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

[RedOne77]

So how does one test that all the organisms in taxonomic rank X are in the same kind yet the next inclusive step up does not?

 

[Skwim]

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.

See. I knew you could reply without using crayons. But sorrowfully, as fond as you are of repeating your beloved 1 . . . 2 . . . Compatability [sic] . . . definition, it shall ever remain hopeless horse feathers. On par with the non-definition definitions of the pros.

And here's free-for-nothing: Examples DON'T constitute a definition.

 

[newhope101]

So how does one test that all the organisms in taxonomic rank X are in the same kind yet the next inclusive step up does not?

Because that is not what my definition includes. A definition may define the boundary as your species concept tries to, vaguely, with many other species definitions to consolidate the exceptions. So you can basically pick at anything you are not happy with, but I have defined "kind". It is as good a definition as your definition of species and other taxa, and I feel you have no basis on which to complain or refute the substance of mine.

If you consider vagueness and lack of clarity a solid basis to refute my concept of kind, then you yourself have no basis to accept species or any other of your taxa for the same reason.

Other creationists may like to offer other versions just like many researchers suggest various changes to the phylogenic tree. Who's to say who is more right or wrong than another?

 

[RedOne77]

Newhope,

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you've stated before that a holobaramin is a kind, making the issue all about common ancestry. I'm reminded of the orchard in which each tree is a created kind where the holobaramin is free to evolve/diversify.

My concern isn't so much squabbling over arbitrary taxa or baramin, rather given that every single organism in a created kind has a common ancestor with everyone else in that created kind, how do you determine this via genetic testing? If hybridization and ring species are absent how do you say species X and Y are part of kind A yet species Z is part of kind B?

 

[evolved yet?]

Temnospondyli (from Greek τεμνειν, temnein = "to cut" + σπονδυλως, spondulos = "vertebra") is an important and extremely diverse taxon of small to giant primitive amphibians that flourished worldwide during the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic periods. A few stragglers continued into the Cretaceous. During their evolutionary history they adapted to a very wide range of habitats, including fresh-water aquatic, semi-aquatic, amphibious, terrestrial, and in one group even near-shore marine, and their fossil remains have been found on every continent. Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants.[1][2][3] So Temnospondyli is supposed to be the ancestor of the frog. Note the words an 'extremely diverse taxon'. In other words a nonsense was invented to illustrate evolution of kind to another kind. Note some AUTHORITIES disgaree and think they died out leaving NO decendants. It's truly all just unfounded gobble.

This is because it is very hard to find your own ancestors, it is well put in Neil Shubin's Book, Your Inner Fish:
No sane palaeontologist would ever claim that he or she had discovered "The Ancestor." Think about it this way: What is the chance that while walking through any random cemetery on the planet I would discover an actual ancestor of mine? Diminishingly small.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because that is not what my definition includes.

His question, however, was how such a test can be made. Not if it is possible to do such a test. To propose that there is such a thing as a "kind" implies having some way of telling whether two specimens are of the same kind or of different ones, so the test is not optional.

A definition may define the boundary as your species concept tries to, vaguely, with many other species definitions to consolidate the exceptions. So you can basically pick at anything you are not happy with, but I have defined "kind". It is as good a definition as your definition of species and other taxa, and I feel you have no basis on which to complain or refute the substance of mine.

Quite frankly, your statement is not too far from a claim that taxonomy does not exist at all.

If you consider vagueness and lack of clarity a solid basis to refute my concept of kind, then you yourself have no basis to accept species or any other of your taxa for the same reason.

Except that species and other taxonomy classification concepts are backed by both facts and theory, while kinds are an article of faith alone.

Other creationists may like to offer other versions just like many researchers suggest various changes to the phylogenic tree. Who's to say who is more right or wrong than another?

Facts. Experimental facts, observable facts, biological facts.

 

[painted wolf]

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?

I never said Lucy light fires... I don't know where you got this idea from.

I said Australopiths (not nessicarilly Lucy's species) are now known to have used early stone tools like "pebble tools".

I also said that some earlier Homo (like ergaster and erectus) appear to have been able to use fire according to the evidence.

Somehow you seem to have confused these two points. Even after I tried to clear them up.

Why not? You have many gaps in your fossil records also that you dismiss as 'just not having found them yet".

Fossils are supporting evidence for the genetics. But i don't dismiss uncertain areas of the fossil record, like the exact placement of the Mesonychids for example. (Indeed, this is an area I want to eventually do research on)

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.

Because it was more extreme than we were expecting, which is very interesting to people who want to know more about Australopiths. You can tell a lot about a species by the degree of dimorphism between the sexes.

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?

This is very wrong on many levels and would take a much longer post than I want to get into right now.

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.

Actually I did refute it... a few times... but you seem to have missed it.
1) your definition is not supported by genetics as there is no genetic break between holobramin
2) your methods of determining holobramin are so broad that they simply reflect already determined phylogeny... including the dinosaur-bird link.
3) there is no given mechanism to keep holobramin from being connected by common ancestry

I could go on, but these are a good start.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

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​

What does any of this have to do with dingos being nested within C.lupus.familiaris?

 

[Skwim]

What does any of this have to do with dingos being nested within C.lupus.familiaris?

Absolutely nothing. I totally misread the statement. Arrrrgh!

