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

[David M]

Originally Posted by newhope101
Now science accepts that similar species can interbreed.
Err... I'm pretty sure they have for a while...
You know what a dog is, right?
Quote: Or... if the evidence doesn't fit with your worldview, why not discard it all so that you can keep believing what you wish?

Of course similar species may be able to interbreed, but when science uses the term similar it does not mean "they look vaguely alike".

Speciation is a process that occurs over many generations, a population does not suddenly wake up one day to find that they suddenly can't interbreed with a different population that they could breed with the day before.

You start with populations "able to freely interbreed" and, as different mutations accumulate in the 2 populations they move through "may interbreed with some difficulty and produce fertile offspring" to "may interbreed with some difficulty and produce infertile offspring" until they end up at "do not interbreed". How long this takes depends on the exact mutations, for example those that affect protiens involved in fertilisation can quickly erect barriers to interbreeding.

Yes we know what dogs are, you however do not as evidenced below.

Great point. Obviously the whole species thing is a raught. Dogs are dogs, whether or not they're a spaniel or great dane, and can interbreed, yet they are different species. Chimp and human are also different species and cannot interbreed. Evolutionists have really made a mess of this.

Dog breeds are not different species, breed is a categorisation below species and sub-species level.

Chimps and humans cannot interbreed now, but we have been diverging from a common ancestor for 5-6 milllion years, that is many hundreds of thousands of generations. Dogs diverged from wolves starting about 15 thousand years ago. Horses and Donkeys share a common ancestor about 2 million years ago.

 

[Skwim]

Obviously the whole species thing is a raught. Dogs are dogs, whether or not they're a spaniel or great dane, and can interbreed, yet they are different species.

I implore you to inform yourself of what you speak before doing so. It will help to establish your credibility. Also, as Autodidact mentioned, using the quote function will go a long way in helping the rest of us to understand you.

BTW, all dogs are classified as Canis lupus (the same species as the wolf) familiaris (its subspecies designation). For more info click HERE

 

[newhope101]

Methylatedghost said "You know what a dog is, right?" as an example of different species mating. Of course they are a sub species ..tell Meth.

The dog classifications make sense Canis Lupis covers all dog like creatures. Is this similar to Homo having subspecies of human? I believe someone had a go at me for suggesting such a thing. Homo is the genus and all the species under homo are not subspecies but species I was so firmly told.

So according to the Wiki explanation of subspecies, I gather that now we have confirmed a mating between neanderthal and humans Africans (was it autralepithicus africanus that came from Africa) these two should no longer be seen as separate species but as subspecies of the genus Homo or what?

Neanderthal is classed as a sub species in many papers now that the genome info has come out. The others should not be far behind.

I like how biologists have looked at a few of your ancestors as subspecies but not others(see below). It's interesting, seeing as the wiki explanation depends on whether or not breeding can occur to delineate species from sub, and apart from neanderthal, biologists have no clue which may breed with which. They didn't even know for sure if Neanderthal could mate with humans until recently. Then some argue that there are examples of separate species mating that are not subspecies, which does not appear to fit the Wiki definiton.

Now I suppose one can say that if Neanderthal and humans of that time could mate then so could all the homo species back to the common ancestor on either side. That makes sense. Or does it?

I have thought of all the Homo lineage as subspecies for a while now. It was not popular. I think these homo species above sapiens all the way to Homo erectus should be grouped as a subspecies. With the new genetic research there is bound to be little gene variation between them. After all, modern humans aren't that much different than chimps. There was alot of gene expression and difference in the 0.6-2% (depending on which paper) separating chimp from human.

Do any of you think the Homo lineage fits a subspecies criteria?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wiki: Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of a peptide from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species.
If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.
As knowledge of a particular group increases, its categorisation may need to be re-assessed. The Rock Pipit was formerly classed as a subspecies of Water Pipit, but is now recognised to be a full species. For an example of a subspecies, see Pied Wagtail.
Cryptic species are morphologically similar, but have differences in DNA or other factors.

Human on Wiki
The scientific study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise human"), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.[10] Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"; genetic studies now suggest that the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals diverged 500,000 years ago.[11] Similarly, the few specimens of Homo rhodesiensis have also occasionally been classified as a subspecies, but this is not widely accepted. Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.[12][13][14][15][16] The broad study of African genetic diversity headed by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff found the San people to express the greatest genetic diversity among the 113 distinct populations sampled, making them one of 14 "ancestral population clusters". The research also located the origin of modern human migration in south-western Africa, near the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.[17]

 

[Skwim]

The dog classifications make sense Canis Lupis covers all dog like creatures.

