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

[newhope101]

You can trace a species back to a parent kind, but you cannot trace a parent kind to a different kind.

Yes, I look to this work also, as you know. The reason I do not use it is that I am not smart enough to apply it in discusions here on RF. From what I have read this appears to be a work in progress. Maybe I just haven't looked into it hard enough. That's why I went ahead and made up my own definition. I'll look back into it and see if I understand it better now that I know a little more than a few months ago. I believe Baraminology is working towards a young earth model, but I may be wrong.

Thanks for the support Danmac. I know it is a little difficult supporting other creationists that do not see things quite the same.

If you have gotten your head around it. I'd love to see baramins used in a debate.

 

[newhope101]

By your definition, humans and chimps are the same "kind," correct? If not, why not? Since sorry guys and gals "kind" can and has been defined by yourself, and I'm accepting it.

No Auto..please stay with the program. The last umpteen pages have been about how and why humans are the exception, just like your species exceptions. Please do not glog this with side winding nonsense,

 

[outhouse]

how do you explain all the different species before homo spaien?????????????? going back 8-9 million years??????????????????

 

[Autodidact]

You can trace a species back to a parent kind, but you cannot trace a parent kind to a different kind.

How do you know, if you don't know what a "kind" is?

 

[Autodidact]

No Auto..please stay with the program. The last umpteen pages have been about how and why humans are the exception, just like your species exceptions. Please do not glog this with side winding nonsense,

Why? Why are humans an exception?

 

[newhope101]

Kind = Species.

All living things give birth (by whatever means) to things that look very much like them, "after their own kind" is nothing more than simple observation of this fact and indicates that people realised that, for example, cows do not give birth to sheep and vice versa. This does not mean that over many generations a new species cannot evolve.

All kinds (i.e. species) are related by common ancestry.

The issue that this definition makes the global flood and the actions of Noah impossible from a literalist sense is no problem for me as its a myth, and there has not been a global flood while any member of the genus Homo has existed.

I also am happy to believe in a mega flood. However that does not mean I would not support other views of a global flood.

It appears you have defined kind as it relates to evolution, If this is the case then I understand why some here like it. Do you take intelligent design as the creative event. Can your kind be traced back to one or a few cells etc? If so, I did not know this belief was creationist. Isn’t this the intelligent design thing?

Lets take the dog again as an example. I'll speak off the top of my head so forgive non exactness.

The dog line branched off from a group of creatures that also split into cats like creatures, if I am not mistaken. So in line with macrovolution these early creatures speciated sufficiently that they no longer shared common characteristics. So at some point in your definition a kind ceased fitting the definition of same kind, to its’ ancestors. I do not understand.

This is the first split off according to Wiki.. that gives commonly held views.
Hesperocyoninae was named by Martin (1989). The members of this subfamily were reassigned to the family Canidae (with no subfamily) by Xiaoming Wang in 1999.[1]
Hesperocyoninae are basal canids that gave rise to the other canid groups, including the Borophaginae and Caninae according to Wang and Tedford.
This disused subfamily were endemic to North America living from the Duchesnean stage of the Late Eocene through the early Barstovian stage of the Miocene lasting around 20 million years. It comprises a total of 10 recognized genera and 26 recognized species; among these, 4 genera and 8 species are new. Four major lineages can be defined based on shared characteristics:

This is the second:
The Borophaginae apparently descended from the subfamily Hesperocyoninae; they evolved to become considerably larger than their predecessors, and filled a wide range of niches in late Cenozoic North America, from small omnivores to powerful, bear-sized carnivores such as Epicyon

Then we get to Caninae:
Caninae is the subfamily of Canidae. Many extinct Caninae were endemic to North America living from 26.3 Ma—11,000 years ago.[5]
One of their closest fossil relatives is the Sardinian Dhole. More basal canids are placed in the extinct subfamilies Hesperocyoninae and Borophaginae
So the first branch off hesperocyoninae was reclassified into the family Canidae.
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](Wiki)

The second appears to be the same only larger, an adaptive change, that further adapted into todays dog like creatures. But you are saying there was time when a dog did not look like a dog at all and was onec bacteria or something like that. By this definition it appears every living multicelled organism is of the same kind. Again I do not understand.

