I just want to quote this in order to give certain people a second chance to read it. In fact lets really give them a really good chance to read it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
newhope101
Active Member
Rather than reply to you all individually let me say again ..this is a kind and species thread. I have told you that I believe ‘KIND’ is the equivalent of ‘FAMILY’.
You wanted a creationists to define kind. I have. Stop whining;
The species problem proves nothing other that you have difficulty defining the term. Initially evolution was expected to be smooth. It is only in light of new evidence that the model changed with various other theories explaining the evidence ie staged evolution. Now your tree is becoming a bush and many researchers say a tree is an inadequate and misleading way to describe evolution. Evos now say this change is OK as this is to be expected. Pity Darwin was wrong in expecting smooth transitions.
Now back to the topic....
There is no consistency or veracity in relation to your term ‘species’.(ie ’species problem') As you can see below this concern applies to all your taxonomic rankings.. Therefore you have no basis nor justification to ridicule my definition or anyone else’s definition of kind…unless you are a hypocrite of course and there is plenty of them here.
Let’s see who is the first hypocrite to belittle my definition in light of the inconsistency of their own definitions.
　
　
Wiki SPECIES
Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[2] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[3] and this is called the species problem.[4] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned
Genus
There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[3] [ Nomenclature
...difficulties occurring in generic nomenclature: similar cases abound, and become complicated by the different views taken of the matter by the various taxonomists.
Prof. C. S. Rafinesque. 1836[4]
None of the Nomenclature Codes require such criteria for defining a genus, because these are concerned with the nomenclature rules, not with taxonomy. These regulate formal nomenclature, aiming for universal and stable scientific names
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.
Order
In zoology, the Linnaean orders were used more consistently. That is, the orders in the zoology part of the Systema Naturae refer to natural groups. Some of his ordinal names are still in use (e.g. Lepidoptera for the order of moths and butterflies, or Diptera for the order of flies, mosquitoes, midges, and gnats).
Taxonomic Sequence
Taxonomic sequences are essentially heuristic devices that help in arrangements of linear systems such as books and information retrieval systems. Since phylogenetic relationships are complex and non-linear, there is no unique way to define the sequence, although they generally have the more basal listed first with species that cluster in a tight group included next to each other.
You wanted a creationists to define kind. I have. Stop whining;
The species problem proves nothing other that you have difficulty defining the term. Initially evolution was expected to be smooth. It is only in light of new evidence that the model changed with various other theories explaining the evidence ie staged evolution. Now your tree is becoming a bush and many researchers say a tree is an inadequate and misleading way to describe evolution. Evos now say this change is OK as this is to be expected. Pity Darwin was wrong in expecting smooth transitions.
Now back to the topic....
There is no consistency or veracity in relation to your term ‘species’.(ie ’species problem') As you can see below this concern applies to all your taxonomic rankings.. Therefore you have no basis nor justification to ridicule my definition or anyone else’s definition of kind…unless you are a hypocrite of course and there is plenty of them here.
Let’s see who is the first hypocrite to belittle my definition in light of the inconsistency of their own definitions.
　
　
Wiki SPECIES
Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[2] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[3] and this is called the species problem.[4] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned
Genus
There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[3] [ Nomenclature
...difficulties occurring in generic nomenclature: similar cases abound, and become complicated by the different views taken of the matter by the various taxonomists.
Prof. C. S. Rafinesque. 1836[4]
None of the Nomenclature Codes require such criteria for defining a genus, because these are concerned with the nomenclature rules, not with taxonomy. These regulate formal nomenclature, aiming for universal and stable scientific names
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.
Order
In zoology, the Linnaean orders were used more consistently. That is, the orders in the zoology part of the Systema Naturae refer to natural groups. Some of his ordinal names are still in use (e.g. Lepidoptera for the order of moths and butterflies, or Diptera for the order of flies, mosquitoes, midges, and gnats).
Taxonomic Sequence
Taxonomic sequences are essentially heuristic devices that help in arrangements of linear systems such as books and information retrieval systems. Since phylogenetic relationships are complex and non-linear, there is no unique way to define the sequence, although they generally have the more basal listed first with species that cluster in a tight group included next to each other.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So you think that these are all the same "kind" then?
but these two are different "kinds"...
Thanks for clearing that up.
wa:do
but these two are different "kinds"...
