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

[Skwim]

If you go to Creation Wiki "Baramin", you'll see it is often the equivalent of family although not always.

Which doesn't make it any clearer.

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.

The problem here is that "baramin" is evidently a designation for more than one rank, but not all of them. Taxonomy has no equivalent term for such a concept. So the question remains: in light of its inexact application---some ranks can be baramins while others cannot---exactly what are the qualifications for being designated a baramin? The answer to this would go a long way to getting at a definition.

As I said, being able to pick at inconsistencies and being unable to answer all questions does not mean something is totally wrong.

But do you think it's too much to ask to have workable definitions of the terms one creates? I don't. So far the only "definition" I've come across is CreationWiki's reference to "created kinds."

"They [created kinds] are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin."
​

So "baramin" = created kinds, original kinds, or Genesis kinds.

CW then goes on to tell us what a "kind" is: "We now understand the kind to be a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism originally created by God during the Creation Week." Ignoring the last part as irrelevant for our purposes here, we get

"a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent," ​

which is hardly edifying. There is no explanation as to what constitutes their "group." There are all types of possible groupings of organisms that share a genetic relationship, so it's pretty imperative to understand exactly what they mean. But alas, they choose not to tell us, and I have a pretty idea of why: they themselves don't know what they mean. If they did they'd come clean and say.
"Definition of "baramin": _______________________________________________ ." and without using unexplained weasel words like "group" or "form."




source

 

[newhope101]

I tell you what...I think it's hard to support something I do not totally agree with, although Baramin, is a good starting point.

Let me play around with my own definition of "kind"...and see what happens.

Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization/fusion.
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same 'kind' any organism that bridges across in compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum together, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly sexually compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who is created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

 

[RedOne77]

Newhope,

How would you show that humans are their own separate kind? If such is true then there should be evidence of this outside conservative Christianity.

 

[painted wolf]

Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization/fusion.

So, given the right definition of kind then Humans and chimps are the same kind. As there is theoretically not enough significant difference between us to prevent us producing a human/chimp hybrid... but there is ethically. (and a good one too IMHO)

And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Again, this unites Humans and great apes into the same family: Hominidae
Humans and great apes (other than the Orang) into the same subfamily: Homininae
Humans and Chimps and Bonobos into the same Tribe: Homonini

So, if humans are the exception to the rule... how do you know the rule is valid? How do you know God didn't make Lion and Tiger kind separately? Or that all Bovids or all Artylodactyls are not a single kind?

This has always fascinated me about creationism... how do you pick and choose between what parts of science you will accept and what parts you won't?
Science is ok for telling you that all dogs are a kind... but not all carnivores.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization/fusion.
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

So a kind could be a species, OR all members of a genus, Or all members of a family.

Hence a kind can consist of just Canis lupuses (gray wolves), OR just Canises (gray wolves, coyotes, Golden jackals, etc.) or just Canidaes (wolves, foxes, daholes, etc.) Again,this is hardly edifying. It certainly doesn't give us any idea of what Noah brought onto the ark, because, as we know, animals like wolves and daholes cannot successfully interbreed.

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same 'kind' any organism that bridges across in compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum together, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly sexually compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

That's interesting because ligers and tiglons cannot breed either among themselves or between them. It's like the inability of mules and hinnies to propagate among themselves or between them. Got to wonder why such dead-end hybrids would constitute a kind consisting of infertile animals.

 

[newhope101]

Well given the species problem as well as the numerous research I can show you that illustrates that even the taxon of Genus and family is not well defined, I think this holds up as well. Likewise in your taxonomic ranking you must speak to the exceptions which your taxons are full of. eg Cryptic species.

My definition of kind has one exception, human, rather than a multitude of exceptions apparent in your own ranking.

It doesn't matter what you think is interesting or what you wonder about. Evos should find their own taxons interesting and full of wonder. The point is it works at providing a definition of kind. Even if you can find an inconsistency...so what? There are many inconsistencies in your basic definition of species and you have been resilient enough to handle it and maintain faith in ToE in expectation of future clarity from further data. Do you not grant similar respect to other views? Are you all so hatefull and full of ire for creationists that you simply refuse to accept any definition.

You are requesting a definition of 'kind'. I have provided one that reflects my basic beliefs

I did not know you were requesting a definition of kind that held up to the definition better than all your own species, genus etc etc etc taxa.

