Observed change in kinds.

DogmaHunter said:

1. you just said that kind = species.
you literally said:


2. you're moving the goalpost

3. define "kind" clearly or move along.

Click to expand...

I did not.
You are a very bad reader. The world is becoming a worse place because people deliberately read the way you did.

juvenissun said:

The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

Click to expand...

We could use genetics to determine if their is a barrier to gene flow between the populations, be it complete or partial. That is how we do it for speciation.

juvenissun said:

Before you value other forms of "life", you NEED to first know the value of human life. And I guess you did not spend enough time to do that.

Click to expand...

By your statement, I either
value plants and animals more than mankind, or
Value mankind less than plants and animals.

Your right, understanding the value of a human life is important.

My apology is I wasn't clear enough.

About the time I have spent to learn the value of human life, your guess is incorrect. Let me preach on it!

The value of a human life is not based on what they own, or how much they make, what they look like, what their job is.

The true value of a human life is measured by the good that one brings to this world and his fellow man. A good man will do what ever he can to be a positive influence to all around him. A good man thinks about others before himself. A good man gives freely and asks for nothing return. A good man gives love to God, his neighbor and too creation. He does the things, not out of pride, but out of service those he cherishes and loves more than himself.

I have been there help to carry the body of a young soldier from the aircraft that brought him home. I was there to as his mother ran, wailing "my baby, my baby" across the flight line. I was there bring him home and return to a grieving mother, her only son. I volunteered for that duty, I did so willingly.

I made the same oath as that young soldier did. To sacrifice our lives so that others may live.
I survived and came home alive. He paid the ultimate price, and came home in a coffin.

This young soldier was 20 years old and had already sacrificed his life to the service God, country and family. I have a wife and a son now, that young man never will.

So please, by all means,
Tell me how I need to take more time to learn about the value of a human life.

juvenissun said:

In that case, both mice species could be treated as ONE kind, if no consequence is resulted.

In real case, the scenario just won't happen. So, it is a fictional problem.

Click to expand...

First off, if things can be different species but the same kibd, then the definition is not the same and you still need to propose a definition for kind.

Second:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Click to expand...

Some More Observed Speciation Events

juvenissun said:

I did not.
You are a very bad reader. The world is becoming a worse place because people deliberately read the way you did.

Click to expand...

ahem

juvenissun said:

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

Click to expand...

So if this wasn't intended as everyone appears to have read it, the question remains, what is your definition of kind?

Loudmouth said:

We could use genetics to determine if their is a barrier to gene flow between the populations, be it complete or partial. That is how we do it for speciation.

Click to expand...

There is either a time barrier, or a species barrier, which the method can not overcome. So, the kind classification is at least functioned the same, if not better.

Ecowolf said:

By your statement, I either
value plants and animals more than mankind, or
Value mankind less than plants and animals.

Your right, understanding the value of a human life is important.

My apology is I wasn't clear enough.

About the time I have spent to learn the value of human life, your guess is incorrect. Let me preach on it!

.....

So please, by all means,
Tell me how I need to take more time to learn about the value of a human life.

Click to expand...

You are right. People (it might include you) who called themselves experts on something, may value other life forms MORE than "some" human lives. I am not saying you did it before. But I have seen some so-called "environmentalists" tried to protect whatever they called environment with the price of welfare or livelihood of related people lived in that environment.

Yes, we need management. But we need to take care of human value first. We do not know how to balance the two perfectly. So many mistakes happened. Even so, I would rather to have a species of life (needless to say many non-lives, such as an extremely rare plant) died off, than letting a related human society suffer in the name of conservation.

[serious];65539428 said:

First off, if things can be different species but the same kibd, then the definition is not the same and you still need to propose a definition for kind.

Second:
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Click to expand...

Yes, definition of kind and species could be different due to practical purposes. The "new" mice could be called by a different name, but not necessary a new kind. Vikings and Japanese are the same kind.

[serious];65539455 said:

ahem


So if this wasn't intended as everyone appears to have read it, the question remains, what is your definition of kind?

Click to expand...

It is a basic term for a better classification of life forms (than those used in cladistics).

juvenissun said:

Yes, definition of kind and species could be different due to practical purposes. The "new" mice could be called by a different name, but not necessary a new kind. Vikings and Japanese are the same kind.

Click to expand...

Are buffalo and cattle the same kind? Are horses and zebras the same kind? Are mountain lions and tigers the same kind?

An animal kind is a kind of animal. It can be anything kind of animal, as long as its described it such a way that relates it to an animal kind that was on the ark.

Dogs are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Wolves are a monobaramin of the dog holobaramin.

An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins.
Human holobaramin and the Dog holobaramin for a apobaramin
but the negroid monobaramin and wolf monobaramin do not.

A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

I am just going to stop there with trying to figure it out. Some of that I got verbatim from several sites. Which had the same phrases, almost verbatim.

I tried to work along with it and test it the best I could. There is no standard description for what a kind is.

The more I look at it baraminology is supposed to work, the more it nonsense I see.
The is no real methodology to any of it.

A wolf is its own monobaramin. This makes sense a wolf is a wolf. So the monobaramin is like a species of a of a kind.