Thanks for clearing that up.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Carnivora is technically an Order... but interestingly these two are different kinds
But these are the same kind
wa:do
But these are the same kind
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
This is a great example, but a real mess, re bovids. The subfamilies are really unclear. Rather than family, perhaps I should have said, whatever is rank is put above genus, as this is where I think taxonomy falls apart. A little difficult to sort given the phylogenic relationships are still unclear nor resolved in this taxonomic ranking.
Cattle, bison, Yak, zebu, buffalo are a kind and probably adaptations of auroch. I think some sort of gazelle like creature is first of a kind that went onto adapt into sheep, impala, reedbucks, goats, antelopes, deer. I'm not sure of Giraffe/okapi, although they could be gazelle adaptations. This was a hard one until I saw the primitive soay sheep which looks very goatish and kind of like a deer/gazelle.
Some kinds perhaps did not diversify so much as others. The Panda is probably the first kind of all bears. It is very possible that a few or many of a kind were created. The polar bear is a very curious example of having very divergent genes from other bears. Perhaps one of each were made as initial kinds. If a creationist researcher was hypthosesising on this sort of data I wonder what he would see? Dogs are another example of a kind that did not vary significantly from the first kind being a wolf.
Skunks are their own family according to genomic data. Mmmm!!! I think not, Racoons, ringtail and weasel are likely the same kind.
There are too many subfamilies as suggested by some researchers.
I believe the above definitions are quite broad. More genomic testing will hopefully determine if the first kind is much more narrow than this, as other creationists assert. It is a shame there are few if any creationist scientists examining the data. They would be ideally suited to put forward hypthesis of which creatures and plants were the first of their 'kind'. I see ability to mate as irrelevant as regards kinds. I believe each kinds was created with wide genetic variation and ability to spread, adapt and fill the world. They just can't be traced back to bacteria.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wiki: Skunks were classified as a subfamily within the family Mustelidae, which includes ferrets, weasels, otters and badgers. However, recent genetic evidence suggests that the skunks are not as closely related to the mustelids as previously thought; they are now classified in their own family.[2] The Mustelidae in general are phylogenetically relatively primitive and so were difficult to classify until genetic evidence started to become available. The increasing availability of such evidence may well result in some members of the family being moved to their own separate families, as has already happened with the skunks, previously considered to be members of the mustelid family.
Wiki: Taxonomy
The bovid family is commonly subdivided into eight subfamilies. Recently, two additional subfamilies have been recognised. The eight traditional subfamilies can be divided into two clades, the Boodontia (with the Bovinae as sole members) and the Aegodontia (composed of all other subfamilies). Some authors do not agree with the high number of subfamilies, although they do recognise these two clades. However, these are treated as subfamilies instead: Bovinae (without change) and Antilopinae (with all of the Aegodontid subfamilies as tribes within it).
Among the eight to ten subfamilies presented here, only some groups have a well-established phylogeny. The Bovinae, for example, are monophyletic and basal; while the Caprinae, Hippotraginae, and Alcelaphinae cluster together[further explanation needed] consistently. The phylogenetic relationships of the other subfamilies are still unclear or unresolved.[
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.
Family Bovidae
Cattle, bison, Yak, zebu, buffalo are a kind and probably adaptations of auroch. I think some sort of gazelle like creature is first of a kind that went onto adapt into sheep, impala, reedbucks, goats, antelopes, deer. I'm not sure of Giraffe/okapi, although they could be gazelle adaptations. This was a hard one until I saw the primitive soay sheep which looks very goatish and kind of like a deer/gazelle.
Some kinds perhaps did not diversify so much as others. The Panda is probably the first kind of all bears. It is very possible that a few or many of a kind were created. The polar bear is a very curious example of having very divergent genes from other bears. Perhaps one of each were made as initial kinds. If a creationist researcher was hypthosesising on this sort of data I wonder what he would see? Dogs are another example of a kind that did not vary significantly from the first kind being a wolf.
Skunks are their own family according to genomic data. Mmmm!!! I think not, Racoons, ringtail and weasel are likely the same kind.
There are too many subfamilies as suggested by some researchers.
