"Kind" and modern classification

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #51

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 40 by agnosticatheist]

Two cat species: Yes; however remember that the cats were not as the massive lions. The Saber Toothed Tiger was not as large as the graphic artists draw it, and in fact would not have to be on the ark, as long as there were a male and a female of the feline kind.


You do realize that the 41 cat species alive today emerging from the one "cat kind" on the ark would require EVOLUTION, right?

No I certainly don't, as this question is a trap, admit it, you want me to say I believe in evolution. What I would suggest to you is that if you collected all the dog breeds in the world, put them in a suitable environment and gave them the time, they would all revert to a wolf, so consequently starting with wolves and the right conditions (As has obviously happened) you will start with wolves and end up with all the SPECIES of canine

This would be the same for any species, cats or cattle or horses or the lot of the different kinds and species of the kind.

A simple answer to your original question is: All it would take is selective breeding, just as happens now in the hands of humans as they try to make breed that have not yet been bred.

In England the Husky and the Pomeranian are bred together and the result is a Pomsky, which brings big money. All 'curl over tail dogs' have a strong genetic connection and remain true to kind as species. This is not evolution, it is selective breeding.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Post #52

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 41 by Miles]

Get you head around this: I did not plagiarize as I did not change any word in the article.

I did not say it was allowable for me to plagiarize because others did it on the forums, that is your snide invention.

Kind - Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY - jw.org
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002611
KIND. The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth's living things “according to their kinds.� (Ge 1:11, ftn) ...

Please show the copyright indication on the above address.

Speak now or forever hold your piece!!!!! :tongue:

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #53

Post by benchwarmer »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 41 by Miles]

Get you head around this: I did not plagiarize as I did not change any word in the article.

I did not say it was allowable for me to plagiarize because others did it on the forums, that is your snide invention.

Kind - Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY - jw.org
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002611
KIND. The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth's living things “according to their kinds.� (Ge 1:11, ftn) ...

Please show the copyright indication on the above address.

Speak now or forever hold your piece!!!!! :tongue:
I think you are simply missing the point Miles is making.

You posted something word for word from a source that is not yours. You did not attribute the words to their source. It's as simple as that.

If you are going to quote something that's fine. I do it all the time as do others. The difference is that we put a link to where the quote came from and usually put the entire quoted text in a 'quote' box. If you look at the menu bar right above the reply window you will see a button marked "Quote". You select the quoted text and the push "Quote" and you will see something like the following in your post:
This is quoted text to show an example
Long story short, if you attribute your sources properly you will avoid any accusations in the future.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US

Post #54

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 53 by benchwarmer]

Then again, we're dealing with someone who quote mined Charles Darwin in order to supplant his argument. It could be that marakorpa simply has no concern for plagiarism or intellectual honesty at all, and it would fall in line with what we've seen thus far.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US

Post #55

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 57 by marakorpa]

I'm right here, dismantling your arguments. It's your own problem if you're telling me to provide evidence for a claim I didn't make. But you did make countless claims, all of which are unsubstantiated. If you could provide a well-reasoned and logical counter outside of "I know you are, but what am I?" I'd be glad to hear it. Until then, I have to dismiss your pointless rambling. If you were more aware of how debates work, you'd have made much more progress by now.

The maturity of your posts has been decreasing steadily. Gaining credibility on this forum is an uphill battle, but you're not doing yourself any favors. I show others the basic respect owed to human beings. I treat them as intellectual equals. But the respect necessary to tolerate your mistakes is unearned, and so I'll continue pointing out your mistakes.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25079
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #56

Post by Zzyzx »

.

Moderator Action

Moved three posts by Marakorpa to the trash can




Moderator Warning -- after previous final warning warrants Probation, Suspension, Banishment.



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
.
Non-Theist

If you stop claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable unicorns, I will stop challenging your claim. Same goes for gods

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

For a quick tutorial on science vs. religion, compare modern internet weather radar to ancient religious beliefs and superstitions about weather

"Demand money with the threat of violence and you'll get arrested. Do it with the threat of eternal damnation and it's tax deductible"

agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #57

Post by agnosticatheist »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 40 by agnosticatheist]

Two cat species: Yes; however remember that the cats were not as the massive lions. The Saber Toothed Tiger was not as large as the graphic artists draw it, and in fact would not have to be on the ark, as long as there were a male and a female of the feline kind.


You do realize that the 41 cat species alive today emerging from the one "cat kind" on the ark would require EVOLUTION, right?

No I certainly don't, as this question is a trap, admit it, you want me to say I believe in evolution. What I would suggest to you is that if you collected all the dog breeds in the world, put them in a suitable environment and gave them the time, they would all revert to a wolf, so consequently starting with wolves and the right conditions (As has obviously happened) you will start with wolves and end up with all the SPECIES of canine

This would be the same for any species, cats or cattle or horses or the lot of the different kinds and species of the kind.

