Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[newhope101]

Post 187
Perhaps my confusion also comes from the fact that you don't seem to grasp the concept that the cladograms shown do not include extinct species... making your insistence that Homo sapiens come directly from Chimps confused at best.

Your two graphs are identical (they both leave out extinct species and match perfectly)... they do not conflict.

wa:do

PaintedWolf ..I do not know if you are trying to take everyone for a fool but it is obvious the top graph is quite different from the lower. In the lower graph the hominini branch goes to Homo...not homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is the last in the Homo line of species. In the upper graph where chimp and human branch goes straight to Homo sapiens. The other Homo species were not left out. Hominformids still achnowledges the fossils in the Homo subspecies above homo sapiens but they are shared. This arrangement better fits the fossil evidence and the genomic data as the article goes to great lengths to support. Do you think no one can see it and a simple dismissal from you would explain it?

The graph does not leave out extinct species at all and you are a LIAR. Are you suggesting Homo erectus should go in the homo sapiens line on the top graph. The whole concept is that of shared Homo decendents with other primates, where one branch goes on to become modern chimps and the other homo sapiens. That is what the whole article is about. It articulates why these fossils like erectus, habilis etc come from creatures that existed prior to the homo sapiens divergence from this shared ancestry. Perhaps you should read it again. Although I think you do understand but just want to mislead and confuse and hope I go away.

You also have not defined "HIGH percentage of genetic similarity", all you did was paste in the algorithim for the Fixation index, which is if course based on probabilities. Are you unable to verbally articulate the meaning of 'high' into a definite quantity that would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

I can't even believe you are prepared to condemn your own credentials by totally ignoring what is plain to see in front of you and in the article, then trying to get away with misleading me or anyone else. Do you think people cannot see the graphs for themselves and work it out.. I'll tell you what, you keep denying that this work speaks to shared homo ancestors with other primates etc and I'll keep requoting it and other work from researchers that clarifies it, for all to see for themselves how much of a liar and unethical you are prepared to be to save face. I am happy to chase this one for as long as it takes.

 

[painted wolf]

PaintedWolf ..I do not know if you are trying to take everyone for a fool but it is obvious the top graph is quite different from the lower. In the lower graph the hominini branch goes to Homo...not homo sapiens.

Homo is our genus.... it absolutely goes to Homo sapeins. I'm sorry you can't grasp this simple concept.

Homo sapiens is the last in the Homo line of species. In the upper graph where chimp and human branch goes straight to Homo sapiens.

Yup... because it's only showing living species... we are the only living Homo species left.

The other Homo species were not left out. Hominformids still achnowledges the fossils in the Homo subspecies above homo sapiens but they are shared. This arrangement better fits the fossil evidence and the genomic data as the article goes to great lengths to support. Do you think no one can see it and a simple dismissal from you would explain it?

No, if you look "hominformids" is his name for the same node in the lower graph called Hominoidea. Same node
same included species. They are the same except that one uses the name "honinforids" and the other uses the name Honinoidea.
The fossils are not mentioned in the graph at all... just node classifications.

The graph does not leave out extinct species at all and you are a LIAR.

No it doesn't at all and you are a idiot.

Are you suggesting Homo erectus should go in the homo sapiens line on the top graph. The whole concept is that of shared Homo decendents with other primates, where one branch goes on to become modern chimps and the other homo sapiens. That is what the whole article is about. It articulates why these fossils like erectus, habilis etc come from creatures that existed prior to the homo sapiens divergence from this shared ancestry. Perhaps you should read it again. Although I think you do understand but just want to mislead and confuse and hope I go away.

You really need to learn reading comprehension.

You also have not defined "HIGH percentage of genetic similarity", all you did was paste in the algorithim for the Fixation index, which is if course based on probabilities. Are you unable to verbally articulate the meaning of 'high' into a definite quantity that would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

Like I said, I'm sick of your accusations of my being a liar, I'm sick of trying to explain things to you... I'm not doing it anymore.

You are not going to listen to anything I say anyway.