I believe the above definitions are quite broad. More genomic testing will hopefully determine if the first kind is much more narrow than this, as other creationists assert. It is a shame there are few if any creationist scientists examining the data. They would be ideally suited to put forward hypthesis of which creatures and plants were the first of their 'kind'. I see ability to mate as irrelevant as regards kinds. I believe each kinds was created with wide genetic variation and ability to spread, adapt and fill the world. They just can't be traced back to bacteria.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wiki: Skunks were classified as a subfamily within the family Mustelidae, which includes ferrets, weasels, otters and badgers. However, recent genetic evidence suggests that the skunks are not as closely related to the mustelids as previously thought; they are now classified in their own family.[2] The Mustelidae in general are phylogenetically relatively primitive and so were difficult to classify until genetic evidence started to become available. The increasing availability of such evidence may well result in some members of the family being moved to their own separate families, as has already happened with the skunks, previously considered to be members of the mustelid family.
Wiki: Taxonomy
The bovid family is commonly subdivided into eight subfamilies. Recently, two additional subfamilies have been recognised. The eight traditional subfamilies can be divided into two clades, the Boodontia (with the Bovinae as sole members) and the Aegodontia (composed of all other subfamilies). Some authors do not agree with the high number of subfamilies, although they do recognise these two clades. However, these are treated as subfamilies instead: Bovinae (without change) and Antilopinae (with all of the Aegodontid subfamilies as tribes within it).
Among the eight to ten subfamilies presented here, only some groups have a well-established phylogeny. The Bovinae, for example, are monophyletic and basal; while the Caprinae, Hippotraginae, and Alcelaphinae cluster together[further explanation needed] consistently. The phylogenetic relationships of the other subfamilies are still unclear or unresolved.[
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.
Family Bovidae
- Subfamily Bovinae: cattle, buffalos and spiral-horned antelopes, 27 species in 10 genera
- Subfamily Cephalophinae: duikers, 19 species in 2 genera
- Subfamily Hippotraginae: grazing antelopes, 7 species in 3 genera
- Subfamily Antilopinae: gazelles, dwarf antelopes and the saiga, 34 species in 13 genera
- Subfamily Caprinae: goat-antelopes: sheep, goats, muskox, takin etc, 33 species in 10 genera
- Subfamily Reduncinae: reedbucks, lechwe, 9 species in 2 genera
- Subfamily Aepycerotinae: impala, 1 species in 1 genus
- Subfamily Peleinae: rhebok, 1 species in 1 genus
- Subfamily Alcelaphinae: wildebeest, topi/tsessebe, 10 species in 4 genera
- Subfamily Pantholopinae: Chiru
Last edited:
So, you've changed your definition of " kind" from
tonewhope101 said:
after a few examples showing that your definition doesn't work. Not being a Biologist, this has been a very educational experience for me. (Thanks to all the very knowledgeable people here, your expertise is appreciated).... Lets see then, newhope101, your definition of a biblical "kind" (as defined by creationists) is thus : a "kind" is somewhere between a "Genus" and a "Family" (as defined by Biologists),then? Be careful. I'm not even a Biologist (last had Biology at what we call school, when I was 17 and 18 years old),and I can see a very big problem arising for creationists in this definition. Think about it, again. Very carefully. Just consider living animals. Not even extinct ones.newhope101 said:
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I knew it would be a great example. You will simply change the definition of what you think a "kind" is based on what you want it to be. If something doesn't "look right" to you, you just change your mind without apparently wondering why.
That would be a trick as aurochs is a youngster compared to most.
So you are adding deer... otherwise they are not in the bovid family at all. (for many good reasons)
Why include deer into this group?
that is the problem with just judging only by outside appearances of living species.
Actually Pandas are one of the younger bears... not the oldest. The oldest living group are the Spectacled bears.
Actually Polar Bears are very closely related to Brown Bears (especially the Grizzly) They are not different from other bears at all. Indeed less so than Pandas who have their own subfamily. I don't know where you got that information.
Me too... too bad they don't do this research.
What is your scientific basis for this? It just looks right to you?
What is your scientific reason for this? Again, it just doesn't look right to you?
So, you want genetic testing when it conforms to your ideas... but you discard genetic testing that has already been done when you don't like how it looks?
How much genetic testing is enough for you?
I agree... I really do want to see a definition and supporting evidence for "kinds".
Why can't they? Just because it makes you uncomfortable?
Why can't the bovids all be one "kind".... why can't all Artiodactyls be the same kind?
What keeps these this from happening?
