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

[David M]

You have a plethora of fossils that researchers today are at odds over. This is not just in relation to which homo phase they are in but also being errant in deciding if they are any sort of non human primate at all. Florensisensis was an example.

No it wasn't. You are just making that up.

No reputable scientist with any qualification in palaentology disputed that Florensisensis was a human (and thus a primate), what they disputed was exactly where it should fit among the recent members of the genus Homo. The only people claiming it was a non-human primate were the liars for jesus crowd.

 

[newhope101]

No it wasn't. You are just making that up.

No reputable scientist with any qualification in palaentology disputed that Florensisensis was a human (and thus a primate), what they disputed was exactly where it should fit among the recent members of the genus Homo. The only people claiming it was a non-human primate were the liars for jesus crowd.

Sweetie, there is a huge gap between Homo Sapiens and Australepithecus. Hominini includes the genus Pan which contains chimps and bonobos. There goes your credibility. You kid only yourself if you reckon these researchers truly know what the hell they are looking at. I think researchers spend all their time working out how they can turn any fossil into a name for themselves. As I said your fossil evidence is about as clear as mud...or are you such an egotist that you attest to have more clarity than these leading researchers, who haven't got a clue?
'Hobbit' Skull Study Finds Hobbit Is Not Human

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — In a an analysis of the size, shape and asymmetry of the cranium of Homo floresiensis, Karen Baab, Ph.D., a researcher in the Department of Anatomical Scienes at Stony Brook University, and colleagues conclude that the fossil, found in Indonesia in 2003 and known as the “Hobbit,” is not human.

The results of this study are also in line with what other researchers in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University have found regarding the rest of the hobbit skeleton. Drs. William Jungers and Susan Larson have documented a range of primitive features in both the upper and lower limbs of Homo floresiensis, highlighting the many ways that these hominins were unlike modern humans.

Wikipedia "Floresiensis"
Doubts that the remains constitute a new species were soon voiced by the Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob, who suggested that the skull of LB1 was a microcephalic modern human. Two studies by paleoneurologist Dean Falk and her colleagues (2005, 2007) rejected this possibility.[5][6][7] Falk et al. (2005) has been rejected by Martin et al. (2006) and Jacob et al. (2006) and defended by Morwood (2005) and Argue, Donlon et al. (2006).
Two orthopedic researches published in 2007 both reported evidence to support species status for H. floresiensis. A study of three tokens of carpal (wrist) bones concluded there were similarities to the carpal bones of a chimpanzee or an early hominin such as Australopithecus and also differences from the bones of modern humans.[8][9] A study of the bones and joints of the arm, shoulder, and lower limbs also concluded that H. floresiensis was more similar to early humans and apes than modern humans.[10][11] In 2009, the publication of a cladistic analysis[12] and a study of comparative body measurements[13] provided further support for the hypothesis that H. floresiensis and Homo sapiens are separate species.
Critics of the claim for species status continue to believe that these individuals are Homo sapiens possessing pathologies of anatomy and physiology. A second hypothesis in this category is that the individuals were born without a functioning thyroid, resulting in a type of endemic cretinism (myxoedematous, ME).[14]

 

[newhope101]

Evolved Yet, I had a quick look at Wiki "Ring Species".

Problem of Definition:
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

I still like the percentage thing. However, I have this niggling feeling that knowing what to count and how to count it will be very difficult for researchers, particularly in light of the info below.