I can't even believe you are prepared to condemn your own credentials by totally ignoring what is plain to see in front of you and in the article, then trying to get away with misleading me or anyone else. Do you think people cannot see the graphs for themselves and work it out.. I'll tell you what, you keep denying that this work speaks to shared homo ancestors with other primates etc and I'll keep requoting it and other work from researchers that clarifies it, for all to see for themselves how much of a liar and unethical you are prepared to be to save face. I am happy to chase this one for as long as it takes.

I've tried to explain to you over and over... I'm done with it.
I'm not worried what you think of me, anyone who actually reads these forums can judge for themselves.

You have no interest in actually understanding anything you post... Nothing I say will change that. I have better things to do than play games with you trying to spoon feed you information you don't want and will only refuse anyway.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Well, I should not need to supply evidence for my exception anyway. Evolutionists cannot even articulate any definition of species, without speaking to a plethora of exceptions.

This is a forum and I have given you a definition of 'kind' for the purposes of discussion. If you want to turn this into more than it needs to be then I cannot help that.

I have provided a definition of KIND. It's up to you if you wish to challenge it against any taxa or any other refute. No creationist expects any of you to like nor accept any definition they offer. But that's OK ...because your species definition is a problem and none of you appear to have a problem with it.

 

[Krok]

Well, I should not need to supply evidence for my exception anyway.

Yes, you do, as you are adamant that “kinds” are defined according to your Book.

Evolutionists cannot even articulate any definition of species, without speaking to a plethora of exceptions.

Species change. There’s no fixed definition of species. Biologists are very open about it. Change happens. Change happened in the past. Change will happen in the future. That’s evolution. You, on the other hand, insist that “kinds” are fixed and defined. Fixed “kinds” = fixed definition. If you don’t have a fixed definition, there’s nothing like a fixed “kind”. Logic is involved in it.

This is a forum and I have given you a definition of 'kind' for the purposes of discussion.

No, you haven’t. No definition of kind. Only one that changes.

If you want to turn this into more than it needs to be then I cannot help that.

You can actually change it by getting an education in biology.

I have provided a definition of KIND.

A definition that changes all the time. Like your definition of “kind”. Nothing fixed in it.

It's up to you if you wish to challenge it against any taxa or any other refute.

We have. For many pages. You just ignore the refutes.

No creationist expects any of you to like nor accept any definition they offer.

Creationists don’t do science. They should not expect to teach their myths in science class.

But that's OK ...because your species definition is a problem and none of you appear to have a problem with it.

The species problem will always be there, because species change. Species changed in the past, are still changing today and will change in the future. You’ll never have a fixed definition of the term species. That’s called evolution.

 

[newhope101]

No one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply. The best you can do Krok is say I haven't provided one and I have. Many creationists think your current definition of species is rubbish also, unfortunately we all have to work with it and it doesn't go away.

Quote Krok "Species change. There’s no fixed definition of species. Biologists are very open about it. Change happens. Change happened in the past. Change will happen in the future. That’s evolution. You, on the other hand, insist that “kinds” are fixed and defined. Fixed “kinds” = fixed definition. If you don’t have a fixed definition, there’s nothing like a fixed “kind”. Logic is involved in it.

Yes, true biologists are very open about it so you can easily separate those that truly know their stuff from the pretenders. I do not know what else you are woffling about here. I am very pleased with my definition because I can see none of you can find any taxon where it does not apply. You can't play the Noah flood game either because the numbers are greatly diminished under my definition. Non acceptance is your only refute which is not a refute at all. Simply not accepting my definiton demonstrates you are unable to use your usual tactics to refute it.

That must peeve you off big time. I have provided a definition....just saying I haven't done so does not make it go away.

So now I'll try a phylogenic definition of 'Kind", that supports my definition and see if your only refute is non acceptance.

Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%.

 

[Gunfingers]

Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%.

So your prediction is that if two organisms have genetic variation of less than 1% then none of their descendants will ever show a variation greater than 1%?

Edit to add:

Many creationists think your current definition of species is rubbish also, unfortunately we all have to work with it and it doesn't go away.

We are under no such compulsion. No one in biology really uses species as anything except a way to make biology more accessible to laypersons.