No it does not. Canis lupis (small "l") does not cover the dog-like Ethiopian Wolf, C. simensis, or the coyote, C. latrans, or the Black-backed Jackal C. mesomelas. Both also very dog-like canines.

Now, there are several subspecies of C. lupus, and this would be like the human subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens (we modern day humans), H. s. idaltu, and H. s. neanderthalensis. Yet some authorities classify the Neanderthals as a distinct species, H. neanderthalensis, just as some consider H. rhodesiensis to be a sub species, H. s. rhodesiensis.

This pretty much illuminates the ongoing struggle to properly classify all of Earth's life. It's not a cut and dry operation with a set of rigid rules. Even the definition of "species," as may be guessed by my previous post, is far from settled. More often then not taxonomists will define species along the lines of Ernst Mayr, who said a species is "a reproductively isolated aggregate of populations which can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms."

As a cautionary note, just be wary of making statements because they sound right, as you have above, rather than because they are right.

 

[evolved yet?]

No it does not. Canis lupis (small "l") does not cover the dog-like Ethiopian Wolf, C. simensis, or the coyote, C. latrans, or the Black-backed Jackal C. mesomelas. Both also very dog-like canines.

But for some reason dingoes are a sub-species of grey wolf.

 

[evolved yet?]

Do any of you think the Homo lineage fits a subspecies criteria?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wiki: Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of a peptide from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species.
If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.
As knowledge of a particular group increases, its categorisation may need to be re-assessed. The Rock Pipit was formerly classed as a subspecies of Water Pipit, but is now recognised to be a full species. For an example of a subspecies, see Pied Wagtail.
Cryptic species are morphologically similar, but have differences in DNA or other factors.

Human on Wiki
The scientific study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise human"), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.[10] Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"; genetic studies now suggest that the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals diverged 500,000 years ago.[11] Similarly, the few specimens of Homo rhodesiensis have also occasionally been classified as a subspecies, but this is not widely accepted. Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.[12][13][14][15][16] The broad study of African genetic diversity headed by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff found the San people to express the greatest genetic diversity among the 113 distinct populations sampled, making them one of 14 "ancestral population clusters". The research also located the origin of modern human migration in south-western Africa, near the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.[17]

You Do know evolution includes every species right?

 

[DeitySlayer]

You do also know that humans and chimps are genetically close enough to receive blood transfusions from each other, right?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So while creationists applaud what baraminologists are doing, they choose to ignore its conclusions that species can evolve. But why should we be surprised.

The problem lies in psuedo-Christians trying to use Scripture as a Science Book. It was never meant to be.

There were no words for epoch, speciation and evolution back then and the list could go on. Ancient man tried to explain his universe using the words and concepts that were available to him at the time. I would wonder if any of us could have been so successful given the same circumstances, and I doubt it.

 

[Skwim]

But for some reason dingoes are a sub-species of grey wolf.

The reason is that

"Analyses of amino sequences of the hemoglobin of a "pure" dingo in the 70s supported the theory that dingoes are more closely related to other domestic dogs than to grey wolves or coyotes."
Source: Wikipedia.

​

Of course, that they may be more closely related to the domestic dog than to the other ssps of gray wolf does not diminish their status as a sub-species of gray wolf.

 

[newhope101]

Thanks for the info everyone. Now I understand it took science to make this all so fuzzy. Re creation I'd say Canine is obviously the Kind that was made. Homo should be changed to something else like chimponid (seeing as walking upright like chimps can do today anyway is so important) It was made up only to show the chimp connection when in fact it should stop above Sapiens. Genetic testing has shown how similar we are to all living creatures with Gods genetic signature through all and that modern humans are not decendent from any currently living species. Mitochondrial Eve has shown all living creatures have common ancestors, despite the myth behind it.

Creationists is it that simple to you all? We all know what evolutionists have to say.

Deityslayer..No I didn't know we could use chimp blood transfusions. But I do know that some papers say humans and chimps are 99.4% genetically similar and that the variation in the current population is 1%. I guess genes are not the key to what separates chimp from human.

I wonder if these separate species, say the Italian wolf could mate with the other species? After all way back when human chromosome 2 fused that human or chimp must still have mated with someone that didn't have the same DNA. I understand from Wiki that if species are morphologically the same but have different DNA they are a cryptic species. I'll look it up. Thanks.,once I read that even if 2 species are compatable but do not look for a mate at the same time or something then they are a different species..you lost me. This species thing appears to be made up as it goes along.

Anyway this is a 'Kinds, species that evolve' thread. To those that took a belittling shot at me......I'm so pleased science has made chimps of you all.