Wiki "Gene"
Changing concept
The concept of the gene has changed considerably (see history section). From the original definition of a "unit of inheritance", the term evolved to mean a DNA-based unit that can exert its effects on the organism through RNA or protein products. It was also previously believed that one gene makes one protein; this concept was overthrown by the discovery of alternative splicing and trans-splicing.[12]
The definition of a gene is still changing. The first cases of RNA-based inheritance have been discovered in mammals.[4] Evidence is also accumulating that the control regions of a gene do not necessarily have to be close to the coding sequence on the linear molecule or even on the same chromosome. Spilianakis and colleagues discovered that the promoter region of the interferon-gamma gene on chromosome 10 and the regulatory regions of the T(H)2 cytokine locus on chromosome 11 come into close proximity in the nucleus possibly to be jointly regulated.[24]
The concept that genes are clearly delimited is also being eroded. There is evidence for fused proteins stemming from two adjacent genes that can produce two separate protein products. While it is not clear whether these fusion proteins are functional, the phenomenon is more frequent than previously thought.[25] Even more ground-breaking than the discovery of fused genes is the observation that some proteins can be composed of exons from far away regions and even different chromosomes.[2][26] This new data has led to an updated, and probably tentative, definition of a gene as "a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products."[12] This new definition categorizes genes by functional products, whether they be proteins or RNA, rather than specific DNA loci; all regulatory elements of DNA are therefore classified as gene-associated regions.[

 

[outhouse]

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — In a an analysis of the size, shape and asymmetry of the cranium of Homo floresiensis, Karen Baab, Ph.D., a researcher in the Department of Anatomical Scienes at Stony Brook University, and colleagues conclude that the fossil, found in Indonesia in 2003 and known as the “Hobbit,” is not human.

Im sorry but you really need to do your homework and post recent news not old outdated theorys.

You fall short looking for answers you want that dont exist.

Your wrong again.

'Hobbit' was an iodine-deficient human, not another species, new study suggests this is from sep 2010


Homo floresiensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Autodidact]

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

The species concept is not thought to be clear cut. As has been explained to you repeatedly, ToE correctly predicts that the species concept will be fuzzy, and lo, it is, just as predicted. It 's not supposed to be clear cut. The ring species phenomenon is an excellent illustration of exactly how and why it is fuzzy. It illustrates through geography what usually takes time: that the transition between one species and another is a spectrum, not a sharp line. This is exactly what ToE predicts.

So why do you keep repeating that the species concept is expected to be clear cut, when at least five people have patiently explained to you that it is not, should not be, cannot be, and is not thought to be, precisely because ToE is correct?

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact..you are such a frustrated evolutionist that you cannot separate discussion from debate. Evolved Yet proposed a model that may assist with the definition of species, in particular was he responding to PaintedWolfs statement relating to percentages as a possibility of defining one species from another, including the evolutionary line.

I have posted the concern with Ring species as a definitive model taken from the Wiki site. Many of these recent responses here are from would be biologists, such as yourself, outhouse and DavidM, that know squat.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact..you are such a frustrated evolutionist that you cannot separate discussion from debate. Evolved Yet proposed a model that may assist with the definition of species, in particular was he responding to PaintedWolfs statement relating to percentages as a possibility of defining one species from another, including the evolutionary line.

I have posted the concern with Ring species as a definitive model taken from the Wiki site. Many of these recent responses here are from would be biologists, such as yourself, outhouse and DavidM, that know squat.

I see. It's door #2: liar. Thanks.

 

[newhope101]

Auto re you and your current cohorts.. for a people that shoved LUCA down my throat, disputed the status of florensiensis, like as if any of you know what you're talking about, you do not have any credentials left to back your posts..just a lot of wind and verbal diarrhoea and possibly an old text book.

Got anything intelligent to add to those debates?

It's a great ploy to choose a sideline to focus on when you are unable to challenge the main point...and you cannot even win that line. Re discussion on LUCA and florensiensis, I win, you and the other boofs loose. Now shall we resort to who can put the most crap on each other and fly just below the forum rules or what? Your turn next.

I see you have left the important points behind and gone on your own merry track of insults. That is the level of your education. I don't think anyone is fooled...except yourself!

 

[outhouse]

this is a debate forum no need for insults

 

[PolyHedral]

1) Children's genes can have mutations, that are not inherited from either parent.
2) These mutations can be passed on to their children.

From these two premises, it is trivial to deduce that any mutation that increases the likelihood of reproduction will spread, until the entire population posses it. Are either of these premises in question?

If they aren't, their combination with Deep Time produces evolution. Saying "X couldn't evolve into Y" imposes a limitation that does not appear to exist. If you think it does exist, back that belief up.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto re you and your current cohorts.. for a people that shoved LUCA down my throat, disputed the status of florensiensis, like as if any of you know what you're talking about, you do not have any credentials left to back your posts..just a lot of wind and verbal diarrhoea and possibly an old text book.