 

[painted wolf]

No one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply. The best you can do Krok is say I haven't provided one and I have. Many creationists think your current definition of species is rubbish also, unfortunately we all have to work with it and it doesn't go away.

Bovids, caviids, cricetids, murids, spalacids, Sciuridae, leporids.... just to name a few mammal families that don't fit your definition.

I believe I've given you such lists before... but you continue to ignore them and then claim that "no one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply".

Either you are blind, ignorant or you are the one who is lying. I tend to think it is a combination of all three.

Now you have re-defined your definition yet again.... you now claim that kinds don't vary by more than 1% genetically.

Congratulations!.... you now have every species on the planet it's own "kind". Now there are 8 "kinds" of bear and at least 37 "kinds" of canids. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf quote: Bovids, caviids, cricetids, murids, spalacids, Sciuridae, leporids.... just to name a few mammal families that don't fit your definition.

I believe I've given you such lists before... but you continue to ignore them and then claim that "no one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply".

Absolutely and I reponded. As I remember I illustrated how indeed my definition does apply and you were misleading the forum in relation to Bovids, as you know they have subfamilies, which is the taxon above genus. My definition identifies the subfamilies or families and in the case of bovids there are subfamilies, pantholopinae. alcelaphinae. peleinae etc. These are KINDS.

Cavidae also has subfamilies, caiivinae, dolichotinae, hydrochoerinae

Leporidae is a family and is a kind.

Sciuridae has subfamilies, ratufinae, sciurillinae etc

Spalacidae has subfamilies also, spalacinae, myospalacinae , rhizomyinae

Muridae has subfamilies, deomyinae, gerbillinae etc

Cricetae is a super mess when you look to Wiki. It has subspecies also. However
" Alternatively, all subfamilies except the Penelopinae could be lumped into the Cracinae. As the initial radiation of cracids is not well resolved at present (see below), the system used here seems more appropriate. It is also quite probable that entirely extinct subfamilies exist as the fossil record is utterly incomplete.

Many of the above examples have debates similar to Cricetae. However, as I have stated previously, we all have to make do with this mess as best we can.

Indeed all the above examples fit within my definition of kind. My pholgenic definition was given to draw you out of the ground to offer a challenge as per usual tactics, which you did.


Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

 

[newhope101]

So your prediction is that if two organisms have genetic variation of less than 1% then none of their descendants will ever show a variation greater than 1%?
Who knows, just a guess on my part.....but the challenge achieved it's aim.
Edit to add:

We are under no such compulsion. No one in biology really uses species as anything except a way to make biology more accessible to laypersons.

Glad to hear it!....I don't blame biologists or any scientist worth their weight in dirt to be unhappy using your current taxons with their vaguary. I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[PolyHedral]

I, as a non-biologist, do not care how species, or genus(es?) or families are defined. Organisms could be grouped by MD5-hash of their genome for all it affects evolutionary theory. (I realise it'd make the paperwork a pain, but it wouldn't stop anything evolving)

Whereas creationism must have a working definition of kind, if it wants to make a prediction about how kinds behave. If it is not making a prediction about how kinds behave, what predictions is it making? (And if it is, what is it?)

And if it is not making a prediction, then why are still talking about it?

 

[Gunfingers]

Who knows, just a guess on my part.....but the challenge achieved it's aim.

What challenge was that?

 

[painted wolf]

Absolutely and I reponded. As I remember I illustrated how indeed my definition does apply and you were misleading the forum in relation to Bovids, as you know they have subfamilies, which is the taxon above genus.

So you use the recent addition of subfamily as your cut off then... Why is subfamily more acceptable to you than family? Why is your genetic cut off point so variable? Surely if kinds are so immutable then there should be clear genetic divisions without getting as messy as the evolutionary system.

My definition identifies the subfamilies or families and in the case of bovids there are subfamilies, pantholopinae. alcelaphinae. peleinae etc. These are KINDS.

So you are ok with these being the same kind then?

Leporidae is a family and is a kind.

So why does this Kind fit ok at the Family level but the others don't? Why is your kind so arbatrary? Surely if "kinds" are valid and immutable there should be distinct lines distinguishing them.