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
Ahah. I was waiting for this wolf. As I said your taxonomy is a mess. Creationists have to work with this nonsense...and it is difficult. Some lines go from genus to family and others have a whole lot of taxons between genus and family. That illustrates to me the nightmare it has been for researchers to provide an evolutionary line.
Re genomic testing, as my previous article from Wiki stated many of these suborders should be in families of their own. Perhaps some kinds began at the equivalent of your genus. However many may go back closer to your 'family' taxa. We are working with flawed and inconsistent models. No wonder researchers are always in debate. So using your own inconsistent application of taxa to try to catch me out is not clever Wolf. Rather the opposite.
Creationists understand, if not accept, what evos general ideas of various taxa are. It is a shame that evos are unable to at least grasp the kinds concept, although they would not agree. You just cannot get it. Many creationists have tried to explain their view. Rather that try to understand it you look for inconsistency then use this to say "creationists cannot define 'kind'. If that is the case wolf, then you should disagree with your own taxa. However you do not. Rather you excuse inconsistency as a lack of knowledge that will eventually be forthcoming, and that's OK. Yet you use inconsistency or inability to adequately explain everything as a lack of definition. It is a deceitful ploy and perhaps a glimps of who you really are.
I remind you that all your taxa are unclear and inconsistant and open to dispute and debate. Only a moron would expect a lay person or even a researcher to have worked it all out perfectly without challenge. Is this what you are expecting in light of your own taxa mess? If so you are requesting of creationists a higher level of proof and consistency than you yourself are able to provide. That is hypocricy!
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Do you pay attention to what you or I say?
Where did I ever say the earliest boivds were not "gazelle-like" creatures? Do you know what Aurochs was? Do you know what "gazelle-like" means?
Do you know the difference between a gazelle and a deer?
Ursidae is a group (family) not a single organism all bears belong to it. I don't claim to have all the answers... but I do actually read and try to understand what I post.
The oldest of the Ursidae is Parictis who belongs in the subfamily Amphicynodontidae. If you bother actually reading the wiki link you posted you would have noticed that.
You keep saying that... but then you keep running back to them to defend your position. If they are rubbish, then give a definition of kind that does not rely on them!
This is incoherant babble unless you actually propose a definition for one of your kinds. Please define the "bird kind" for example instead of constantly running to what Wiki tells you scientists think. If the scientists are so very wrong, you should be able to clear up "bird kind" without needing wiki.
I don't think you really understand what you have been posting from Wiki... that may be harsh of me, but I don't think it's unfair given the evidence.
Perhaps they did... but you refuse to provide a baseline for which to define "kind" or any framework of reference to work from on it. So this is utterly empty speculation and of no more use than saying "perhaps kinds began as songs"
no one is making you use scientific models... you should be using your own creationist models and explaining them to us. Go ahead, give it a try.
I don't use an inconsistant application of taxa... nice try though.
I use your inconsistent stance on what you think. One minute a "kind" is a family then it is a subfamily... then it is a genus or whatever you think at the moment.
You are the one being inconsistent... I'm trying to point it out to you.
newhope101
Active Member
Baramins... how about that Wolf? Now you have a definition that should hold up at least as good as your species problem, maybe even better. What do other creationists think?
I noted on Wiki that “Clades” are fast becoming the model of choice in light of recent genomic data. Please see Wiki “Clade”. To me, recent genomic data appears to be edging a little closer to a model that reflects some creationist style thinking.
Creation Wiki re Kind suggests similar to what I have suggested. Sometimes kind is the family, sometimes it is the genus and occasionally the kind may be the species.
I have looked to see what others more educated in science than me have to say on the matter of KIND. So I refer you to Creation Wiki “Kind” for more info. At a brief read, I like it. It is alot less confusing than your taxa. That seems a reasonable place to start. Let’s stick with definitions of “Baramins’ as opposed to species, genus, family etc etc etc, and see what happens.
Creation Wiki
Types of Baramins
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Creation Wiki:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
I noted on Wiki that “Clades” are fast becoming the model of choice in light of recent genomic data. Please see Wiki “Clade”. To me, recent genomic data appears to be edging a little closer to a model that reflects some creationist style thinking.
Creation Wiki re Kind suggests similar to what I have suggested. Sometimes kind is the family, sometimes it is the genus and occasionally the kind may be the species.