Got anything intelligent to add to those debates?

It's a great ploy to choose a sideline to focus on when you are unable to challenge the main point...and you cannot even win that line. Re discussion on LUCA and florensiensis, I win, you and the other boofs loose. Now shall we resort to who can put the most crap on each other and fly just below the forum rules or what? Your turn next.

I see you have left the important points behind and gone on your own merry track of insults. That is the level of your education. I don't think anyone is fooled...except yourself!

Sorry, not interested in a flame contest. let me know if you have anything more of substance to contribute.

 

[David M]

Sweetie, there is a huge gap between Homo Sapiens and Australepithecus.

A gap that becomes filled with more and more fossils every year. But irrelevant to this discussion.

Hominini includes the genus Pan which contains chimps and bonobos. There goes your credibility.

No, there goes your credibility as you are unable to differentiate between the Genus Homo and the tribe Hominini. No Hominini is considered Human unless they are also of the Genus Homo.

You kid only yourself if you reckon these researchers truly know what the hell they are looking at. I think researchers spend all their time working out how they can turn any fossil into a name for themselves.

I think that all you can do is libel scientists because you know you have no evidence to back up your desperate defence of mythology.

As I said your fossil evidence is about as clear as mud...or are you such an egotist that you attest to have more clarity than these leading researchers, who haven't got a clue?
'Hobbit' Skull Study Finds Hobbit Is Not Human

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — In a an analysis of the size, shape and asymmetry of the cranium of Homo floresiensis, Karen Baab, Ph.D., a researcher in the Department of Anatomical Scienes at Stony Brook University, and colleagues conclude that the fossil, found in Indonesia in 2003 and known as the “Hobbit,” is not human.

The results of this study are also in line with what other researchers in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University have found regarding the rest of the hobbit skeleton. Drs. William Jungers and Susan Larson have documented a range of primitive features in both the upper and lower limbs of Homo floresiensis, highlighting the many ways that these hominins were unlike modern humans.

Thanks for providing evidence that I was correct, you should have read the text that you quoted and noted that what the study says is that Homo floresiensis was not a modern human. That means that they were not Homo sapiens it does not mean that they were not humans (members of the genus Homo).

Heres something you really need to absorb (to prevent you repeating such basic errors). When it comes to classification and science all species within the Genus Homo are humans because that is what the word Homo means. H. Sapiens are also called modern humans precisely for this reason, to differentiate them from extinct species of humans when dealing with people ignorant of the nuances of the naming of species.

My words were "what they disputed was exactly where it should fit among the recent members of the genus Homo" and that is exactly what that paper proves, a debate as to whether they were H. sapiens or members of a separate species in the genus Homo (in this case H. floresiensis).

Wikipedia "Floresiensis"
Doubts that the remains constitute a new species were soon voiced by the Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob, who suggested that the skull of LB1 was a microcephalic modern human. Two studies by paleoneurologist Dean Falk and her colleagues (2005, 2007) rejected this possibility.[5][6][7] Falk et al. (2005) has been rejected by Martin et al. (2006) and Jacob et al. (2006) and defended by Morwood (2005) and Argue, Donlon et al. (2006). <snip>.

More evidence that the discussion was where in the Genus Homo these finds should be placed, thanks for supporting my point again.

So you still need to provide evidence of reputable scientists disputing that H. floresiensis was not a member of the Genus Homo (i.e. Human).

 

[rusra02]

Most YECs have to assert not only that speciation happens, but that it happens at a dizzying rate, never actually observed. That is because they assert that every land organism on earth descended from a collection of pairs that Noah took on a small wooden boat around 4000 years ago. Since we have over 12 million known species now, that's a lot of speciation since then.

For example, I think most YECs would say that mice is a "kind," so Noah took 2 mice on the boat. There are around 45 living species of mice. I haven't counted, so I'll guess there are at least that many extinct species. So they're alleging that there have been around 100 mice speciation events in the last 4000 years, or one every 40 years. This is impossible, has never been observed, and usually contradicts the last ten pages of their argument.

