Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Justanatheist]

That's a silly argument. Why would massive diversity be a design flaw? It just shows the designer is creative.

Yes it would be a silly argument, how fortunate that I used a comma to separate the independent clauses. English is such a clever language. Now try again now that I have taught you what a comma means.

 

[tas8831]

That's a silly argument. Why would massive diversity be a design flaw? It just shows the designer is creative.

Yup - massive diversity? Designer creativity! Massive parasitism and pathogenic organisms? Er, um... well... The Fall! Yeah, thats it!

 

[shunyadragon]

Yup - massive diversity? Designer creativity! Massive parasitism and pathogenic organisms? Er, um... well... The Fall! Yeah, thats it!

Yeah! Before the 'Fall' it was baby lambs sleeping with lions or ah . . . T Rex..

 

[YoursTrue]

Again your lack science education is obvious in that you do not understand the classification of life on earth.

Perhaps you, as someone educated in the area of science, can briefly explain what is a kind, and what is a species. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep. Some of these talking points were around during the Scopes trial, about 100 years ago! Maybe whenever a new creationist comes here we should first send them this link: An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Then we say, "This is from 2006, so if any of the arguments you plan on making are in that index, they're old, stale, and have been done to death, and we're not going to bother with them. So you'll need to come up with something new if you want folks here to take you at all seriously."

Perhaps you can briefly explain what is the definition of a 'kind,' and also species.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, just as I expected, just another reference to "kinds" even though you didn't use the word itself this time-- no knowledge of genetics whatsoever needed.

The fact is that viruses, like all other life forms, tend to change over time, and this includes basic genetic compositions as any serious geneticist will tell you. Things change, so why is that so utterly difficult for you to understand? And if they keep changing, the organism will change with it. When studying to be anthropologists, we had to learn how the general process of genetic change works.

That's all "evolution" is: change over time. And yet that very simple and obvious concept goes well beyond your willingness to accept.

However, if you want to use your religious beliefs as a set of blinders to avoid Truth, you certainly have that right.

Yep, just as I expected, just another reference to "kinds" even though you didn't use the word itself this time-- no knowledge of genetics whatsoever needed.

The fact is that viruses, like all other life forms, tend to change over time, and this includes basic genetic compositions as any serious geneticist will tell you. Things change, so why is that so utterly difficult for you to understand? And if they keep changing, the organism will change with it. When studying to be anthropologists, we had to learn how the general process of genetic change works.

That's all "evolution" is: change over time. And yet that very simple and obvious concept goes well beyond your willingness to accept.

However, if you want to use your religious beliefs as a set of blinders to avoid Truth, you certainly have that right.

Well, maybe we can start a new thread about the definition of kind and species, and if there is a difference. Or...perhaps you would be willing to offer a definition here. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a person speaking to other people on the internet. None of which are experts, as far as I know. I don't assume anyone here is being truthful about their knowledge anyway and I'm not giving out any personal information.

I think you are being as honest as you can. Clearly, you haven't a clue about the subjects you ridicule, but I do not see ignorance as dishonesty.

I am not sure why you included this statement in your response, but no worries regarding your personal information. I cannot speak for everyone, but this is about as close to you as I care to get.

It turns out that there are a fair number of scientists that post on this forum and I don't think you expected that. I think you swaggered on with the idea that you would kick butt and take names and it hasn't gone as planned. The positions of science and the facts we use can be verified personally by you if you have doubts. Check the literature. If you don't know how, just ask.

Most of us are willing to talk and to discuss the issues rationally, but you haven't shown much interest in that and seem to be driven by a propensity for condescending remarks and preconceived ideas that bely the facts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps you, as someone educated in the area of science, can briefly explain what is a kind, and what is a species. Thank you.

'Kind' is not a scientific taxonomic unit word related to differentiation between groups of animals, plants and other life forms

Species - Species - Wikipedia

"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined.

The total number of species is estimated to be between 8 and 8.7 million.[1][2][3] However, only about 14% of these had been described by 2011.[3]

All species (except viruses) are given a two-part name, a "binomial". The first part of a binomial is the genus to which the species belongs. The second part is called the specific name or the specific epithet (in botanical nomenclature, also sometimes in zoological nomenclature). For example, Boa constrictor is one of four species of the genus Boa, with constrictor being the species’ epithet.

While the definitions given above may seem adequate at first glance, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Although none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, and while the concept of species may not be a perfect model of life, it is still an incredibly useful tool to scientists and conservationists for studying life on Earth, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another."