The fossil evidence within the genus Homo taxonomically ranked above homo sapiens are adaptations of non human primates. Research has shown how environment can change morphology including jaw lines etc. Bipedalism in non human primates may well have been a necessary adaptation connected to diet changes and changing environment. Homo sapiens used tools which explains why evidence of tool use is found. Non human primates may have even been pets.

Homo sapiens have been dated back to around 200,000 years, Humans were around when the first solid evidence of fire use was dated. The reason you may find evidence of controlled use of fire as well as use of tools was because mankind was living in close proximity to non human primates. Homo sapien remains are perhaps yet to be found in these areas. It is easier for me to believe homo sapiens were around then, than to believe a creature with half of sapiens brain power 'learned' to control fire, which is a comlex task. Even nowadays humans with cognitive disabilities would have to be taught how to control fire from someone more skilled and intelligent than they.

My definition stands.

The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago

ScienceDaily (Feb. 28, 2005) — When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

 

[Skwim]

Well given the species problem as well as the numerous research I can show you that illustrates that even the taxon of Genus and family is not well defined, I think this holds up as well.

None of the ranks from domain to genus are defined in any way except as to their relative taxonomic positions. As for the species problem, whatever you consider it to be, it has no relevance here. What is relevant is the term "kind"/"baramin." So lets stick to one issue at a time, the lack of a definition of the creationists "kind."

You are requesting a definition of 'kind'. I have provided one that reflects my basic beliefs

If that's it, then okay, although it's hardly a meaningful one.

 

[painted wolf]

The fossil evidence within the genus Homo taxonomically ranked above homo sapiens are adaptations of non human primates. Research has shown how environment can change morphology including jaw lines etc. Bipedalism in non human primates may well have been a necessary adaptation connected to diet changes and changing environment. Homo sapiens used tools which explains why evidence of tool use is found. Non human primates may have even been pets.

Actually tool use is found in several species... stone tools predate humans by several million years and Autsralopiths are associated with oldest stone tools (known as pebble tools).

Oldest evidence of stone tool use and meat-eating among human ancestors discovered: Lucy's species butchered meat

Homo sapiens have been dated back to around 200,000 years, Humans were around when the first solid evidence of fire use was dated. The reason you may find evidence of controlled use of fire as well as use of tools was because mankind was living in close proximity to non human primates. Homo sapien remains are perhaps yet to be found in these areas.

There is good evidence that fire use predates humans as well... H.erectus and H.ergaster were using fire from 1.9 to 400,000 years ago. There is no evidence for H.sapiens this far back.
Light My Fire: Cooking As Key To Modern Human Evolution
Homo ergaster
Fire Out Of Africa: A Key To The Migration Of Prehistoric Humans

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

So a kind could be a species, OR all members of a genus, Or all members of a family.
Skwim I know you are smart enough to understand this. Now you need to apply the criteria. Suborder applies here. So when your researchers finally make up their minds and consolidate genomic testing data to sort out their dilemma, I also will better able to provide you with more clarity.


Wiki: The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed. Recent DNA analysis shows that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. (See phylogeny below). Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).[3]
Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1] Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

Hence a kind can consist of just Canis lupuses (gray wolves), OR just Canises (gray wolves, coyotes, Golden jackals, etc.) or just Canidaes (wolves, foxes, daholes, etc.) Again,this is hardly edifying. It certainly doesn't give us any idea of what Noah brought onto the ark, because, as we know, animals like wolves and daholes cannot successfully interbreed.

That's interesting because ligers and tiglons cannot breed either among themselves or between them. It's like the inability of mules and hinnies to propagate among themselves or between them. Got to wonder why such dead-end hybrids would constitute a kind consisting of infertile animals.

..and you may continue to wonder. I wonder also why a sponge would require cells identifed as nervous system cells. But they do. This does not mean they decended from a creature with a nervous system, but had this expression regardless of not requiring it, nor did the organisms they decended from require a nervous system...It is truly a wonder.

 

[newhope101]

Actually tool use is found in several species... stone tools predate humans by several million years and Autsralopiths are associated with oldest stone tools (known as pebble tools).

Oldest evidence of stone tool use and meat-eating among human ancestors discovered: Lucy's species butchered meat

There is good evidence that fire use predates humans as well... H.erectus and H.ergaster were using fire from 1.9 to 400,000 years ago. There is no evidence for H.sapiens this far back.
Light My Fire: Cooking As Key To Modern Human Evolution
Homo ergaster
Fire Out Of Africa: A Key To The Migration Of Prehistoric Humans

wa:do

So you have no problem in accepting a chimp like creature, with a small brain, learned to control fire? I do.