Cricetae is a super mess when you look to Wiki. It has subspecies also. However
" Alternatively, all subfamilies except the Penelopinae could be lumped into the Cracinae. As the initial radiation of cracids is not well resolved at present (see below), the system used here seems more appropriate. It is also quite probable that entirely extinct subfamilies exist as the fossil record is utterly incomplete.

Many of the above examples have debates similar to Cricetae. However, as I have stated previously, we all have to make do with this mess as best we can.

Except that you seem to be drawing arbitrary lines based on what you think Wikipedia says...

Indeed all the above examples fit within my definition of kind. My pholgenic definition was given to draw you out of the ground to offer a challenge as per usual tactics, which you did.

Except that you recently re-defined kind to be: "Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%. "

I noticed you ignored this from my last post... so I'll bring it up again for you.

Now your definition means that these two species, who differ by 4% are now individual "kinds"

So what is it... or are you going to re-define it again?

wa:do

 

[Krok]

No one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply.

Except that your definition results in the fact that the Ibis and the Pelican are two different “kinds”.

The best you can do Krok is say I haven't provided one and I have.

Your definition is more vague than the current definitions of Family, Genus and Species already are. Remember, you are the one that keeps insisting that “kinds” don’t change.

Many creationists think your current definition of species is rubbish also,........

What, all 5 creationist Biologists in the world?

...... unfortunately we all have to work with it and it doesn't go away.

Luckily the real world doesn’t have to worry to much about those 5 creationists. There literally are humdreds of thousands of real Biologists finding the current system sufficient.

Yes, true biologists are very open about it so you can easily separate those that truly know their stuff from the pretenders.

Why do you keep mentioning the 5 creationist Biologists in the world?. They’re not important at all, you know.

I do not know what else you are woffling about here. I am very pleased with my definition because I can see none of you can find any taxon where it does not apply. You can't play the Noah flood game either because the numbers are greatly diminished under my definition. Non acceptance is your only refute which is not a refute at all. Simply not accepting my definiton demonstrates you are unable to use your usual tactics to refute it.

It’s been refuted a lot of times by a few people around here. Remember that Pelicans and Ibises are different “kinds” under your definition?

That must peeve you off big time. I have provided a definition....just saying I haven't done so does not make it go away.

No, not peeved off at all, just laughing uncontrollably at your self-inflicted inanity. All because you’re scared of burning for all eternity the moment you accept reality.

So now I'll try a phylogenic definition of 'Kind", that supports my definition and see if your only refute is non acceptance.

Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%.

So, wolves and jackals are not the same “kind” anymore?

 

[newhope101]

So you use the recent addition of subfamily as your cut off then... Why is subfamily more acceptable to you than family? Why is your genetic cut off point so variable? Surely if kinds are so immutable then there should be clear genetic divisions without getting as messy as the evolutionary system.
Because your taxons are a mess....but mostly because that is my definition. When I look to your taxons it is at this point your taxons appear to really fall apart. As I said Wolf this is just a forum and you are trying to make this more than it needs to be with all your calls for explanations of the definition itself. You are also unable to articulate what "high genetic similarity" is also but you still call yourself a biologist.Your basic species concept states that different species are unable to successfully mate and we all know how many exception there are to that rule. I really liked the sheep and goats being able to mate at all, even though it does not produce viable offspring, according to my definition they are the same kind. This also aligns with them both being in the subfamily caprinae.
So you are ok with these being the same kind then?

So why does this Kind fit ok at the Family level but the others don't? Why is your kind so arbatrary? Surely if "kinds" are valid and immutable there should be distinct lines distinguishing them.
So now you appear to be purporting to be an expert on KINDS also are you? If you look to my definition it is fairly plain to read that one takes the subfamily or family, whichever is "above genus". So if there is a subfamily, they are the kinds if there is no subfamily then Family is used.
Except that you seem to be drawing arbitrary lines based on what you think Wikipedia says...
Well dear, with cricitae, your researchers cannot even come to any agreement on how many subfamilies there should there be....and this is the stuff you gladly accept and defend. You should have no troube applying my definition..yet you do.