A simple answer to your original question is: All it would take is selective breeding, just as happens now in the hands of humans as they try to make breed that have not yet been bred.

In England the Husky and the Pomeranian are bred together and the result is a Pomsky, which brings big money. All 'curl over tail dogs' have a strong genetic connection and remain true to kind as species. This is not evolution, it is selective breeding.
Selective breeding is possible BECAUSE OF evolution.

Vaccines are possible because of evolution.

You may not believe that all lifeforms emerged from a single cell (To be honest with you, I'm not convinced that they did either, but that's because of epistemological concerns), but what I am saying is in order for you to get from the one "cat kind" that was on the ark to 41 different members of what you are claiming is today the "cat kind" would require evolution to take place over the last 5,000-10,000 years (depending on when you think the flood occurred). You couldn't get one variety out of the cat kind from the ark, let alone 41 different varieties, without evolution taking place. Also, keep in mind that humans did not selectively breed all of those different varieties. Some, if not most, of those varieties emerged naturally in the wild due to population divergence + genetic variation + genetic mutation + natural selection being in play over time with members of the cat family.
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Post #58

Post by marakorpa »

.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 56 by Zzyzx]

The evolutionists can't g o wrong with a moderator backing them up.
Marakorpa has been banned

Repeated infractions, refusal to abide by Forum Rules, challenging moderator action, demeaning the Forum.

Admin and Moderators do not 'back up' ANY person or ANY theistic position -- but DO enforce Forum Rules and Guidelines.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #59

Post by H.sapiens »

Wiki has a pretty good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
wiki(species) wrote: Classical forms[edit]
In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to mean a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. A kind was distinguished by its attributes; for instance, a bird has feathers, a beak, wings, a hard-shelled egg, and warm blood. A form was distinguished by being shared by all its members, the young inheriting any variations they might have from their parents. Aristotle believed all kinds and forms to be distinct and unchanging. His approach remained influential until the Renaissance.[3]

Fixed species[edit]

John Ray believed that species breed true, and do not change.
When early modern observers began to develop systems of organization for living things, they began to place formerly isolated species into a context. Many of these early delineation schemes would now be considered whimsical and these included consanguinity based on color (all plants with yellow flowers) or behavior (snakes, scorpions and certain biting ants). John Ray (1686), an English naturalist, was the first to give a biological definition of the term "species," as follows: "... no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species... Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa".[4]


Carl Linnaeus created the binomial system of naming species.
In the 18th century, the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified organisms according to shared physical characteristics, and not simply based upon differences.[5] He established the idea of a taxonomic hierarchy of classification based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships.[6][7]

At the time, however, it was still widely believed that there was no organic connection between species, no matter how similar they appeared. This view was influenced by European scholarly and religious education, which held that the categories of life are dictated by God, forming a hierarchy, the scala naturae or great chain of being. However, whether or not it was supposed to be fixed, the scala (a ladder) inherently implied the possibility of climbing.[8]

Species that could change[edit]
By the 19th century, naturalists understood that species could change form over time, and that the history of the planet provided enough time for major changes. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his 1809 Zoological Philosophy, described the transmutation of species, proposing that a species could change over time. Textbooks ignore most of this, focusing on one aspect, that an organism could pass on an acquired trait to its offspring. They use the example[9] of the giraffe's long neck supposedly having been created by generations of giraffes stretching to reach the leaves of higher treetops.[c]

In 1859, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace provided a compelling account of evolution and the formation of new species. Darwin argued that it was populations that evolved, not individuals, by natural selection from naturally occurring variation among individuals.[10] This required a new definition of species. Darwin concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."[11]

The Species Problem[edit]
Main article: Species Problem
It is difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all organisms.[22] The debate about how to define "species" is called the "Species Problem".[1][17][23][24][25][26] The problem dates to On the Origin of Species, where Darwin wrote:

No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[27]

A simple textbook definition, following Mayr's BSC, works well for most multi-celled organisms, but breaks down in several situations:

Among organisms that reproduce asexually, as in single-celled organisms and parthenogenetic or apomictic multi-celled organisms.[28]
When biologists do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are capable of interbreeding.
When hybridization and the extent of sexual reproduction vary widely.[29]
In ring species, when members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.[30]
Species identification is made difficult by discordance between molecular and morphological investigations; these can be categorized as two types: (i) one morphology, multiple lineages (e.g. morphological convergence, cryptic species) and (ii) one lineage, multiple morphologies (e.g. phenotypic plasticity, multiple life-cycle stages).[31] In addition, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) makes it difficult to define the term species.[32] All species definitions assume that an organism acquires its genes from one or two parents very like the "daughter" organism, but that is not what happens in HGT.[33] There is strong evidence of HGT between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes,[32] including some crustaceans and echinoderms.[34]

