Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
yes
just as all the large cats evolved from a common ancestor...and horses and zebras are related by a common ancestor
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
yes
just as all the large cats evolved from a common ancestor...and horses and zebras are related by a common ancestor
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
And the Yak...
American Bison...
Domestic Cow...
and Muskox...
All evolved from a single common ancestor.
Correct?
American Bison...
Domestic Cow...
and Muskox...
All evolved from a single common ancestor.
Correct?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
And the Yak...
American Bison...
Domestic Cow...
and Muskox...
All evolved from a single common ancestor.
Correct?
if they can be interbred, yes
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So we are agreed that changes in allele frequency within a population (evolution) can result in genetic change and chromosomal differences.
Correct?
First I have to say that this whole business about mutations not being able to produce new features is absolute nonsense, no matter how often it is repeated by creationists. But in fact it is not relevant to the question I am trying to ask. Bringing up this particular dogma only clouds the issue I am trying to clarify.
I am asking whether you believe it is possible for a species that has the ability to interbreed with another species to lose that ability due to a mutation. In this instance we are not talking about any new function, we are talking about the loss of an ability. But if the ability to produce hybrids is the key to defining biblical kinds then the loss of that ability would mean a new kind has emerged.
If on the other hand you are going to argue that it is impossible for a species that has the ability to interbreed to ever loose that ability I would like to examine that possibility. Is this what you are saying?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
yes...genetic drift is the result of changes in the allele frequency so long as the species hasn't reached a genetic equilibrium
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
- What are the natural forces behind this genetic change?
- What is the natural force that prevents genetic change?
- What species have reached genetic equilibrium?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
For that matter, what is genetic equilibrium, in this context? WP implies it only applies to specific genes, not entire genomes at once.
newhope101
Active Member
This researcher from the Smithsonian Institute speaks of “kinds”. Nice to see someone with smarts is finally able to see through the species problem and understand what a kind means. Look it up. It’s a great read highlighting the nonsense made of the term ‘species’. Maybe some evolutionists having difficulty understanding what a 'kind' refers to will learn from this article. This is just an extract from the article. Mayr suggests using metapopulations as a better descriptor of the variety within genus. He speaks to the inappropriate use of the species taxa.
Creationists have a read and see what you think. Mayr still supports evolution. However he sees lineages more as kinds or clades, rather than calling every variation a new species. This article validates some of the assertions I have made in that almost every variation of an organism a researcher finds is classed as a new species and that is an incorrect use of the taxa.
Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species
Kevin de Queiroz*
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0162
The Species as a Fundamental Category of Biological
Organization
An important corollary of the metapopulation lineage concept
of the species is that the species is a fundamental category of
biological organization. Although this corollary is now often
taken for granted, it is important to recognize that it represents
a significant departure from an older view of the species
category. Under the older view, the species category was simply
a rank in the hierarchy of taxonomic categories. More specifi-
cally, the taxa at all levels in the hierarchy were viewed as being
of the same basic kind, namely, groups of organisms that shared
particular traits (3), but they were assigned to different ranks to
indicate differences in relative inclusiveness. Species were in-
cluded within genera, genera were included within families, and
so forth. Thus, species were not viewed as constituting a funda-
mentally different kind of entity than genera or families; they
were just smaller groups separated by smaller degrees of differ-
ence. This perspective was held by Darwin (5), who stated that
he viewed ‘‘. . . the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the
sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling
each other, . . . it does not essentially differ from the term variety,
which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms’’ and
that ‘‘the grades of acquired difference [between taxonomic
groups are] marked by the terms varieties, species, genera,
families, orders, and classes.’’ In short, Darwin viewed the
species category as just another categorical rank, in particular,
one applied to groups of organisms that differed more than
varieties but less than genera.
　
　
　
In sum, there is an important distinction between the general
concept of species as metapopulations or metapopulation lin-
eages (the true biological species concept) and Ernst Mayr’s
concise species definition. The former is a very general theo-
retical concept that underlies virtually all modern views on
species, including all contemporary species definitions.
Conclusion
Ernst Mayr is almost certainly the greatest of all biologists in
terms of his contributions to the development and acceptance of
modern views on species. However, with regard to theoretical
advances and their practical consequences, his most important
contribution in this area was not his widely adopted definition of
species but rather the major role he played in the development
and advocacy of the general metapopulation lineage concept of
species. This contribution had tremendous significance both for
systematics in particular and for biology in general. It repre-
sented a fundamental shift in the conceptualization of the
species category that resulted in a uniquely biological concept of
species and changed the species category from a more-or-less
arbitrary rank in the hierarchy of taxonomic categories to a basic
category of biological organization. Moreover, because this
important change in the conceptualization of the species cate-
gory still has not been fully accepted, it continues to have
important consequences. For example, as discussed in this paper,
its more complete acceptance provides a simple solution to the
species problem, and this solution, in turn, brings the way in
which species are treated in taxonomic practice into line with
claims about the general theoretical significance of the species
category. In sum, Ernst Mayr’s ideas had tremendous impor-
tance, among many other things, for the development and
acceptance of the modern metapopulation lineage concept of
species, and they continue to provide the foundation for ad-
vances regarding the theoretical concept of species and its
practical application.