Except that you recently re-defined kind to be: "Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%. "
Again, you will focus on any sideline, although explained, because you aint going to be able to refute my definition with your usual tactics. My definition works and you are truly peeved by it. I see you offered one more challenge to my definition in this post and then went straight to the sideline. You simply cannot find anywhere it does not apply.
I noticed you ignored this from my last post... so I'll bring it up again for you.
You must have ignored by explanation, that I put that there in the hope of drawing you into a proper challenge instead of your whining on about sidelines. It worked you finally posted some taxons for me to apply my definition to. Previously I believe you tried bovids, I explained how my definition applied and you went on whining about the definition itself as you could not find a taxon where my definition does not apply. Asides will be your gameplan now as you will not be able to refute my definition.
Now your definition means that these two species, who differ by 4% are now individual "kinds"

So what is it... or are you going to re-define it again?
No, I just need to teach you to read and improve your comprehension skills.
wa:do

These are the same kind if they are in the same subfamily or family(if subfamily does not apply)..as I said the 1% means nothing darls, but I hoped you'd come back with a decent challenge to my definition in anger..and you did. Did you not read my post that has already stated this. But you will continue to focus on any aside as you will not be able to refute my definition sucessfully.

Now back to my definition....as you can see I have shown you my definition of kind works. You quoted many taxons in your previous post and I have explained my definitions application to them. I have explained another today. Is there anywhere that my definition does not apply? Of course you may not be able to refute my definition if your analytical skills are poor. I would have thought it fairly clear that even a moron could apply my definition. It's fairly simple if you know the taxons that have subfamilies in them. Perhaps you should have looked up Wiki first. From your questions it appears that you FORGOT that bovids, for example, have subspecies.

Wiki:
The bovid family is commonly subdivided into eight subfamilies. Recently, two additional subfamilies have been recognised. The eight traditional subfamilies can be divided into two clades, the Boodontia (with the Bovinae as sole members) and the Aegodontia (composed of all other subfamilies). Some authors do not agree with the high number of subfamilies, although they do recognise these two clades. However, these are treated as subfamilies instead: Bovinae (without change) and Antilopinae (with all of the Aegodontid subfamilies as tribes within it).
Among the eight to ten subfamilies presented here, only some groups have a well-established phylogeny. The Bovinae, for example, are monophyletic and basal; while the Caprinae, Hippotraginae, and Alcelaphinae cluster together[further explanation needed] consistently. The phylogenetic relationships of the other subfamilies are still unclear or unresolved.[6]

As you can see above your own researchers are in dispute here also. You have a very thick hypocritical hide indeed to demand more consistency and clarity from creationists that your own researchers can provide. My definition stands and you cannot refute it, but I see you take delight in trashing other prior definitions and being hypocritical in expecting a higher standard that you yourself can supply. You answer in very black and white terms. Your responses to those that trust you are misleading in that you give your take on the evidence and you do not openly put forward condescending views that are also accepted by the scientific community. I can only extrapolate from this that you are not a part of the scientific communtity. Rather you are a bully that spends your whole day on RF waiting to assert your one sided views and your life would be nothing without it. If you only wish to sideline further we are done.

And I am still waiting for you to articulate a definition of "high genetic similarity" in relation to species. "High' is not a scientific term. It is not quantitative, rather it is vague and useless...just like your probabilities.

 

[newhope101]

Except that your definition results in the fact that the Ibis and the Pelican are two different “kinds”. Your definition is more vague than the current definitions of Family, Genus and Species already are. Remember, you are the one that keeps insisting that “kinds” don’t change. What, all 5 creationist Biologists in the world? Luckily the real world doesn’t have to worry to much about those 5 creationists. There literally are humdreds of thousands of real Biologists finding the current system sufficient. Why do you keep mentioning the 5 creationist Biologists in the world?. They’re not important at all, you know. It’s been refuted a lot of times by a few people around here. Remember that Pelicans and Ibises are different “kinds” under your definition? No, not peeved off at all, just laughing uncontrollably at your self-inflicted inanity. All because you’re scared of burning for all eternity the moment you accept reality. So, wolves and jackals are not the same “kind” anymore?