I have looked to see what others more educated in science than me have to say on the matter of KIND. So I refer you to Creation Wiki “Kind” for more info. At a brief read, I like it. It is alot less confusing than your taxa. That seems a reasonable place to start. Let’s stick with definitions of “Baramins’ as opposed to species, genus, family etc etc etc, and see what happens.
Creation Wiki
Types of Baramins
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Creation Wiki:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Baraminology is very controversial among creationists. I think it's the closest that cretionists have gotten to doing research.
Unfortunately it seems to have some deep issues, most of which are acknowledged by the people who actually do baramin work.
Yes, clades are becoming the standard model... but this isn't creationist in the slightest.
which just shows how much of a mess it is... there doesn't seem to be a reasonable qualification for what is and is not a "kind"... except that it strikes the definers fancy at the time.
sure... lets do so.
Holobramin is essentially the same thing as a Monophyletic clade. The only difference is that holobramins impose an artificial and undefined genetic barrier. A barrier that even their own techniques can't support.
For example this paper uses the baraminology method to show that birds are united with dinosaurs in a holobramin.
Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs - SENTER - 2010 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Librar
Also leading baraminology researchers finds conforms to evolutionary science on hominids being part of the "human holobramin". Naturally the comments show that other creationists completely disagree.
Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin - Answers in Genesis
There are several other problems with baraminology that need to be addressed if it is going to be in any shape to be held up as an alternative to modern science. Here is one article that discusses the issue.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/Bolnicklab/pdfs/ANOPA.pdf?uniq=-wipnum
I am willing and happy to say that at least one creationist takes these issues very serious and is working honestly on how to address them. Todd Wood is probably the only creationist researcher that I have real respect for. He is honest about both his faith, his goals and about the science. I've recently found his blog and I find it very refreshing, even if I disagree with some of what he says.
Todd's Blog: Antievolution and species fixity
wa:do
Skwim
Veteran Member
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any definition(s) of "baramin." care to point it/them out?
newhope101
Active Member
Paintedwolf: No doubt there is controversy. There will still be researchers wanting fame and to scew their hypothesis to suit their particular flavour of creation. Also, I am not young earth. However I think baradim has merit, as far a creationist definition of kind goes.
The first site speaks of morphology re birds to Dino. However the creation Wiki site speaks to phylogenic relationships, so unless they were able to DNA Arch, I can't see how they used baradim to arrive at their conclusion.
None the less, we can all post controversial research. I liked what I read from Todd Wood, thanks...truly..for that. I'll read it in more detail later.
So, does this bring us back to LUCA? Is this the test for either model having more strength than any other? Is there a LUCA or not?
I've got to say I find this level of debate difficult. I don't understand what geneticists see. I hear of deletions, transposable elements, gene transfer and explosion to various sites, as well as gene conservation.
This article appears to be identifying how difficult it is to determine lineage when genes are not conserved. Can you critique it?
Rewiring of Gene Regulation Across 300 Million Years of Evolution
ScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2010) — Researchers from Cambridge, Glasgow and Greece have discovered a remarkable amount of plasticity in how transcription factors, the proteins that bind to DNA to control the activation of genes, maintain their function over large evolutionary distances.
The text books tell us that transcription factors recognise the genes that they regulate by binding to short, sequence-specific lengths of DNA upstream or downstream of their target genes. It was widely assumed that, like the sequences of the genes themselves, these transcription factor binding sites would be highly conserved throughout evolution. However, this turns out not to be the case in mammals.
In all tested species, the transcription factors CEBPA and HNF4A are master regulators of liver-specific genes. By mapping the binding of CEBPA and HNF4A in the genomes of each species and comparing those maps, they found that in most cases neither the site nor the sequence of the transcription factor binding sites is conserved, yet despite this, these transcription factors still manage to regulate the largely conserved gene expression and function of liver tissue.
Paul Flicek, leader of the Vertebrate Genomics Team at EMBL-EBI, an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and coauthor on the paper said "The evolutionary changes in transcription factor binding in the five species have left clues that we can use to explain how function is preserved but not necessarily sequence. What we have learnt is that although the transcription factors regulate similar target genes in all five species, the binding events underpinning this regulation have not been conserved as the species diverged."
The first site speaks of morphology re birds to Dino. However the creation Wiki site speaks to phylogenic relationships, so unless they were able to DNA Arch, I can't see how they used baradim to arrive at their conclusion.
