Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Define "Kind"
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 151 of 300 (289633)
02-22-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
02-22-2006 12:58 PM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:49 AM DBlevins has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 300 (289669)
02-23-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by DBlevins
02-22-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Further clarification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2006 8:18 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Mallon, posted 02-23-2006 8:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 160 by DBlevins, posted 02-23-2006 12:36 PM Faith has replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 300 (289726)
02-23-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
02-23-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Further clarification
quote:
The examples you give don't seem right to me though -- not wolves with badgers, and not humans with chimps certainly
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 11:52 AM Mallon has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 300 (289778)
02-23-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Mallon
02-23-2006 8:42 AM


Re: Further clarification
My intuition only covers creatures I have some personal familiarity with, as I thought I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Mallon, posted 02-23-2006 8:42 AM Mallon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 02-23-2006 11:56 AM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 300 (289781)
02-23-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
02-23-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Further clarification
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:05 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 300 (289784)
02-23-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
02-23-2006 11:56 AM


Re: Further clarification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 02-23-2006 11:56 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 12:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 158 by nator, posted 02-23-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 300 (289787)
02-23-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
02-23-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:05 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 158 of 300 (289788)
02-23-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
02-23-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Further clarification
Well, do you accept that DNA is the basis of heredity?
Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:05 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 300 (289794)
02-23-2006 12:31 PM


Re: Re: Further clarification
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: 02-04-2003


Message 160 of 300 (289798)
02-23-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
02-23-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 1:03 PM DBlevins has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 161 of 300 (289810)
02-23-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Wounded King
02-22-2006 12:40 PM


Bariminology will NEVER be science.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2006 12:40 PM Wounded King has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 300 (289811)
02-23-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by DBlevins
02-23-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DBlevins, posted 02-23-2006 12:36 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by nator, posted 02-23-2006 1:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 164 by DBlevins, posted 02-23-2006 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 163 of 300 (289814)
02-23-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
02-23-2006 1:03 PM


nailing jello
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 1:03 PM Faith has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 164 of 300 (289817)
02-23-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
02-23-2006 1:03 PM


For a later pursuit perhaps...?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 1:03 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Coragyps, posted 02-24-2006 12:26 PM DBlevins has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 165 of 300 (290082)
02-24-2006 12:16 PM


Care to say a few words?
*bump*
Just on case Randman hadn't seen this thread yet, since I know people were interested in having his input.
TTFN,
WK

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024