Last edited:
The Real Science Radio Caveman Show
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
So Stipe isn't going to show us how "kind" is a scientific classification, after all. Aren't we all surprised?
"Kind" is a well defined and useful standard by which to classify organisms. "Species" allows evolutionists the latitude to put anything anywhere. And when it comes to people, the classifications are done according to certain politically correct requirements.
No evolutionist can rationally justify why neanderthals were a different species while, say, the Mbuti are not.
"Kind" has a rock solid, clear and simple definition: A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.
"Species" has a vague, malleable multiplication of definitions: "... one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."
Now Flipper clearly doesn't want to concede this obvious truth. So what he does is demand to know what use the definition is or demand that every organism be placed into a kind without debate or disagreement. But the simple fact remains, "Kind" has a clear definition and there is no room for equivocation, "Species" has a vague definition that invites and encourages equivocation.
It's so vague that a bird singing a new song might be speciation. :chuckle:
Then Flipper starts demanding evidence. For what? That "Species" is vague and malleable and "Kind" is not?
Would you like to see it again?
OK. In a box this time:
No evolutionist can rationally justify why neanderthals were a different species while, say, the Mbuti are not.
"Kind" has a rock solid, clear and simple definition: A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.
"Species" has a vague, malleable multiplication of definitions: "... one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."
-wiki.
Now Flipper clearly doesn't want to concede this obvious truth. So what he does is demand to know what use the definition is or demand that every organism be placed into a kind without debate or disagreement. But the simple fact remains, "Kind" has a clear definition and there is no room for equivocation, "Species" has a vague definition that invites and encourages equivocation.
It's so vague that a bird singing a new song might be speciation. :chuckle:
Then Flipper starts demanding evidence. For what? That "Species" is vague and malleable and "Kind" is not?
Would you like to see it again?
OK. In a box this time:
| "Kind" has a rock solid, clear and simple definition: A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population. "Species" has a vague, malleable multiplication of definitions: "... one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)." -wiki. |
I see Stipe is recycling PRATTs today:
Any thing to avoid having to give us a testable definition of "Kind" or to show us how it works.
Just for the record, I'll ask again:
Stipe, give us a testable definition of "kind", and use it to show whether or not canids are a "kind."
Anyone want to take bets on whether he'll step up and do it?
Any thing to avoid having to give us a testable definition of "Kind" or to show us how it works.
Just for the record, I'll ask again:
Stipe, give us a testable definition of "kind", and use it to show whether or not canids are a "kind."
Anyone want to take bets on whether he'll step up and do it?
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Oh, then yeah. But a kind differs from a clade in that a kind cannot have something 'down' the tree from it. An evolutionist would consider everything under the "muck" kind.
Ironically, the first evidence came from a creationist. Linneaus discovered the nested hierarchy of taxa that happens only in cases of common descent. Then, based on his findings, people began to predict the sorts of intermediates that should be there. And then we began to find them. But never one that was where it shouldn't be.
And then Darwin explained why, and made some more predictions, most of which have been resolved, all of them so far, correct. And then we discovered that genes also showed the same lines of descent, and finally DNA analyses (which we know are accurate, since we can check it with organisms of known descent).
The new science of evolutionary development is now showing the same phylogenies again, using other evidence. At some point, one has to accept reality.
Frayed Knot
New member
I was just using the definition of "kind" that Stripe gave. Sounds like his definition of "kind" needs some brushing up - the little he gave sounds just like a "clade." I guess his definition is not as rock-solid, clear, and simple as he thinks it is.
What is not clear and rock solid? Because it sounds like a clade? What needs "brushing up"?
How could you possibly be confused? If two organisms share a common ancestor, they are of the same kind. There is no possible way you could, with this definition, be unsure whether or not two organisms of known origin are the same kind.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Since you didn't understand it, then it must be unclear and complicated? :chuckle:
Since Stipe is very reluctant to show us how "kinds" are defined and used, I'm guessing he knows that it won't go well if he actually does it.
Or possibly he has no idea how to go about it.
One of those.
Or possibly he has no idea how to go about it.
One of those.
So when does a distinct portion of a population become a separate species? Length of separation? If the inability to interbreed and create viable offspring is not the only condition, then what else is?
Birds singing a new song might be.