If the hesperocyoninae reclassification stands, good, because they are the same kind and that is fairly obvious. This hesperocyoninae was a kind of dog when it started and has remained so. For me and with all due respect all this above information seriously sounds like researchers grabbing at straws in trying to get the evolutionary relationship sorted out and trying to pin ancestral fossils into the equation. These fossils could be any kind.

But thanks for posting. I understand why your definition is liked.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf...OK..What stops one kind becoming another kind? I suppose the best I can do is use the dictionary meaning which says that 1. a kind is a class or group with characteristics in common. 2. Essential nature or character, the difference is one of kind rather than degree. So I expect that a kind remains the same kind under that definition.

Ok... but if this is the case, what restricts the list of shared characteristics? After all a dog shares characteristics with all other mammals. What keeps mammals from being a "kind"?

So a dog creature, a wolf creature, share characteristics in common. I understand there are/were 3 subfamilies but it appears one has been reclassified. Only Caninae lineages survive today.

Indeed, but all the canids also share a large number of characteristics with other animals and thus are grouped under the order Carnivora.
So my question remains... what keeps the "dog kind" and say the "bear kind" or "cat kind" from sharing a common ancestry? Especially seeing as the most basal of the bears were extremely dog-like.

Where and how do you decide to draw the lines? If a Fox and Wolf can be the same kind why can't a Fox and a Cat be also?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Why? Why are humans an exception?

For many reasons like, your taxonomic system is such a mess that exceptions are required even within your own definition of species. Because researchers will continue to change what belongs where and Humans were created in Gods image, while the others weren't,

But mostly because that is what my definition defines. and that is what a definition is. Just like your species definition differentiates different species by the inability to succesfully breed. This may be seen as no definition at all as there are many exceptions. Yet we/you still use it as a basic definition that works most times. If you are going to start splitting hairs and going over old ground I won't reply.

 

[PolyHedral]

For many reasons like, your taxonomic system is such a mess that exceptions are required even within your own definition of species.

:foot:
"You're categories are incredibly messy, so we'll be just as messy?"

(And you've ignored me again.)

 

[newhope101]

Ok... but if this is the case, what restricts the list of shared characteristics? After all a dog shares characteristics with all other mammals. What keeps mammals from being a "kind"?

Indeed, but all the canids also share a large number of characteristics with other animals and thus are grouped under the order Carnivora.
So my question remains... what keeps the "dog kind" and say the "bear kind" or "cat kind" from sharing a common ancestry? Especially seeing as the most basal of the bears were extremely dog-like.

Where and how do you decide to draw the lines? If a Fox and Wolf can be the same kind why can't a Fox and a Cat be also?

wa:do

When does one species become another species given they are phases without start or finishing points? Why has hyperocyoninae been reclassified into the family canidae?

I am not a biologist so any attempt I make I am sure will be vague. Perhaps the answer lies in physiological and other aspects that biologists have already defined that get creatures into the same family or subfamily, whichever is the lower rank or the two. The difference with kind is that it is just broader and includes the variations you refer to as species under that rank and are named as such. Each rank consists of species that must have shared common charachteristics that brought them into the Sub/family rank.

Family wiki: What does and does not belong to each family is determined by a taxonomist. Similarly for the question if a particular family should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely.
Protein subfamily is a level of protein classification, especially protein 3D structures. It is under protein Family. Protein family in SCOP (Structural Classification of Proteins) means the members are all related evolutionarily and they share very similar structures with functional similarities. Protein Subfamily is when the Family members share the same interaction interfaces and interaction partners. This more strict criterion forces that all the subfamily members have to share functionally related

It appears reasearchers are also vague with respect to what belongs in a family or subfamily. As a lay person I doubt I will be clearer than your leading researchers who appear to be vague also with no hard and fast rules to their rankings..hence the debate, I suppose.

This is the family rank of bovids where I respectfully say that researchers straw grab around this ranking to try to show an evolutionary relationship to previous kinds, that just isn't there.

A bovid is any of almost 140 species of cloven-hoofed mammals belonging to the family Bovidae. The family is widespread, being native to Asia, Africa, Europe and North America, and diverse: members include bison, African buffalo, water buffalo, antelopes, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, and domestic cattle

Wiki Bovid: 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.[10


I'll go back to previously point where evolutionists do not have all the answers and researchers can sucessfully provide credible research to back up opposing views.

This does not mean your evolution is rubbish and the concept of species holds no value. Likewise my not having all the answers re kind and creation does not mean my definition has no value to me, nor that creation of kinds did not occur.