If there is solid evidence of fire control, it would be because homo sapiens were already there. The sapiens fossils have yet to be found. As in your own missing fossil evidence, just because fossil evidence has not be found yet does not mean it isn't there. Lucy was so primitive she still showed sexual dimorphism. See how evos can stretch their imagination to accept whatever is required to make ToE work!

Wiki "Lucy"
"Over the three weeks, several hundred pieces or fragments of bone were found, with no duplication, confirming their original speculation that they were from a single skeleton. As the team analyzed the fossil further, they calculated that an amazing 40% of a hominid skeleton had been recovered, an astounding feat of anthropology. Usually, only fossil fragments are discovered; rarely are skulls or ribs found intact. Johanson considered it was female, based on the one complete pelvic bone and sacrum indicating the width of the pelvic opening.[4] Lucy was only 1.1 m (3 feet 6 inches) tall, weighed 29 kg (65 lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee, but although the creature had a small brain, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function to those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect.[13] Under an agreement with the government of Ethiopia, Johanson brought the skeleton back to Cleveland where it was reconstructed by Owen Lovejoy. It was returned according to agreement some 9 years later. Lucy as a fossil hominid captured public notice, becoming almost a household name at the time.
Further discoveries of A. afarensis specimens occurred during the 1970s, giving anthropologists a much better appreciation of the range of variability and sexual dimorphism of the species."

 

[newhope101]

None of the ranks from domain to genus are defined in any way except as to their relative taxonomic positions. As for the species problem, whatever you consider it to be, it has no relevance here. What is relevant is the term "kind"/"baramin." So lets stick to one issue at a time, the lack of a definition of the creationists "kind."

That's easy for you to say. However creationists are stuck with using the current taxonomic ranking and language, with all its' inconsistencies, to define 'kind'. I will stick to my own definition of kind. Thanks.

If that's it, then okay, although it's hardly a meaningful one.

Are you suggesting there is no species problem? My definition is as meaningful as one can ascribe meaningful definitions to your own taxa species.

To prove my definition does not work why don't you try to provide an example of where it does not work. I certainly can provide heaps of examples of where 'species', genus & family do not work. However I still have the cognitive ability to understand your ranking scale regardless of the inconsistencies. Are you not similarly cognitively advanced?

Wiki: Confusion on the meaning of "Species"
Species is one of several ranks in the hierarchical system of scientific classification. These are called taxonomic ranks, and the system of classification includes, in addition to species the ranks of genus and family and others all the way up to kingdom. Usually the rank of species is the basal rank, meaning that in the system of scientific classification species is the bottommost rank that includes no other ranks. However sometimes when one species, that is already named and described, is found to actually include two slightly different kinds of organisms, it is necessary to use the rank of subspecies.
Even though it is not disputed that species is a taxonomic rank, this does not prevent disagreements when particular species are discussed. Consider the case of the Baltimore oriole and Bullock's oriole, two similar species of birds that have sometimes in the past been considered to be one single species. Currently biologists agree that these are actually two separate species,[citation needed] but in the past this was not the case.
It is common in debates about species for participants to argue at cross purposes. For example, in a debate over the species status of Baltimore Oriole and Bullock's Oriole one person might think that the critical question is about the two kinds of orioles and how similar they are. A second person might think that the critical question concerns the actual taxonomic rank of species, and on what the correct criteria are for identifying a species. If one person is talking about the birds, and another person is talking about the rank of species, then there can be confusion.
Disagreements and confusion also happen over just what the best criteria are for identifying new species. In 1942 the famous biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that because biologists have different ways of identifying species, they actually have different species concepts.[2] Mayr proceeded to list five different species concepts, and since then many more have been added.[3][4][5] The question of which species concept is best has occupied many printed pages and many hours of discussion.[6]
Some debates are philosophical in nature. One common disagreement is over whether a species is defined by the characteristics that biologists use to identify the species, or whether a species is an evolving entity in nature. Every named species has been formally described as a type of organism with particular defining characteristics. These defining traits are used to identify which species organisms belong to. But for many species, all of the individuals that fit the defining criteria also make up a single evolving unit. These two different ways of thinking about species, as a category and as an evolving population, are quite different from each other.