Yes you are correct in that they appear to be the same kind and according to more recent data it appears that they are...so what is your problem?
The family Threskiornithidae includes 34 species of large terrestrial and wading birds, falling into two subfamilies, the ibises and the spoonbills. It was formerly known as Plataleidae. The spoonbills and ibises were once thought to be related to other groups of long-legged wading birds in the order Ciconiiformes. A recent study found that they are members of the order Pelecaniformes
The family Threskiornithidae includes 34 species of large terrestrial and wading birds, falling into two subfamilies, the ibises and the spoonbills. It was formerly known as Plataleidae. The spoonbills and ibises were once thought to be related to other groups of long-legged wading birds in the order Ciconiiformes. A recent study found that they are members of the order Pelecaniformes.[2] In response to these findings, the International Ornithological Congress (IOC) recently reclassified Threskiornithidae and their sister taxa Ardeidae under the order Pelecaniformes instead of the previous order of Ciconiiformes. [3] Whether the two subfamilies are reciprocally monophyletic is an open question. The South American Checklist Committee's entry for the Threskiornithidae includes the following comment "Two subfamilies are traditionally (e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized: Threskiornithinae for ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; because the main distinction has to do with bill shape, additional information, especially genetic, is required to recognize a major, deep split in the family."[4]

RE Jackels and wolves they belong to the same family and there is no subfamily currently in this taxon so they are the same kind under the family canidae. You have quoted 'old' data from 1992. Try looking up something more recent!

Wiki: The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed. Recent DNA analysis shows that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. (See phylogeny below). Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).[3]
Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1] Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

I haven't asked God what kinds he made so I have to rely on this rubbish of yours to provide clarity. I am happy to accept what the final genomic testing purports. However if they can mate well enough to produce fertilization then they are still the same kind according to my definition.

Obviously if the first kind of dog went onto adapt into wolves and dogs etc I am not stating that kinds do not change ie adapt. I have stated that adaptive changes do occur within kind but the first dog was never bacteria or any other kind. Many creationists accept this level of change...get with the program pal.. you're stuck in the 80s.

So you still have been unable to successfully refute me. The sad point is that your taxon is such a mess the only thing that is not disputed is whether an organism is a plant or animal. I'll bet if I looked hard enough I have no doubt there would be some organisms in dispute there also.

 

[PolyHedral]

However if they can mate well enough to produce fertilization then they are still the same kind according to my definition.

Are kinds transitive? If A is the same kind as B, and B is the same kind as C, are A and C the same kind?

Many creationists accept this level of change...

And with this, you have destroyed your argument. "Adaption", as you call it, is evolution. There is no functional distinction between micro- and macroevolution, in the same way that there is no function distinction between "flood" and "tsunami." They are the same phenomenon, only on different scales.

 

[Gunfingers]

And I am still waiting for you to articulate a definition of "high genetic similarity" in relation to species. "High' is not a scientific term. It is not quantitative, rather it is vague and useless...just like your probabilities.

Holy BALLS, that's the point! Species is a vague term! It's a meaningless word. As we've told you repeatedly, it has no scientific value. It's just to make things easier to visualize.

The same is true of "family" by the way. You say that being in the same family means you're the same kind, but family also has no universal definition. Something in the same family could just as easily be said to be in the same genus, or the same domain, or the same whargarble. Those terms all have the same amount of scientific value. They can get away with this because no predictions are made based on these concepts.

By contrast "kind" implies a point of stark cut-off. There should be an absolute distinction between Kind A and Kind B. That's why you need a much more rigorous definition than we do.

 

[painted wolf]

I hate to break it to you kiddo... but Tribe is above genus and below subfamily... so Foxes and Wolves are different "kinds" according to you.

And my original and repeated refutation of your "definition" of "kinds" still stands... it's a total ad hock jumble of whatever you think at the time... and whatever you think you can gleam from Wikipedia.

If you don't like a particular group then you simply declare it an exception or try to find some other wiggle out of it. Mostly by complaining that scientists haven't given you a definition that you like.

