Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 31 of 143 (530997)
10-15-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 5:36 PM


Re: Nested clades
you might as well make humans and mushrooms the same kind
Which we are, which I point out only so that I can say "opisthokont."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 5:36 PM Meldinoor has not 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 143 (531014)
10-15-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blzebub
10-15-2009 5:32 PM


macro semantics
Hi Blzebub,
What is "macroevolution", other than a lot of very small changes over time? Is it anything else? Is it even a real concept? Isn't the whole thing just known as "evolution"?
Yes, but there is a distinction made in biology between evolution occurring within a population - your standard evolutionary process, but here referred to as microevolution - and the differentiation between species that occurs after a speciation event - where each species continues to evolve by microevolution within their populations, but there is no longer any transfer between the daughter species and thus they inevitably diverge. That divergence results in greater and greater difference between the now isolated populations.
The distinction made by creationists is of "large scale change" by some other mechanism than normal evolution.
Berkeley University has an excellent site on evolution:
See Evolution 101 and you can click through the pages or use the menu on the top to jump to topics of interest.
For further discussion. There is a discussion of cladistics\phylogenies begining on the third page.
See microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blzebub, posted 10-15-2009 5:32 PM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 7:18 PM RAZD has 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 143 (531026)
10-15-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 7:18 PM


Re: macro semantics
Hi Meldinoor, always good to learn new things.
Note that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are still distinguished only by scale.
And that there isn't any different mechanism for macroevolution, all the changes are due to microevolution in isolated populations. Macroevolution is the development of trees by descent from common ancestors, and the important event is speciation, as that forms the branches.
This is what cladistics tracks. I personally prefer cladistics over classical taxonomy, as it does away with the confusion caused by family, order, etc classifications, which are only due to arbitrary human naming designations.
Message 12
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.
Another thread that addresses this common creationist PRATT is Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? and I never got very far with that thread, where I start with the thesis that eohippus is analogous to dogs.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 7:18 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 143 (531030)
10-15-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 1:17 AM


Persuade the clade to evade the shade.
Where do endosymbiosis, particularly where the gobbler's genome acquires most of the genes of the gobblee's genome, and horizontal gene transfer fit into the clade concept? (Or the 'kind' concept?) If this is off topic, please ignore.
By the way, my spell checker (TextEdit) doesn't even recognize the word "clade" so I guess my Powerbook rejects your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 1:17 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 8:29 PM AnswersInGenitals 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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 143 (531051)
10-15-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
10-15-2009 4:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2009 4:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 39 of 143 (531053)
10-15-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Perdition
10-15-2009 5:25 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 4:50 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 5:00 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 143 (531054)
10-15-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Jack
10-15-2009 5:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 10-15-2009 5:50 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 143 (531055)
10-15-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 5:57 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 5:57 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 46 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 4:41 AM slevesque 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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 143 (531065)
10-16-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Meldinoor
10-16-2009 12:15 AM


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.
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.
1. Kinds can be defined as clades on some level
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.
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.
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.
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 AM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 2:44 AM slevesque has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 143 (531076)
10-16-2009 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
10-15-2009 3:36 PM


Information off topic so....
There is a place to discuss information in DNA now.
Message 1
Could you answer the couple of questions there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 3:36 PM slevesque has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 45 of 143 (531078)
10-16-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
10-16-2009 12:42 AM


Bird Odds
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.
No, the probability of cows becoming birds is zero, exactly zero.
Birds are a defined clade. Cows may lighten up a bit, grow 3 pairs of humongous wings and fly or even end up looking like black and white spotted crows but they can never, ever be defined as being a bird even if they look identical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 12:42 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:00 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024