Creationists have a read and see what you think. Mayr still supports evolution. However he sees lineages more as kinds or clades, rather than calling every variation a new species. This article validates some of the assertions I have made in that almost every variation of an organism a researcher finds is classed as a new species and that is an incorrect use of the taxa.
Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species
Kevin de Queiroz*
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0162
The Species as a Fundamental Category of Biological
Organization
An important corollary of the metapopulation lineage concept
of the species is that the species is a fundamental category of
biological organization. Although this corollary is now often
taken for granted, it is important to recognize that it represents
a significant departure from an older view of the species
category. Under the older view, the species category was simply
a rank in the hierarchy of taxonomic categories. More specifi-
cally, the taxa at all levels in the hierarchy were viewed as being
of the same basic kind, namely, groups of organisms that shared
particular traits (3), but they were assigned to different ranks to
indicate differences in relative inclusiveness. Species were in-
cluded within genera, genera were included within families, and
so forth. Thus, species were not viewed as constituting a funda-
mentally different kind of entity than genera or families; they
were just smaller groups separated by smaller degrees of differ-
ence. This perspective was held by Darwin (5), who stated that
he viewed ‘‘. . . the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the
sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling
each other, . . . it does not essentially differ from the term variety,
which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms’’ and
that ‘‘the grades of acquired difference [between taxonomic
groups are] marked by the terms varieties, species, genera,
families, orders, and classes.’’ In short, Darwin viewed the
species category as just another categorical rank, in particular,
one applied to groups of organisms that differed more than
varieties but less than genera.
　
　
　
In sum, there is an important distinction between the general
concept of species as metapopulations or metapopulation lin-
eages (the true biological species concept) and Ernst Mayr’s
concise species definition. The former is a very general theo-
retical concept that underlies virtually all modern views on
species, including all contemporary species definitions.
Conclusion
Ernst Mayr is almost certainly the greatest of all biologists in
terms of his contributions to the development and acceptance of
modern views on species. However, with regard to theoretical
advances and their practical consequences, his most important
contribution in this area was not his widely adopted definition of
species but rather the major role he played in the development
and advocacy of the general metapopulation lineage concept of
species. This contribution had tremendous significance both for
systematics in particular and for biology in general. It repre-
sented a fundamental shift in the conceptualization of the
species category that resulted in a uniquely biological concept of
species and changed the species category from a more-or-less
arbitrary rank in the hierarchy of taxonomic categories to a basic
category of biological organization. Moreover, because this
important change in the conceptualization of the species cate-
gory still has not been fully accepted, it continues to have
important consequences. For example, as discussed in this paper,
its more complete acceptance provides a simple solution to the
species problem, and this solution, in turn, brings the way in
which species are treated in taxonomic practice into line with
claims about the general theoretical significance of the species
category. In sum, Ernst Mayr’s ideas had tremendous impor-
tance, among many other things, for the development and
acceptance of the modern metapopulation lineage concept of
species, and they continue to provide the foundation for ad-
vances regarding the theoretical concept of species and its
practical application.
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
fantôme profane;2165841 said:
I don't think it matters if a variation of a kind can or cannot interbreed. The bible says kinds were created. Any more than that is mankinds additional reasoning on the issue. I think it is irrelevant to the concept of the first kind. It is mankind that has come up with the taxonomic ranking and differentiates species this way. God doesn't care about our ranking he just made kinds that could vary and adapt.
If we had creationist researchers they would be working out what kinds God initially made. Some are more obvious than others eg dog from wolf. Some are not so clear, eg sheep and goats. Were these made as a kind or was there a kind created that adapted into both? Researchers agree there was a common ancestor. As I said some are clearer than others. My above post re Mayr addresses the confusion and misuse of the term species. It's Ok for creationists to not have ALL the answers, at this time. Neither do evolutionists!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Why do you think we don't? I mean, is anyone stopping them?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of the system of belief known as "creation science" in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise.
As a part of creation science, baraminology is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has general scientific acceptance. The taxonomic system widely applied in modern biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis
(Wiki)
Biology shows them to have evolved from common ancestors.
Yes, they do. Glad you acknowledge that.
Credit for doing the most to crack this puzzle goes to Ernst Mayr, perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century. Along with Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and others, Mayr achieved the "modern synthesis" in the 1930s and 1940s that integrated Mendel's theory of heredity with Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection
.
Born in 1904 in Germany, Mayr trained as a medical student but realized he had a greater passion for studying birds and biology. Emigrating to the United States, he became a curator at the American Museum of Natural History, working on bird classification while formulating his key ideas about evolution. In 1942 he published his most important work, Systematics and the Origin of Species. Mayr moved to Harvard University in 1953 and served as director of the school's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970. Since then, he has published a number of books and chapters and received the prestigious Japan Prize for Biology in 1983.
