The Real Science Radio Caveman Show

[Stripe]

Stripe's definition of "kind" sounds dumb.

Great argument against my assertion you've got there. :chuckle:

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

We don't. If "clade" is the same thing, we can use that word if you prefer. :idunno:

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?

Is this really the level of argument you have?

Remember the assertion? "Kind" is a rock solid definition. No chance of equivocation there over the definition. "Species" is vague and malleable and next to useless for any discussion of evidence.

 

[Memento Mori]

Remember the assertion? "Kind" is a rock solid definition. No chance of equivocation there over the definition. "Species" is vague and malleable and next to useless for any discussion of evidence.

I missed this. What's the definition of "Kind."

 

[Alate_One]

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.

How do you define "known origin"? How would I objectively measure it?

From a creationist perspective, how do I know two organisms share a common ancestor?

Lets take an example, for each example explain to us why they are a kind.

Lions, Tigers, Leopards and Jaguars

These constitute a clade and presumably a kind?



Now how about Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Jaguars, housecats, Pumas and Cheetahs?

These constitute a larger clade. Are they still a kind?



Now we can look at Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Jaguars, housecats, Pumas, Cheetahs, Hyenas, Mongooses and meerkats?

These constitute an even larger clade. Are they still a kind?



Now we can look at Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Jaguars, housecats, Pumas, Cheetahs, Hyenas, Mongooses, meerkats, weasels, wolves and bears?

These constitute an still larger clade. Are they still a kind?

 

[voltaire]

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.

The aborigines were reproductively isolated from other homosapiens for a long period of time, ditto american indians. Why won't you call them a separate species?

 

[Alate_One]

We don't. If "clade" is the same thing, we can use that word if you prefer.

Clade simply means an ancestor and everything descended from that common ancestor. The problem with equating it with kind is your "kinds" have arbitrary boundaries which change depending on the creationist making the definitions.

For example: classification of various hominid fossils:

 

[Stripe]

I missed this. What's the definition of "Kind."

Nice...

How do you define "known origin"? How would I objectively measure it?

You know where it came from. :AMR:

Has the entire evolutionary congregation gone suddenly illiterate?

From a creationist perspective, how do I know two organisms share a common ancestor?

If they can produce offspring, they are. That's the most determinate test.

Lets take an example, for each example explain to us why they are a kind.Lions, Tigers, Leopards and Jaguars

So that is, at most, 2 kinds....

Clade simply means an ancestor and everything descended from that common ancestor. The problem with equating it with kind is your "kinds" have arbitrary boundaries which change depending on the creationist making the definitions.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to be swayed on that definition of "Kind". Feel free to go argue with these people who like to equivocate instead of talking to me, if you like.

And it is precious that you would accuse creationists of having arbitrary boundaries when the definition of "Species" is so vague and malleable? :chuckle:

 

[GuySmiley]

Frayed Knot notes the inconsistency in creationist ideology:

He noted the inconsistency incorrectly.

So humans and frogs are of the same kind. Also, birds and fungus are of the same kind.

Given the deffinition of kind, only an evolutionist would think this. Creationists wouldn't.

 

[GuySmiley]

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,

Like I said before, a clade can have an ancestor 'down' the tree from it, a kind cannot. That is the difference, therefore, different terms.

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?

Because creationists don't like to be all sciency, so we use common words. (come on, someone has to misquote that and put it in a signiture line :chuckle: )

 

[Alate_One]

You know where it came from.

Okay, how do I know where say, lions came from? Did God create them directly? Did they change from a common ancestor or what?

If they can produce offspring, they are. That's the most determinate test.

Okay so lions and tigers are the same kind and lions and leopards are the same kind but tigers and leopards aren't the same kind because they can't produce live offspring (How far along do "offspring" have to get for it to count?)

And Pumas are the same kind as leopards but not anything else I listed above because they can't produce offspring with them!

And Pumas are the same kind as ocelots but ocelots are not the same kind as leopards because they can't form hybrids.

And cheetahs are not the same kind as any of the cats or carnivores I listed because they can't form hybrids with any of them.

:dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

So that is, at most, 2 kinds....

Two kinds? Why are there two? How do you know?

And it is precious that you would accuse creationists of having arbitrary boundaries when the definition of "Species" is so vague and malleable? :chuckle:

You're the one claiming that kind is obvious and clear. I'm saying biological distinctions are often messy, because biology is messy and there are no created "kinds". If there were, it wouldn't be confusing.

 

[Alate_One]

Like I said before, a clade can have an ancestor 'down' the tree from it, a kind cannot. That is the difference, therefore, different terms.

Why wouldn't a kind have an ancestor "down the tree"? Don't you accept the idea of flood creatures radiating into all existing species in the few thousand years since the flood?

Unless you're trying to imply that "down the tree" automatically means "less complicated".

 

[The Barbarian]

Voltaire writes:

The aborigines were reproductively isolated from other homosapiens for a long period of time, ditto american indians. Why won't you call them a separate species?

The Human Genome Project shows that there's more variation within human "races" than between them. So they can't even qualify as a biological subspecies.

Sorry.

 

[voltaire]

Voltaire writes:


The Human Genome Project shows that there's more variation within human "races" than between them. So they can't even qualify as a biological subspecies.

Sorry.

So you admit you were wrong when you said that in order for a sub section of a population to be considered a new species they have to be reproductively isolated?

 

[Stripe]

Okay, how do I know where say, lions came from? Did God create them directly? Did they change from a common ancestor or what?

Go back, read what I said to Frayed and respond to that instead of creating multiple rabbit trails so you can avoid the issue. :thumb:

Here it is again:
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.

