Creationists please define Kind

[outhouse]

And it has been pointed out

over and over and over and over

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Great we are not talking about politics. Your researchers currently say that humans cannot breed with chimps NOW and you had better accept your own researchers or cough up more than just a wish list of evidence.

But they never conclude that they have never been able to. In fact the very wiki article you cite say that in our evolutionary history there was once a time when we did.

 

[newhope101]

Tumbleweed..what amazes me is the constant war cry of evolutionists to provide evidence and then produce an opinion as evidence for refute. When I do, its' called quote mining. However all these evos are doing right now is going around in circles. It does not matter what you think or your opinion, when it comes to a definition of KInd. What matters is that they have NOT shown humans and apes can breed. All the research that was actually performed DID NOT fertilze, regardless of what anyone THINKS. If we were so close there should not have been huge problems in achieving fertilization.

With the use of proceedures a male sperm will penetrate a mouse ovum. This is not news. So untill YOU can provide EVIDENCE that humans and chimps can breed my criteria 2 stands. When scientists prove otherwise, then you can have something to say. Same as knucklewalking was flavour of the month then was overturned with NEW EVIDENCE, not because someone just 'thought' they'd change it all. The theory changed WHEN NEW EVIDENCE came to light. Now you are trying to kill my definition with what Jack thought. How unscientific is that! Really what your researchers think can be more erranous that the research they have put forward as irrefuteable and then thrown that great thought and their evidence into the garbge bin of delusionary evidence, along with your knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, brain increase with bipedal walking and bipedal walking being a soley human trait and the rest. What evolutionary scientists THINK is even less robust that their fictional evidence based on assumptions that change like the wind.

Sorry..you will have to do better than what researchers THINK. Provide evidence of stop the squark.

Tumbleweed41. Evolutionists feeling so threatened by a simple definition of kind is truly amazing. Look at your species concept. Look at the inconsistencies with that. Yet, you lot will go around and around in circles like it will be the end of the world as you know it, if someone comes close to putting up some reasonable definition of KInd. It would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

You are the evolutionist armed with a plethora of theoretical assumptions. Can you provide evidence about what may be a 99.9 difference now will change for the general population variation? You see for a biologist to say the 99.9% will definitely change as a result of new information, rather than actual changes, they kind of have to rat out there own science, which is not a good look.

All your research is scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry. Yet in 5-8 my, according to your theoretical modelling of course, has separated chimps and humans by only 1%, using single-nucleotide polys. So, I'd say on the basis of this biased theoretical evidence that it will be a few million years before I have to change my definition, if I ever need to change it all. If we are both in heaven at that time I'll shout you a beer.

LouisDantas, whatever evidence a biologist may have that genes change is based on theoretical computer modelling. Remember you were the one that contested the 1% human-chimp similarity. Then there was another poster challenging the 6% and the 30%. Humans and chimp separated at 4mya, revised to 5mya, 6mya and other that say 8mya. We were decendant from knuckle walkers now we are not. This is the outcome to be expected with theoretical modelling attached to what little real evidence there is.

Unfortunately for evos, their modelling has illustrated humans today are NOT decendant from todays chimps..hence the need for a common ancestor and direct decent is gone. The Y chromosome in the male chimp and human are remarkably different and very much more different than expected.

The chimp’s Y chromosome has only two-thirds the number of distinct genes/gene families, and 47% of the protein coding regions compared to its human counterpart. Furthermore, more than 30% of the entire chimp Y chromosome has no counterpart in humans. Even those segments that do have counterparts in the human Y chromosome are often located in different regions of the chromosome.

One the lead researchers, David Page, told Nature News that “it looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” Of course, this reinvention has to be explained in terms of common descent, so they speculate that the chimp Y chromosome experienced a loss of DNA, while humans experienced a gain.(accelerated evolution) The surprise for the scientists involved, however, demonstrates that this find was not only counter-intuitive to Darwinian expectations but also to what Page and other researchers today expected.(Jennifer F. Hughes, David Page, et al, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content”; Nature 463, 536-539 (28)

So even if a biologist had something to say it would be based on computer modelling that changes like the wind.



You folks are making a huge fuss over nothing. It really is not the end of the world just because I have come up with a defintion of kind that suits my beliefs...and it won't be the end of the world, as you know it, if another creationist comes up with a another one. Your definition of species does not prove TOE, neither does a definition of kind prove creation. It just shows that some creationists have some idea what a kind looks like.