In his landmark 1942 book, Mayr proposed that Darwin's theory of natural selection could explain all of evolution, including why genes evolve at the molecular level. On the stubborn question of how species originate, Mayr proposed that when a population of organisms becomes separated from the main group by time or geography, they eventually evolve different traits and can no longer interbreed.
It's this isolation or separation that creates new species, said Mayr. The traits that evolve during the period of isolation are called " isolating mechanisms," and they discourage the two populations from interbreeding.
Moreover, Mayr declared that the development of many new species is what leads to evolutionary progress. "Without speciation, there would be no diversification of the organic world, no adaptive radiation, and very little evolutionary progress. The species, then, is the keystone of evolution."
Evolution: Library: Ernst Mayr and the Evolutionary Synthesis
(See what I did there? Provided the source link, this is required according to Forum rules. Please keep that in mind. BTW your source link would be Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species)
Ready to address these question yet? They are, after all, based on your previous answers.
newhope101
Active Member
Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of the system of belief known as "creation science" in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise.
As a part of creation science, baraminology is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has general scientific acceptance. The taxonomic system widely applied in modern biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis
(Wiki)
Biology shows them to have evolved from common ancestors.
Yes, they do. Glad you acknowledge that.
Ernst Mayr and the Evolutionary Synthesis:
Ironically, one great unsolved problem in Darwin's master work, On the Origin of Species, was just that: How and why do species originate? Darwin and his later followers were faced with a seeming paradox. They described evolution as a continuous, gradual change over time, but species are distinct from each other, suggesting that some process has created a discontinuity, or gap, between them.
Credit for doing the most to crack this puzzle goes to Ernst Mayr, perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century. Along with Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and others, Mayr achieved the "modern synthesis" in the 1930s and 1940s that integrated Mendel's theory of heredity with Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection
.
Born in 1904 in Germany, Mayr trained as a medical student but realized he had a greater passion for studying birds and biology. Emigrating to the United States, he became a curator at the American Museum of Natural History, working on bird classification while formulating his key ideas about evolution. In 1942 he published his most important work, Systematics and the Origin of Species. Mayr moved to Harvard University in 1953 and served as director of the school's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970. Since then, he has published a number of books and chapters and received the prestigious Japan Prize for Biology in 1983.
In his landmark 1942 book, Mayr proposed that Darwin's theory of natural selection could explain all of evolution, including why genes evolve at the molecular level. On the stubborn question of how species originate, Mayr proposed that when a population of organisms becomes separated from the main group by time or geography, they eventually evolve different traits and can no longer interbreed.
It's this isolation or separation that creates new species, said Mayr. The traits that evolve during the period of isolation are called " isolating mechanisms," and they discourage the two populations from interbreeding.
Moreover, Mayr declared that the development of many new species is what leads to evolutionary progress. "Without speciation, there would be no diversification of the organic world, no adaptive radiation, and very little evolutionary progress. The species, then, is the keystone of evolution."
Evolution: Library: Ernst Mayr and the Evolutionary Synthesis
(See what I did there? Provided the source link, this is required according to Forum rules. Please keep that in mind. BTW your source link would be Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species)
Ready to address these question yet? They are, after all, based on your previous answers.
My point still stands..here is a credentialed evolutionary rearcher that sees 'kinds' as opposed to species. Therefore it is not only the uneducated that see a problem with the species concept. It is also highlighted in Wiki 'species problem'. So Mayr is not the only researcher to speak to this issue.
Backing creationists into a corner over what is or isn't a kind and befuddling the term by speaking to 'ability to successfully breed' is irrelevant.
Here's some info re your questions to tumbleweed 41.
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) Why have some of our genes evolved rapidly? It is widely believed that Darwinian natural selection is responsible, but research led by a group at Uppsala University, suggests that a separate neutral (nonadaptive) process has made a significant contribution to human evolution.
http://www.religiousforums.com/articles/n/natural_selection.htm
Their results have been published January 27 in the journal PLoS Biology.
The researchers identified fast evolving human genes by comparing our genome with those of other primates. However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.
"The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed," says Matthew Webster of the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology at Uppsala University.
BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Nice, (although you again forgot your source link).
However, you once again dodge the questions with irrelevant articles.
No, I repeat, no evolutionary biologist worth a grain of salt would advocate natural selection as the only driving force behind evolution.
Now, this is concerning Biblical kinds...
- What are the natural forces behind this genetic change?
- What is the natural force that prevents genetic change?
- What species have reached genetic equilibrium?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You, and your sources, need to realize that evolutionary biology has come a long ways in the last 150 years.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I would think goats and sheep would be easier... they are different genus for good reasons. Dogs and wolves are the same species even if they are different subspecies.
It's interesting that creationists seem so suck on simple outside appearances.
wa:do
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Best. Typo. EVAR!
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Paging Dr. Freud....