Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.

I haven't been able to make much sense of this thread, but if you're saying that a Kind will form its own nested hierarchy, that much makes sense. The problem is that evolution stacks Kinds one on top of another claiming a continuous set of nested hierarchies, so it seems to me you need an answer that shows that to be false. Perhaps "holobaramin" is the answer? But I'm not familiar with that term.Also, of course the Bible sections must be read in terms of their author's intent, but that observation is a red flag to me that you probably represent some version of "liberal" theology that I would reject if you spelled it out carefully.

Presumably your "etc." includes fiction. The style and content of Genesis 1 and 2 make it quite clear that the authors did not intend to describe nested hierarchies.

As alluded to above; an unambiguous definition of species is an impossible dream as a result of common ancesty. A 'kind' by contrast, as the term is usually used by creationists, has a clear and unambiguous definition. In biology almost the same concept is called a 'clade' - an organism and all its descendants.The difference between the sense of 'kind' and 'clade' is that a clade can be a subgroup - a part of a larger clade. A creationist kind (a 'holobaramin') cannot be nested within another kind. To biologists, the only 'kind' known to exist is life on earth.Incidentally, welcome back CRR and Faith! I was getting a bit worried EvC had run out of C.

So where is the break in the vertebrate nested hierarchy that includes everything from fish to humans? If you want to claim it isn't continuous, then show us how it isn't continuous.

Let's look at the issue of species definition in more detail, as this is a great opportunity to teach about this issue.First off, ALL evolution occurs within species: This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.The result is that every generation differs slightly from the previous generation, even though this may not be noticeable to the average observer.If every species (breeding population) is constantly changing, then does it remain the same species or does it become a new species?Well, if we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may eventually become sufficient for all the individuals in a breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population, and a new species name may be appropriate. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.Within the science some scientists tend to be "lumpers" - breaking the ancestral history into few species groups - and some tend to be "splitters" - breaking the ancestral history into many species groups. This doesn't change the natural history, just the labels used for different stages of the evolution of breeding populations.

quote:

---

Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper-splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.

---

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change (anagenesis) occurs in each of these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of a new species is not arbitrary in this process: one species (breeding population) has split into two reproductively isolated species (independent breeding populations). Such divides do not generally occur suddenly, however, but take several generations, sometimes with some hybrid interaction and limited gene flow, before they reach the point of not interbreeding.If we looked at each branch linearly, from the common ancestor population to each daughter population, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, and there is no sudden appearance of new species, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.The end result is that it is difficult to define when new species (breeding populations) occur, even with speciation events (taking many generations).Does this make it hard to define species? Inevitably, however, one point to remember is that species names are just labels we humans apply to the evidence to enable conversation, the natural world has no need to have labels for the processes of evolution to proceed.The difficulty in defining species has to do with our desire to label things in a consistent matter that assists clear communication of observations of the natural world.This teachable moment has been brought to you by CRR.Enjoy

Fair enough, so you'll let me keep an open mind then. And yet, looking at that picture and image of chinese dragons shows an amazing coincidence. I can almost see a breath of fire. Which doesn't mean that their discovery had to wait for the Scythians, where the evidence could have been taken as corroboration of previous stories.Personally I think a lot of creatures of mythology were created out of interpretations of fossil finds, such as the possibility that Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus were the basis for trolls, ogres and orcs, living in caves and more primitive socially than Cro-Magnon. Stories of encounters between populations being passed down as verbal history. Or people trying to make sense of fossils by layering over them characteristics of creatures they knew about.They weren't scientists, and their knowledge of the variety of life was limited.And I do think they had a better understanding of anatomy than most people today, due to skinning and butchering prey animals. So they should have been able to do rudimentary assembly of skeletons to map out the fossil finds, but they would have no idea how to flesh them out -- that's where imagination took over. So you don't think finding fossils of creatures with beaks, four clawed legs and long tails wouldn't fuel their imagination?Fascinating.Enjoy

This is almost certainly you projecting modern myths and concepts backwards in time. Neanderthals didn't live in caves. Sure, there is evidence of Neanderthals using caves for shelter, and possibly for ritual purposes, but this is more likely to be because caves are a good place to preserve and find evidence.You know who left a lot more evidence in caves than Neanderthals? Modern humans. I'm sure it would have. The problem is we have no particular reason to think the people who first described had ever seen such a fossil.It's not that the idea is inherently ridiculous. It's just that it seems to be a speculation without any positive evidence, and there doesn't seem to be any particular need to invoke such an explanation. People make stuff up.

Humans have imagined critters never seen in fossils and even people who have never seen a fossil have been able to take those imaginings and expand and evolve them.Humans are multi-purpose tools.Edited by jar, : jess appalin spallin

What you do is to right back and assume there must have existed a dinosaur with four legs and wings (this is allowable, because as Gould pointed out, as the so-called Tree of lIfe contains many assumptions). Even though their are no fossils or remains found yet for such a creature, you assume it must have existed and fill in the "gap" to the flying pig with a provisional branch until the evidence shows up. As the evidence appears, you can the replace parts of the provisional branch will a real branch (or as "real" as evolution can get). Trust me, it's all very scientific and it will work - just like it did for the unicorn.There exist humans with arms and legs missing - how do you think these people fit into a nested hierarchy? Stop this very silly talk. Forelimbs don't evolve into fins and wings - it's impossible.

If flying pigs don't exist, explain the photo in post #160. No doubt they could. And you might even be able to brainwash those gullible and naive children into believing that such similarities mean evolution is true.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Job can be regarded as an historical document. You reject it as such due to prejudice.The Leviathan is describe as a marine creature that breathed fire and smoke, but it could have led to legends about land-based dragons.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No fossils of Leviathan have been found yet. Since it was a sea-monster, the chances of finding the remains of one may be small. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If we didn't have Bombardier beetles roaming about, no one would believe they ever existed.Speaking of which, I wonder what nested hierarchy they fit into?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Only a fool would consider Job an historical document. It is written as a fantasy. That is not prejudice but rather a conclusion based on the story itself. It could have led to marshmallows too. Yet it is still not evidence that either ever existed.The facts is still the same, we have the evidence and so far you have never provided any.

Yet a very, very large percentage of the existing known fossils are of sea critters. In fact the chances of a sea critter getting fossilized is higher than for a land critter. That is why we have so many fossilized whale skeletons and shark teeth and fish and many sea reptiles and coral and even fossilized casts of seaweed.