Creationists please define Kind

[DeistPrimate]

I see in some threads creationists are still fast and loose using the term "Kind" meaning as near as can be ascertained a taxonomy group of living things created by God ala fiat to 'breed true'.

I always point out that mules don't seem to be examples of the Horse Kind and Donkey Kind breeding true.

Any takers?

 

[newhope101]

I see in some threads creationists are still fast and loose using the term "Kind" meaning as near as can be ascertained a taxonomy group of living things created by God ala fiat to 'breed true'.

I always point out that mules don't seem to be examples of the Horse Kind and Donkey Kind breeding true.

Any takers?

Hopefully you have at least some familiarity with Wiki Human evolution & Phylogenics, Let’s not forget that we are working with models that make assumptions such as ancestry.

By the way Wiki is not a creationist site. Wiki is a good start as it puts up an array of research and references the research at the end of the topic. It will reflect most, but not necessarily all, recent research.

I have attempted to speak to a definition of kind that addresses the lack of clarity within evolutionary assumptions.

Let’s try this definition of kind and see how we go:

A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria
1. A kind is a group of organisms that share 99.9% similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

A kind will adapt eg the phenotypical variations in humans and Canids.

 

[Autodidact]

Let’s try this definition of kind and see how we go:

A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria
1. A kind is a group of organisms that share 99.9% similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

A kind will adapt eg the phenotypical variations in humans and Canids.

Hey, cool, an actual definition. This may be an historic first. Thanks, newhope.
Could you expound on 1. a little bit? Similarity of what? Measured how?

 

[Skwim]

Let’s try this definition of kind and see how we go:

A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

This would mean that Canis lupus nubilus and Canis latrans are the same kind.

Canis lupus nubilus             Canis latrans

​

And that Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius are the same kind.

Camelus bactrianus            Camelus dromedarius


​

and of course Equus ferus caballus and Equus africanus asinus would also be the same kind

Equus ferus caballus             Equus africanus asinus

​

And we can't forget Panthera leo and Panthera tigris

Panthera leo                      Panthera tigris ​

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact... the similarity comparison must use a stable reference and methodology. As you know the chimp/human comparison can come in at 99%-94%, then there's that other research that cites 30% over the entire genome.

I wish to use single-nucleotide polymorphisms, the same method that brings humans and chimps in at 99% similarity or thereabouts.

It is hard to find comparisons using the same techniques, so I'll see how this plays out.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you have sources? That 94%-humanlike chimp is certainly news to me. To say nothing of that 30% number.

 

[Willamena]

So now I'm really confused. How are we to distinguish different kinds of furniture?

 

[newhope101]

This would mean that Canis lupus nubilus and Canis latrans are the same kind.

Canis lupus nubilus             Canis latrans

​

And that Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius are the same kind.

Camelus bactrianus            Camelus dromedarius


​

and of course Equus ferus caballus and Equus africanus asinus would also be the same kind

Equus ferus caballus             Equus africanus asinus

​

And we can't forget Panthera leo and Panthera tigris

Panthera leo                      Panthera tigris
​

Pictures don't say alot. Please post the research that speaks to genetic comparisons using single nucleotide polymorphisms to speak to point 1. Alternatively, hybrid info may speak to point 2.

But yes, many dog species are the same kind. Most can interbreed. Meaning initial kinds were created. That could have been one breeding pair or many. They may have been identical or different. They adapted into their environments but remained the same kind.

Yep, camels are all the same kind. I expect they meet meet one of the 2 criteria.

Cats...I'll have to go look up some research If you can please post some genetic info, I'll speak to it. It appears that the wild cat and domestic cats are a kind as they fit criteria 2 at least. As for Lions and Tigers and the rest, I'll need to look at more research. However if they are 99.9% similar, then yes, I'd say they are the same kind. If they can genetically interbreed, even if not sucessfully, then they are the same kind. If not then these may have been created individually as their own kind.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I see in some threads creationists are still fast and loose using the term "Kind" meaning as near as can be ascertained a taxonomy group of living things created by God ala fiat to 'breed true'.

I always point out that mules don't seem to be examples of the Horse Kind and Donkey Kind breeding true.

Any takers?

Biblical kinds from Genesis 1:
[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

So there is Grass, herb, fruit trees, whales, aquatic life that moves, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things and beasts.

 

[David M]

Do you have sources? That 94%-humanlike chimp is certainly news to me. To say nothing of that 30% number.

Newhope is misrepresenting the fact that if you count things in different ways you come up with different numbers, the 30% is based on an alleged 24% difference in the alignment of chromosomes plus all the other differences added together (which is dishonest because things like SNPs are the reason for the non-alignments).

However that 24% number does not appear in the paper that Newhope claims it comes from. I've asked for a cite for it but no luck so far.

 

[newhope101]

Do you have sources? That 94%-humanlike chimp is certainly news to me. To say nothing of that 30% number.

Look this is not my thread. Still I do hope that it's not going to get clogged up with request for information any half educated person should already know. I'll entertain this one request for info. I have posted this info so many times I'm sick of reading it. Please read it and remember it and don't ask for it again next week.

You should understand that different methods of genetic comparison look at, and count or ignore, different things. Hence different percetage similarities.

Besides it has little to do with my definition of kind, which is what this thread has requested.

Willomena..Maybe you should go back to bed.


Wik Chimpanzee Genome Project- The research is referenced in Wiki.

Results from the human and chimp genome analyses should help in understanding some human diseases. Humans appear to have lost a functional caspase-12 gene, which in other primates codes for an enzyme that may protect against Alzheimer's disease. Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes.

