Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
51 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 881,652 Year: 13,400/23,288 Month: 330/795 Week: 31/95 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"?
Suspended Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 5 of 40 (352313)
09-26-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2006 3:28 PM

Expect it eventually will be defined genetically. But meanwhile I liked kuresu's list of hybrids which seemed to fit with what MJFloresta said about how a kind would be determined by ability to interbreed, even if that had to be tested artificially. I wasn't sure about this because I know there are cases where speciation has occurred and interbreeding ability has been lost though the new breed is certainly of the same kind. In any case I thought this made some kind of sense:

kuresu's list

My cleaned-up version of kuresu's list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2006 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 09-26-2006 8:52 AM Faith has responded
 Message 14 by RickJB, posted 09-26-2006 6:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

Suspended Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 18 of 40 (352521)
09-27-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
09-26-2006 8:52 AM

However, adding in the part about "certainly the same 'kind'" even though reproductively isolated leaves us back in the same place, without a usable definition. "'Kind' = ability to interbreed except when they can't" isn't very useful.

I know. I should not have added my doubtful thought at the end, which contradicted the first part as you say. Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. The fact that many don't proves nothing in other words.

I was thinking of a frog species somebody posted about on another forum a long time ago, and I don't remember its name, but it's a member of the frog kind and there is no doubt, not something new. HOw do I know? I don't know. It's just obvious.

I'd also like your opinion concerning the second part of the question: how do you determine whether two fossils are the same "kind"? Obviously, an interbreeding test isn't going to work. So what's the criteria?

I don't know enough fossils myself to ponder the possibilities. Something in the morphological department would have to be relevant. I was impressed at a posting once of the Karoo formation which is full of reptilian swimming things that I'd have to say are clearly of the same Kind although they vary from each other in interesting ways. I may be misremembering.

I'm tempted to say that whatever most people would be inclined to call the thing (at least in most cases -- there would always be exceptions) is probably close to a definition of the Kind.

But the fact is we don't have a definition. We have feelings about what a Kind would include, and I think the list of hybrids kuresu posted is intuitively satisfying. I also think ability, apart from inclination, to interbreed, seems relevant. And morphology too of course, but that's not easy to define either.

Someday it will have to be genetically defined. Or maybe Jesus will come back first.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 09-26-2006 8:52 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2006 5:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Quetzal, posted 09-27-2006 11:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020