quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I am curious as to were you thought that I was being arrogant w.r.t. my post re: kinds."
--I was directing this statment toward your post #29:
the above statement seems to be at odds with the following statement
quote:
"and b) making an observation concerning the potential motives of the poster. Nothing arrogant there that I can see."
--Not in the post you seem to be refering too, I concur.
But TC, they are the same post.
quote:
"I was a) pointing out that the definitions generally used by people concerning biological kinds are really not a good representation of biology"
--I find it just as relevant as the species, genus, or family classification.
Sorry, I can not agree here due to the artificial constraints imposed on "kind" as mentioned earlier. Also, creationists often set very little in the way of objective criteria w.r.t. the definition of kind, again as I mentioned earlier. One example is the ICR, their definition is more fluid than a supercooled gas.
quote:
"Now, as to my degree of knowledge, I am quite familiar with numerous ways that many creationist organizations use the term kinds and know that they shift it a lot and without supporting data. While I am glad that some are trying to look at real data there is a component of the creationist definition of "kind" that is unsupported by the data and in fact is directly opposed to it. This would be the concept and reality of varying levels of speciation. I have read of some creationist definitions of "kind" where small changes are allowed but they would never allow that tigers and lions, or jaguars and puma's have common ancestors."
--Actually, I see that tigers and lions are a single kind, as jaguars and puma's may as well have a common ancestor.
Well maybe we are getting somewhere after all. However, assuming your statement is representative as to how you think, can I assume that you would agree that these are not "created kinds"?
quote:
"Both the fossil and the molecular data support speciation; another and more recent example would be with whales and hippos, they share a common ancestor and yet the creationist definition of "kind" specifically rules out the type of speciation which both the molecular phylogeny and the fossil record demonstrate."
--I am all for speciation, and is quite a priority within the production of diversity and variation. As for the whales and hippos, mind if you emphesize?
Ah, so if speciation is real then both species and kinds can change can't they. As to the whale, there has been a great deal of data both from molecular biology and from fossils to determine the evolutionary pathways that the whales ancestors took to go from the land to the sea. There was an excellant article in Science, 21SEP01, Vol 293 outlining several finds that described data not only placing the whales squarely in the artiodactyl camp (even toed Ungulates which include hippos) which was more in line with the molecular phylogeny data. There were a number of morphological characteristics that were what would be predicted in a species that spent time both onland and in the water including nostril placement and the arrangment of lower vertebrea which, eventually, allowed the up and down movement of the tail and flukes. Now, most "kinds" as defined by most creationist groups do not fit this, but species as defined by biology and allowing for speciation and evolution does.
quote:
"What scientists do not do w.r.t. the definition of species is to impose an unmoving, a priori constraint as is done w.r.t. the base definition of kinds, ie no speciation, or as many creationists would put it, no macro-evolution (which would be a missuse of the term IMO but that is for a later debate)."
--How does the definition of kind, not allow for speciation, this is the reason the 'kind' is so difficult to identify precisely.
I have never been able to find a reason that some creationists say that kinds do not allow for speciation, it makes no biological sense. It also depends on the creationist, some will say that "created kinds" are those made by God during the first week and have never changed (patent BS), others say that there is a level of variation within species and their definitions range from no speciation to no "macroevolution" (a term which they constantly misuse), again with very little supporting data for their statements. This is the reason that I say that the term "kind" is a sloppily defined BS term, I understand differing viewpoints, what I can not stand is the lack of ANY supporting data.
W.R.T. species let me go one step further. Now, if speciation at ANY level can occur then mutations must be the source of the changes within the genomes (simple variation around a mean will not suffice unless it can be an increasing variation where changes in the species occur due to a shift in the mean itself, brought about by changes in selective pressure due to changes in the environment), a point almost always disputed by creationists. Now, this occurance of new genes, loss of old genes and shift within allelic frequencies makes up the basis for the raw material for speciation at all levels. With this in mind: 1)how would you account of speciation within the definition of the term kind (you can define your understanding of the term if you like), 2)how does this differ from species as defined in modern biology and 3) how does this definition of kind disallow evolution through natural selection and descent with modification?
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
™ Version 4.2
