Speciation

[Autodidact]

the last time I played my definition of kind I was instantly alerted to the cognitive challenges and deficits apparent in some evos.

To answer your question go to possums and cats and look at hoe they are arranged in families and or sub families.

Where my definition states to use the lower class then what you do is exactly what I say. If there is a subfamily then you use that. If there is no sub family then you use that.

So I'll help you..

Felidae has 4 subfamilies. So what should you do DP? That's right these are likely the 4 kinds that God made, 2 supposedly extinct. (but we all know about coelcanth the living, dead mid species). Now God may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been all exactly the same or varied. These are the questions your researchers will not answer for me as they are asking the wrong questions.

Possums"Phalangeriformes", have 2 superfamilies and 6 families within. I see no
sub families. Hence, you use the family here to illustrate what I see as a kind.

Thankfully your new hippo/whale crap kept these two separate, at family rank, for now.

It does not have to be perfect to be usefull, just like 'species' is not perfect but usefull to
describe variations within kind.

If you want to run this for another 20 pages poking holes in it you already know what I'll do back.


I've played this family/subfamily definition out before and it works well. A kind is obviously the progeny of the initial creation by God, and their decendents as well.

So now that I have assisted you DP, you should be able to apply my definition with ease and come up with
some cunning plan to foil me, and waste pages trying to illustrate my definition really is no better than your definition of species..

....and I do not care to outdo yours, I just like to show up chumps and hypocrites

O.K., so when your source, the one you quoted, treated bacteria as a "kind," he was...what?

And when you referred to a creature as being possum kind, even though not a marsupial, you were...what?

And when you claimed that something is in the cat "kind" because it kind of looks something like a cat, you were...what?

 

[newhope101]

Really?
So when are you going to start?

All ready shown how inept your species concept is. Any defininiton from any creationist cannot possibly be worse.

 

[McBell]

All ready shown how inept your species concept is. Any defininiton from any creationist cannot possibly be worse.

Really?
Where and when did you do this?
And why haven't you posted links to it on this forum?

 

[newhope101]

So why isn't Miacidae a "kind"?

wa:do

Because Miacidae is not a valid taxon, at all. It is a class that has every sort of ancestor in it,

Note the family tree in Wiki Canivora, It illustrates Caniformia and feliformia coming off the Carnivora line.

Carnivora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Miacidae as traditionally conceived is not a monophyletic group; it is a paraphyletic array of stem taxa. Traditionally, the Miacidae and the Viverravidae had been classified in a third, extinct paraphyletic superfamily, the Miacoidea, from which the direct ancestors of both Carnivora and Creodonta were thought to have arisen. Today, Carnivora and Miacoidea are grouped together in the crown-clade Carnivoramorpha, and the Miacoidea are regarded as basal carnivoramorphs. Some species of the genus Miacis evolved into modern day carnivores of the Order Carnivora, but only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran. Thus, Miacis may have given rise to all modern Carnivora.
Miacids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091222122021.htm

It is too bad that once again one simple fossil find changed the face of your thinking. Marvelous isn't it? So it appears that because of such messes with miacidae and birds, when it comes to ancient classifications it works no better than yours that needs to illicit change with every find. Still it is good enough to speak to the variety of life here today. Many stem into these groupings, but will require a creationist scientist that knows what they are doing to classify all the fossils into kinds here today or those that are extinct.


So how do you get to have Miacidae family, then 17 Genus, so varied that some were arboreal, some ground dwellers, but no species here, and all thrown in together? Why does it stop there at genus rank only to take off again in carnivora with new families, genus and species? Truly weird!

This is so TOE, to throw a bunch of organisms in together for the heck of it. No wonder your reseachers now side with cladistics. This is a genus which implies a variety as it does in any other taxa, yet here it is misrepresented to be one sort of animal, a species Miacis (not a genus in itself), to be the ancestor of all carnivores, many of which are not full carnivores at all eg Panda. It is truly ridiculous and incredible.

