|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
Agreed. Way off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Humans have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years and they have discovered that they always produce offspring within the same kind. Despite the huge variation in domestic dogs they are all the same species. To cite this as evidence for evolution is to expose the edge of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Kind - A group of creatures that were able to interbreed immediately after Creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Or how about this definition?
quote: Strong's Concordance definition of "kind"Blue Letter Bible on line Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What we are interested in is the criteria one uses to determine if two species belong to the same kind. But first we will need to define "species"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: Species are organisms that don't successfully interbreed. Don't or can't?What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a geographical barrier? What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a behavioural barrier? Chihuahuas and Great Danes don't successfully interbreed but are both considered to be the same species. How about them? What about horses and donkeys that can and do successfully interbreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species. I gave an example of two animals of the same species that can't/don't interbreed, and an example of two animals of different species that can/do interbreed. As for kinds, well, we know them when we see them; just like you do with species. (sarcasm, in case you missed it) Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. Edited by CRR, : Reword last sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I'm always quite puzzled when creationists think that defining species exactly somehow is "a problem for evolution". I'm always quite puzzled when evolutionists think that defining kinds exactly somehow is "a problem for creationism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail. I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
But not all the "cats" kind can interbreed or do. So some of them in there are not of one kind. Or do I misunderstand you. Yes you do misunderstand me. I have never said that the ability to interbreed is the ONLY criteria for defining the bounds of a kind. However the ability to interbreed is strong evidence that they are members of the same kind. Dogs are all one species but not all of the "dog" species can interbreed or do so. Morphology and genetics can also be used to infer kinds where there is no evidence of interebreeding. I think there is one outlier in the cats but otherwise they can all be linked by a chain of hybrids that crosses species and genera boundaries. So if two animals in different genera can interbreed and do so in the wild does that mean they are actually the same species? Perhaps we should just agree with Darwin that species is not a valid concept in biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: You would look at an African and an Asian elephant and say they're the same kind, science says they're not even the same genus. Elephas maximus (Asian elephants), Loxodonta africana (African savanna elephants) and Loxodonta cyclotis (African Forest Elephant). They're obviously related but now so distantly that they can't interbreed. I think you have just managed to conclude that they are all the same kind and that in this case the kind includes more than one genera. In other cases a kind could include a single species. As with dogs and cats, being in the same kind does not automatically mean different members can interbreed. Nor does it mean there must be a chain of hybridization linking members. All it means is that they are descended from the same created kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What is a kind and how do we find them?
Each original kind is one of the original created groups of organisms which could reproduce with others in the group but not outside the group; and their descendants, which may today be classified into different species or higher taxonomic groups. Hence the original kinds would have truly earned the modern biological definition of species. Each kind was provided with a gene pool which allowed variation and adaptation to different environments. Each kind could split into two or more distinct subgroups which can then diverge within the limits of the original gene pool including by loss of genetic information. These subgroups can become reproductively isolated and can then be called new species. Genetic variability is at its maximum in the original created kind and variability is reduced in each of the new subgroups. The more variability available the more easily a population can split into subgroups and this reduces with each partitioning of the population. Hence the rate of new species formation is expected to reduce over time. Today the members of a kind will be a clade rooted on the original created kind, but the original kinds are not rooted in a further common ancestor. The biological discipline of systematics was developed to discover natural groupings of organisms, such as species. Baraminology is a systematic method that attempts to determine to which kind each modern species belongs. Some methods within baraminology are hybridization and baraminic distance method. Some term used in baraminology are;1. The monobaramin is a group of organisms that share continuity, either genetic or phenetic. 2. The apobaramin is a group of organisms that is discontinuous with everything else. Creationists have long used bats as an example of animals that are unrelated to any other mammals. Since we don’t know how many kinds (baramins) of bats God created, baraminologists refer to the bats as an apobaramin. 3. The holobaramin is roughly what we call the ‘Genesis kind’. Technically, it simply combines the definitions of monobaramin and apobaramin. A holobaramin contains a complete set of organisms that share continuity among themselves but are discontinuous with all other organisms. Because these definitions are not mutually exclusive, they form the basis of the baraminological method of successive approximation.As an example look at A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses by Todd Charles Wood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Er, I tried to say what I said, in simple unambiguous English.
Yeah, sorry JonF. I must have been tired when I read your previous post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
In any field of true science, definitions are rightly considered important. But evolutionary biology is different ...
Well so far we have found that the terms evolution, theory of evolution, species, kinds, microevolution, and macroevolution, can all be clearly defined; just not in a way that everyone agrees with. Definitions seem to be remarkably idiosyncratic. This is why evo-biologists can get excited by Trinidad Guppies and Galapagos Finches and say the trivial changes observed are evolution in action.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024