 

[painted wolf]

It is understanding the application of a definition including the framework to which is does not apply. The twist is well hidden. But you will have to do better than that. Are you unable to trasfer the similarity? Your definition od species has nothing to do with the fossils you posted. Why? Because you are unable to apply the concept of species to a fossil that has no DNA.
You have often spoken to this
Wiki species: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually (asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.

Actually, it also includes the morphological species definition to account for fossils, but this isn't about species... it's about your definition.

My definition of kind will account for all species that can supply adequate information, similar to your species definition. Unlike Toe I have not guesstimated a theoretical model. Fortunately the thread is about a definition of kind. NOT provide PW with a hypothesis of some sort and strain any irrelevant point to distraction.

Yes, this thread is about the definition of kind... your definition of kind accounts for only a fraction of the species known. The difference is that the scientific definition of kind is not pretending to be the ultimate account of reality. You claim that your definition is sacrosanct.

I'm not asking you to hypothesize btw...

PW a definition of anything does not have to categorise old bones. If Kind is applicable to old fossils then so should the definition of species be. It isn't. Why do you not understand? If it is then explain how the biological definition of species helps clarify your bones. You need DNA. You don't have any. You use other methods and well you know it. You are looking plenty desperate,,on and on and on and on and on.

Your ability to both argue that species doesn't have a single definition and then choose a single definition to cling to so you can attack from another angle is amazing.

Your ability to project desperation onto me for making you engage in these tactics is also interesting.

Now lets get back to the subject...

How dare you make such an assumption? Thylacine is in a kind with a numbat. Too bad your researchers had it wrong until 2009.

Wiki:Several studies support the thylacine as being a basal member of the Dasyuromorphia and that the Tasmanian devil is its closest living relative. However, research published in Genome Research in January 2009 suggests that the numbat may be more basal than the devil and more closely related to the thylacine.[22]

I'm not seeing anything here that conforms to your definition of kind here....
None of these dasyuromorphids are within 99.9% of each other... none of them can interbreed.

You seem to be just clinging to what wikipedia says science says. :sarcastic

How dare you co-opt research that you don't understand to try to cover up your flaws.

How does YOUR definition of kind account for the Thylacine? Who could it interfertilize with? Who was it 99.9% genetically similar to?

PW again you try to misrepresent.and you know it. of course species are important but a definition is not going to classify anything without the information that it requires. I have said. I'll accept the family as a kind. What else do you think a definition of species or kind is going to achieve more than that, without genomic evidence. Do you expect me to come up with a whole heap of theories like your researchers have to explain it all... No PW, You are being purposely evasive and convoluted in the application of this line of refute.
wa:do

No, I expect you to continue to blame others for the weakness of your argument... to continue to pretend that anything that contradicts your argument is invalid...
I expect you to continue to run to wiki and to simultaneously accept what they say about science while denouncing the science as unreliable.

I have no expectation that you will seriously consider anything that anyone says and will continue to evade, blame and whinge about anything that you don't understand or like.

I also expect more ad hominem attacks rather than genuine discussion on your part.
　
　

You appear to be getting yourself all tied up in a knot. Are you asserting that you have DNA evidence for your old fossils? If not, then your definition of species is irrelevant, neither can you check fertility. You have bones, you assign taxons without DNA evidence.

Species are determined by DNA alone... you know that and you can only be ignoring that fact because you think it strengthens your case. You are cherry picking and obfuscating.

But this isn't about species, it's about kinds. If your definition is superior to that sad flawed science, why does it not account for all species?

You have missed the point badly. My definition can more than adequately explain kinds. It cannot invent DNA evidence or prescribe theories, just like most definitions of anything including species.

No really it can't... it's simply a parody of the genetic species concept with some classic species concept thrown in. It explains nothing.

It does not explain/define fossil species.
It does not explain/define why there should be more than 50 "kinds" of beetles but only one "kind" of elephant? (not that you know there is only one "kind" of elephant because you can't account for all the fossil elephants.)
Just for starters.

You don't need theories or hypothesis for these... it should be part of the definition of kind, if kind is more logical than species that is.

wa:do

ps. no biologist is going to be threatened by your definition... just amused. As I am.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

A simple question if I may. Why does a description of Biblical kinds have to deliniate for species?

 

[LuisDantas]

To the extent that kinds are defined by their ability of breeding true to themselves without variation, the closest analogue to reality would be in species.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas

, whatever evidence a biologist may have that genes change is based on theoretical computer modelling.

Except, of course, for all the actual observations of gene changing occuring in reality, you mean?

Seriously, are you really claiming that all gene change has not been observed yet?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A simple question if I may. Why does a description of Biblical kinds have to deliniate for species?

