes.
Edited by Meldinoor, : Wrote my ABE in the "reason for edit" box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-15-2009 8:19 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 42 of 143 (531062)
10-16-2009 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-15-2009 11:24 PM


slevesque writes:
This is why I find your idea very interesting, and why I asked the question that if a cattles descendants were to be birds, if they would still be of the same clade.
It would be virtually impossible for cattle to evolve into birds It would have to take some pretty wierd paths to get there. And we both agree that species never cross the clade boundaries. Let's just call them "winged-cattle", so as to avoid confusion.
slevesque writes:
But aside from that point, yeah I agree that the different 'biblical kinds' can possibly be called the primary clades that started off individually and who constitute the highest level (which means they do not connect at a higher level)
Thank you. Now I'm going to make a short list of things we agree on:
1. Kinds can be defined as clades on some level
2. Neither creationists nor evolutionists expect clade boundaries to be crossed. Both agree that equines will remain equines, dogs will remain dogs, and primates will remain primates.
3. Therefore, the common creationist argument that the fact that animals never leave their clades (dogs will be dogs, equines will be equines, etc) is somehow supposed to disprove evolution is a strawman, and should never again be used by anyone. Creationists who use this argument, like Kent Hovind, are either being intentionally misleading or are ignorant of how evolution and cladistics works.
I think you'll agree with 1 and 2. If so, number 3 should follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 11:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 12:42 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:36 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 141 by penstemo, posted 11-24-2009 10:57 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 143 (531256)
10-16-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ICANT
10-16-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi ICANT,
I think our disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of what a clade is. All animals belong to multiple clades. To take it to the really absurd extreme, you could say an animal belongs to as many clades as he has ancestors. When evolutionists say that animals speciate, they are not saying that the animal leaves its clade and joins a new one. But it can start a clade inside the old clade.
So the first life-form would be the clade, "life". Later on, inside that clade, you'll get clades of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Much further on, the first vertebrates will form a clade inside the eukaryote clade, which is inside the "life" clade. Eventually you'll wind up with the clade "tetrapod", and further down the line we have a clade called mammals. These clades are inside each other. They are subdivisions of the higher clades. So a population of animals may well speciate to form new clades, but they will never leave their old clades, and they will certainly not join another pre-existing clade (like cows becoming birds).
That's how you get diversity without crossing clade lines. Now, on to your other questions...
ICANT writes:
Are there any humans that can not interbreed and produce offspring?
We don't know if Neanderthals were able to interbreed with modern humans. As far as I'm aware, DNA tests suggest not. I assume they must have been of a different kind then, despite the fact that they are almost identical to us morphologically?
As for my analogy where I used close relatives to represent clades, I only assumed that families could not interbreed to make the analogy as simple as possible. Analogies do not have to be 100% realistic in order to work.
ICANT writes:
If God created an ass kind and He created a horse kind a mule proves evolution can not take place.
Careful now, ICANT. Why would it disprove evolution? Even if God created horses and asses separately, why do mules prove that evolution doesn't take place? Even if you could prove that God created life 6000 years ago, much like it is today, you still wouldn't have shown that evolution doesn't work from that point on.
ICANT writes:
But since I believe God created all the different kinds of animals and He did not have an equine kind that horses, ass's, and zebras belonged too, your statement is meaningless.
No, it is not meaningless. You may not realize it, but even in your world kinds are clades. Do you, or do you not believe that a few representatives of each kind was aboard the ark? Do you believe that all animals today are descendants of those animals? In that case they are clades. Low-level clades, but clades nonetheless. And this is where evolutionists and creationists agree: "No matter what, the descendants of these kinds will never evolve such that they do not belong to the same clades as their ancestors." Dogs will stay dogs. Cattle will stay cattle. To say that evolution says otherwise is to build a strawman.
ICANT writes:
Meldinoor writes:
Could you define macroevolution please?
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Actually, what you are describing is magic. If you think this is an example of biological evolution, then you really don't know enough to participate in this thread. Fortunately, I don't think you're being ignorant, you just decided not to take the question seriously.
Let's give it one more try:
Could you give me your definition of macro-evolution please?
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen.
ICANT writes:
You would have one critter (a cow) become a totally different critter (a bird).
Aha, now we're getting somewhere. So when a "critter" becomes a "totally different critter" we have macro-evolution. Well, that doesn't happen either. Fish and humans are not "totally different". They share a lot of traits. Slime molds and humans are not totally different.
I think you agree with evolutionists a lot more than you think. Your rejection of many of the processes by which evolution does NOT work brings you closer to becoming an evolutionist yourself. Now you just need to figure out how it does work for your "training to be complete".
Join the dark side. We get free cookies, or something...
God bless you too, ICANT
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 10:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 6:55 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 66 of 143 (531257)
10-16-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-16-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Non Agreement
ICANT writes:
There can be no agreement by a Bible believing litteralist that Biblical kinds can be defined as clades according to the way clades have been described in this thread.
Aha. So all members of a kind today do not share a common ancestor on the ark. I guess Bible believing literalists think the flood did not destroy all the rest of the world then.
ICANT writes:
No Bible believing litteralist believes that one kind can become another kind.
Yes, yes, young apprentice. Continue to agree with evolutionists and to shun mainstream creationist views and together we can rule this forum as evolutionist and evolutionist. Join us! Mohahahahahaha!!!
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 6:13 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 67 of 143 (531258)
10-16-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by slevesque
10-16-2009 4:16 PM


Re: Bird Odds
slevesque,
As I illustrated with my orchard of life analogy, it really does not matter how far back we think clades go. You agree that all members of a kind share ancestry, and that makes them a clade. Descendants of these kinds will remain in the clade, and this is predicted by both evolutionists and creationists.
That's all
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 4:16 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 69 of 143 (531267)
10-16-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
10-16-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Non Agreement
ICANT writes:
ICANT'S position is that every living kind that is present today was on the ark.
Then, per definition, a kind is a clade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 6:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024