None the less, we can all post controversial research. I liked what I read from Todd Wood, thanks...truly..for that. I'll read it in more detail later.
So, does this bring us back to LUCA? Is this the test for either model having more strength than any other? Is there a LUCA or not?
I've got to say I find this level of debate difficult. I don't understand what geneticists see. I hear of deletions, transposable elements, gene transfer and explosion to various sites, as well as gene conservation.
This article appears to be identifying how difficult it is to determine lineage when genes are not conserved. Can you critique it?
Rewiring of Gene Regulation Across 300 Million Years of Evolution
ScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2010) — Researchers from Cambridge, Glasgow and Greece have discovered a remarkable amount of plasticity in how transcription factors, the proteins that bind to DNA to control the activation of genes, maintain their function over large evolutionary distances.
The text books tell us that transcription factors recognise the genes that they regulate by binding to short, sequence-specific lengths of DNA upstream or downstream of their target genes. It was widely assumed that, like the sequences of the genes themselves, these transcription factor binding sites would be highly conserved throughout evolution. However, this turns out not to be the case in mammals.
In all tested species, the transcription factors CEBPA and HNF4A are master regulators of liver-specific genes. By mapping the binding of CEBPA and HNF4A in the genomes of each species and comparing those maps, they found that in most cases neither the site nor the sequence of the transcription factor binding sites is conserved, yet despite this, these transcription factors still manage to regulate the largely conserved gene expression and function of liver tissue.
Paul Flicek, leader of the Vertebrate Genomics Team at EMBL-EBI, an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and coauthor on the paper said "The evolutionary changes in transcription factor binding in the five species have left clues that we can use to explain how function is preserved but not necessarily sequence. What we have learnt is that although the transcription factors regulate similar target genes in all five species, the binding events underpinning this regulation have not been conserved as the species diverged."
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Absolutely... I would say though that with the deep devides in the creationist community over basic issues, that this gets magnified and conflated with their obviously deeply held/valued faith.
Phylogenetics and baraminology both use morphology in addition to or in place of genetics when it's not available.
You're welcome!
I think it's worth thinking about. It all depends on where you draw lines. In evolution lines are not fixed a priori or assumed... baraminology (as with most forms of creationism) starts with the a priori assumption of lines between species.
To Todds credit, he is willing to examine the evidence and draw lines where he feels the evidence has yet to inform him. Hence his willingness to accept non-human species into the Human baramin.
If you check out the evolution 101 site it may help you understand some of the basics... I can also provide some other help when possible. Genetics is a very complex field and it can be both daunting and difficult to understand without an in depth period of study. This often makes it difficult for scientists and science writers to convey what they are talking about.
This isn't talking so much about determining lineages as gene conservation.
Basically, it is very tricky to change genes that perform important tasks... so you would expect that these genes wouldn't change much. In mammals the genes have changed more than was previously expected... It's these changes that are very useful for tracing patterns of inheritance across species.
"By studying changes in transcription factor binding, we can understand the evolution of gene regulation," said Duncan Odom from Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute and coauthor on the paper. He continued: "Differences in gene regulation are central to explaining differences between species, and gene misregulation is a key causative factor in diseases like cancer."
So, I guess the really quick summery is: They expected some differences between animals... and mammals have a bit more variation than they initially expected. But this actually helps to trace patterns of inheritance between species.
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
Just for Skwim:
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology
OR
Species, genus, subfamily, familiy, Order, sub order, etc etc etc.
Just in case you forgot what a species is:
Species
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies. (Wiki)
Typological species, Morphological species, Biological / Isolation species, Biological / reproductive species, Recognition species,Mate-recognition species, Evolutionary / Darwinian species, Phylogenetic (Cladistic),Subspecies,Ecological species, Genetic species, Phenetic species based, Microspecies Species,Cohesion species, Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), cryptic species complex, Cryptic species
Some have argued that the species problem is too multidimensional to be "solved" by one definition of species or one species concept.[24][25] Since the 1990s articles have appeared that make the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving the species problem (Wiki "Species Problem")
I can understand why you missed the Baramin concept where Holobaramin constitutes the basic definition. You were likely expecting a long stream of convoluted explanations because that is what you are used to.