Wiki: Disputed subspecies and species
Two subspecies not mentioned in the list above are the Italian Wolf (Canis lupus italicus) and the Iberian Wolf (Canis lupus signatus). The wolves of the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have morphologically distinct features from other European wolves and each are considered by researchers to represent their own subspecies.[32][33][34]
The genetic distinction of the Italian wolf subspecies was recently supported by analysis which consistently assigned all the wolf genotypes of a sample in Italy to a single group. This population also showed a unique mitochondrial DNA control-region haplotype, the absence of private alleles and lower heterozygosity at microsatellite loci, as compared to other wolf populations.[35]
In addition, recent genetic research suggests that the Indian Wolf populations in the Indian subcontinent may represent a distinct species from their conspecifics. Similar results were obtained for the Himalayan wolf, which is traditionally placed into the Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus laniger) .[36]

 

[Skwim]

I wonder if these separate species, say the Italian wolf could mate with the other species?

Almost certainly not, the coyote, Canis latrans, being one possible exception.

Homo should be changed to something else like chimponid (seeing as walking upright like chimps can do today anyway is so important) It was made up only to show the chimp connection when in fact it should stop above Sapiens.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, but humans, genus Homo, are quite distinct from chimps, which belong to the genus Pan, and this in itself severely separates the two. In fact, taxonomists even classify the two into different subtribes Panina (chimps) and Hominina (humans). They do share the same tribe, Hominini.

Here's how the super family Hominoidea breaks down

​

 

[painted wolf]

But for some reason dingoes are a sub-species of grey wolf.

That is because the Dingo is a "pariah dog"... a descendant of domestic dogs that branched off very early on.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Slept in so just a brief reply.

Thanks skwim and Paintedwolf.

I've made a lot of claims about what I think and pretty well been given alot of flack over it. However, alot of what I've said I see much support from the scientific community. A fair summation is given in Wiki under "Race (classification of humans)". It speaks to the BSC and and PCS categorization of organisms. It highlights the difficulties in classifying subspecies and races.

These are very well credentialled scientists and research papers that do not come across as black and white as many on RF. There are many bright scientists that have proposed a reworking of the evolutionary tree, particularly in light of new genomic research. There is one under 'subspeices as clade' in Wiki. There are others. So if these guys have a basis for feeling the current tree needs a revamp why berate those that are unqualified but also contest the status quo.

In early days I was laughted at for suggesting Neanderthal is a subspeices. However many agree and this is reflected in many papers nowadays and purported a fact. I have used the word concept in relation to the notion of species. I was quite surprised to see "Biological species Concept". I have queried the concept of all Homo genus line as being subspecies and how that is different to race and the variations we see today in humans. Given the confusion over what a species and subspecies is I don't think I'm that silly.

What I do think is that some here are very black and white. It's almost like someone sitting there with a biology book and spitting facts back at me like they know it all and their book is the only view, and if you disagree there is something hugely wrong with you. Indeed one can only reply with the most widely accepted concepts, as there are many in disagreement, and nothing is black and white when it comes to evolutionary science.

And I go on about our species because that's the one I care about. I do not see any reason to believe that all the fossils found above homo sapiens have any humanity in them. Non human primates adaptively change also. Jaws and teeth are more a reflection of diet than evolution as such. It's very possible that all these fossils are all non human primates.

Look at homo erectus, the brown one in Wiki. His lower jaw is more modern that a modern African American male. The top of the skull remains just like a chimp. Yet he is given a 1100 cc brain yet still has the chimp brain case, charcoal found in depressions are seen as fire. As for stone tools, some research indicates they have been used for 3.6 million years. It doesn't sit right. I think the brain size is exaggerated to fit in with the first controlled use of fire.

As I say when it comes to mankind we are one kind. Within the current concepts of man, that is genus. Homonid should be chimponid. Chimponid should reflect the adaptive variation of chimps through the years. Homo should assign one species to it sapiens, and sapiens sapiens is not required.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm pretty sure that everyone here has tried to explain to you that nothing in science is ever black and white. That's not how science works. There is always controversy, always disagreement, always progress and change. That's very, very basic to how science works. Evolution is science, therefore there is controversy, disagreement, progress and change within it. What we haven't seen for over a century is any real disagreement within Biology for whether it is a correct, robust, supported theory. It is. Both of these things are true.

I repeat my accusation. I don't believe you. Where did you go to church Sunday?

 

[McBell]

I'll say it again. I don't trust you. I don't think you're an agnostic anything. I think you're a YEC Christian who, for your own reasons, does not wish to disclose that. Perhaps you think it will add credibility to your uneducated, illogical attempt to poke holes in ToE?

I have thought this about her myself more than once and she seems to further confirm it little by little with each of her posts.

 

[painted wolf]

His lower jaw is more modern that a modern African American male.

Not only is the utterly false.. it's also racist!

