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

[McBell]

I soooo wish I could. There would no doubt be debate even if the evidence was being fit in to assert various creationist models/theories. I can only provide a concept based on the taxonomic ranking at hand. I see the most recent common ancestor as described by genomic testing as a 'kind' that were more than likely created, I suppose closer to clade or family.

The various descriptors of say equine species and subspecies are names for the variartion within 'kind' that results from adaptation from an initial few creatures.

Ability/inability to mate is interesting however is irrelevant in determining the continuance of a kind. So if a finch cannot breed with a raven this does not mean they are not the same kind for they are still birds. Perhaps for the sake of this thread I'd say that species is a morphological and phylogenic descriptor of the variation in kinds of which are the equivalent of family (clade). However this common ancestor is the beginning of the line of that kind. I dispute the link back to another kind and another kind back to bacteria kind.

and you have the gall to whine about the definition of species?
Your arrogance is only bested by your blatant dishonesty.

 

[RedOne77]

I soooo wish I could. There would no doubt be debate even if the evidence was being fit in to assert various creationist models/theories. I can only provide a concept based on the taxonomic ranking at hand. I see the most recent common ancestor as described by genomic testing as a 'kind' that were more than likely created, I suppose closer to clade or family.

The various descriptors of say equine species and subspecies are names for the variartion within 'kind' that results from adaptation from an initial few creatures.

Ability/inability to mate is interesting however is irrelevant in determining the continuance of a kind. So if a finch cannot breed with a raven this does not mean they are not the same kind for they are still birds. Perhaps for the sake of this thread I'd say that species is a morphological and phylogenic descriptor of the variation in kinds of which are the equivalent of family (clade). However this common ancestor is the beginning of the line of that kind. I dispute the link back to another kind and another kind back to bacteria kind.

So, are you basically saying that instead of a tree of life, there is an Orchard of life, and each tree in the orchard is a separate kind with no common ancestry to another tree?

 

[Autodidact]

I soooo wish I could. There would no doubt be debate even if the evidence was being fit in to assert various creationist models/theories. I can only provide a concept based on the taxonomic ranking at hand. I see the most recent common ancestor as described by genomic testing as a 'kind' that were more than likely created, I suppose closer to clade or family.

The various descriptors of say equine species and subspecies are names for the variartion within 'kind' that results from adaptation from an initial few creatures.

Ability/inability to mate is interesting however is irrelevant in determining the continuance of a kind. So if a finch cannot breed with a raven this does not mean they are not the same kind for they are still birds. Perhaps for the sake of this thread I'd say that species is a morphological and phylogenic descriptor of the variation in kinds of which are the equivalent of family (clade). However this common ancestor is the beginning of the line of that kind. I dispute the link back to another kind and another kind back to bacteria kind.

So you have no definition of the word "kind?" Would you please stop using the word then? Because if you can't define it, it's gibberish.

 

[fantome profane]

This is a species and kind thread and again I reiterate, you have no consistent definition re species. You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'....

Imagine two people are having an argument about blue and green. The first person argues that blue is blue and can never transition into the colour green. Yes there may be variation in the colour blue but it will always be blue, and green will always be green. We will call this first person the distinct colourists. The second person maintains that there can be a very subtle and gradual transition from blue to green, we will call this second person the blending transitionist.

Distinct Colourist: You guys have no evidence of a transitional colour.

Blending Transitionalist: Yes we do, look at this. Here we see the colour blue with a definite greenish tinge.

Distinct Colourist: Yes it has a greenish tinge, but it is still the colour blue, blue is blue.

Blending Transitionalist: Ok, look at this one, it is a green colour with a bit of blue mixed in.

Distinct Colourist: Right, but again it is still green, it belongs to the green “kind”. Blue is blue and green is green.

Blending Transitionalist: Well how about this one, it is exactly in the middle between blue and green. You maintain that there can be no transitional colours, so what colour do you call this?

Distinct Colourist: I don’t know, but then again neither do you guys. There are blending transitionalists who consider that colour to be a bluish green, and there are other blending transitionalist who call it a greenish blue. You guys can’t even make up your minds, so your theory is invalid.

Blending Transitionalist: But that doesn’t matter, call it bluish green or greenish blue, it is a transitional colour. It is clearly evidence that colours blend.