 

[painted wolf]

So you have no problem in accepting a chimp like creature, with a small brain, learned to control fire? I do.

Actually all the Homo species are far more human like than chimp like. They may have had brains much smaller than we do, but they had brains big enough for the job, certainly larger than chimps.

If there is solid evidence of fire control, it would be because homo sapiens were already there. The sapiens fossils have yet to be found. As in your own missing fossil evidence, just because fossil evidence has not be found yet does not mean it isn't there.

So, we just assume humans are around without any evidence? No Homo sapien style tools or artifacts, no fossils and no other trace fossils.

Lucy was so primitive she still showed sexual dimorphism.

Modern humans show sexual dimorphism... not as exaggerated as Australopiths but Males are statistically significantly larger than females in our species. Not unexpected given our shared common ancestry.

See how evos can stretch their imagination to accept whatever is required to make ToE work!

Not really... I'm seeing you stretch your imagination to make room for modern humans keeping hominid pets, a la "Planet of the Apes", where there is no evidence.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

So a kind could be a species, OR all members of a genus, Or all members of a family.

Skwim I know you are smart enough to understand this.

And that's why I said it.

Now you need to apply the criteria. Suborder applies here. So when your researchers finally make up their minds and consolidate genomic testing data to sort out their dilemma, I also will better able to provide you with more clarity.

Not really understanding your point here. Are you saying that what you said:

"All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization/fusion.
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family"."

​

is dependent on the findings and decisions of biologists? That "kind" in the Bible has to wait for modern science research in order have meaning?

Wiki: The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed. Recent DNA analysis shows that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. (See phylogeny below). Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).[3]

So what?

Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1]

Well right here we know the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Although the uneducated or simply base ignorant may consider the dingo to be a domestic dog, no one who knows the least bit about taxonomic relationships would make such a fundamental error. The very difference in their classifications makes it very clear dingos are not domestic dogs. And what's with the "provisionally" qualification? So why you chose to include such nonsense is puzzling.

Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris;

So what? I bet if you checked the publication date of your "Canis familiaris" sources you'd find almost all precede or immediately follow the ASM's 1993 reclassification of the domestic dog. Moreover, classifications do not impose themselves on anyone. This is why you will sometimes find an organism classified in different ways by different scientists. No biggie, but simply the way science continually works to correct itself and find the best solutions. As it now stands, the prevailing opinion of domestic dogs is that they constitute a distinct suborder, Canis lupus familiaris, apart from that of the wolves and dingos.

 

[newhope101]

Quote:is dependent on the findings and decisions of biologists? That "kind" in the Bible has to wait for modern science research in order have meaning?

No Squim, but just like the species problem, applying the definition to each and every organism satisfactorily and clearly requires further genomic research.


I see you try to sideline. Can you not think of a suitable example that sounds ridulous, like I can with your taxa?

 

[painted wolf]

"provisionally" refers to the latest information... usually so recent it has yet to be formally ruled on and added to the code by groups like the ICZN.

And it is widely accepted that the Dingo is an ancient "feral" form of the domestic Pariah Dog. (I put feral in "" because they may have only been human tag-a-longs rather than domesticated proper)
Either way they have been genetically isolated long enough that they can be classes as either a subspecies of domestic dog (C.l.f.dingo) or as a sister subspecies of domestic dog (C.l.dingo).

Dingos are actually becoming endangered by rampant interbreeding with modern dogs and there is a movement to try to protect their genetic distinctness.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Actually all the Homo species are far more human like than chimp like. They may have had brains much smaller than we do, but they had brains big enough for the job, certainly larger than chimps.
I spoke to your example of Lucy and her fire lighting escapades. If you think it is only creationists that have this concern would you like me to find some research that also discusses well credentialed researchers having this concern?
So, we just assume humans are around without any evidence? No Homo sapien style tools or artifacts, no fossils and no other trace fossils.
Why not? You have many gaps in your fossil records also that you dismiss as 'just not having found them yet".

