What is a 'kind'?

[The Galatian]

Since we have a perfectly good and more accurate term in "creation", there's no need to use a less favorable one. This is true, particularly when the Hebrew word, "bara" is not used for design, but only for creation.

But yes, we often see "design" used for things like genetic algorithms and the like when it isn't correct.

IMO, we have enough imprecision in these debates without adding more.

 

[Peter101]

>>>>>"Kind" refers to the originally created populations of plants and animals. <<<<<<

But that does not help much in defining the boundaries of a "kind". Creationists claim that one kind cannot become another kind, but since they cannot define exactly what a kind is in the first place, it is impossible for them to come up with meaningful boundaries between kinds, or to say exactly where the barrier is that cannot be crossed by genetic change.

 

[Helen]

Peter, please, then, give me the exact definitions and boundaries of the following taxonomic classifications used in biology today:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus

a clear and concise definition of any of the above will do -- something which definitely shows what is included and what is excluded as a matter of basic theory (not individual group).

This is what you are asking of 'kind.' But it is the pot calling the kettle black, since none of the above can be adequately defined either!

 

[The Galatian]

If you admit evolution is true, you must also admit that there will be blurring of distinctions between taxa, as they have all evolved from a common ancestor, and varying degrees of relationship must have existed (and often still exist in living organisms)

However, if there are separately created kinds, then we should not see this at all. Hence, one test for the validity of "kinds" is that they should be precisely definable.

 

[Helen]

unacceptible, Galatian. Please give a definition of any of those taxonomic groups. The idea of evolution blurring them is only saying evolution doesn't know what the bananas is going on anyway.

Don't ask us for something you cannot do yourselves. We know what kinds are. Finding the delineations today is a different matter. You do not know what any of those classifications really are or how to find the delineations.

So we, at the very least, are one step ahead of you!

 

[The Galatian]

unacceptible, Galatian.

No doubt, from a creationist point of view, the fact that the supposed separately-created "kinds" have no clear boundaries is the skeleton in the closet.

Please give a definition of any of those taxonomic groups.

Ah, "species" is an interbreeding population of organisms.

And yes, there are half-species, and quarter-species, and so on. Because, if evolution is correct, there will always be intermediates. The fact that there are, is evidence that creationism cannot be true.

"Species" remains the only taxonomic group with an objective reality; the rest are just given higher status when it seems they have become different enough to warrent it.

"Kinds", however, should never have any intermediate organisms, either alive today, or in the fossil record.

The fact that there are many of them, invalidates any possibility of YE creationism.

The idea of evolution blurring them is only saying evolution doesn't know what the bananas is going on anyway.

Nonsense. We can observe it happening. It's no surprise. If evolution is true, then we should see such intermediate forms.

Don't ask us for something you cannot do yourselves.

If you assert that there are separately-created kinds, with no intermediates, then it is up to you to show that those sharp distinctions exist.

They do not.

But let's try one out. Have there never been intermediates between reptiles and mammals? These would certainly not be the same "kind", right?

What are the distinctions between them.

 

[Helen]

I didn't ask for a definition of 'species', nor for all your red herrings. Please define any of the terms I listed. Thank you.

 

[NeilUnreal]

In an evolutionary context, any definition of taxonomy, however useful in practice, is arbitrary in theory. Even the definition of species is suspect, since there are variations in intra-species fertility, mate availability, etc. (e.g. ring species). At best we can say that a taxnomic classification that mirrors the cladistics is likely to be more scientifically useful.

In a "baramin" context, there is an assumption that taxonomy is non-arbitrary. In other words, the non-arbitrary taxonomy is an axiom and biological classification mostly a matter of partitioning.

In both the mainstream view and "baraminological micro-evolution" the clades are real. However, in the mainstream view, it is assumed (for reasons of parsimony) that there is a single root clade. Cladistics is an historical science. In the "baraminological" view, there are multiple roots clades and they are assumed to be fairly recent.

"Baraminology" therefore has a definitional burden that is not required by the evolutionary view.

This would seem obvious to me even if I believed in the "baraminological" view and not the mainstream view. After all, it's largely what biological taxonomy was prior to the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution developed when it did largly because the "baraminologists" of the time were examining the exotic specimens being brought back by explorers. The vast increase in taxonomic complexity caused the "baraminological" view to break down in favor of a cladistic view -- thus setting the stage for Darwin and Wallace.

The reasons standard cladistics are preferable to "baraminology + micro-evolution" are two-fold. First, evolutionary cladistics provides a unifying model for cladistics that doesn't rely on special cases. (It also unifies taxonomic biology with natural history, biochemistry, astronomy, and geology.) Second, there are actual and suspected violations of many root clades proposed by "baraminology." Thus "baraminology" risks becoming a welter of special cases and "bauplan" talk. (i.e. It reverts to what biology was 150 years ago.)

-Neil

 

[The Galatian]

Helen, "species" is a taxonomic group.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
I didn't ask for a definition of 'species', nor for all your red herrings. Please define any of the terms I listed. Thank you.

Actually you are asking him to do something based on a faulty premise. The basic concept of evolution is that everything is somehow related (to some degree, no matter how distantly removed). Therefore there would be blurring of the lines between taxa. "Kinds" are only distinguishable in the Creationist idea, or at least they should be.

 

[Helen]

Galatian, I asked for a definition of ANY of the other terms.

Don't try to oil your way out of that one.

Meatros, if what you say is true, then there is no possibility of having any taxonomic groups at all. And yet there they are...

Why?

Who made that awful mistake if there is no way to define those terms?

 

[Meatros]

Meatros, if what you say is true, then there is no possibility of having any taxonomic groups at all. And yet there they are...