The most parsinomous answer would be to say that there were a variety of miacids, tree dwellers, land dwellers, that went onto evolve into the various carnivores and mixes today. The usual, "everything else went extinct and just this common ancestor survives" is wearing thin.

From here Wiki cites that only Miacis MAY have given rise to all carnivora, Well ain't he lucky?

Well the family tree appears to show only one ancestral line. This is rubbish, as we have seen and all you lot have stated, miacidae is very varied with many species, however to link many species from miacidae to kinds today would look like creation, wouldn't it?

Century-old 'Miacis' uintensis fossil reworks carnivore family tree | Science Codex

Of all these varied species resembled kinds today, yet they use one, Miacis, as the ancestor.

So what you have is a mess. Miacis cognitus is the only true carnivore and yet they are placed together. I am afraid there is only so much one can do when they base anything on what evolutionists think up. Every stuff up and misrepresentation your researchers make of course will cause a problem, particularly with these old ones, they are so messed up.

From here, Miacidae, you kick the taxons off again with Carnivora starting once AGAIN with the many families where my definition again applies, If we could DNA these organisms in Miacidea we would soon see what kinds they are and correctly place them within kinds or extinction. Creation science requires the answers to appropriate questions or else or there is, is a muddle, as one can see in all your messes.

Now here is a couple of questions for you seeing as we are playing games,

1. Can you explain why this miacidae 'family' has no species under the various genus's of which are numerous?

Clearly any genus is made from a variety of species sometimes very different like chimps and humans? It appears that miacis is the only representative of the miacidae family, which is false.

2. Please illustrate the cladistic connections between miacidea and species today.

3. Please use your species definition or cladistics to identify the phylogenies of miacidae and miacis to their existing clades. After all 'close genetic similarity' is a biological species definition.


4. Here is another one for you just for fun Explain how cryptic species and peripatric species evolve?

Please explain how lizards geopgraphically isolated for 8 million years did not become different species. Maybe it has something to do with limits to adaptation!!!

How important is geographical isolation in speciation?

Your researcher would also like to know without maybe's and probably's.

So is the best you can do to refute you reseachers can't tell the difference between an ape and human going to be 'lets see if Newhope has the answer to every question about 55my old fossils", It is fairly pathetic.

Lets see if PW will play and answer my questions seeing as I have answered hers...Or is this just about what I cannot answer.

.

 

[painted wolf]

Do you know what the word Paraphyletic means?

1. Can you explain why this miacidae 'family' has no species under the various genus's of which are numerous?

You mean like the 14 species of the genus Miacis?

2. Please illustrate the cladistic connections between miacidea and species today.

Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract
Carnivoramorpha

3. Please use your species definition or cladistics to identify the phylogenies of miacidae and miacis to their existing clades. After all 'close genetic similarity' is a biological species definition.

Miacidae and miacis are clades....

4. Here is another one for you just for fun Explain how cryptic species and peripatric species evolve?

Cryptic species evolve like other species do... when populations are reproductively isolated long enough to become species. Though they don't look like different species to the naked eye.

Peripatric speciation is when a small part of the population is isolated and evolves into it's own independent species... this is pretty common with island species like the Island Fox and the Pygmy Three Toed Sloth.

So, back to my question... Does brain size matter in humans? Can apes have brains as large or larger than a human?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

the last time I played my definition of kind I was instantly alerted to the cognitive challenges and deficits apparent in some evos.

To answer your question go to possums and cats and look at hoe they are arranged in families and or sub families.

Where my definition states to use the lower class then what you do is exactly what I say. If there is a subfamily then you use that. If there is no sub family then you use that.

So I'll help you..

Felidae has 4 subfamilies. So what should you do DP? That's right these are likely the 4 kinds that God made, 2 supposedly extinct. (but we all know about coelcanth the living, dead mid species). Now God may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been all exactly the same or varied. These are the questions your researchers will not answer for me as they are asking the wrong questions.