Modern humans show sexual dimorphism... not as exaggerated as Australopiths but Males are statistically significantly larger than females in our species. Not unexpected given our shared common ancestry.
I think you and researchers should make up your minds as to whether or not sexual dimorphism is a connection to ancestry or not. Why would researchers need to point out that Lucy's kind show sexual dimophisism if human males continue to show significant dimophism? It doesn't show anything other than males are usually the larger of kind.
Not really... I'm seeing you stretch your imagination to make room for modern humans keeping hominid pets, a la "Planet of the Apes", where there is no evidence.
No...you are stretching your imagingation if you think Lucy could light fires. That line sounded OK when you had incomplete fossil evidence and therefore could make Lucy''s KInd into anything you wish, as you did with Neanderthal. However with recent discovery of a more complete specimen Lucy is shown to be a chimp with a chimp brain..yet this was one of your examples of a creature smart enough to control fire. I can't see any chimp finding it easy to start a fire. Can't see a chimp thinking to find flint stone striking it satisfactorily close to leaves and blowing on it to make it light. Indeedm lighting fires is a complex skill. In fact I doubt a chimp would 'get it' even with human instruction and role modelling.

You are sufficiently imaginitive to fill in the gaps in your head where fossils should be, why can't I?
wa:do

So I see none of you can refute my definition, which is what this thread is about. Does Skwim want to give up now? It seems you are unable to refute my definition of kind. You appear to now be using evidence to try to rattle it, seeing as you are unable to refute the substance of the definition.

Shall I give myself accalaides now....:bow:

 

[Skwim]

"provisionally" refers to the latest information... usually so recent it has yet to be formally ruled on and added to the code by groups like the ICZN.

I understand the meaning of "provisionally," but both the ICZN and the ASM accepted the classification some years ago, which is why the qualification is no longer applicable.

The Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature made this official when they announced that dogs and wolves are indeed members of the same species, Canis Lupus (the dogs official subspecies being Canis Lupus familiaris).
source
______________________________________________________________

"The term Canis familiaris (dog) is no longer valid. The corrected nomenclature is now Canis lupus familiaris. This means that all dogs are of the lupus (wolf) species and then of the familiaris subspecies. This is confirmed in the 1993 revision of MAMMAL SPECIES OF THE WORLD: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference from the Smithsonian Institution. This clarification is in association with the American Society of Mammalogists and adheres to the Code as called for by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This text reflects the current state of knowledge of experts from the world scientific community."

source

__________________________________________________________________

"Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (March, 2003a) ruled that lupus is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form, Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate . . . .'--artificial"
source​

 

[newhope101]

And that's why I said it.
No..you are able to understand your ToE and not worry that there are discrepencies and I can post research where genomic data does not support some current taxa classification. In case you missed it some was included in my 'species problem' info. Ignoring it and refusing to understand it does not make you look clever you know.

Not really understanding your point here. Are you saying that what you said:

"All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization/fusion.
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family"."

​

is dependent on the findings and decisions of biologists? That "kind" in the Bible has to wait for modern science research in order have meaning?
You either want to debate or you do not. Making absurd comments like this does not elevate your stance. I have posted, and if you are educated at all you should already be well aware of the, concerns your taxa run into. If you can explain every concern in your taxa I will grant you that I should also. Unfortunately this is not the case for you. If you are a know all then please sort this out re bovids for us all.


Wiki: 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.[6]

Well Skwim.seeing as you have all the answers please speak to all the bovid phylogenic relationships that are unclear and unresolved.. we are all waiting for you to submit your paper to the scientific community so you can tell them and us just how it is. Or could it be that you are awaiting further clarification with further scientific research and clarification. or perhaps you are suggesting you have your own lab and so do not need to rely on research. We use the same scientific research as you in case you thought we used some sort of mystic God science. If you can NOT clarify these bovid classifications, yet you're up me for suggesting the need for more research on a topic...then there is a name for people like you? If the hat fits you should wear it.

Another example may be that anatomically modern humans were not dated to 195,000 years ago until the Aldalto find which took the dates back further to 195,000 years ago. So like you I await further clarity in some areas.

So what?


Well right here we know the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Although the uneducated or simply base ignorant may consider the dingo to be a domestic dog, no one who knows the least bit about taxonomic relationships would make such a fundamental error. The very difference in their classifications makes it very clear dingos are not domestic dogs. And what's with the "provisionally" qualification? So why you chose to include such nonsense is puzzling.
I love this sure sign of frustration when you call your own researchers idiots. I love it because I agree with you, just with different researchers. This info is from Wiki and these researchers are evolutionists, dear. Would you like me to track down the research and spoon feed it to you like a child. If you are educated you should be well aware of these dilemmas. You are not or yiou are choosing to ignore them because you cannot find a flaw in my definition.