The evolutionary biologist James Mallet concludes that

there is no easy way to tell whether related geographic or temporal forms belong to the same or different species. Species gaps can be verified only locally and at a point of time. One is forced to admit that Darwin's insight is correct: any local reality or integrity of species is greatly reduced over large geographic ranges and time periods.[35]

Alternative definitions[edit]
Vavilov[edit]
Nikolai Vavilov developed ways to define and conceive of Linnaean species. He saw species as systems, each an integral entity consisting of closely interlinked components.[36] He emphasized the variability within species, relativity of taxonomic criteria and the accumulation of genetic variation within a species. From the evolutionary point of view he compared species to knots in evolutionary chains. Building on V.L. Komarov's aphorism: "a species is a morphological system plus geographic distinctness", Vavilov defined a "Linnaean species" as "an isolated complex dynamic morph-physiological system bound in its origin to a certain environment and area".[37]

Genetic similarity[edit]
In microbiology, genes can move freely even between distantly related bacteria, possibly extending to the whole bacterial domain. As a rule of thumb, microbiologists have assumed that kinds of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA Hybridization to decide if they belong to the same species or not.[38] This concept was narrowed in 2006 to a similarity of 98.7%.[39]

DNA-DNA hybridization results have however sometimes led to misleading conclusions about species, as with the pomarine skua – great skua.[40][41]

Typological or morphospecies[edit]

All adult Eurasian blue tits[42] share the same coloration to a high degree of fidelity, unmistakably identifying the morphospecies.[43]
A typological species is a group of organisms in which individuals conform to certain fixed properties, so that even pre-literate people often recognize the same taxon as do modern taxonomists.[44][45] The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, different phenotypes are not necessarily different species (e.g. a four-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies.[46][47]

Evolutionary species[edit]
A single evolutionary lineage of organisms within which genes can be shared, and that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the evolution of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that may eventually lead to the formation of a new species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained. The process through which species are formed by evolution is called speciation. A species that gives rise to another species is a paraphyletic species, or paraspecies.[48]

Phylogenetic or cladistic species[edit]
A phylogenetic or cladistic species (PSC) is an evolutionarily divergent lineage, one that has maintained its hereditary integrity through time and space.[49][50][51] A PSC is the smallest group of populations that can be distinguished by a unique set of morphological or genetic traits. Molecular markers may be used to determine genetic similarities in the nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of various species.[50][52][53] For example, in a study done on fungi, studying the nucleotide characters using PSC produced the most accurate results in recognizing the numerous fungi species compared to other concepts used.[53] Unlike the popular Biological Species Concept, PSC also does not rely on reproductive isolation, thus it is independent of processes that are integral in other concepts.[52] PSC works for asexual lineages, and can detect recent divergences, which the Morphological Species Concept cannot.[50][53] However, PSC does not work in every situation, and may require more than one polymorphic locus to give an accurate result.[53] PSC may lead to splitting of existing species, for example of Bovidae, into many new ones.[54][55][56]

Ecological species[edit]
An ecological species is a set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phenetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters.[57]

Genetic species[edit]
A genetic species is a set of individuals or populations with sufficiently similarity of DNA. Techniques to compare similarity of DNA include DNA-DNA hybridization, genetic fingerprinting and DNA barcoding. Richard Dawkins for example defined two organisms as conspecific if and only if they have the same number of chromosomes and, for each chromosome, both organisms have the same number of nucleotides.[58]

Evolutionarily significant unit[edit]
An evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) or "wildlife species"[59] is a population of organisms considered distinct for purposes of conservation.[60]

Phenetic species[edit]
A phenetic species is a set of organisms which have a similar phenotype to each other, but a different phenotype from other sets of organisms.[61]

Microspecies[edit]
A microspecies is a group of organisms with very little genetic variability, usually a part of a species aggregate reproducing by apomixis.[62]

Recognition species[edit]
A mate-recognition species is a group of sexually reproducing organisms that recognize one another as potential mates.[61] Expanding on this to allow for post-mating isolation, a cohesion species is the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.[35]

My additional thoughts later.

If you want to read all that is above, please do, it is my intent to use it to support by reference my later post(s).

User avatar
Miles
Guru
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Post #60

Post by Miles »

H.sapiens wrote: Wiki has a pretty good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
wiki(species) wrote: Classical forms[edit]
In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to mean a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. . . . .



. . . The Species Problem[edit]
Main article: Species Problem
It is difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all organisms.[22] The debate about how to define "species" is called the "Species Problem".[1][17][23][24][25][26] The problem dates to On the Origin of Species, where Darwin wrote:

No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[27]


My additional thoughts later.

If you want to read all that is above, please do, it is my intent to use it to support by reference my later post(s).

I'm glad you posted this, particularly in that it brings up the "species problem," a little known irritant to the rigor and exactitude that taxonomy revels in.


.

Post Reply