 

[painted wolf]

Absolutely nothing. I totally misread the statement. Arrrrgh!

No problem... I figured you did. :beach:

I seem to be misread often... perhaps I need to hone my communication skills more? Or perhaps the sensitivity of the subject matter simply causes people to jump ahead.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

I seem to be misread often... perhaps I need to hone my communication skills more? Or perhaps the sensitivity of the subject matter simply causes people to jump ahead.

wa:do

Nah, you're doing just fine. I just had a senior moment or something.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, the "baraminologists" at the Baraminology Study Group knocked themselves out, and here's what they came up:

we define a baramin as the actualization of a potentiality region at any
point or period in history (including but not limited
to all of history).

If anyone understands that, please explain it to me. And next time someone asks you to define "kind," that's the official definition.

 

[Skwim]

Well, the "baraminologists" at the Baraminology Study Group knocked themselves out, and here's what they came up:



If anyone understands that, please explain it to me. And next time someone asks you to define "kind," that's the official definition.

Ahhhh! So That's what it is.

source (pdf)

 

[newhope101]

According to all this bull your basic definition of kind is invalid also. That's why you have so many other definitions of species. Cryptic is the best I reckon

Wiki: In biology, a cryptic species complex is a group of species which satisfy the biological definition of species—that is, they are reproductively isolated from each other—but whose morphology is very similar (in some cases virtually identical).
Here you have 2 species, unable to mate yet have similar or identical morphology and are almost indistiguishable genetically.

You still have faith in your definition of species despite the species problem, indicating a plethora of hypocrites that will find any reason to say they will not accept my definition because you cannot find anywhere it does not apply.

Just because you do not like a definition doesn't mean one has not been provided that works. Many reseachers do not agree with others research, nor the phylogenic tree of life. In fact the new one shows multiple genesis at its base.

Here is my definition again. I can place any exceptions I please on it just as you have invented many definitions that take up the inconsistencies in yours.

Recent finding highlighting there is no LUCA basically leaves me free to suggest whatever I wish. Only 1% of human genes cannot be found somewhere in a mouse, and we are not similar to mice nor theoretically evolved from them. I say researchers have no clue and are along way from turning theory into fact.

I can define kind as well as you can define species. My definition is no less inconsistent that your own.. regarless of your acceptance or not liking it. I have provided one and there are, no doubt, more. If you think you are clever finding faults with definitions you really need to look to your own mess to illustrate your hypocricy.

Is there anyone that can find a taxa where my definition does not apply?

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".

 

[painted wolf]

It's telling that your definition needs such a large exception.

So, whales and dolphins are the same kind... but dogs and foxes are not then. And since hybrids need not be fertile or able to survive for very long (or even occur in nature), humans and hamsters are the same kind thanks to somatic hybridization and the humster.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I have to go to work, but I'll look closer tomorrow at this. It appears that by fox being in the family grouping he is still of the same kind as dog & wolf. Catch you tonight or tomorrow.

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.

 

[painted wolf]

So then definition number one is pointless then.

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".

Why include # 1 at all?

Since cows, sheep and goats all test in the same family then they are all the same kind then?

wa:do

ps. have fun at work.

 

[newhope101]

PaintedWolf, you must not realise there is a subfamily in the bovid Taxa. Surely you are not purposefully misleading RF. For now it appears that these are the kinds. However please note many resechers do not agree with all the subfamilies. There will be more clarity with more genomic testing


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

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]

 

[newhope101]

It's telling that your definition needs such a large exception.

So, whales and dolphins are the same kind... but dogs and foxes are not then. And since hybrids need not be fertile or able to survive for very long (or even occur in nature), humans and hamsters are the same kind thanks to somatic hybridization and the humster.

wa:do

Not at all. You have 12 definitions on top of your basic definition to expalin your exceptions. Basically you have no definition at all because inablity to mate is not a sign of differing species at all. Organisms that are morphologically identical and genetically unable to breed are classed as cryptic species. What rot is that?

Darls, in the world of common sense that is nonsense, no matter how you try to defend it. You have come up with all sorts of stupid definitions to mask and prop up your theory of evolution..to the point of stupidity.

What about this...Cohesion species: Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.

This sounds more convoluted than the baramin definition.

Your 2 models, and there are plenty more, show you and all your biologists do not have any clue. Either you can tell there is a LUCA or you cannot. If it is debateable and if your scientists are able to consider all the evidence and if it was so plain to see there would be one model and no credentialed reseacher would mess with it.

Humans need to be an exception because of the mighty mess you have made of Homo by classing every variation of non human primate into the mix. Hence the major adjustment.

Actually your whole taxonomic systemm is lacking, and bovid is just another example.

 

[newhope101]

Well, the "baraminologists" at the Baraminology Study Group knocked themselves out, and here's what they came up:



If anyone understands that, please explain it to me. And next time someone asks you to define "kind," that's the official definition.

This is not the definition I have proposed.

Here is what some of your well credentialed scientists have to say about your definition of species. Teletubbies do have more substance than your definition of species, after all.

Wiki - Species Problem.
Quotations on the species problem
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[44]
"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[45]
"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p. 310[14]
"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956)[37]
"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)[40]
"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require - but cannot be settled by - empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003)[17]
"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[46]

Are you going to call your own researchers idiots again?