|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How do I tell if two living or fossil species are the same "kind", or belong to two different "kinds"?
With thanks in advance to anyone who's willing to take a crack at answering this, or who can provide me with a link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given. "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How do I tell if two living or fossil species are the same "kind", or belong to two different "kinds"? Easy. If there is a definite undeniable evolutionary link between the two species then it is clearly change within a kind. If there is no such link then it is two different kinds as it would take a "macro"evolutionary change to get from {A} to {B}. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, but nothing is "undeniable", because creationists can deny anything.
Some of them are still denying speciation, in which case every kind would be a monobaramin. On the other hand, if you merely mean irrefutable evidence, then life is a kind; but that's not what creationists think. This is why a criterion is needed which doesn't depend on the beliefs of the person applying it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Expect it eventually will be defined genetically. But meanwhile I liked kuresu's list of hybrids which seemed to fit with what MJFloresta said about how a kind would be determined by ability to interbreed, even if that had to be tested artificially. I wasn't sure about this because I know there are cases where speciation has occurred and interbreeding ability has been lost though the new breed is certainly of the same kind. In any case I thought this made some kind of sense:
kuresu's list My cleaned-up version of kuresu's list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Expect it eventually will be defined genetically. But meanwhile I liked kuresu's list of hybrids which seemed to fit with what MJFloresta said about how a kind would be determined by ability to interbreed, even if that had to be tested artificially. I wasn't sure about this because I know there are cases where speciation has occurred and interbreeding ability has been lost though the new breed is certainly of the same kind. The problem is that the two parts of this definition of "kind" appear mutually contradictory. I can sort of accept the "ability to interbreed", which is close to the biological species concept. Even though the "kind" definition stretches it a bit to include artificial breeding, it's not that far off (and certainly would be one way of showing that the two organisms are related, even if the F1's are sterile). However, adding in the part about "certainly the same 'kind'" even though reproductively isolated leaves us back in the same place, without a usable definition. "'Kind' = ability to interbreed except when they can't" isn't very useful. I'd also like your opinion concerning the second part of the question: how do you determine whether two fossils are the same "kind"? Obviously, an interbreeding test isn't going to work. So what's the criteria?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 6016 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
My definition for the Kind, as I have oft pointed out, is that individuals of the same kind CAN produce offspring, not that they necessarily will in nature. The issue here is genetics - the actual ability of organisms to produce offspring - not behavior, which may determine whether two organisms in nature [i]will[/w] produce offspring, but say nothing about whether they can or can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My definition for the Kind, as I have oft pointed out, is that individuals of the same kind CAN produce offspring, not that they necessarily will in nature. But doesn't this make "kind" the same as the biological species concept? --- "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (Ernst Mayr, my italics). If so, then: (1) It doesn't solve the Noah's Ark problem. (2) We don't need a new word for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
[qs=MJFloresta]My definition for the Kind, as I have oft pointed out, is that individuals of the same kind CAN produce offspring, not that they necessarily will in nature. The issue here is genetics - the actual ability of organisms to produce offspring - not behavior, which may determine whether two organisms in nature [i]will[/w] produce offspring, but say nothing about whether they can or can't.[/qs]
So what? I already noted that, even though you're stretching the BSC a bit, this was a reasonable definition. Until, of course, you get to the part where two obviously related species can't interbreed, even artificially. Why don't you try actually answering/responding to the post made, rather than simply re-asserting your original point? Try this:
Quetzal writes: "'Kind' = ability to interbreed except when they can't" isn't very useful. Faith's contention is that there is some way to objectively identify "kind" even in the absence of the interbreeding criteria. After you finish that, you can address the second part of the question, which dealt with how a creationist determines whether two fossil organisms are the same "kind". Edited by Quetzal, : wrong attribution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6376 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I don't think Tusko will be too happy you mistook him(?) for mjfloresta
Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You're absolutely right. I've fixed it. Bizarre brain burp there...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 6016 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
It's true that Mayr does make that distinction; But as commonly applied, species refers only to those populations that do interbreed, not those that might. Jackals and wolves may be able to interbeed, lions and lynx may be able to interbreed, but no one to my knowledge would call or even think of these organisms as belonging to the same species, respectively. Practically speaking, the concept of species strictly refers to those populations that do interbeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Think about Greenish Warblers until I get home and post a bit about them............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Faith writes: Expect it eventually will be defined genetically. I won't be holding my breath....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
mjf writes: Jackals and wolves may be able to interbeed, lions and lynx may be able to interbreed, but no one to my knowledge would call or even think of these organisms as belonging to the same species.. What if a human/chimp hybrid was possible? Would that make us both the same "kind"? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024