For this reason, they don't like to define the term, and they hate being made to do the math.

I am not a YEC, but I disagree with your definition of speciation. What you call speciation is nothing but the natural variety within an animal kind. If by species you mean a group that cannot interbreed with other groups, then that does not fit the definition of a Biblical "kind". If the mice can interbreed, they are of the same kind.
The Bible is not specific about "kind", except that only within the same kind can successful breeding occur. A mouse with black fur is still a mouse. A finch with a large beak is still a finch, and no amount of wishful thinking by evolutionists can change that.

 

[painted wolf]

I am not a YEC, but I disagree with your definition of speciation. What you call speciation is nothing but the natural variety within an animal kind. If by species you mean a group that cannot interbreed with other groups, then that does not fit the definition of a Biblical "kind". If the mice can interbreed, they are of the same kind.
The Bible is not specific about "kind", except that only within the same kind can successful breeding occur. A mouse with black fur is still a mouse. A finch with a large beak is still a finch, and no amount of wishful thinking by evolutionists can change that.

So a rat and a mouse are different kinds then?

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

I am not a YEC, but I disagree with your definition of speciation.

What definition is that?

What you call speciation is nothing but the natural variety within an animal kind.

Ah, you're comparing a verb to a noun here.

If by species you mean a group that cannot interbreed with other groups, then that does not fit the definition of a Biblical "kind". If the mice can interbreed, they are of the same kind.

According to The Encyclopedia of Mammals, Ed. Dr. David Macdonald, P.658, there are 480 species of old world mice and rats in 89 genera, none of which interbreed.

The Bible is not specific about "kind", except that only within the same kind can successful breeding occur. A mouse with black fur is still a mouse. A finch with a large beak is still a finch, and no amount of wishful thinking by evolutionists can change that.

And guess what, no evolutionist wishes any such thing.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not a YEC, but I disagree with your definition of speciation. What you call speciation is nothing but the natural variety within an animal kind.

what definition?

If by species you mean a group that cannot interbreed with other groups, then that does not fit the definition of a Biblical "kind".

What is the definition of a Biblical "kind?"

If the mice can interbreed, they are of the same kind.

Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself?

The Bible is not specific about "kind", except that only within the same kind can successful breeding occur. A mouse with black fur is still a mouse. A finch with a large beak is still a finch, and no amount of wishful thinking by evolutionists can change that.

Why would anyone care? Are you trying to say that rodentologists don't know what a mouse is?

So, would you care to define "kind," for us? Two hints:
(1) Try not to use the word "kind" in the definition
(2) An example is not a definition.

Go.

 

[newhope101]

what definition? What is the definition of a Biblical "kind?" Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself?
Why would anyone care? Are you trying to say that rodentologists don't know what a mouse is?

So, would you care to define "kind," for us? Two hints:
(1) Try not to use the word "kind" in the definition
(2) An example is not a definition.

Go.

I have already thrashed out my definition here. It will take a better person than you to goede me. I am quite satisfied with it, thanks. The news is you do not have to like it. You buzzed in here and there with your cheap comments while I was upholding it, so you should have had your say then, rather than leaving your dirty work to everyone else.

Now that you have shown everyone that you know squat about recent research it's to late to harp over old ground and your credentials have gone out in the trash.

In fact I'd prefer it if you didn't like my or any other creationsists definition of anything. Sometimes the thumbs down from people like you is a compliment. I do not need to bandy mine around anymore for your sake. Your acceptance, most of all, is not required. Paintedwolf has already acknowleged that there have been many definitions of kind put up here. The fact that you or anyone else for that matter does not like them, or can find any fault in it is also irrelevant.

The current topic is around being able to give percentages to genetic similarity. Something I am sure you know less about than LUCA. So I am not holding my breath waiting for anything intelligent from you.

I'll bet you do not have anything intelligent to add to the "high genetic similarity" discussion, just like any other discussion... and you'll just keep buzzing around like a big blow fly. Too bad I can't bet on you. I know I'd win.