Distinct Colourist: But Blending Transitionalists can’t even tell us if this started out as a blue colour and transitioned into green, or if it started out as a green colour and transitioned into blue. You transitionalists can’t get your act together.

Blending Transitionalist: But that doesn’t matter either. These are details that may perhaps be worked out with more research, but sill it the evidence is very clear that colours blend.

Distinct Colourist: Nonsense, there are no transitional colours

Blending Transitionalist: *gives up*

Have I captured this discussion or not?

 

[newhope101]

So, are you basically saying that instead of a tree of life, there is an Orchard of life, and each tree in the orchard is a separate kind with no common ancestry to another tree?

Many researchers today say your tree of life should look like a bush. So what?

 

[newhope101]

Imagine two people are having an argument about blue and green. The first person argues that blue is blue and can never transition into the colour green. Yes there may be variation in the colour blue but it will always be blue, and green will always be green. We will call this first person the distinct colourists. The second person maintains that there can be a very subtle and gradual transition from blue to green, we will call this second person the blending transitionist.

Have I captured this discussion or not?

Darls I think you are on drugs. What the hell are you talking about?

I can inform you about blue eyes in humans so your post is not a total loss. Surprise ....this research states blue eyes humans have a single, common ancestor. I guess Adam or Eve had blue eyes..hey?

Blue-Eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2008) — New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human’s chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, “it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

 

[newhope101]

So you have no definition of the word "kind?" Would you please stop using the word then? Because if you can't define it, it's gibberish.

Only of you stop using the word species, genus and family for the same reasons.

 

[Skwim]

Darls I think you are on drugs. What the hell are you taling about?

I can inform you about blue eyes in humans. Surprise they have a single common ancestor.

Ah, guys . . . . doesn't this tell you something? Like maybe you're wasting your breath here.

 

[newhope101]

and you have the gall to whine about the definition of species?
Your arrogance is only bested by your blatant dishonesty.

I am able to give as good a definition of kind as you, Mestemia, can give of species, genus or family for that matter.

Your arogance is to pretend to know better than well credentialed academics who themselves at least acknowledge there is a species definition problem.

I refer you for the 4th hundred time to look at Wiki 'species problem', where some of the concerns are noted...and recent research adds to it. Are you suggesting you have no problem with the term species? Then I also say you have no credentials in biology or related science, just an old biology book, big mouth, and an ego to match.

 

[Autodidact]

Imagine two people are having an argument about blue and green. The first person argues that blue is blue and can never transition into the colour green. Yes there may be variation in the colour blue but it will always be blue, and green will always be green. We will call this first person the distinct colourists. The second person maintains that there can be a very subtle and gradual transition from blue to green, we will call this second person the blending transitionist...

Have I captured this discussion or not?

:clap

 

[Autodidact]

Only of you stop using the word species, genus and family for the same reasons.

If I use the word species, I will be happy to provide you with a single clear definition for it. Can you do the same for your word?

 

[painted wolf]

I am able to give as good a definition of kind as you, Mestemia, can give of species, genus or family for that matter.

You just refuse to do so...?


wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Personally I prefer phylogenetic nomenclature as opposed to the old Linnaean nomenclature.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I had no idea that any posted about a intermediate between a salamander and a frog.

But by all means keep evading the facts and demonstrating that you have nothing to support your side except shell games.

You want everyone to accept that nothing changes outside of its "kind" then you had better define what the heck a "kind" is.
So... what is a "kind"?

And please stop trying to change the subject with wiki distractions... It's not going to work and only makes you look desperate.


You should try actually reading the info you ridicule! I've lready told you I believe 'kind' is the equivalent of family. Using Wiki or anything else I post gives readers the supporting evidence. I do not care for you die hard evos. I care about those simply searching for truth. I'll paste what I want to paste and people can make what they wish of it.

Besides..I win. No one asks for support of my statements because I add some. Rather you get personal or arogant as a defence. That is desperation Wolf, theres no wa do about it!

I understand completely why you do not want me to mention or paste in research.