There is nothing "unmodern" about modern Africans! To even suggest it is IMHO foul.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not only is the utterly false.. it's also racist!

There is nothing "unmodern" about modern Africans! To even suggest it is IMHO foul.

wa:do

You beat me to it.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf Quote:There is nothing "unmodern" about modern Africans! To even suggest it is IMHO foul.

This is not racisit just showing you guys have no idea. Africans are more human than most of the world according to the latest research. Remember, it's the rest of us that are mongrels.

Mestemia & Autodidact..don't mistake me for someone that cares what you think.
Your theories are a heap of woffle so much so that I can't be bothered debating the point with you lot anymore. Forum rules prevent me from telling you where your credentials belong.

Many scientists smarter than you and vastly more qualified, also feel the current phlogenic tree is misleading. Your views are so narrow minded that your instuction is no longer valid. Just like your creationist arguments you quote your own faulty hypothesis as evidence. You guys can't tell one primates evolution from anothers. Your theories are rubbish.

Schwartz and Grehan challenge these theories as incompatible with the morphological and biogeographic evidence.

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) — New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science. Reporting in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biogeography, the researchers reject as "problematic" the popular suggestion, based on DNA analysis, that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, which they maintain is not supported by fossil evidence.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas. They then constructed a scenario for how the human-orangutan common ancestor migrated between Southeast Asia—where modern orangutans are from—and other parts of the world and evolved into now-extinct apes and early humans.
The study provides further evidence of the human-orangutan connection that Schwartz first proposed in his book "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, Revised and Updated" (Westview Press, 2005).
Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apes—chimps, gorillas, and orangutans—and selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.
Schwartz and Grehan then examined 56 features uniquely shared among modern humans, fossil hominids—ancestral humans such as Australopithecus—and fossil apes. They found that orangutans shared eight features with early humans and Australopithecus and seven with Australopithecus alone. The occurrence of orangutan features in Australopithecus contradicts the expectation generated by DNA analysis that ancestral humans should have chimpanzee similarities, Schwartz and Grehan write. Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to share only those features found in all great apes.
Schwartz and Grehan pooled humans, orangutans, and the fossil apes into a new group called "dental hominoids," named for their similarly thick-enameled teeth. They labeled chimpanzees and gorillas as African apes and wrote in Biogeography that although they are a sister group of dental hominoids, "the African apes are not only less closely related to humans than are orangutans, but also less closely related to humans than are many" fossil apes.
The researchers acknowledge, however, that early human and ape fossils are largely found in Africa, whereas modern orangutans are found in Southeast Asia. To account for the separation, they propose that the last common human-orangutan ancestor migrated between Africa, Europe, and Asia at some point that ended at least 12 million to 13 million years ago. Plant fossils suggest that forests once extended from southern Europe, through Central Asia, and into China prior to the formation of the Himalayas, Schwartz and Grehan write, proposing that the ancestral dental hominoid lived and roamed throughout this vast area; as the Earth's surface and local ecosystems changed, descendant dental hominoids became geographically isolated from one another.
Schwartz and Grehan compare this theory of ancestral distribution with one designed to accommodate a presumed human-chimpanzee relationship. They write that in the absence of African ape fossils more than 500,000 years old, a series of "complicated and convoluted" scenarios were invented to suggest that African apes had descended from earlier apes that migrated from Africa to Europe. According to these scenarios, European apes then diverged into apes that moved on to Asia and into apes that returned to Africa to later become humans and modern apes. Schwartz and Grehan challenge these theories as incompatible with the morphological and biogeographic evidence.
Paleoanthropologist Peter Andrews, a past head of Human Origins at the London Natural History Museum and coauthor of "The Complete World of Human Evolution" (Thames & Hudson, 2005), said that Schwartz and Grehan provide good evidence to support their theory. Andrews had no part in the research, but is familiar with it.
"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "They are going against accepted interpretations of human and ape relationships, and there's no doubt their conclusions will be challenged. But I hope it will be done in a constructive way, for science progresses by asking questions and testing results."
Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.
"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan–human relationship—they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."

 

[painted wolf]

This is not racisit just showing you guys have no idea. Africans are more human than most of the world according to the latest research. Remember, it's the rest of us that are mongrels.

Do you ever get dizzy trying to keep everything you say strait?
Or it all just like water off a ducks back?

As for your science daily blurb... you love to post things you think support your position, without bothering to try to understand what is being discussed.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Mestemia & Autodidact..don't mistake me for someone that cares what you think.
Your theories are a heap of woffle so much so that I can't be bothered debating the point with you lot anymore. Forum rules prevent me from telling you where your credentials belong.

Oh, I already knew you could care less what others think.
Your posts reveal that quite clearly.