 

[newhope101]

A gap that becomes filled with more and more fossils every year. But irrelevant to this discussion.



No, there goes your credibility as you are unable to differentiate between the Genus Homo and the tribe Hominini. No Hominini is considered Human unless they are also of the Genus Homo.



I think that all you can do is libel scientists because you know you have no evidence to back up your desperate defence of mythology.



Thanks for providing evidence that I was correct, you should have read the text that you quoted and noted that what the study says is that Homo floresiensis was not a modern human. That means that they were not Homo sapiens it does not mean that they were not humans (members of the genus Homo).

Heres something you really need to absorb (to prevent you repeating such basic errors). When it comes to classification and science all species within the Genus Homo are humans because that is what the word Homo means. H. Sapiens are also called modern humans precisely for this reason, to differentiate them from extinct species of humans when dealing with people ignorant of the nuances of the naming of species.

My words were "what they disputed was exactly where it should fit among the recent members of the genus Homo" and that is exactly what that paper proves, a debate as to whether they were H. sapiens or members of a separate species in the genus Homo (in this case H. floresiensis).

No they didn't just dispute where Florensiensis was in the homo line. Homonini is not the home line. You are thinking of hominina. Sorry to burst your bubble.

More evidence that the discussion was where in the Genus Homo these finds should be placed, thanks for supporting my point again.

So you still need to provide evidence of reputable scientists disputing that H. floresiensis was not a member of the Genus Homo (i.e. Human).

I already have..You truly know sqaut don't you. Wiki summarises alot of the evidence, cites and references the research. My evidence is backed up. So far all I have heard from you is misinformation, misinterpretation and downright ignorance. You may be able to find work that supports just your view. Unfortuntely for you, science doesn't hang on what you think or your narrow views. True scientists accept the full body of work and acknowlege it in putting forward their findings.

Well dear...according to Wiki and all other evolutionary scientists Hominini does include bonobo and chimpanzee. So there you are out in orbit on your own with your credentials in hand. You need to stop referring to a comic book. So floresiensis may have been a modern human or a chimp according to your researchers...that says it all. I do not pretend to have credentials. I can use the words of your own evolutionary researchers to fight you with. The laugh is, that you do not even accept the words or resesrch from your own scientists if it doesn't meld with your ego.

Boy am I going to have some fun if these lunatics ever put chimps in the homo line like some are trying to. Go on have a go at that statement, and call it a lie and show your ignorance yet again. Please......

Here...learn....

Wiki Floresiensis
The discoverers (archaeologist Mike Morwood and colleagues) proposed that a variety of features, both primitive and derived, identify these individuals as belonging to a new species, H. floresiensis, within the taxonomic tribe of Hominini. Hominini currently comprises the extant species human (the only living member of the genus Homo), bonobo (genus Pan), and chimpanzee (genus Pan); their ancestors; and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.[1][3] The discoverers also proposed that H. floresiensis lived contemporaneously with modern humans (Homo sapiens) on Flores.[4]

Wiki Homonini
Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Humans (Homo), and two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor. Members of the tribe are called hominins (cf. Hominidae, "hominids"). The subtribe Hominina is the "human" branch, including genus Homo and its close relatives, but not Pan

 

[newhope101]

I am not a YEC, but I disagree with your definition of speciation. What you call speciation is nothing but the natural variety within an animal kind. If by species you mean a group that cannot interbreed with other groups, then that does not fit the definition of a Biblical "kind". If the mice can interbreed, they are of the same kind.
The Bible is not specific about "kind", except that only within the same kind can successful breeding occur. A mouse with black fur is still a mouse. A finch with a large beak is still a finch, and no amount of wishful thinking by evolutionists can change that.

I agree with you rusra. Speciation and species is just another name for the varieties in kind. I am glad we have boats and planes around these days otherwise technically all the races in the world would be different species just because we could not get to each other geographicaly. Thankgoodness these scientists thought of the word 'races' so they did not appear so silly.

 

[outhouse]

Now that you have shown everyone that you know squat about recent research

I already have..You truly know sqaut don't you

are personal attacks a sure sign of desperation???