The Scientific Method

[shernren]

I would claim that while a kind must be able to breed with its own kind, there is no injunction that says it cannot mix with another kind. Again, I think Scripture is not rigorous on this, so we're in the realm of speculation and discussion.

So how is a "kind" defined? And if you can't define a "kind" rigorously how can we expect to do any science with it? Science can't work with fuzzily-defined concepts.

 

[vossler]

You can be thorough too if you put some effort in.

Somehow I don't think I could ever be thorough enough.

Perhaps if you put more thought into your responses then they wouldn't be trivial.

Perhaps, but seeing that I'm just a YEC without a degree in a scientific discipline, probably not.

If by that you mean I understand your signature better than you do, well thanks.

Your welcome!

 

[Poke]

So how is a "kind" defined? And if you can't define a "kind" rigorously how can we expect to do any science with it? Science can't work with fuzzily-defined concepts.

"Kind" is precisely defined. What do you think is fuzzy?

 

[shernren]

Alright, precisely-define kind, then.

 

[Willtor]

"Kind" is precisely defined. What do you think is fuzzy?

What, exactly does it mean? Is it a genetic term?

 

[random_guy]

"Kind" is precisely defined. What do you think is fuzzy?

For Creationists kind defined by looking into the fossil record, and looking for any gaps. Once you find a gap, that's your kind barrier, that is until that gap is filled. Then merge those two groups and search for more gaps. Repeat.

 

[Poke]

So how is a "kind" defined? And if you can't define a "kind" rigorously how can we expect to do any science with it? Science can't work with fuzzily-defined concepts.

If you know it's fuzzy, then you should be able to tell me what's fuzzy about it. I say there's nothing fuzzy about it. I can't point out to you what's not fuzzy because I see nothing fuzzy to point to.

You're making an assertion, but some substance behind it.

 

[Numenor]

If you know it's fuzzy, then you should be able to tell me what's fuzzy about it. I say there's nothing fuzzy about it. I can't point out to you what's not fuzzy because I see nothing fuzzy to point to.

You're making an assertion, but some substance behind it.

Could you give us the characteristics of the genetic 'gap' between two different kinds please? Is there some percentage difference in the genome we should look for?

 

[shernren]

If you know it's fuzzy, then you should be able to tell me what's fuzzy about it. I say there's nothing fuzzy about it. I can't point out to you what's not fuzzy because I see nothing fuzzy to point to.

You're making an assertion, but some substance behind it.

It's fuzzy precisely because it's not well-defined. If you were to give me a precise definition you would de facto dispel any notion of fuzziness - assuming your definition is precise enough and can stand up to the YECist idea that only God can produce new kinds.

To directly answer your question, I think these two quotes sum up the difficulties I see in your position:

The asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated -- is arguably the most divergent view of creationists from mainstream biology. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creationists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.
The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not agreed upon by creationists. Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is "substantial evidence" to support the conclusion. As to what qualifies as "substantial evidence", creationists are often at odds with each other. However, they are in unanimous agreement that humans and other extant primates are not in the same kind.
In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible.
The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind#Boundaries_between_kinds

and:

According to the modern theory of genetics (which the creationists say they accept), evolution takes place through the natural selection of variations brought about by genetic mutations. By postulating that there are certain limits beyond which mutations cannot proceed, the creationists are in essence claiming that there is some mechanism, whether biochemical or biomechanical, which only allows certain mutations to appear (those within the limits of the "created kind"), and rigorously excludes certain other mutations (those which would carry the organism outside these limits).

...

Hence, some creationists have now dropped the requirement of "interfertility", and have asserted that any organisms that can breed with each other and produce offspring, whether fertile or not, constitute a "kind":

"Creationists have long felt a need for a classification that would include in one consistent category all organisms that interbreed under any conditions." (David Menton, "Species, Speciation and the Genesis Kind", Missouri Association for Creation, October 1994)
​

This definition, however, also produces problems. In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy.
For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it, since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab, and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the creationists would like to lump these two species together as "variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for the creationists--the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any offspring at all. The same problem arises in connection with plants--the polyploid descendents of particular plants can no longer produce viable seeds with the parent stock, and thus cannot produce any offspring with the parent species. Therefore, the creationist, using the criterion of "interbreeding", must conclude that the two are different "kinds", even though one is obviously a descendent of the other (polyploid plants have been successfully produced and bred in the laboratory--in fact many of our food crops are polyploid descendents of corn and wheat plants which can no longer interbreed with the parent stock).
Once again, the creationists must either admit the existence of evolution between "kinds", or they must change their definition of what constitutes a "kind". Thus, we are finally led to:

"If two organisms breed, even though it is infrequent, they are of the same kind; if they don't breed but are clearly of the same morphological type, they are of the same kind, by the logic of the axiom which states two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." (Wysong, cited in Kitcher, 1982, p. 152)
​

One may dispute just how "logical" Wysong's definition is (on the one hand, organisms which interbreed are of the same "kind"; on the other hand, organisms that don't interbreed are also of the same "kind" if they look enough alike), but there is no disputing that even this loose definition causes problems for the creationists. Now we need to define what constitutes an organism "of the same morphological type". Gish points out, "The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed." (Gish, 1978, p. 35)

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm

(the reason I employ a cut-and-paste is to save you time, and also to cut out any references to evolution you might straightaway reject. The material quoted deals exclusively with the concept of created kinds and does not need to assume the truth of evolution to read.)

 

[Poke]

For Creationists kind defined by looking into the fossil record, and looking for any gaps. Once you find a gap, that's your kind barrier, that is until that gap is filled. Then merge those two groups and search for more gaps. Repeat.

That's one way to get started.

 

[Poke]

The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds

If you want a fuzzy definition, look at the definition of something like Family. What is the taxonomic definition of family? The precise definition of "kind" is a group of organisms sharing a common ancestor, that itself has no ancestors. Nothing fuzzy about that.

Being the ever honest Evolutionist, you wish to conflate "definition" with "diagnostic." How do you diagnose the family that an organism belongs to? So, why aren't you whining about "family" being fuzzy? Even the standard diagnostic for "species" is arbitrary, and doesn't apply to species that reproduce asexually. Yet, you don't stand around whining about it.

Definitions don't get any more fuzzy than the Evolutonist's definition of Evolution.

 

[Mallon]

If you want a fuzzy definition, look at the definition of something like Family. What is the taxonomic definition of family?

That's the thing: there is no definition. There is no scientific, objective way of determining what a family is. Some feel the Hadrosauridae (duck-billed dinosaurs) is a family that includes crested and non-crested duckbills. Others feel that it is a superfamily. Similarly, there is no objective way of determining whether an organism belongs to one kind or another. Your inability to objectively define (or "diagnose", if you wish) "kind" is proof of this.

The precise definition of "kind" is a group of organisms sharing a common ancestor, that itself has no ancestors. Nothing fuzzy about that.

Does Hyracotherium belong to the horse "kind" or the hyrax "kind"? (For that matter, is there a "horse kind" and "hyrax kind"?)

So, why aren't you whining about "family" being fuzzy?

We do. Which is why we're switching over to PhyloCode while you're still stuck with Linnaean taxonomy and the cladistics-imitation that is "baraminology".

Definitions don't get any more fuzzy than the Evolutonist's definition of Evolution.

Evolution is very clearly defined in the texts. The only ones looking to blur the line are creationists picking at the pieces they like.