Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 1:30 PM
40 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Theodoric (8 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,842 Year: 6,879/19,786 Month: 1,420/1,581 Week: 242/393 Day: 65/110 Hour: 1/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"?
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2626 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 30 of 40 (643817)
12-12-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2006 3:28 PM


Bin a long time
Greetings, physician.

How do we understand the biblical "kinds"? A fair, but difficult question. To understand the difficulty, we must first compare the concept of "kind" to its evolutionary equivalent.

Evolution believes that all of life evolved from a single living cell, moving through many stages of increased morphological complexity en route to the diversity we now witness.

Obviously, this means that life passed through a number of evolutionary watersheds, and these major transition points are afforded categories under the science of taxonomy: kingdom, phylum, class, genus, order, family and species.

For the most part, this has been an orderly process; there has been some reclassification and reallocation, but that's to be expected.

"kinds", on the other hand, suggest that biological diversity had a much more complex starting point; from a set number of highly complex organisms aboard the Ark, through speciation, to the multiplicity of species we encounter today.

I agree with many other people that "family" is the taxonomic level that best approximates "kind". But as taxonomy has seen some retrospective reshuffling (and no doubt will see more in the future) "kinds" will not neatly fit into the "family" classification, and will also need ongoing revision.

For me the solution is simple. I would place creatures of obvious phenotypic similarity into the same Kind- as long as they did not exhibit a genetic complexity greater than that exhibited by the majority of established members of that Kind (increased genetic complexity being defined as more coding DNA, resulting in a biological feature or function additional to all of those enjoyed by the other members.)

This would allow for the diversity created by simple speciation, without requiring the problematic increase in genetic complexity which, as we all know, has never been observed or documented.

Polymer-metabolising microbes not withstanding, of course.


"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2006 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2011 6:17 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 8:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 37 by pandion, posted 12-13-2011 1:11 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2626 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 31 of 40 (643818)
12-12-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2006 5:32 AM


Be careful of what you wish for
FSTDT.

Does that include Stephen Jay Gould's Darwinian Fundies?

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2006 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2011 7:20 AM Kaichos Man 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 © 2019