Because newhope101 says so. She does not think they are comparable. Evolutionary Theory and "species" are synonymous while Evolutionary Theory and "kind" are not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

newhope
You have taken on the challenge of providing a description of kind.
Kind is a Biblical term used by Creationist to promote "each after their own kind" taxonomy.
In science, terms such as species are mutable, and can change as new evidence is found.
My question to you is simple.
Is the definition of kind, incomplete as it is, subject to change as new evidence is uncovered, or is it immutable and fixed.

 

[newhope101]

But they never conclude that they have never been able to. In fact the very wiki article you cite say that in our evolutionary history there was once a time when we did.

..and how did your researchers conclude early homonids could interbreed?

Do they have DNA apart from Neanderthal? No.. and even that has the scientific community in debate. The proponenents of out of Africa and multi regional hypothesis will never let Neanderthal rest.

Do they have any evidence past their assumptions and models? No

So, what's left? No evidence at all....just necessary assumptions.

The point being that there is some evidence that humans and chimps cannot mate in the here and now and a plethora of opinions that say they might.

So for now, that is the Status Quo and you will need to wait for EVIDENCE to arise before you are going to win this point and refute my definition. Isn't that how your evolutionary sciences are supposed to work. ..or does that change when you are debating a creationist..sort of a double standard, that I am not at all surprised by.

Such are debates that have no where else to go other than into frustration and desperate attempts at refute. Mind you, I'd like to hear what these researchers have to say on the topic now that we have found such diverged Y chromosome,

Wiki Cryptic Species Complex:
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).
The species in a cryptic complex are typically very close relatives and in many cases cannot be easily distinguished by molecular phylogenetic studies. If lineage sorting has not yet been completed, members of a cryptic species complex widely share plesiomorphic haplotypes, while individual species might not have evolved distinctive autapomorphic mutations yet. But usually, individual species within the complex can be separated by analysing data from multiple sources, such as by comparing DNA sequence analyses, bioacoustics and thorough life history studies.
They may be parapatric, are frequently sympatric, and are sometimes allopatric. Cryptic species complexes are not the same as populations undergoing speciation: they typically represent a situation where speciation has already broken gene flow between populations, but where evolution has not progressed to a point where easily-recognizable adaptations have taken place.

Mating trials validate the use of DNA barcoding to reveal cryptic speciation of a marine bryozoan taxon 2006
Our results on DNA barcoding, mating compatibility and morphological variation between geographical isolates demonstrate prolific cryptic speciation in C. hyalina. We show that the major genetic groups recovered by DNA barcoding are distinct biological species that have diverged little by standard morphological measures.



So as you see above organisms have isolated so much that two of the same kind can no longer reach fertiilzation together. This, again, flies in the face of your biological definition of species, 'high genetic similarity', because these organisms HAVE almost indentical phylogeny yet are classed as different species. The research concludes, "but cannot be easily distinguished via molecular phylogenics". These are brought back into kind via genetic similarity, criteria 1. It works for me and my definition of kind. It is you and your evo researchers that have some explaining to do in relation to defining species.

Hence, this can be seen as evidence in support of the concept.. regardless of sexual genetic isolation phylogeny may change very little. That is what you have found without the use of many models and many assumptions.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary and keep opinions and what thought did, locked away with your other wish lists.

So, for now, my definition stands.

A kind must meet 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.

 

[David M]

Tumbleweed..what amazes me is the constant war cry of evolutionists to provide evidence and then produce an opinion as evidence for refute. When I do, its' called quote mining. However all these evos are doing right now is going around in circles. It does not matter what you think or your opinion, when it comes to a definition of KInd. What matters is that they have NOT shown humans and apes can breed. All the research that was actually performed DID NOT fertilze, regardless of what anyone THINKS. If we were so close there should not have been huge problems in achieving fertilization

In the 1920s it was not possible to achieve pregnancy with humans, so that fact that this technology did not manage a human/chimp pregnancy is meaningless.

 

[newhope101]

newhope
You have taken on the challenge of providing a description of kind.
Kind is a Biblical term used by Creationist to promote "each after their own kind" taxonomy.
In science, terms such as species are mutable, and can change as new evidence is found.
My question to you is simple.
Is the definition of kind, incomplete as it is, subject to change as new evidence is uncovered, or is it immutable and fixed.

As a creaionist just here to play this requires some thought.

The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change. The truth is the truth.

What may change is your theoretical assumptions. For example if I used a looser method of comparative similarity, research has produced a number of different percetage similarites between humans and chimps that would create confusion and refutebility. There is always the possibility that researchers discover something they did not count before etc that can change what is generally accepted. It has happened before, it will happen again and again with many hypothesis.