Species were seen from the time of Aristotle until the 18th century as fixed categories that could be arranged in a hierarchy, the great chain of being. In the 19th century, biologists grasped that species could evolve given sufficient time. Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species explained how species could arise by natural selection. That understanding was greatly extended in the 20th century through genetics and population ecology. Genetic variability arises from mutations and recombination, while organisms themselves are mobile, leading to geographical isolation and genetic drift with varying selection pressures. Genes can sometimes be exchanged between species by horizontal gene transfer; new species can arise rapidly through hybridisation and polyploidy; and species may become extinct for a variety of reasons. Viruses are a special case, driven by a balance of mutation and selection, and can be treated as quasispecies.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Kind' is not a scientific taxonomic unit word related to differentiation between groups of animals, plants and other life forms

Species - Species - Wikipedia

"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined.

The total number of species is estimated to be between 8 and 8.7 million.[1][2][3] However, only about 14% of these had been described by 2011.[3]

All species (except viruses) are given a two-part name, a "binomial". The first part of a binomial is the genus to which the species belongs. The second part is called the specific name or the specific epithet (in botanical nomenclature, also sometimes in zoological nomenclature). For example, Boa constrictor is one of four species of the genus Boa, with constrictor being the species’ epithet.

While the definitions given above may seem adequate at first glance, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Although none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, and while the concept of species may not be a perfect model of life, it is still an incredibly useful tool to scientists and conservationists for studying life on Earth, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another."

Species were seen from the time of Aristotle until the 18th century as fixed categories that could be arranged in a hierarchy, the great chain of being. In the 19th century, biologists grasped that species could evolve given sufficient time. Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species explained how species could arise by natural selection. That understanding was greatly extended in the 20th century through genetics and population ecology. Genetic variability arises from mutations and recombination, while organisms themselves are mobile, leading to geographical isolation and genetic drift with varying selection pressures. Genes can sometimes be exchanged between species by horizontal gene transfer; new species can arise rapidly through hybridisation and polyploidy; and species may become extinct for a variety of reasons. Viruses are a special case, driven by a balance of mutation and selection, and can be treated as quasispecies.

Can you give me a shorter definition of species? Also then, from this, unless I missed something (and please point it out if I did), do you believe there are only species, no such thing as something called categorically 'kind..'? I'd like to go back to first explanation you wrote, which is:
"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined."?So I have a few questions about this. It says a species is a basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. What means that? Can you give an example of this? (basic unit + taxonomic rank, and unit of biodiersity?)

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you give me a shorter definition of species? Also then, from this, unless I missed something (and please point it out if I did), do you believe there are only species, no such thing as something called categorically 'kind..'? I'd like to go back to first explanation you wrote, which is:
"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined."?So I have a few questions about this. It says a species is a basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. What means that? Can you give an example of this? (basic unit + taxonomic rank, and unit of biodiersity?)

Shorter definition does not work. To understand the contemporary classification of life, and comparative anatomy you need an education you cannot get in the Bible..

In biology there is no such as a category called 'kind' this is a layman's word poorly defined used mostly by fundamentalist Christians.

In the reference provided for species it gives a brief hierarchy of biological classification:

The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A genus contains one or more species. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

 

[ratiocinator]

Perhaps you, as someone educated in the area of science, can briefly explain what is a kind...

Sure, 'kind' is a word creationists use to refer to this ultra-obvious barrier that no amount of small changes to a population can possibly take them through. However, despite it being so obvious and so fundamental, and despite having modern information from genetics and so on, the only definition seems to be along the lines of "if a relationship between two species is so blindingly obvious we can't even deny it to our gullible creationist audience, then they're the same kind, if not, they are obviously different kinds."

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you, as someone educated in the area of science, can briefly explain what is a kind, and what is a species. Thank you.

A 'kind' is a naïve ancient middle eastern term for things that look alike in some fashion, typically a rather superficial fashion (e.g., lumping bats with birds because wings).
No longer used among those educated and living in the 21st century.

A species is, according to the biological species concept:
"members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature?

Its easy when you use the internet for good!

 

[tas8831]

Most of us are willing to talk and to discuss the issues rationally, but you haven't shown much interest in that and seem to be driven by a propensity for condescending remarks and preconceived ideas that bely the facts.

Indeed. I have a tendency to respond with the same level of respect and patience that I am treated to, though I have little patience or respect for people that spam the place with repetitive nonsense, asking questions that they've asked and had answered a dozen times already. Or those that start out claiming evolution is just anti-God lies and that sort of thing - those folks clearly are not out to have a discussion, Or the people that willfully misrepresent themselves by copy-pasting the work of others and changing a couple words here and there to make it look like it wasn't plagiarized. Totally unethical and undeserving of respect - especially when they cannot even muster the decency to admit to their dishonesty and and apologize.

 

[YoursTrue]

Shorter definition does not work. To understand the contemporary classification of life, and comparative anatomy you need an education you cannot get in the Bible..

In biology there is no such as a category called 'kind' this is a layman's word poorly defined used mostly by fundamentalist Christians.