Human-Chimp Gene Gap Widens from Tally of Duplicate Genes

There's a bigger genetic jump between humans and chimps than previously believed
by JR Minkel
| December 19, 2006 |

• CHIMP GENE GAP GROWS: Using a new measure of genetic similarity--the number of copies of genes that two species have in common--researchers report that chimps and humans share only 94 percent of their genes, not the 98 to 99 percent frequently cited. Image: By Aaron Logan, from LIGHTmatter Photography by Aaron Logan

A lot more genes may separate humans from their chimp relatives than earlier studies let on. Researchers studying changes in the number of copies of genes in the two species found that their mix of genes is only 94 percent identical. The 6 percent difference is considerably larger than the commonly cited figure of 1.5 percent.
The new finding supports the idea that evolution may have given humans new genes with new functions that don't exist in chimps, something researchers had not recognized until recently. The older value of 1.5 percent is a measure of the difference between equivalent genes in humans and chimps, like a difference in the spelling of the same word in two similar languages. Based on that figure, experts proposed that humans and chimps have essentially the same genes, but differed in when and where the genes turn on and off. The new research takes into account the possibility for multiple copies of genes and that the number of copies can differ between species, even though the gene itself is the same or nearly so. "You have to pay attention to more than just the genes that are shared," says geneticist Matthew Hahn of Indiana University, Bloomington, lead author of the new report. Researchers believe that additional copies of the same gene allow evolution to experiment, so to speak, finding new functions for old genes.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact... the similarity comparison must use a stable reference and methodology. As you know the chimp/human comparison can come in at 99%-94%, then there's that other research that cites 30% over the entire genome.

Oh, so you're talking about genetic similarity?

I wish to use single-nucleotide polymorphisms, the same method that brings humans and chimps in at 99% similarity or thereabouts.

It is hard to find comparisons using the same techniques, so I'll see how this plays out.

If you take two creatures whose genome has not been mapped, and for which no one has ever tried to breed, how do you know if they're the same or a different kind?

Does the first method track pretty much with species?
And the second method is just slightly larger than species, correct?

Do any other creationists use your definition?

Does your hypothesis include <10,000 year old earth, global flood, ark, etc?

btw, what's the basis for your definition? How did you come up with it?

 

[painted wolf]

Newhope.... your new kind definition... 1 and 2 contradict each other.

For example the Horse and Donkey are to a degree inter-fertile, but well outside your genetic limitation. Either one must stand or the other, they can not both be the definition.

I would stick with the fertility part of the definition if you want to be consistent.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Newhope.... your new kind definition... 1 and 2 contradict each other.

For example the Horse and Donkey are to a degree inter-fertile, but well outside your genetic limitation. Either one must stand or the other, they can not both be the definition.

I would stick with the fertility part of the definition if you want to be consistent.

wa:do

Well, isn't she saying either/or, so that's o.k.? If they fulfill either criteria, they're the same "kind?"

 

[painted wolf]

Well, isn't she saying either/or, so that's o.k.? If they fulfill either criteria, they're the same "kind?"

It's more pointlessly redundant... if they can interbreed then it doesn't matter how genetically close they are.

So, either criteria #1 matters or it doesn't... at this point it just confuses the issue.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'll stick to ToE. "Kinds" sounds like a convoluted mess.

 

[Autodidact]

Hypothetically, if humans and chimps could interbreed, would they then be the same kind?

 

[McBell]

Newhope is misrepresenting the fact that if you count things in different ways you come up with different numbers, the 30% is based on an alleged 24% difference in the alignment of chromosomes plus all the other differences added together (which is dishonest because things like SNPs are the reason for the non-alignments).

However that 24% number does not appear in the paper that Newhope claims it comes from. I've asked for a cite for it but no luck so far.

Well...
I was able to locate the article that the Wiki page refers to:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
​

Problem is that it is in techno speak.

 

[Skwim]

Pictures don't say alot. Please post the research that speaks to genetic comparisons using single nucleotide polymorphisms to speak to point 1. Alternatively, hybrid info may speak to point 2.

As you will note, I only addressed your second point.

"A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring."
​

But yes, many dog species are the same kind.

There is only one species of dog: Canius lupus familiaris.

Most can interbreed. Meaning initial kinds were created.

What is an "initial kind"?

Yep, camels are all the same kind. I expect they meet meet one of the 2 criteria.

Okay.

Cats...I'll have to go look up some research If you can please post some genetic info, I'll speak to it. It appears that the wild cat and domestic cats are a kind as they fit criteria 2 at least. As for Lions and Tigers and the rest, I'll need to look at more research. However if they are 99.9% similar, then yes, I'd say they are the same kind. If they can genetically interbreed, even if not sucessfully, then they are the same kind. If not then these may have been created individually as their own kind.

Looked for the info you requested but came up empty.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf, please don't let one of your first replies be a misrepresentation of my 2nd point, which appears to be fairly clear to most. My point 2 refers to more than if two organisims can genetically interbreed as you have implied. It includes those that have the genetic capacity to produce fertilization, regardless of viability of offspring. This may bring in other species under the same kind. This may or may not inform if more than one variation of the same kind was created or just one.

If I find out that having 99.9% similarity as outlined covers those species covered by point 2, then you are right it is pointless. It appears your species that come under my definition of kind are in-kind variations as a result of adaptation, drift, environment etc etc.

For now, until someone shows me research to indicate point 2, is pointless it can and needs to stay.

Considering all the exceptions to the general definition of 'species', I don't think my definition is too bad. After all this is a forum discussion and not a nomination for an award.