How you get bovids into the various subfamilies may hold the key to what makes a grazing antelope not cattle.

This is an interesting question for both evolution and creation it seems.

 

[outhouse]

This is an interesting question for both evolution and creation it seems.

Look we know creation is a myth and evolution is the only interesting question.

Why you would choose to start a arguement with no merit or validity against known science because of a few name changes is beyond me.

You still have not stated one positive note for creation with all the pages you have typed

I'll go back to previously point where evolutionists do not have all the answers

your right about this

but to take a gray area and write creation all over it doesnt make it another color nor make it acceptable creation.

taxonomist

changing the name or missclassification giving by these folks doesnt make creation real by any sense.

You choose not to look at the solid foundation for evolution, your work is based of gray areas in a well know field with perfect views of what nature has done on its own.

Your basically trying to kill a tree by pulling leaf's off in the fall.

 

[Autodidact]

For many reasons like, your taxonomic system is such a mess that exceptions are required even within your own definition of species. Because researchers will continue to change what belongs where and Humans were created in Gods image, while the others weren't,

But mostly because that is what my definition defines. and that is what a definition is. Just like your species definition differentiates different species by the inability to succesfully breed. This may be seen as no definition at all as there are many exceptions. Yet we/you still use it as a basic definition that works most times. If you are going to start splitting hairs and going over old ground I won't reply.

I'm confused. I thought your definition defined "kind," and "kind" is family or sub-family.

What justifies making an exception for hominids?

We're not talking about "my" definition, newhope, I don't have one. We're talking about your definition.

And, as I will repeat yet again, it makes sense within ToE that species are hard to define. They're supposed to be hard to define. If they were easy to define, ToE would be false. The fact that species is hard to define supports ToE. It is yet another successful prediction of ToE.

So you can stop comparing. According to you, "kind" is supposed to be absolute, clearly demarcated, and easy to see. Yet it isn't.

 

[newhope101]

Look we know creation is a myth and evolution is the only interesting question.

Why you would choose to start a arguement with no merit or validity against known science because of a few name changes is beyond me.

You still have not stated one positive note for creation with all the pages you have typed


your right about this

but to take a gray area and write creation all over it doesnt make it another color nor make it acceptable creation.



changing the name or missclassification giving by these folks doesnt make creation real by any sense.

You choose not to look at the solid foundation for evolution, your work is based of gray areas in a well know field with perfect views of what nature has done on its own.

Your basically trying to kill a tree by pulling leaf's off in the fall.

Darls that is the point that you miss I do not see a solid foundation to evolutionary science. What I see is a whole of researchers cluthching at straws and this is why they will never, ever, ever, get the problem resolved.

There is a LUCA there is not LUCA, then there is one again. Forgive me, if unlike you, I do not call choosing one body of well credentialed research over another body of research well validated evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Darls that is the point that you miss I do not see a solid foundation to evolutionary science. What I see is a whole of researchers cluthching at straws and this is why they will never, ever, ever, get the problem resolved.

There is a LUCA there is not LUCA, then there is one again. Forgive me, if unlike you, I do not call choosing one body of well credentialed research over another body of research well validated evidence.

And since you are one of the world's leading Biologists, and have demonstrated with scientific evidence that one of the most important foundational theories in the history of science is wrong, we will submit your name for a Nobel Prize.

What well-credentialed research that discredits ToE might you be referring to?

 

[outhouse]

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lets teach you about modern science and practices it accepts.

the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists

Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool

please pay attention to the statement below

Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species

pleas pay attention to the above statement

 

[newhope101]

I'm confused. I thought your definition defined "kind," and "kind" is family or sub-family.

What justifies making an exception for hominids?

We're not talking about "my" definition, newhope, I don't have one. We're talking about your definition.

And, as I will repeat yet again, it makes sense within ToE that species are hard to define. They're supposed to be hard to define. If they were easy to define, ToE would be false. The fact that species is hard to define supports ToE. It is yet another successful prediction of ToE.

So you can stop comparing. According to you, "kind" is supposed to be absolute, clearly demarcated, and easy to see. Yet it isn't.

No you and your researchers do not have a definition of species. I absolutely agree. However to be respectfull I accept your species concept and am intelligent enough to use your concepts for the purpose of discussion. Highlighting your species flaws, including species being able to interbred from the genus rank, is only highlighting that some evolutionsists such as yourself demand a definition that is better and more consistent than you or your researchers can supply. This is hypocricy.

