Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


(2)
Message 24 of 385 (562562)
05-30-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Peepul
05-28-2010 10:40 AM


After several discussions on this point, please allow me to summarize what I've found (someone feel free to correct me if I flub...)
The Creationist term "kind" is objectively undefined and must remain so in order for the Creationist rhetoric to make any kind of sense. The main contradiction for Creationists in defining "kind" is to define this term simultaneously (a) broad enough that the observed instances of speciation can't be considered the creation of a new "kind" and (b) narrow enough that humans and the other apes are separate 'kinds'. In other words, at it's heart the word "kind" must fill these points in Creationist logic:
1. One 'kind' of animal cannot split into two 'kinds' of animals.
2. Humans are in a different 'kind' from the other apes.
But, as I've pointed out, Creationist rhetoric on this point only works if "kind" remains objectively undefined. Here is the sticking point: I've never heard any Creationist describe a test that definitively measures whether or not two animals are in the same "kind" or not.
For example, when I ask whether humans and apes are in the same "kind".
"We know that humans and apes are separate 'kinds' because..."
1. "They don't interbreed." (This would mean that current instances of speciation show a clear division from one "kind" into two.")
2. "They don't give birth to each other" (This would mean that human races are different "kinds", because Asians don't give birth to Africans.)
3. "It's simply obvious." (This is admittance that "kind" is simply a rhetorical tool, and is not an objective idea.)
The point here is that using the term "kind" is a rejection of the fact that life is organized into nested heirarchies, and that "kind" could mean any one of these levels, as long is it remains undefined. Biology already has a number of different systems for classifying life (Linnean, cladistics, phylogenetics, etc) and ALL of them lead distinctly to the conclusion that all life is related and descended from a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Peepul, posted 05-28-2010 10:40 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 06-01-2010 6:13 AM Fiver has not replied
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 06-02-2010 10:08 AM Fiver has not replied

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


(1)
Message 33 of 385 (562834)
06-02-2010 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
06-01-2010 1:34 PM


quote:
I don't see why creationists should have to all agree on which organisms fit inside which "kinds" when scientists don't have to all agree on which organisms fit inside which "clades."
The reason why creationists need to have a strict definition is because they are the ones making the claim that we have never observed one "kind" change into another... indeed, that the "kinds" are immutable, and unable to split. Scientists often debate the different definitions of 'species' or 'clade' because they understand this fundamental fact of biology: that all life is in a state of flux, and that the history of life is the story of one species splitting into two, so the boundaries are necessarily often subjective.
But having said that, even when considering the myriad of definitions for "species", ALL of them are more strictly defined than the Creationist term "kind", and speciation has been observed in all definitions of "species" which can apply to living animals. Compare this to "kinds", where, as far as any definition of "kinds" go, it could be that all primates are the same "kind" (the Bible doesn't specify).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 1:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 10:40 AM Fiver has replied

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 69 of 385 (562971)
06-02-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 10:40 AM


quote:
To make it clear, it is my position that creationists do have a strict definition of kind. All descendants of a specific archetype created by God is at least as clear as all descendants of a common ancestor (clade) or a group of organisms that can interbreed (species).
  —Bluejay
Good catch... I should've specified the need for the definition to be testable or practical. If we are to define "kind" as you suggest, then we clearly can't use this definition to support the Creationist claims...
1. The 'kinds' are immutable.
2. There have been no new 'kinds' since the Creation.
3. Humans and other primates are in separate "kinds".
4. The animals alive today are descended from the original "kinds".
All of these points are ones that do not follow logically from your definition, and yet they are the foundations of Creationism. In fact, according to your definition, it is entirely possible that all life on earth is of the same "kind".
Your comparison between "kind" and "clade" is particularly applicable, because a brief review of what "clade" means makes it obvious that new clades are constantly being created, that an animal can belong to many clades at the same time, and that over time, a population that exemplifies one clade may come to exemplify another.
Would you agree that the same applies to "kind"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 10:40 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:02 PM Fiver 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