Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Jose Fly]

So would it be non-creationists that have said a 'kind'' refers to a taxonomic family, genus or species.

It's from creationists.

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?

Scientific.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I can relate. I have that tendency too. I have to admit, sometimes it is fun to give what you receive. And the recipients shouldn't be surprised to reap what they sow.

It is frustrating to ask questions that you know will never be answered. If they are, it is with someone else's words with no attribution or useless smart aleck comments. The defense mechanisms for having nothing substantial seems to be pretty low brow and often deceitful.

I take my personal beliefs and professional ethics seriously and consider not bearing false witness to be a standard for both. It is a shame that isn't always a view shared by those denying the evidence and explanations found in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.)

There is no such concept of 'kind' in science, because the term is based on Biblical myth. There is nothing in the scientific evolution as 'as things like beetles maybe (?) becoming lions. Or something like that.' Nothing in evolution 'something like that.' Your lack of knowledge of the sciences related to evolution is glaringly apparent,

No, this is not the conclusion from the definitions for the different levels of classification that demonstrate a relationship between species and the other orders of taxonomic classification through the fossil evidence and by the way DNA evidence that establishes the relationship between species and higher orders of classification. The evidence is overwhelming for the biological evolution of all of life over billions of years.

If you read the full definition of 'species' it is dependent on the evolving relationship between species and higher orders of taxonomic classification.

This science at its best and not biased conjecture based on religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

All species can be defined as referenced in the definition, which includes defining the evolutionary relationship over billions of years between ALL species.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's from creationists.


Scientific.

OK, because you know so much more than I do, let me try to understand this again about species. You said,
"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity

OK, so a species (in biological terms) 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."
(That's one way of defining species according to what you sayis the biological terminology of species. So that would be the largest group of organisms in which individuals that can mate with another can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. In otder to understand this, re: sexual reproduction as the typical way, what other way would there be? and can you please give examples of what you say above might be the largest group?)

You also said there are (if I understand you correctly), other ways of defining species, "Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecoogical niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined."

Not that I know what karyotype is, and how the other things fit into defining a species, but regardlesss, does that relate to the first definition you put forth? (basic unit of classification of those organisms that can mate with one another and produce, I suppose, viable, sustainable and mateable offspring)?

What is or is there a difference between the first definition you gave, according to science, and the second definition of species, also which you seem to indicate is according to science.

 

[YoursTrue]

All species can be defined as referenced in the definition, which includes defining the evolutionary relationship over billions of years between ALL species.

Please explain what you mean when you say that all species can be defined as referenced in the definition, which includes defining the evolutionary relationship over billions of years between ALL species. can you be a bit more specific? (not necessarily as species specific, because it seems that you are saying all species belong to one species. If not, can you be a bit clearer and give examples? If all species come from one thing at the beginning, and evolved, it seems that you are saying there really are no species. If there are, please delineate briefly, if possible. thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no such concept of 'kind' in science, because the term is based on Biblical myth. There is nothing in the scientific evolution as 'as things like beetles maybe (?) becoming lions. Or something like that.' Nothing in evolution 'something like that.' Your lack of knowledge of the sciences related to evolution is glaringly apparent,

No, this is not the conclusion from the definitions for the different levels of classification that demonstrate a relationship between species and the other orders of taxonomic classification through the fossil evidence and by the way DNA evidence that establishes the relationship between species and higher orders of classification. The evidence is overwhelming for the biological evolution of all of life over billions of years.

If you read the full definition of 'species' it is dependent on the evolving relationship between species and higher orders of taxonomic classification.

This science at its best and not biased conjecture based on religious beliefs.

So do lions and beetles belong to the same species? Or better put perhaps, one species?

 

[YoursTrue]

I can relate. I have that tendency too. I have to admit, sometimes it is fun to give what you receive. And the recipients shouldn't be surprised to reap what they sow.

It is frustrating to ask questions that you know will never be answered. If they are, it is with someone else's words with no attribution or useless smart aleck comments. The defense mechanisms for having nothing substantial seems to be pretty low brow and often deceitful.

I take my personal beliefs and professional ethics seriously and consider not bearing false witness to be a standard for both. It is a shame that isn't always a view shared by those denying the evidence and explanations found in science.

So are you saying that science has never borne false witness?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying that science has never borne false witness?

No. I am not saying that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying that science has never borne false witness?

How could it? Do you think science is a person?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying that science has never borne false witness?

Are you a species or a kind? What kind are you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you a species or a kind? What kind are you?

So -- does science have the (right) answer? If I answer your question on the basis of what would be considered the correct response theoretically by mainstream definitions, I'd say what category scientists would place you in. And I'm learning here that there really (according to what I'm reading here) are no distinctive species in a certain sense, It's all like one but not the same*. On the other hand, I'll leave it up to you to decide if you and I are a species. You're the expert, so hopefully you will have a definitive answer.
*OK, from what I'm learning here, maybe it's not all like one but not the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

How could it? Do you think science is a person?

So then, do scientists (persons that are considered experts in a particular subject) disagree? We're talking here about evolution and the theory of, and what is the definition of species since placement of fossils and living beings are placed in categories by scientists. So then, it seems that a category (such as insect or ape) is not, according to you and a few others, two species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then, do scientists (persons that are considered experts in a particular subject) disagree? We're talking here about evolution and the theory of, and what is the definition of species since placement of fossils and living beings are placed in categories by scientists. So then, it seems that a category (such as insect or ape) is not, according to you and a few others, two species.

I disagreed with one of the plant pathologists over the best flavor of ice cream. That is probably good enough for creationists to consider all science debunked.

I don't know what you are talking about. You asked me if science bears false witness or something silly like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagreed with one of the plant pathologists over the best flavor of ice cream. That is probably good enough for creationists to consider all science debunked.

I don't know what you are talking about. You asked me if science bears false witness or something silly like that.

It wasn't silly at all. Meantime,'science' doesn't believe in what is termed kinds, but does believe in species, or perhaps rather, specie.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagreed with one of the plant pathologists over the best flavor of ice cream. That is probably good enough for creationists to consider all science debunked.

I don't know what you are talking about. You asked me if science bears false witness or something silly like that.

Let me try to simplify it for you. Are there species according to evolutionists, or is there only one specie?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no such concept of 'kind' in science, because the term is based on Biblical myth. There is nothing in the scientific evolution as 'as things like beetles maybe (?) becoming lions. Or something like that.' Nothing in evolution 'something like that.' Your lack of knowledge of the sciences related to evolution is glaringly apparent,

No, this is not the conclusion from the definitions for the different levels of classification that demonstrate a relationship between species and the other orders of taxonomic classification through the fossil evidence and by the way DNA evidence that establishes the relationship between species and higher orders of classification. The evidence is overwhelming for the biological evolution of all of life over billions of years.

If you read the full definition of 'species' it is dependent on the evolving relationship between species and higher orders of taxonomic classification.

This science at its best and not biased conjecture based on religious beliefs.

OK, so no such concept of kind' in science you say. So beetles did not evolve to become lions after a long time of biologic mutations?

 

[YoursTrue]

How could it? Do you think science is a person?

So again, science has never born false witness because you say science is not a person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me try to simplify it for you. Are there species according to evolutionists, or is there only one specie?

What is the point of this question? Have you ever heard that biologist recognize only a single species?

What do you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again, science has never born false witness because you say science is not a person.

I asked if you thought science was a person. I never said anything one way or the other.

Do you think science is a person?