I do not feel I have to justify my definition to you or anyone else really, anymore that you have to justify why you use such a problematic criterion/concept. for separating one species from another. You just do and your definition is what it is. Well so is mine.

Kinds are clear. You say cats and dogs shared the same ancestors yet I can clearly tell the difference. One problem is your researchers have difiiculty telling one piece of primate fossil from another let alone truly being able to differnentiate what was a old cat or dog kind or anything supposedly intermediate.

Many of your phyogenic relationships that are currently being debated attest that your own evolutionary scientists do not agree with the many species and subfamilies that you have. My problem is that I am stuck with having to refer to your ranking system, despite the controversity and lack of clarity. It is about time you also just accepted my definition for what it is and move on.

 

[newhope101]

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lets teach you about modern science and practices it accepts.

the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists

Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool

Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species

Let me teach you something. I have already been on this merry go round with Paintedwolf who posted some excellent diagrams of a multiple genesis style model that has well validated research behind it. I have acknowledged the LUCA debate in my previous post. Choosing to side with one body of research over another does not display an educated stance necesarily. Rather it supports someone that only acknowledges what suits them or knows no better

 

[outhouse]

Rather it supports someone that only acknowledges what suits them or knows no better

ill dissagree with this statement

Choosing to side with one body of research over another does not display an educated stance necesarily

yes it does, one is proven science and the other is a myth, you want to run wuth the myth stance thats fine.

evolution is solid, theres no debate, there has been no debate worth any merit inth elast 100 years that disscredits evolution.

your obscure opinion is just that.

 

[newhope101]

OFGS...I just can't keep wasting my time with you if you cannot acknowlegde what is out there from your own evolutionary scientists. Minority views from well credentialed researchers are equaly valid.

Anyway, my point on LUCA was only an example of one controversy within evolutionary science of many, and if you are not aware of this research then you should know others. I am not proposing that controversy invalidates Toe. I am proposing that not having all the answers and not having everything about everything to do with it worked out, does not make Toe invalid. Non biblical creationists should have the same healthy attitude about others definitions and thoughts.

Seeing as we are ignoring all the research and choosing what we want to accept, I can 'prove' genetic testing supports the creation of Adam and Eve. Look this up if you are bored. I just wish it really was that easy for creationists....but it is not!

On the Common Ancestors of All Living Humans
[FONT=Times-Bold~c]Douglas L. T. Rohde[/FONT]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

November 11, 2003

[FONT=Times-Roman~15][FONT=Times-Roman~15]This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman~15]
[FONT=Times-Roman~15]model of recent human history which suggests that the[/FONT]
[FONT=Times-Roman~15]common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived[/FONT]
[FONT=Times-Roman~15]between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. Furthermore, the[/FONT]
[FONT=Times-Roman~15]model indicates that nearly everyone living a few thousand[/FONT]
[FONT=Times-Roman~15]years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times-Roman~15]one or of all living humans[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

No you and your researchers do not have a definition of species. I absolutely agree. However to be respectfull I accept your species concept and am intelligent enough to use your concepts for the purpose of discussion. Highlighting your species flaws, including species being able to interbred from the genus rank, is only highlighting that some evolutionsists such as yourself demand a definition that is better and more consistent than you or your researchers can supply. This is hypocricy.

I do not feel I have to justify my definition to you or anyone else really, anymore that you have to justify why you use such a problematic criterion/concept. for separating one species from another. You just do and your definition is what it is. Well so is mine.

Kinds are clear. You say cats and dogs shared the same ancestors yet I can clearly tell the difference. One problem is your researchers have difiiculty telling one piece of primate fossil from another let alone truly being able to differnentiate what was a old cat or dog kind or anything supposedly intermediate.

Many of your phyogenic relationships that are currently being debated attest that your own evolutionary scientists do not agree with the many species and subfamilies that you have. My problem is that I am stuck with having to refer to your ranking system, despite the controversity and lack of clarity. It is about time you also just accepted my definition for what it is and move on.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. All scientists are clueless morons, especially Biologists. Actually, science is just useless guessing and there's no reason to pay any special attention to it. I'm sure you know much more about it than all the brilliant people who have devoted their lives to it.

What was that body of well-credentialed research you were referring to again?