I say 'kind' is much the same as your taxa 'family'. Now I know you hate me using research and Wiki gives a good summation of most research. Wiki is not biased as are some people here on RF. Wiki will also speak to controversial research and debate ..and I know you hate it Wolf. Your black and white responses are shown up easily as biased and not a true reflection of current knowledge, when one takes the time to research your posts. I use Wiki and Science Daily lots as they sum up pages and pages of boring research.

So as you see even well credentialed researchers admit that not all agree on what fossil should go where. This is endemic through genus and species order and every other taxa.

It is you that have the gaul to subject creationists to ridicule when all your own taxonomic rankings are vague, debated and inconsistent. So if you keep winding it into me I'll just keep winding it back to you lot. There is an arsenal awaiting of inconsistencies in your taxa. If you're as educated as some of you like to think you are, you should already know them.

So if any of you can get over yourselves for a while and have the intellectual capacity to understand your own taxa of 'family' with all its' vagueness, you should have no problem imagining 'kind' as 'family'.

Wiki Family:
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.

 

[painted wolf]

Family is a Linaean holdover... but each family is defined individually. If you want me to explain the unifying features of a particular family such as Canidae I'll be happy to do so.

I have asked repeatedly for you to give the unifying features of a "kind" such as "Dog kind"... but have repeatedly refused and instead try to change the subject with Wiki quotes and other distractions.

I have also asked what prevents a "kind" from deviating from the boundaries creationists impose.

If you feel I'm getting tetchy, it is only because I'm sick of the distractions and evasions. I'm not threatened in the slightest by the "species problem"... I'm a phylogenetic taxonomy supporter not a Linnaean taxonomy supporter. Indeed as a scientist I find the discussions exciting and fun.

Family is a Linnaean holdover... it's a pre-evolutionary antique that taxonomists have been burdened with for far too long. It's long past time that it was dropped in favor of a more realistic system like the PhyloCode.

I don't find having to endlessly correct mistakes made by others who don't take time or effort to actually try to understand those discussions fun... I find it tedious.

So once again.... can you define a "kind" for me in a way that is useful?
Birds, dogs, horses, snakes.... doesn't matter... just pick one and please give a definition of what unites that "kind".

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so, newhope, is it your position that Noah took two of each family of land animal on an ark 4000 years ago, and all the species we see today evolved from those families?

 

[painted wolf]

O.K., so, newhope, is it your position that Noah took two of each family of land animal on an ark 4000 years ago, and all the species we see today evolved from those families?

That means only 34 pairs of rodents...if you just count living groups. That also implies that God only made two dogs in Eden but 68 rodents.

However I don't think newhope really thinks "kinds" are like "families".... given the amount of fuss that was made about the Okapi/Giraffe relationship and the sheep/goat relationship.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Darls I think you are on drugs. What the hell are you talking about?

It is an allegory Sweetheart. I guess it is not surprising that you cannot understand the concept of information being conveyed in a non-literal manner.

 

[McBell]

I am able to give as good a definition of kind as you, Mestemia, can give of species, genus or family for that matter.

Your arogance is to pretend to know better than well credentialed academics who themselves at least acknowledge there is a species definition problem.

I refer you for the 4th hundred time to look at Wiki 'species problem', where some of the concerns are noted...and recent research adds to it. Are you suggesting you have no problem with the term species? Then I also say you have no credentials in biology or related science, just an old biology book, big mouth, and an ego to match.

I never claimed that there were no problems with the definitions of species, genus, and family.
So how about you put that strawman away?

I have stated numerous times that you cannot even present a workable definition of the word 'kind'.
At least the definitions of species, genus, and family are workable, even with the problems.

But you continuously whine about those definitions when the very term you cling onto is completely worthless.

You wear your blatant hypocrisy on your sleeve and flaunt it like a 14 karat engagement ring.

 

[Gunfingers]

And more to the point the "Species problem" is pretty irrelevant. "Species" is simply a designator we use to make it easier for us to describe the natural world. It has no scientific significance, no predictions are made based on the definition of species. It's literally just a holdover from a now outdated system of classification.

More to the point, the difficulties with the word "species" are predicted by evolutionary theory. Thanks to ToE we know that organisms are on a gradient with no distinct separation. I am separated from my sister the same way i'm separated from a lizard, except that i'm more separated from one than the other. Thus the "species problem" is an argument in favor of evolutionary theory.