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology
OR
Species, genus, subfamily, familiy, Order, sub order, etc etc etc.
Just in case you forgot what a species is:
Species
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies. (Wiki)
Typological species, Morphological species, Biological / Isolation species, Biological / reproductive species, Recognition species,Mate-recognition species, Evolutionary / Darwinian species, Phylogenetic (Cladistic),Subspecies,Ecological species, Genetic species, Phenetic species based, Microspecies Species,Cohesion species, Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), cryptic species complex, Cryptic species
Some have argued that the species problem is too multidimensional to be "solved" by one definition of species or one species concept.[24][25] Since the 1990s articles have appeared that make the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving the species problem (Wiki "Species Problem")
I can understand why you missed the Baramin concept where Holobaramin constitutes the basic definition. You were likely expecting a long stream of convoluted explanations because that is what you are used to.
newhope101
Active Member
Absolutely... I would say though that with the deep devides in the creationist community over basic issues, that this gets magnified and conflated with their obviously deeply held/valued faith.
Phylogenetics and baraminology both use morphology in addition to or in place of genetics when it's not available.
You're welcome!
I think it's worth thinking about. It all depends on where you draw lines. In evolution lines are not fixed a priori or assumed... baraminology (as with most forms of creationism) starts with the a priori assumption of lines between species.
To Todds credit, he is willing to examine the evidence and draw lines where he feels the evidence has yet to inform him. Hence his willingness to accept non-human species into the Human baramin.
If you check out the evolution 101 site it may help you understand some of the basics... I can also provide some other help when possible. Genetics is a very complex field and it can be both daunting and difficult to understand without an in depth period of study. This often makes it difficult for scientists and science writers to convey what they are talking about.
This isn't talking so much about determining lineages as gene conservation.
Basically, it is very tricky to change genes that perform important tasks... so you would expect that these genes wouldn't change much. In mammals the genes have changed more than was previously expected... It's these changes that are very useful for tracing patterns of inheritance across species.
"By studying changes in transcription factor binding, we can understand the evolution of gene regulation," said Duncan Odom from Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute and coauthor on the paper. He continued: "Differences in gene regulation are central to explaining differences between species, and gene misregulation is a key causative factor in diseases like cancer."
So, I guess the really quick summery is: They expected some differences between animals... and mammals have a bit more variation than they initially expected. But this actually helps to trace patterns of inheritance between species.
wa:do
Thanks for the explanation.
I've read research that states chimps share up to 99.4% genetic similarilty with humans. I think it was 80% with Trichoplax. I believe it must be fairly complicated to find the differences and similarities between species/baramins.
Humans And Chimpanzees Genetically More Similar Than One Yeast Variety Is To Another
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2009) — There may be greater genetic variation between different yeasts of the same species
The study also shows that there can be greater genetic differences between individuals within a particular species of yeast than there are between humans and chimpanzees. The DNA of individual yeast organisms can vary by up to 4 per cent, compared to the 1 per cent difference between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Another interesting observation is that individual organisms from the same species can have extra genetic material. Most of these "extra genes" occur at the periphery of the chromosome (the telomer region), which lends support to the theory that these areas are very important in evolution.
I doubt Bio101 is in depth sufficiently to understand this stuff. I thought degree level was smart until I studied at higher levels. I don't particularly feel like doing a PHD in biology just to be able to debate...a little overboard.
I'm happy with Holobaramin as a reasonable definition of "kind".
I'll read that Wood article. I'll be back, no doubt, on another thread trying to back it up, or more likely, my version of it.
Cheers :clap
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Okay, But what's confusing is this remark from the same paragraphnewhope101 said:
"This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology."
Normally when a composite word is constructed, holo + baramin in this case, it's done to express a meaning that's different than either of its parts. If it doesn't there would be no reason to create it. And that "holobaramin" is not synonymous "baramin" is evident from the other composite words using "baramin," such as "monobaramin, "polybaramin" and "apobaramin." (yeah, I did look them up.)
This rather odd problem aside, I take it that a baramin is: a living and/or extinct form of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry (from the definition of "holobaramin" above).
