Do we need a better concept than species?

Hello ModulousI think, when you say... ....you're stating something (and very clearly, I must say) which is common knowledge to people in the field but which is, if anything, counter-intuitive to the vast majority of people. This is why I worry that 'at the borders', where the convenient and obvious classifications break down, we may be a bit premature to be making claims of 'speciation' where no irresversible separation of the gene pools has yet occurred. No idea how to do it better though.Cheers,SteveN

That is why most studies on this sort of question talk about incipient speciation rather than speciation.TTFN,WK

I think that agreeing to that, you are agreeing with the concept of "kind", but you believe that the process goes back further.I still think it is disingenious to criticize the concept of "kind" and then talk about "species, families, orders", etc,...

Aha. I confess that I hadn't realised that. Although that would be a far more realistic point of view to take (in my opinion) it would probably be even harder to defend to an evosceptic.Cheers,SteveN

Not at all. Although the classification system we have is basically a convenient way to label the different forms of life on this planet, it reflects the fact (yes, there's that word again) of common descent, rather than being based on arbitary gut-feeling. A molecular biologist could theoretically place an unknown organism into it's correct family, order etc with only a few molecules of DNA to work with - it would not be necessary to see the organism itself.ByeSteveN

When I make an absolute statement about what can happen to familes or orders etc, you can ask me to back that up with some definitions. If I said, evolution can occur but it never crosses the order boundary...then that's great, we can discuss that we know what an order is and we can look to see if my claim has merit.However, when I say "Creatures can evolve, but they remind the same 'kind of animal'" - but fail to say that kind means Sparrow, Worm eating bird, bird, flying creatures, warm-blooded animals, egg laying organisms, organisms with replicating cells, anything with carbon in it - then I am effectively saying nothing at all.

Hi SteveNI agree with you previous post, saying that Long ago I posted a thread showing photographs of a number of suiform mammals requesting that those who belive in "kinds" divide them into taxonomic groups. I've repeatedly plugged that post and up till now no champion of ID "kinds" has ever given a single response (although they are invariably cocksure in abstract discussion...)Mick

I request that you give a clear English definition of the "concept of 'kind'".Mick

Kinds are the theorized original set of creation which have evolved to the forms of life we see today.There's your definition right there.One aspect of kinds are that for creatures that reproduced sexually, kinds consisted of creatures that could sexually reproduce. Over time, they have evolved into different species, many of which cannot reproduce sexually, but one way to potentially identify these theorized "kinds" is to assess the degree when a group of species had been part of single species that could reproduce sexually, at least for creatures in that manner.If you want more, I suggest you speak with creationists working in that arena.

Aha, this must be using a definition for 'clear English' that I hadn't encountered before. Seriously though, how would you use this concept to identify which 'kinds' the different suiform mammals posted by mick belong to?

First off, you guys need to take some time and make a genuine effort to understand the parameters of the debate. For example, there are no "ID kinds" as ID does not posit anything about kinds.Creationism, which admittedly can be thought of a subset, posits there is such a thing as "kinds", but ID in the larger context does not go there.In terms of plain English, I provided a definition so I would expect no more nonsense that definitions are not given.Your question only involves an aspect or quality related to determining "kinds" among sexually reproducting species, and not the definition itself. So it's not germane, and personally I never claimed I would, or am interested in determining the taxonomy of some certain subset of species.I would suggest you contact a specialist in that field that studies those particular organisms.

OK, mick may have got his ID's and YEC's mixed up in message 52, but this is an understandable mistake as they both obviously belong to the same 'kind' Well, maybe my 'reading for comprehension' skills are poorer than I imagined, but ..... .... simply does not make sense to me. Maybe you could rephrase to explain how you would 'assess the degree when a group of species had been part of single species that could reproduce sexually'. Anyone can give a definition, it's giving one that makes sense and which stands up to investigation that seems to be the problem. Until then you can expect 'more nonsense that definitions are not given'.

I'm having a little problem with the term "speciation event."Does that mean an "event" in which a gene pool separates into two isolated gene pools? Calling it an "event" makes it sound rather too sudden to me.

Hey robin, try this shorty Talk Origins article:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I think you are right, 'event' gives the impression of some some of instantaneous occurrence when it is describing a process taking hundreds or thousands of years at least.In terms of paleontonlogy the punctated equilibrium theory posits that speciation 'events' occur in a 'geological' instant, i.e. in too short a time period to be resolvable through paleontological methods.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-05-2005 10:38 AM