In the reference provided for species it gives a brief hierarchy of biological classification:

The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A genus contains one or more species. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

Sure, 'kind' is a word creationists use to refer to this ultra-obvious barrier that no amount of small changes to a population can possibly take them through. However, despite it being so obvious and so fundamental, and despite having modern information from genetics and so on, the only definition seems to be along the lines of "if a relationship between two species is so blindingly obvious we can't even deny it to our gullible creationist audience, then they're the same kind, if not, they are obviously different kinds."

Thanks for your answers.
So...from what I'm seeing here, there virtually is no such thing as kind being as that category of which there is not the possibility or conjecture that it mutated and (eventually) became another type of organism that could not interbreed with others not of that genetic character. Is that about right? I'm not speaking of micro evolution insofar as things like beetles maybe (?) becoming lions. Or something like that. Because I'm not seeing any real clear answers so far. But that's what I've found from these two answers. (P.S. When I look at the explanations of what might have happened, it is clear to me it is speculation based on the theory.)

 

[YoursTrue]

A 'kind' is a naïve ancient middle eastern term for things that look alike in some fashion, typically a rather superficial fashion (e.g., lumping bats with birds because wings).
No longer used among those educated and living in the 21st century.

A species is, according to the biological species concept:
"members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature?

Its easy when you use the internet for good!

So species are members of populations that can actually or potentially interbreed. Is that right? So the word 'kind' is not used in scientific parlance now. Is that right? It's always species, meaning maybe or maybe not these organisms can interbreed? Species (?) from the very beginning.
But isn't that what Darwin more or less postulated when he saw that gorillas resemble humans and not, let's say, lions? That the resemblance indicated to him that somehow they came from the same origin? (Of course, the real common denominator among what is called zoologically the 'ape' species has not been found yet...) What I find amazing is that humans do not, cannot, interbreed with gorillas, etc. There is a rather major difference, even though scientists say there is a rather small genetic difference. I hope, if I'm not relating this accurately, someone can respectfully clarify. Thank you.

 

[ratiocinator]

So...from what I'm seeing here, there virtually is no such thing as kind being as that category of which there is not the possibility or conjecture that it mutated and (eventually) became another type of organism that could not interbreed with others not of that genetic character. Is that about right?

You seem to be getting very confused. Interbreeding is one way in which species can be defined. Obviously a single species can evolve into separate groups that no longer interbreed (we can see this spread over geographical area, rather than time in ring species). There is no limit as to how far apart and how different separate populations can become, which is what gives us the variety of life we see.

'Kind' is an entirely fictional group that is (somehow, no creationist seems to know how) limited in the amount it can change, i.e. small changes can never be allowed to build up into very large ones that would then be other 'kinds'. So, for example, the (baseless) claim is that mammals can't of come from a common ancestor because the different examples we see today are different 'kinds'.

Why not just forget 'kinds' and get a basic idea of evolution first?
Evolution 101

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to be getting very confused. Interbreeding is one way in which species can be defined. Obviously a single species can evolve into separate groups that no longer interbreed (we can see this spread over geographical area, rather than time in ring species). There is no limit as to how far apart and how different separate populations can become, which is what gives us the variety of life we see.

'Kind' is an entirely fictional group that is (somehow, no creationist seems to know how) limited in the amount it can change, i.e. small changes can never be allowed to build up into very large ones that would then be other 'kinds'. So, for example, the (baseless) claim is that mammals can't of come from a common ancestor because the different examples we see today are different 'kinds'.

Why not just forget 'kinds' and get a basic idea of evolution first?
Evolution 101

OK, let's forget kind. Interbreeding is one way, you say, in which species can be defined. Please explain that statement, if you will. thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

A 'kind' is a naïve ancient middle eastern term for things that look alike in some fashion, typically a rather superficial fashion (e.g., lumping bats with birds because wings).
No longer used among those educated and living in the 21st century.

A species is, according to the biological species concept:
"members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature?

Its easy when you use the internet for good!

OK, so then there are populations that do not interbreed (take that as cannot), is that right? Please explain, thank you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps you can briefly explain what is the definition of a 'kind,' and also species.

"Kind" seems to be "whatever taxonomic group creationists think can't evolve". Some here have said it corresponds to a taxonomic family, others a genus, and others a species.

With "species", it depends on what we're talking about (living sexual-reproducing organisms, living asexual-producing organisms, or organisms only known from fossils).

 

[YoursTrue]

"Kind" seems to be "whatever taxonomic group creationists think can't evolve". Some here have said it corresponds to a taxonomic family, others a genus, and others a species.

With "species", it depends on what we're talking about (living sexual-reproducing organisms, living asexual-producing organisms, or organisms only known from fossils).

So would it be non-creationists that have said a 'kind'' refers to a taxonomic family, genus or species. Or all. So you're saying that with species, the term depends upon what you're talking about. So it could be sexual-reproducing organisms, living asexual-producing organisms, or organisms known only from fossils. Is that the scientific non-creationist opinions as to what 'species' means?