Possums"Phalangeriformes", have 2 superfamilies and 6 families within. I see no
sub families. Hence, you use the family here to illustrate what I see as a kind.

Thankfully your new hippo/whale crap kept these two separate, at family rank, for now.

It does not have to be perfect to be usefull, just like 'species' is not perfect but usefull to
describe variations within kind.

If you want to run this for another 20 pages poking holes in it you already know what I'll do back.


I've played this family/subfamily definition out before and it works well. A kind is obviously the progeny of the initial creation by God, and their decendents as well.

So now that I have assisted you DP, you should be able to apply my definition with ease and come up with
some cunning plan to foil me, and waste pages trying to illustrate my definition really is no better than your definition of species..

....and I do not care to outdo yours, I just like to show up chumps and hypocrites

Well I was asking about possums and cats but you're starting to rant about coelcanth, whales and chimps......and I'm not sure if you're trying to apply your definition here to any of these species but once again you appear to be totally confused as to where these two species are and where they belong. All I wanted to know is if you were trying to insinuate their supposed relationship.....:sarcastic

 

[Gunfingers]

All ready shown how inept your species concept is. Any defininiton from any creationist cannot possibly be worse.

You do know that the species problem is an argument in favor of evolution, right? Evolution predicts plasticity in populations.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf this is an extract from your link

There is compelling evidence that ‘Miacidae’ and Viverravidae are not basal members of the Caniformia and Feliformia but rather are excluded from the Carnivora (as phylogenetically defined, Wyss & Flynn 1993, emended by Bryant 1996).

So indeed your link may appear to be a reply when indeed it is not.

If you look for something newer you will find both Miacidae and Viverravidae have now been placed in the clad Carnivoramorpha.

Carnivoramorpha Information, Carnivoramorpha Reference Articles - FindTarget Reference

Re. Cryptic species. I did not ask for a dictionary meaning. I wanted to know why cryptic species cannot produce offspring on a genetic level.

Re Peripatric, I have read what it means on a simplistic level. I want to know why on a genetic level.

Are you sure birds did not evolve from miacis also?

 

[newhope101]

I don't know.
Though I have wondered if ants and aunts are the same kind...

They likely are, I am sure ants have aunts.

 

[painted wolf]

You know how an honest discussion work I presume.

I answered your question.... now you answer mine.

I will provide a clarification to your follow up questions and ask my own.

wa:do

ps... your cherry pick from the abstract is oddly chosen. It supports the placement of the Miacoidea as basal to Carnivora rather than included in either the Felids or Canids.
Did you mean to support my position?
Oh well, thanks for the support anyway.

 

[David M]

So wait a minute.....Are you suggesting that "cats" and "possums" are related (kinds)??

No, she's saying that mammals tend to be furry, have 4 limbs and often a tail so a superficial glance at an artist's best guess as to what an animal may have looked like is enough for common sense to declare what type of animal they are.

 

[McBell]

No, she's saying that mammals tend to be furry, have 4 limbs and often a tail so a superficial glance at an artist's best guess as to what an animal may have looked like is enough for common sense to declare what type of animal they are.

Is that why she keeps ignoring the mule?

Perhaps there is a "cannot reproduce" kind?

 

[Tiberius]

And since both bats, birds and butterflies can fly, they must then share a common ancestor?

Maybe you should explain what you mean by 'trait'.

You could have a case where green could fly, and so could yellow, but Green couldn't.
I believe that is called parallel evolution.

Similar traits can occur separately.

But there are great differences between the mechanisms by which bats, birds and butterflies take to the air.

Bats use a spread out hand with the fingers splayed wide open and skin stretched between them to form a wing.

Birds, while similar (they, like bats, have modified their front limbs), do not use a hand with the fingers splayed out. They instead use a covering of feathers coming out of the limb to create the wing surface.

Butterflies do not use limbs at all. indeed, one could make the argument that insects are the only animals with true wings, as all other fling animals use modified wings.