Okay so lions and tigers are the same kind and lions and leopards are the same kind but tigers and leopards aren't the same kind because they can't produce live offspring (How far along do "offspring" have to get for it to count?) And Pumas are the same kind as leopards but not anything else I listed above because they can't produce offspring with them!And Pumas are the same kind as ocelots but ocelots are not the same kind as leopards because they can't form hybrids.And cheetahs are not the same kind as any of the cats or carnivores I listed because they can't form hybrids with any of them.dizzy: dizzy dizzy:

Your logic fails you. Read what I wrote again and point out how what I said means there must be 2 kinds in that group.

Two kinds? Why are there two? How do you know?

"Kind" is a rock-solid and well defined term. "Species" is vague and malleable.

You're the one claiming that kind is obvious and clear.

It is. Given two organisms where you know their origins, you can say without equivocation whether they are of the same kind. With "Species" however, they might be the same or they might be different depending on numerous different observations that are subjective, vague and malleable.

I'm saying biological distinctions are often messy, because biology is messy and there are no created "kinds". If there were, it wouldn't be confusing.

Evolutionists - assuming the truth of their opinions since 1886.

 

[Alate_One]

Go back, read what I said to Frayed and respond to that instead of creating multiple rabbit trails so you can avoid the issue. :thumb:

Here it is again:
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.

Again, for your apparent inability to read:

How do I KNOW the origin of any organism?
How do I KNOW they share a common ancestor?
How do I use your bald assertion about kinds to actually classify anything?

Evolutionists - assuming the truth of their opinions since 1886.

:rotfl: Stripe, asserting opinions and calling them truth since 2004. Also accusing others of doing the exact thing he is doing. This must work on someone, I just can't imagine how stupid you have to be for it to work.

I think you've managed to become a complete waste of time. You're not even bothering to discuss the issue. Nothing I posted is a "rabbit trail". It was an attempt to use your definition, which clearly doesn't work. You simply ignore facts and assert that it does. Use your definition to classify something. Show us how it works and how it's "rock solid and "well defined".

 

[Stripe]

Again, for your apparent inability to read:

I can read every rabbit trail you bring up just fine.

How do I KNOW the origin of any organism?

:idunno:

Irrelevant.

How do I KNOW they share a common ancestor?

:idunno:

Irrelevant. Though if they can produce offspring, they certainly did have a common ancestor.

How do I use your bald assertion about kinds to actually classify anything?

It's a definition. You can categorise organisms according to it by applying the definition with the facts and assumptions you have. As long as you are explicit about your assumptions and are willing to discuss rationally your evidence.

:rotfl: Stripe, asserting opinions and calling them truth since 2004. Also accusing others of doing the exact thing he is doing. This must work on someone, I just can't imagine how stupid you have to be for it to work.

I have given a definition, as requested. It is true that this is the definition I have given.

I think you've managed to become a complete waste of time.

Feel free to not talk to me. :thumb:

You're not even bothering to discuss the issue.

Of course I am! "Kind" has a well defined and rock solid definition. "Species" has a malleable and vague multiplication of definitions.

Nothing I posted is a "rabbit trail".

Sure, it is. Worrying about the difficulty that we might have in categorising organisms is not addressing the issue. The definition is solid. Our knowledge is incomplete.

It was an attempt to use your definition, which clearly doesn't work.

How does it not work? Because our knowledge is limited? So we can't define anything unless we are immediately able to categorise everything according to that definition?

You simply ignore facts and assert that it does.

What facts am I ignoring? I presented the two definitions. One is a single line and is immediately understood. The other is a paragraph with caveats and addendums galore.

Use your definition to classify something. Show us how it works and how it's "rock solid and "well defined".

I need not. The definition is rock solid and well defined regardless of its applicability.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
The Human Genome Project shows that there's more variation within human "races" than between them. So they can't even qualify as a biological subspecies.

Sorry.

So you admit you were wrong when you said that in order for a sub section of a population to be considered a new species they have to be reproductively isolated?

No. Perhaps you don't know what "reproductively isolated" means. Or maybe you don't know what "subspecies" means. Hard to say. But one does not follow from the other.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alate_One suggests:
Use your definition to classify something. Show us how it works and how it's "rock solid and "well defined".

Stipe dodges:

I need not. The definition is rock solid and well defined regardless of its applicability.

Remember, in creationism, definitions don't have to be testable, or even reflect reality. It seems there's no point in asking for it to be otherwise. You might as well demand that someone show you evidence for the tooth fairy.

 

[Frayed Knot]

So you admit you were wrong when you said that in order for a sub section of a population to be considered a new species they have to be reproductively isolated?

They have to be reproductively isolated for long enough. With the rate humans reproduce, 10,000 years or so probably isn't enough time to count as isolated. If a group of humans got separated for 100,000 years, then they'd probably be considered a different species by the end of that time.

Yes, at the edges, the concept of species gets a little fuzzy and you have to be careful, but it's still a useful concept.

 

[Stripe]

at the edges, the concept of species gets a little fuzzy

It's not at the edges. It's all over. Interbreeding, colouration, location and genetics are all used to justify or deny speciation.

it's ... a useful concept.

It's useful that we might talk about the birds from one place or of one colour in order to compare them to birds of another feather, but when it comes to a evidence-based discussion over origins it only serves the evolutionists' need for malleability and equivocation.

You need to talk in terms of well defined and understood concepts if you wish to provide evidence for evolution in a rational manner.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe wants nature to be nice and orderly for him so he can understand it. God is not obligated to make things your way, Stipe.

The real world is kinda messy. And the fact that there are all sorts of half-species and quarter-species, and three-quarter species is precisely what you would see, if evolution is a fact. If you're a creationist, you need to come up with some explanation as to why things don't fit the nice neat "kinds" supposed by creationist faith.