|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Hello Faith,
Just reposting this in case you missed it. I didn't want to pile up on you and thought this might be a good place to start since you had mentioned some intuitive boundary for kinds. I am curious what you would consider an "intuitive" boundary then?Could you maybe expand this idea a bit? I am assuming, though it is your own idea, that this could help clarify or determine what you consider a 'kind' to be. Ideas: Diet (such as between Pandas and Bears)Ecology (such as between otters and sea-lions or minks) Behavior (such as between wolves and badgers) morphology (such as between snake and iguana) Genetic analysis (such as between chimps and humans) If you could provide us with some sense of how you determine 'kinds' even in your own view, it would help to narrow the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am curious what you would consider an "intuitive" boundary then? Could you maybe expand this idea a bit? I am assuming, though it is your own idea, that this could help clarify or determine what you consider a 'kind' to be. Ideas: Diet (such as between Pandas and Bears)Ecology (such as between otters and sea-lions or minks) Behavior (such as between wolves and badgers) morphology (such as between snake and iguana) Genetic analysis (such as between chimps and humans) If you could provide us with some sense of how you determine 'kinds' even in your own view, it would help to narrow the debate. I really didn't want this to become part of the debate, it was said completely casually, just as an indication of my own ruminations. I almost want to say right now, though, thinking of why raccoons seem to be so bearlike, that it's about "personality." Please don't pin me down about that though. It may have nothing to do with anything. I guess any of those things you list could conceivably be part of the definition of a kind, but I can only work from what I'm familiar with. The examples you give don't seem right to me though -- not wolves with badgers, and not humans with chimps certainly, although I'd ordinarly say that genetics, morphology and behavior should be part of the definition of a kind. abe: Here's a thread where I spent some time detailing my intuitions about kinds:
Behavioral Traits and Created Kinds, post #4 Behavioral Traits and Created Kinds, post #21 The thread got very frustrating for me. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-23-2006 01:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mallon Inactive Member |
quote:What about Archaeopteryx? Does it belong with the bird-kind or the dinosaur-kind? Certainly, it looks more like a Velociraptor than a pigeon. Or what about Ichthyostega? Is it more of a rhipidistian fish-kind or an amphibian kind? Then there's Haptodus. Could it be an ophiacodont-kind? What about a sphenacodont-kind? Or maybe ophiacodonts and sphenacodonts are all the same kind? Cynodictis: is it a dog, or is it a bear? I know creation scientists don't have answers to these, and so I don't expect them to come up with any (talk about low expectations!). But evolutionary science does have answers. That's what makes it a science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My intuition only covers creatures I have some personal familiarity with, as I thought I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You have personal familiarity with bears and chimps?
And I'd still really like to know your stance regarding the genetic basis for heredity and relatedness. Do you accept that genes show relatednes between organisms or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have personal familiarity with bears and chimps? In the zoo and through films. I count that as personal familiarity {abe: at least enough personal familiarity to compare them to other creatures I know even better.} I've never seen archaeopteryx in action.
And I'd still really like to know your stance regarding the genetic basis for heredity and relatedness. Do you accept that genes show relatednes between organisms or not? I don't know enough about it to have an unequivocal stance. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-23-2006 12:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't know enough about it to have an unequivocal stance. I'm right at the end of my genetics class, so it's all pretty fresh for me and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I would, of course, try my best to be polite in doing so. It's never been my intent to make you feel like an idiot for not knowing something, just for refusing to learn something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, do you accept that DNA is the basis of heredity?
Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
in Message 17 I made a post giving further clarification on the term 'kind' being discussed, ie: 'created kinds' or baramin.
140 posts later and its still one the main subtitles. I think its time for its retiral.
"For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle and so say all of us And so say all of us, and so say all of us For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle and so say all of us For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle which nobody can deny Which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle which nobody can deny" OK, that was entirely off topic. Let me think...aha! This "Kind" of thing is exactly the "Kind" of thing that sends the Moose "Kind" crazy (or is it an Admin "Kind"? We really need a definition). Like I learned in "Kind"ergarten, you've got to be cruel to be "Kind". Erm, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
The examples you give don't seem right to me though -- not wolves with badgers, and not humans with chimps certainly, although I'd ordinarly say that genetics, morphology and behavior should be part of the definition of a kind. I am sorry if I wasn't clear about what I was asking. When I made the list I tried to make it clear I was looking for a distinction between them. IE. I was wondering if you saw Pandas and Bears as being seperate kinds because of diet. Or snakes and iguanas as being seperate/distinct kinds because of morphology. I understand you didn't want to get too indepth into distinctions, I was just wondering how you might have seperated them, as a brain exercise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
and the outcome is that bariminology is never going to be science or even of any value.
This contains links to a number of papers which seem to make real attempts to put forward methods for identifying baramins The problem is that they are based on a heirachy of evidence which begins with an assertion that is itself a conclusion.
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include: 1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. From this paper Note the part I bolded. They have begun with the conclusion, that despite any evidence to the contrary, what is written in the Bible will take precedence. Baraminology is but religion, not science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am sorry if I wasn't clear about what I was asking. When I made the list I tried to make it clear I was looking for a distinction between them. IE. I was wondering if you saw Pandas and Bears as being seperate kinds because of diet. Or snakes and iguanas as being seperate/distinct kinds because of morphology. I understand you didn't want to get too indepth into distinctions, I was just wondering how you might have seperated them, as a brain exercise. I just don't know enough about most of your examples to have an opinion, DB. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, how about chimps and humans?
You said you knew about them. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-23-2006 01:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
No problemo. And just in case you feel like pursueing the idea at a later date, the list didn't and doesn't have to include the animals I listed. They were just examples to think about. The main focus I was trying to achieve was looking at say: Diet, Ecology, Morphology, Genetics, etc. as ways of seperating 'kinds'.
I was hoping it could have been an interesting brain excersize. Just looking at taking 'baby steps'. By the way (and only if you have time and feel the desire), when you have a chance read a bit about new world vultures and old world vultures. New World Vultures have recently been reclassified from genetic studies to be in the same order as Storks, while Old World Vultures are in the order Falconiformes with eagles, hawks, falcons. Anywho, something to think about when classifying kinds? This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-23-2006 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
*bump*
Just on case Randman hadn't seen this thread yet, since I know people were interested in having his input. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024