So what? I bet if you checked the publication date of your "Canis familiaris" sources you'd find almost all precede or immediately follow the ASM's 1993 reclassification of the domestic dog. Moreover, classifications do not impose themselves on anyone. This is why you will sometimes find an organism classified in different ways by different scientists. No biggie, but simply the way science continually works to correct itself and find the best solutions. As it now stands, the prevailing opinion of domestic dogs is that they constitute a distinct suborder, Canis lupus familiaris, apart from that of the wolves and dingos.

No actually Wiki keeps fairly up to date with its' information. It already reflects the latest information on the human and neanderthal genome projects as well as other recent research. Perhaps it is you that needs to update. Obviously Canis is not your best topic.

I reiterate because I enjoy saying "I love it when you call your own evolutionary scientisits idiots"....and I love the sound of your desperation!

And the best thing is it still fits in with my definition of kind....

So can you or can't you refute my definition? Or are you going to thow off with side lines and assign any scientific research or genomic data that does not suit you as idiocy???

First dingoes were seafaring puppies

Heather Catchpole
ABC Science Online

Tuesday, 3 August 2004

The dingo may not be as wild as it seems (Image: Reuters)

Dingoes, Australia's wild dogs, are descended from Asian domesticated dogs not wolves, according to international research.

They might have all come from one pregnant female ancestor, which would have lived about 5000 years ago and travelled to Australia by boat.

Swedish researcher Dr Peter Savolainen from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm led the research published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Dingoes look like domestic dogs but have some important physiological and behavioural differences. For example, dingoes breed only once a year rather than several times a year, and howl rather than bark.

So, people have long debated whether dingoes were more closely related to wolves than domestic dogs.

This latest research compared changes in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in dingoes, wolves and dogs to see which animals were related.

Mitochondrial DNA, found inside the cell's power-generating organelle, is inherited from mother to daughter, and is a tool molecular biologists use to track genetic changes over time to give clues to genetic ancestry.

The researchers compared the mtDNA of 211 Australian dingoes with 676 dogs throughout the world, 38 Eurasian wolves and 19 samples of mtDNA from the bones of dogs that lived in pre-European times in the islands of Polynesia.

The results showed that dingoes were not descended from Indian or Arabian wolves as previously thought, said Australian researcher and co-author Dr Alan Wilton from Sydney's University of New South Wales.

They were descended from domestic dogs that lived in southern Thailand and China and would have arrived in Australia by boat, Wilton said.

"Dingoes look very similar to a lot of dogs found throughout Southeast Asia," he said.

They also look like what domesticated dogs would have looked like 5000 years ago, he said. "Physically they haven't changed a lot."

The mtDNA analysis also showed that dingoes were descended from just one pregnant female, or from a few individuals who were closely related.

"In domesticated dogs there is a large assortment of mtDNA types. But there is only one [mtDNA] type in all dingoes," Wilton told ABC Science Online.

"They call it a genetic bottleneck," he said, referring to the tendency for less genetic variability if animals breed among themselves to populate an area.

 

[Skwim]

No actually Wiki keeps fairly up to date with its' information. It already reflects the latest information on the human and neanderthal genome projects as well as other recent research. Perhaps it is you that needs to update.

I reiterate because I enjoy saying "I love it when you call your own evolutionary scientisits idiots".

And the best thing is it still fits in with my definition of kind....

So can you or can't you refute my definition? Or are you going to thow off with side lines and assign and scientific research or genomic data that does not suit you as idiocy???

I'd be delighted to continue with this discussion; however, your abandonment of standard quoting form for this three color system of yours is too annoying to read and difficult to decipher. So, until you go back to posting like everyone else, I bid you adieu.

 

[newhope101]

Ok..I'll take that as Win for creationists.

Colour co ordination appears to be as good an excuse as any to gracefully loose. I was expecting the big Noah rave next.

Let me post the current winning definition of "KIND"..that Skwim has so graciously backed away from:

Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms

All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

This definition ascribes 'same kind' to any organisms that have maintianed genetic similarity after undergoing adaptation changes within Kind, sufficiently that fertilzation can still occur. Whether or not offspring is viable is irrelevant. Inability to mate is also irrelevant in describing 'same kind' if criteria 1 or 2 has been satisfied or if same kind is achieved after applying the CBC.