People speaking a new language definitely isn't.
There is no set rule. It's left open and malleable so evolutionists can call everything they feel comfortable with "evolution" because, look see, it changed!
Flipper
New member
How about you read what has been written.
Is there more variation between great danes and poodles than there is within either population?
I have explained quite carefully in my last post why the genetic differences between humans and neanderthals along with the similarities between neanderthals and chimps that humans don't share make neanderthals a separate but closely related branch on the hominid tree.
You didn't address the question at the time, and are now asking questions that indicate that you either didn't understand what I wrote or didn't bother reading it. Unless you can show that there's similar genetic evidence indicating a branch of Great Danes and Poodles away from domesticated dogs (as there clearly is between Neanderthals and humans), then that question is a huge red herring. Do you really not see why?
Neanderthals are very closely related to humans; not surprising based on how close our last common ancestor was supposed to be based on mitochondrial dna evidence. Nevertheless, they are a separate species.
And, as I have pointed out to you twice now, the definition of species is fuzzy because the real world is complex, and there are a lot of ways that closely related organisms can become separate species, and the more closely related a species is, the fuzzier the boundaries get. As I have said to you before, this is how things actually are. In fact, they're what you'd expect to see in the evolutionary paradigm - some speciation events may lead to further and further divergence between populations, and others may fail as populations re-merge. One species may share variable amounts of genetic material with one or more closely related species, yet still maintain a separate identity.
So why do we have the term 'species' or 'subspecies' if there is this continuum? Because populations do differ sufficiently at the genetic and morphological level to require classification (or reclassification) into one species or another. That's why I keep pointing out that even creationists identify organisms using their Latin names at the species level - it's more specific and more useful to be able to talk about wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs than to only be able to refer to them as canid kind, right? Particularly since that as all the kinds have not yet been completely or effectively defined, the term is of limited utility when compared to conventional taxonomy.
If sexual selection in humans was as rigorous and based on a single behavioral characteristic (plumage or song, for example) as is the case in many species of birds, you might have a point. But it isn't, and so you don't.
It's malleable because nature is complicated and messy. It's messy on the gene level, it's messy on the species level. This is reality. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
When they become reproductively isolated. That is, when they no longer mate in the wild. Which is a gradual process. So if evolution is true, we should see incipient species here and there.
Which is what we see.
Why does a song of a bird matter? Because if the song changes so that the original population won't mate with a bird singing the new song, reproductive isolation is achieved. And the two species will then diverge more and more over time.
You asked it in order to dodge the plain and simple point I've repeatedly asserted. "Kind" is a rock solid definition, "Species" is vague and malleable.
:yawn:
Uh .. no.
How about you just answer the question? :idunno:
Is there more variation between great danes and poodles than there is within either population?
And poodles are the same species as great danes. :idunno:
It's OK for it to be fuzzy. It's not OK for evolutionists to use any and all of the definitions for species and claim evidence for evolution on the back of it.
Yep. There's nothing wrong with having different names for different animals.
It is begging the question, however, to use those distinctions and shout evidence for evolution.
Birds don't have to sing the right song to find a mate. That was the whole point of the study.
It's fine. Just stop pretending it is evidence for evolution. :thumb:
If you want to make a definition for distinction between organisms and to use that definition to discuss evidence, make your definition clear and concise. Leave no room for equivocation and uncertainty. "Kind" is a definition that does this. "Species" does not.
Frayed Knot
New member
So humans and frogs are of the same kind. Also, birds and fungus are of the same kind.
Got it now, thanks for clearing that up.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Sounds dumb right? But that is what you believe, not creationists.
Frayed Knot notes the inconsistency in creationist ideology:
So humans and frogs are of the same kind. Also, birds and fungus are of the same kind.
Comes down to evidence. Common descent has it. Creationism doesn't.
So humans and frogs are of the same kind. Also, birds and fungus are of the same kind.
Comes down to evidence. Common descent has it. Creationism doesn't.
Frayed Knot
New member
Stripe's definition of "kind" sounds dumb. Those different species share the same clade, and that is the definition that Stripe is using for "kind," but 1) why do we need another word for the same concept, and 2) why would you use a common word like "kind" to refer to a concept that it doesn't really have any intuitive relation to?