So a baramin could be a form of life comprised of breeds, or varieties, or subspecies, or species or subgenera, or genera, or families, or suborders, or orders, or . . . . Not trying to be cute here, but the definition, if I got it right, covers just about any form one wishes to select. One might use "baramin" to denote an order of fish while another person could use it to denote a variety of flowers. This hardly corresponds to the concept of species, which, I believe, was pretty much its intended equivalent.
newhope101
Active Member
Squim Quote: So a baramin could be a form of life comprised of breeds, or varieties, or subspecies, or species or subgenera, or genera, or families, or suborders, or orders, or . . . . Not trying to be cute here, but the definition, if I got it right, covers just about any form one wishes to select. One might use "baramin" to denote an order of fish while another person could use it to denote a variety of flowers. This hardly corresponds to the concept of species, which, I believe, was pretty much its intended equivalent.
No actually. If you go to Creation Wiki "Baramin", you'll see it is often the equivalent of family although not always. The guy, Woods, that Wolfe spoke of looks at it a little differently.
I don't understand your problem. Species, genus, family etc is used for fish and flowers also. I have also posted the Baramins Creation Wiki proposed. So Wolf, dog, cyote etc is one baramin.
As I said, being able to pick at inconsistencies and being unable to answer all questions does not mean something is totally wrong. This is no doubt as expected with the definition of baramin as it is in your taxon. I still need to look more into it before I say any more. The site speaks about phylogenic relationships. I need to know what they are looking at, just as much as I like to understand what your geneticists are looking at really. What is data, What is theory.
What I'm trying to understand is with chimps being 99.4% the same and Trocoplax 80% the same as humans. Modern Humans having 1% variation between them, I'm unclear how any researchers can tell what's gone on. It would surely be easier to map if bacteria was 2%, mice were 10%, Pigs 20% chimps were 50% etc. I believe the high percentages of similarity between species was quite unexpected by researchers 10 years ago.
After all, how many generations can researchers track back sister chromatids to define ancestry without knowing if they had been deleted, or infuenced by genetic drift or any of the other things that happen to them there genes? Then I hear of nervous systems in sponges and primitive cerebral cortexes in worms. Mmmm!
No actually. If you go to Creation Wiki "Baramin", you'll see it is often the equivalent of family although not always. The guy, Woods, that Wolfe spoke of looks at it a little differently.
I don't understand your problem. Species, genus, family etc is used for fish and flowers also. I have also posted the Baramins Creation Wiki proposed. So Wolf, dog, cyote etc is one baramin.
As I said, being able to pick at inconsistencies and being unable to answer all questions does not mean something is totally wrong. This is no doubt as expected with the definition of baramin as it is in your taxon. I still need to look more into it before I say any more. The site speaks about phylogenic relationships. I need to know what they are looking at, just as much as I like to understand what your geneticists are looking at really. What is data, What is theory.
What I'm trying to understand is with chimps being 99.4% the same and Trocoplax 80% the same as humans. Modern Humans having 1% variation between them, I'm unclear how any researchers can tell what's gone on. It would surely be easier to map if bacteria was 2%, mice were 10%, Pigs 20% chimps were 50% etc. I believe the high percentages of similarity between species was quite unexpected by researchers 10 years ago.
After all, how many generations can researchers track back sister chromatids to define ancestry without knowing if they had been deleted, or infuenced by genetic drift or any of the other things that happen to them there genes? Then I hear of nervous systems in sponges and primitive cerebral cortexes in worms. Mmmm!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You are very welcome!
Comparing the whole genome it's about 98%.
Trichoplax shares 80% of its genes introns (a specific part of a gene) with us but they are different in other parts of the same genes called exons (the other part of the gene)... However, they have much smaller genomes which makes them overall far far less than 80% similar.
It's was badly worded when it was presented to the public. Likely to make it more exciting to the general public.
I can't speak for baramins... but the work that taxonomists do is very involved. Morphology comparisons involve dozens to hundreds of feature measurements from as many individuals of each species being compared as possible. DNA is actually easier because you can use machines to do all of the "grunt work" and "number crunching".
This makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If you want I can explain why.
it may not be deeply in depth, but it should help understand the basic concepts... Evolution 101 goes over the species problem nicely and covers other modern species definitions than the old "biological species concept"
Agreed... that is why I'm not pointing you to PhD level resources and remain willing to answer questions. (not that I'm PhD level yet myself!)
I personally think it needs more work... without some explaination of what makes a holobaramin a distinct entities than they are no different than monophylitic clades.
Enjoy... I look forward to seeing what you think.
wa:do