So "kind" is a family, subfamily, or tribe... depending on which one you like best at the time or decide that wikipedia says is ok.... but the same scientists who tell you what a subfamily, family or tribe is, are somehow unable to tell anything higher than that?
Yet you know the magic cut off line... somewhere in there, where it "looks right" to you.
Do you really think that is a good definition of "kind"?

And please... you couldn't grasp percentages when comparing two phyla... Why should I think you will grasp any concept more complex than that?

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

newhope10,

Please excuse this late reply, but after waiting several days I gave up on hearing from you, (It took you 10 days. Not complaining, just saying.) and just came across your reply today. Anyway, your response:

You talk with forked and twisted tongue. My definition defines a set of criteria, try reading it again with your glasses on.


No dear, rather 'horsefeathers' indicates that you are unable to refute my definition using your usual tactics.

Oh I did reread it, but found it absolutely without merit, and therefore didn't bother to address it. However, now that you bring it back up, I shall.

All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).

Well how about those that don't reproduce by fertilization (fusion/pollination), such as euglenoids that reproduce by asexual binary fission, or where the parent simply splits off into offspring, (dinoflagellates), and those that reproduce by parthenogenesis, the bdelloid rotifers? They don't fit within your definition, which makes it exclusionary and therefore useless.

And/Or

2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

While gene sequencing is a useful tool, because it is so new, time consuming, and expensive its use to establish the inclusion of organisms in specific taxons is extremely rare. Therefore, as it now stands, as a indicator of kind it is worthless, which makes it's use as a definition of "kind" meaningless, and again, useless.

 

[Krok]

Yes you are correct in that they appear to be the same kind.....

No, according to your definition the Ibis and the Pelican are not the same “kind”, because :

All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination) and/or.

The are not genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization, and

2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

They are not genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg. “family” or “sub-family”, The Pelicans are in the Family Pelecanidae and the Ibisis in the Family Threskiornithidae.

...... and according to more recent data it appears that they are...so what is your problem?

Your problem is that: acoording to your definition of “kind”, the pelicans and the Ibises are two different “kinds”!

RE Jackels and wolves they belong to the same family and there is no subfamily currently in this taxon so they are the same kind under the family canidae. You have quoted 'old' data from 1992. Try looking up something more recent!

Are we being a bit misleading here? According to the second definition of “kind” you gave us, you know, the one where you said

Organisims that are the same KIND display genetic variation within 1%.

, means that the wolve and the Jackal are two different “kinds”.

I haven't asked God what kinds he made so I have to rely on this rubbish of yours to provide clarity. I am happy to accept what the final genomic testing purports. However if they can mate well enough to produce fertilization then they are still the same kind according to my definition.

The wolve and the jackal are still two different “kinds” according to your second definition.

Obviously if the first kind of dog went onto adapt into wolves and dogs etc I am not stating that kinds do not change ie adapt.

Evolution!

I have stated that adaptive changes do occur within kind......

If you make a definite statement like that, you need to give a definite definition of “kind”. Something you can’t do. Your statement is thus meaningless.

but the first dog was never bacteria.......

Do you think that the ToE states that Bacteria gave birth to dogs? You are completely mistaken.

.... or any other kind. Many creationists accept this level of change...get with the program pal.. you're stuck in the 80s.

Says another creationist stuck in the year 325 with their unknown definition of “kind”.

So you still have been unable to successfully refute me.

Yes I have. According to your first definition, the Ibis and the Pelican fall in different “kinds”. According to your first definition, the wolve and the Jackal fall under the same "kind". According to your second definition, the wolve and the jackal fall under different "kinds".

The sad point is that your taxon is such a mess the only thing that is not disputed is whether an organism is a plant or animal. I'll bet if I looked hard enough I have no doubt there would be some organisms in dispute there also.

Something like The Sea Slug Forum - Solar-powered sea slugs? What “kind” is it? As we said, there is nothing fixed in species. It will always be difficuilt to classify organisms. You, on the other hand, insist on definite "kinds". "Kinds" you can't define.