Clades and Kinds

I think Dr.A put some additional information on the meaning of Clade, and this is where there will be a disagreement.Because in the evolutionnary tree of life, you can always climb further up the tree as to englobe other species, and if you climb al the way up, you get to the base of the tree, where all of life is in the same clade.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.So in this sense, you are right that if two animals could be traded back to a common ancestor on the ark, they were of the same kind. I find your opening post very accurate in all this.The only place I disagree is at the very end, where cattles grow wings etc. From a creationist perspective, this could never happen. Because although we recognize micro-evolution, we make a distinction between this and macro-evolution. I tried to explain it on another thread, but in brief, macro requires that it is possible to gain information through mutations. If you do not have this in your hypothetical universe, then macro-evolution is impossible. However, even in such a universe, micro would still be possible.

I don't want to derail this topic off to another discussion of the word ''information'' and what meaning it can/should/could have. What I can say, is that Shannon information is an incomplete description of the reality of information. I don't really get how you distinguish creationist macroevolution and evolutionist macroevolution, because both are the same. This is maybe one of the few points of agreements, that to go from a unicellular organism up to a microbiologist, addition of information is required no matter how you define 'information'The difference is between creationist view of microevolution and evolutionist view of microevolution. This is were how you define 'information' becomes important, because creationists will argue that micro-evolution is the result of a loss of information, whereas an evolutionist will argue that some microevolution show an increase of information.This is all very debatable, but it is not the focus of this thread. The point is that micro-evolution could happen through a loss of information or a gain of information, whereas macro-evolution requires gain of information. This is the distinction I am trying to make.

Well, if they did, it would falsify the creationist position. Because if that happened, it would mean the ToE is possible.Imagine they developped wings, and then feathers, and then bills, and then an aerial-respiratory system, etc. etc. and in fact its descendants would be what everyone today would call a 'bird'. Would it be rational to still call it the same 'kind' ?Would they be of the same clade as their cattle ancestors ? Are you familiar with Gitt's information theory ?

The misunderstanding here is that I was not replyin to Dr. Adequate's post, but to PaulK's

I don't really have an opinion at the moment on his view of information, apart from the little bits I read here and there.I was planning to (eventually) read his book though, so I'd have to ask if you've read it

Ok, so even if our descendants become birds, they would still be in the same clade.This is kinda odd, it seems as though clade focuses only on lineage and not really biology. Guess I learned something today

Sorry I never posted back on that other thread, I didn't want to jump in it. Just a bit more info

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.Since, according to the responses I got, it would still be, then I don't think we can totally equate clade with kinds. This is because if my descendants were ever to be fishes, then the YEC would be falsified.Because, from a creationist point of view, if we would let 30millions years go by, there would be no mega-changes in the species you would end up with. Maybe bigger cows, smaller cows, fatter cows, etc. Wooly cows maybe. But I would not expect a winged cow, or an underwater breathing cow etc.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)

Of course, the probabilities of them becoming birds is very small, virtually impossible. But the probability that they evolve into something recognizably similar to another species we have today is probably pretty good. Convergent evolution happens often in an evolutionary perspective. Yes, the nuance being that kinds in creationism are the 'primary clades', the original ones who do not interconnect at higher levels. Compared to evolutionnary where all clades can be regrouped in higher clades all the way up to the first cell. Yes. Of course, the nuance is if they are going to stay biologically similar. Because, in evolutionary theory, my descendants can be birds, whereas they cannot be in a creationist perspective. I have never heard Kent Hovind, but yeah, following this line of reasoning, yes. This argument cannot be used to set up a strawman of evolution.However, creationists (usually) use it as a counter-argument. Suppose someone comes and starts a thread with an example of micro-evolution (for example, varying finch beaks sizes) and claims this falsifies YEC. Then it is perfectly legitimate for a creationist to say that the finches remained finches, and so that they remained the same kind.Of course, this is a very explicit example. The argument is usually much more implicit such as references to that bacteria adapting to its environment, or claims of 'evolution in action' whenever a population is seen to change color when it's environment changes, etc. etc. presented as to be proof of the ToE.Once again, it would be legitimate for a creationist to make the point that they are still the same kind, and therefore do not falsify YEC. In these situations, the evolutionist's argumentation would be fallacious, and you would agree that it should be noted to him.But I agree with you that, if I go around showing examples of these and saying: ''In everything I have shown you, the species always remained the same kind, therefore, the ToE is false'' would be a strawman.

Ok, I'm starting to understand.So in this case then, clades cannot be equated with kinds, since if the descendants of cows where to be biologically similar to birds, it would be inappropriate to call them cows.But, as you said, in the clades system, they would still have to be called cows. So there is a non-negligeable difference between the two terms.

Hey, I can bring out quotes of my own to :From 'anti-creationist' Larry Witham: Besides, it would be this great and beautiful idea that, without a thoeyr of evolution, biology would be but this unexplainable things. How great would that be. But I don't think this is the case. Biology was well started before 1859, and wasn't at all late in development because it's own Galileo hadn't come along. In fact, two of the very best in this area were christians: Pasteur and Mendel.And of course, there is also the fact that there are many skeptics of evolution that do just well in biology, even in at the start of the 21th century. Yes I know I know, this seems unbelievable. Outright lie! You might say, but this is the truth, it's a fact. It doesn't stop you from doing MRI scannings, or researching on cures for cancer. I myself have a friend here who is completing here PhD in biology, and she does not think the ToE is true.Even I did some classes of university level biology, and yet in a full years of it, we talked about evolution only once. I could perfectly understand what the teacher was saying, he never had to always refer to how it came to be in order to explain to us how it is.Now I know, just saying this will be considered blasphemy. And I'm sure this will generate a couple of replies, and of how evolution explains this, and explains that, etc. etc. And I not willing to say that the theory of evolution cannot be useful to explain sme aspects (the mitochondria comes to mind), but to go from a series of particular examples, and then affirm a general statement, is fallacious I believe, since that that good biology can be done without belief in evolution is a fact.

Of course, but we are doing a theoretical mind game here. Because, in theory, it could be possible tht the descendants of a cow would be just like birds. And when I say just like birds, I mean externally and internally, and the only differences that would be present would be on the same scale as birds have between one another.Would it still have to be called a cow ?

That is because you didn't catch the nature of my question, it is in a direct link with the OP in which he asked if we could equate kinds and clades.My question was just to know how far clades can go, and get the whole view of what it is. It isn't as much as is it possible for such and such a thing to happen, but rather if it did happen, how would that affect it's classification.