Biological classification vs 'Kind'

I don't think this would satisfy Peg at all, for the simple fact that, while the two populations never actually interbreed due to occupying different niches, this doesn't say that they're not interfertile if you forced them together in laboratory conditions.

But isn't the result of this experiment that they can no longer interbreed even if they are forced together? Or did I misread it?

Hi, Huntard. Actually, the study I linked to* doesn't deal with that directly. The Timema stick insects they work with have been very extensively studied because of their "brown" and "green" ecotypes that differ in a number of ways. In the linked paper, if you scroll down to the portion beneath Figure 1, you can read all about work that was previously done on the ecotypes; you can also read this:

quote:

---

We stress that these ecotypes are not necessarily in the act of differentiating further, and our test of the niche dimensionality hypothesis does not require that they will one day diverge to become distinct species (and thus we do not argue for such a scenario here). The key point is that the ecotypes exhibit moderate phenotypic and reproductive divergence, represent some intermediate stage of evolutionary divergence (i.e., prior to the completion of speciation), and are subject to divergent selection only on the axis of cryptic colouration.

---

This study wasn't what I thought it was when I linked it above. In this study, they didn't actually compare ecotypes within a species, but were comparing the "brown" ecotype of one species with the "green" ecotype of another from the same genus. *The link still makes a smiley when I write it (even when I cut-n-paste from Modulous's edits in "peek mode"), and I can't figure out how to fix that, so you'll have to go back to Message 10 to get the link.Edited by Bluejay, : Double paste

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Thanks Bluejay.Ok, so this one doesn't qualify. Better start searching again Hotjer. You could try the "disable smilies" tickbox under the reply box. I'm guessing that should work.Wait, lemme try:http://www.plosone.org/article/infooi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001907Yep, that works

Hi, Everybody.I thought I would throw this out there.From the Conservapedia article on baraminology, a methodology for demarcating created kinds:

quote:

---

Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

​

Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

​

Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

​

Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

---

Obviously, this is only going to be accepted by Old Earth Creationists and the types who allow moderate levels of evolution (i.e. not Faith); and, equally obviously, this method is utterly useless on a practical level, but they’ve at least got a conceptual system going here.Now, if only they could provide some criteria for determining which theoretical animals "cannot exist," and which animals can evolve into others...

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Funnily enough, this 'Biological Character Space' sounds exactly like Dawkins metaphor - he called it the Museum of Possible Organisms, or somesuch. Makes me suspicious that they just borrowed it from him but want to insist that there are impassable regions between existing organisms.

Baraminology is pure religious apologetics.It uses the terminology of science in a blatant attempt to force a fit between created kinds and scientific classifications.As with the rest of creation "science," it will never come up with an explanation that does not match religious dogma. That would be heresy or some such.In this it is the exact opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As far as I understand it, the 'kind' of a creature is the name of the creature on Noah's ark from which it is descended.If we assume that none of these creatures could interbreed, it's actually a very clear definition, and clearer than the evolutionary definition of species.Of course, it's a useless definition because it bears no relation to reality. And also because the bible does not tell us all the kinds on the ark.But I don't think it's unclear in principle.

After several discussions on this point, please allow me to summarize what I've found (someone feel free to correct me if I flub...)The Creationist term "kind" is objectively undefined and must remain so in order for the Creationist rhetoric to make any kind of sense. The main contradiction for Creationists in defining "kind" is to define this term simultaneously (a) broad enough that the observed instances of speciation can't be considered the creation of a new "kind" and (b) narrow enough that humans and the other apes are separate 'kinds'. In other words, at it's heart the word "kind" must fill these points in Creationist logic:1. One 'kind' of animal cannot split into two 'kinds' of animals.
2. Humans are in a different 'kind' from the other apes.But, as I've pointed out, Creationist rhetoric on this point only works if "kind" remains objectively undefined. Here is the sticking point: I've never heard any Creationist describe a test that definitively measures whether or not two animals are in the same "kind" or not.
For example, when I ask whether humans and apes are in the same "kind".
"We know that humans and apes are separate 'kinds' because..."1. "They don't interbreed." (This would mean that current instances of speciation show a clear division from one "kind" into two.")
2. "They don't give birth to each other" (This would mean that human races are different "kinds", because Asians don't give birth to Africans.)
3. "It's simply obvious." (This is admittance that "kind" is simply a rhetorical tool, and is not an objective idea.)The point here is that using the term "kind" is a rejection of the fact that life is organized into nested heirarchies, and that "kind" could mean any one of these levels, as long is it remains undefined. Biology already has a number of different systems for classifying life (Linnean, cladistics, phylogenetics, etc) and ALL of them lead distinctly to the conclusion that all life is related and descended from a common ancestor.

I think you're missing Peepul's point. The term is clearly and unambiguously defined by many creationists. It is defined as 'a created pair of animals and all those descended from it'. The problem is not that the definition is unclear, it's that there's no useful way of applying to the real world, because it's based on a fictional creation myth.

Or, to put it another way, a "kind" is a group of organisms that a creationist will admit has a common ancestor.The problem is that this is not "clearly and unambiguously defined", because different creationists will admit different things. Indeed, the same creationist website will insist that a whole family is a "kind" on one webpage while denying speciation on another.So we are left with no operational way of finding out whether two organisms belong to the same kind. All we can do is ask whatever creationist we're talking to and find out which way his whims are swaying him when we happen to ask the question.

Hi, Dr Adequate. Yes, but the term "clade" is clearly and unambiguously defined as a single species and all its evolutionary descendents; and yet, different scientists will call different groups of organisms "clades."I don't see why creationists should have to all agree on which organisms fit inside which "kinds" when scientists don't have to all agree on which organisms fit inside which "clades."I doubt you’ll ever find a creationist who disagrees that the term kind is defined as an organism that God made, and all its descendants. Even though it’s a mess in practice; conceptually, it’s as clearly defined and unambiguous as any technical terms we use in mainstream science. The trouble is, as Caffeine said, only that their clearly-defined and unambiguous term does not match reality.----- And, virtually every scientific periodical has also published conflicting papers, sometimes even within the same volume, and even after both conflicting papers undergo peer review.How is this any different in principle from creationist disagreements?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Scientific disagreements are based on data, religious ones on beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

I doubt you’ll ever find a creationist who disagrees that the term kind is defined as an organism that God made, and all its descendants.

---

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The typical creationist definition of macroevolution is evolution between kinds. And for that to be meaningful the definition of kind cannot rule out evolutionary relationships. It's no use a creationist insisting that macroevolution doesn't happen if any evolution that actually does happen - even if it is "molecules to man" - is all microevolution.

Hi, Paul. I'm not sure I understand what your objection is exactly.The amount of evolution that happens within a "kind" and the extent and number of "kinds" are matters of disagreement among creationists. But, all creationists will agree that each "kind" represents an archetypal organism created by God.It’s really no different in principle from all scientists agreeing that clades are monophyletic lineages, but disagreeing on whether or not birds fit inside the dinosaur clade.It’s in practice, not in clarity of definition, that the kinds concept runs into problems.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.