So in answer to your question...is this..my 99,9% is tied to human varitaion that no doubt computer modelling of some sort is at the base of. If this were to change due to new evidence, say they did not count something they were supposed to, then my definition would need to reflect it. Unfortunately all your research is scaffolded with the presumption of ancestry. I have to use what you lot come up with as that is all there is. My percentage will only need to change if your initial calculations were erranous to begin with. So my definiton may reflect the inadequacies of your data.
I qualified this point in my initial post.

Did Darwin have it all sorted in a week?

Having said that, and with research done into cryptic species, I expect even if they found new evidence, the simiarity percentage will remain the same forever, despite mutation, genetic drift, environment etc.

 

[newhope101]

In the 1920s it was not possible to achieve pregnancy with humans, so that fact that this technology did not manage a human/chimp pregnancy is meaningless.

No David M ..what is meaningless is your inablility to provide evidence to support your stance that is more robust than what I put up. To date, I have not seen any.

The work on the Y chromosme is fairly new and the remarkable differnces were not expected Let's see what their opinion says now.

The point being I have produced evidence. You have produced woffle. I win.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I win.

 

[outhouse]

You have produced woffle

that makes you a woffle maker

its all you have produced

 

[LuisDantas]

Hope springs eternal. And sometimes it needs to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

newhope
You have taken on the challenge of providing a description of kind.
Kind is a Biblical term used by Creationist to promote "each after their own kind" taxonomy.
In science, terms such as species are mutable, and can change as new evidence is found.
My question to you is simple.
Is the definition of kind, incomplete as it is, subject to change as new evidence is uncovered, or is it immutable and fixed.

As a creaionist just here to play this requires some thought.

The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change. The truth is the truth.....

Disregarding the rest of your post as an excuse if you are wrong, I will take the part where you say "The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change." as an answer of, no. That the Biblical definition of kinds, as defined by God, is unchangeable. Despite any evidence to the contrary.

 

[newhope101]

As a creaionist just here to play this requires some thought.

The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change. The truth is the truth.

What may change is your theoretical assumptions. For example if I used a looser method of comparative similarity, research has produced a number of different percetage similarites between humans and chimps that would create confusion and refutebility. There is always the possibility that researchers discover something they did not count before etc that can change what is generally accepted. It has happened before, it will happen again and again with many hypothesis.

So in answer to your question...is this..my 99,9% is tied to human varitaion that no doubt computer modelling of some sort is at the base of. If this were to change due to new evidence, say they did not count something they were supposed to, then my definition would need to reflect it. Unfortunately all your research is scaffolded with the presumption of ancestry. I have to use what you lot come up with as that is all there is. My percentage will only need to change if your initial calculations were erranous to begin with. So my definiton may reflect the inadequacies of your data.
I qualified this point in my initial post.

Did Darwin have it all sorted in a week?

Having said that, and with research done into cryptic species, I expect even if they found new evidence, the simiarity percentage will remain the same forever, despite mutation, genetic drift, environment etc.

Above is my post. I have enlarged and underlined a bit...have another read.

below is your reply
Tumbleweed41"Disregarding the rest of your post as an excuse if you are wrong, I will take the part where you say "The kinds that God created are the kinds that He created and this cannot change." as an answer of, no. That the Biblical definition of kinds, as defined by God, is unchangeable. Despite any evidence to the contrary.

So you agree with me! Is that the point you are making.


Will you please stop wasting my time.

 

[newhope101]

Hope springs eternal. And sometimes it needs to.

Loiusdantas and Outhouse. You have not produced any evidence that humans and chimps can reach fertilazation let alone produce a viable species. Where as I have. You lot are no scientific. Most of you are pretenders that ignore information that is not convenient, that's if you even look to recent research. You have all shown your colours.

Nice to see outhouse back with his ego and not much more.

I have produced evidence of trials that did NOT achieve fertilzation. The Y chromosome is so divergent that you and you evos have basically lost the argument. It is up to you now to produce EVIDENCE, not opinions..and you cannot. That is the truth.

So unless any of you have some evidence instead of opinions I have won the day and put up a definiton of kind. You lot can no longer say a creationist cannot define kind.

You may babble on ond babble on..but you have no evidence to refute me and my definition works and stands.

 

[painted wolf]

So, for now, my definition stands.

A kind must meet 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.

So then Thylacines are their own kind then?

What about the Woolly Mammoth? We have it's DNA. It's at least as different from elephants as we are from chimps. According to criteria #1 it must be it's own kind.

wa:do