Why?

Who made that awful mistake if there is no way to define those terms?

No possibility? I disagree with this. The groups indicate useful distinctions. IIRC the idea of taxonomics was created before evolution, but I'm not too sure about that.

 

[NeilUnreal]

The bulk of the current Linnaean system pre-dates the theory of evolution. Most modern cladists consider it theoretically fatally flawed, but continue to use it since is it such a well-known system of discourse*. So in other words, when you say terms like Kingdom, Phylum, etc. to modern biologists, you are using words that they believe to be superceded and obsolete -- useful as a convenient tool for discourse, but theoretically irrelevant.

It's a convenient fiction, understood by all professionals and serious students of taxonomy. It would never be misunderstood in context --analogus to the way EE's use conventional current when talking, even though electrons actually flow from a negative pole to a positive.

Granted, the fiction is more convenient to the extent it can be made to mirror the actual cladistics. But no modern taxnomist mistakes the moon for the finger that points it out.

-Neil

*Linnaeus is still respected as a first-magnitude genius, given what he accomplished with the information at hand.

 

[Helen]

The reason, fellas, that the system is considered fatally flawed by evolutionists is because Linnaeus simply grouped things by appearance. Lo and behond, genetics and appearance don't go hand in hand the way it was presumed!

It was in trying to adopt the Linnean system to evolution that failed. The Linnean system is still perfectly good for what it was designed to do.

Cladistics is an interesting field. It is predicated upon the philosophy that evolution is true, and so it seeks out certain characteristics and classifies by them. Of course, there are other characteristics that get in the way, but never mind them....

 

[NeilUnreal]

The reason, fellas, that the system is considered fatally flawed by evolutionists is because Linnaeus simply grouped things by appearance. Lo and behond, genetics and appearance don't go hand in hand the way it was presumed

The science of genetics did not exist when the Linnaean system was originally developed. Many of its inadequacies were made apparent by the analysis of actual taxa before the theory of evolution was proposed. Theories that had supported the weight of the known evidence about taxa and their biogeography were beginning to break down as more became known about the world. It was the attempt to explain these inadequacies (including the biogeographical distribution of taxa) that gave rise to the theory of evolution. Even before Darwin and Wallace elucidated the idea of natural selection, many biologists were starting to suspect that something like evolution must have occurred. One of the main things Darwin did was not to invent evolution, but rather to propose a scientific hypothesis about the mechanism.*

It was in trying to adopt the Linnean system to evolution that failed. The Linnean system is still perfectly good for what it was designed to do.

True, although what the Linnaean system was designed to do passed out of biology as a paradigm with the advent of the modern synthesis. That it continues to be used at all is both a reflection of the genius of Linnaeus and the fact that genetics is often expressed in morphology.

Cladistics is an interesting field. It is predicated upon the philosophy that evolution is true, and so it seeks out certain characteristics and classifies by them.

This is true now, but it's also true that the pre-evolutionary taxonomy was one of the things that made the theory of evolution possible. Those early taxonomic theories thus worked as proper scientific stepping stones to more refined theories. That's why scientists like Linnaeus and Newton are remembered as great even though the paradigms have shifted -- to apply Newton's own comment to himself: we stand on the shoulders of giants.**

Of course, there are other characteristics that get in the way, but never mind them...

Please elaborate and list a few of these. There are known inadequacies in all scientific theories -- it's what keeps science from becoming scholasticism.

-Neil

*That's why "Darwin's Finches" are remembered with fondness by evolutionary biologists. It's not because the finches are the sine qua non of evolutionary evidence, it's because they were one of the clues that gave Darwin the idea for the mechanism.

** "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Is often attributed to Newton. I probably orginated earlier -- i.e. Newton borrowed the phrase itself from a "giant."

 

[Rakka Rage]

1Cor.15
[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

[NeilUnreal]

See there! Even the Apostle Paul is in the linneage of taxonomical "giant shoulders."

-Neil

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
1Cor.15
[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

There's at least four different kinds!

 

[Peter101]

>>>>>>>>Actually you are asking him to do something based on a faulty premise. The basic concept of evolution is that everything is somehow related (to some degree, no matter how distantly removed). Therefore there would be blurring of the lines between taxa. "Kinds" are only distinguishable in the Creationist idea, or at least they should be.<<<<<<<

This is an excellent point that he made. So Helen, how is it that creationists cannot define the boundaries between species very well, even when that is the foundation of their biology? Your interpretation requires that there be solid walls between species, while the evolutionary model does not require that at all. So you are avoiding the issue by requiring something of evolutionists that is not a part of evolutionary theory. On the other hand, the well defined boundaries between species are part and parcel of your model.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Peter101:
So Helen, how is it that creationists cannot define the boundaries between species very well, even when that is the foundation of their biology? Your interpretation requires that there be solid walls between species, while the evolutionary model does not require that at all.

Well, not quite. The evidence for speciation is so strong that they have been forced to give up any claim to "kinds" being species. The other factor involved is, well, there are a whole bunch of species plus a whole lot more known from fossils and you just could not have put 'em all on the ark. So general "kinds" that speciate through extreme evolution is proposed to solve that issue.

But in a general sense you are absolutely correct. If life is a forest and not a tree, it should be quite easy to find those boundaries and give a list of original "kinds" as all related species would be of a given "kind" and there would not be species that are intermediate between "kinds." Young earthers should make it a priority to produce this list of kinds, even if it is partial at first, so we can start looking at fun things like did domestic cats and lions all speciate from a "kitty" "kind" in short enough a time for them both to be in Egyptian art in modern forms.