Humans are a holobaramin, but a group of two human races is not a holobaramin because it does not include the other races. That would mean
Each human race is has its own monobaramin. Related but different, this stinks of eugenics.
So the monobaramin is not like a species of a kind. Its a race of a species.

Some how Human and Dogs can be a apobaramin. Wow I thought the monobaramin was confusing, this is just bizarre.

Does this mean Human and Dogs are related? An apobaramin has no real meaning, its a big "sciencey" sound word.

A polybarium can a group with Humans, wolves, dogs, ducks, chickens, dinosaurs, unicorns, or whatever can be lumped together for what ever reason you like!

Its a desperate attempt to "rewrite" natural selection and decent to
A. fit enough species on the Ark, based on a arbitrary number
B. create a system of how animals are different and unrelated
C. Use hebrew instead of latin to name things (Obviously ignorant of why Latin is used for this purpose!)
D. Hey, lets make a way to group animals, but without all those fancy "science" words or has any real use.
E. Find anyway possible to prove that humans and chimpanzees are not related in any form.

juvenissun said:

You are right. People (it might include you) who called themselves experts on something, may value other life forms MORE than "some" human lives. I am not saying you did it before. But I have seen some so-called "environmentalists" tried to protect whatever they called environment with the price of welfare or livelihood of related people lived in that environment.

Click to expand...

I dont call myself an expert. l But you wanna what seperates me "radicals"?
Most of your "treehugger, hippy, feelgood Eco-Nazis" dont have a clue to what they are whining about. Just like the "I not a scientist, but I can explain everything." crowd here on CF.

I know what I am doing, I know what I am talking about. I have been in the horticulture/landscape/forestry/ecology fields my whole civilian education and career. My military career was in petroleum technologies. I fueled jets. I probably got psoriasis from the exposure to jet fuel its toxic ingredients. Searching for IEDs was apparently just a side hobby for my military job.

I have been a professional in the environmental field, and the energy field.
I call it like a see it. I hear alot of crap from all sides.

I dont care.
Im making a living and feeding my family at being a treehugger.
I love my job. Look at all poor souls who hate there job!

Ecowolf said:

I dont call myself an expert. l But you wanna what seperates me "radicals"?
Most of your "treehugger, hippy, feelgood Eco-Nazis" dont have a clue to what they are whining about. Just like the "I not a scientist, but I can explain everything." crowd here on CF.

I know what I am doing, I know what I am talking about. I have been in the horticulture/landscape/forestry/ecology fields my whole civilian education and career. My military career was in petroleum technologies. I fueled jets. I probably got psoriasis from the exposure to jet fuel its toxic ingredients. Searching for IEDs was apparently just a side hobby for my military job.

I have been a professional in the environmental field, and the energy field.
I call it like a see it. I hear alot of crap from all sides.

I dont care.
Im making a living and feeding my family at being a treehugger.
I love my job. Look at all poor souls who hate there job!

Click to expand...

You have your prides.
I might also have mine.
But prides do not provide good answers to the concerns.
And all human prides will be gone with the end of physical life.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Are buffalo and cattle the same kind? Are horses and zebras the same kind? Are mountain lions and tigers the same kind?

Click to expand...

Yes
No
Maybe
All the above

Ecowolf said:

An animal kind is a kind of animal. It can be anything kind of animal, as long as its described it such a way that relates it to an animal kind that was on the ark.

Dogs are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Wolves are a monobaramin of the dog holobaramin.

An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins.
Human holobaramin and the Dog holobaramin for a apobaramin
but the negroid monobaramin and wolf monobaramin do not.

A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

I am just going to stop there with trying to figure it out. Some of that I got verbatim from several sites. Which had the same phrases, almost verbatim.

I tried to work along with it and test it the best I could. There is no standard description for what a kind is.

The more I look at it baraminology is supposed to work, the more it nonsense I see.
The is no real methodology to any of it.

A wolf is its own monobaramin. This makes sense a wolf is a wolf. So the monobaramin is like a species of a of a kind.

Humans are a holobaramin, but a group of two human races is not a holobaramin because it does not include the other races. That would mean
Each human race is has its own monobaramin. Related but different, this stinks of eugenics.
So the monobaramin is not like a species of a kind. Its a race of a species.

Some how Human and Dogs can be a apobaramin. Wow I thought the monobaramin was confusing, this is just bizarre.

Does this mean Human and Dogs are related? An apobaramin has no real meaning, its a big "sciencey" sound word.

A polybarium can a group with Humans, wolves, dogs, ducks, chickens, dinosaurs, unicorns, or whatever can be lumped together for what ever reason you like!

Its a desperate attempt to "rewrite" natural selection and decent to
A. fit enough species on the Ark, based on a arbitrary number
B. create a system of how animals are different and unrelated
C. Use hebrew instead of latin to name things (Obviously ignorant of why Latin is used for this purpose!)
D. Hey, lets make a way to group animals, but without all those fancy "science" words or has any real use.
E. Find anyway possible to prove that humans and chimpanzees are not related in any form.

Click to expand...

Given 100 objects (alive or not), there are many ways to classify them. Some are just try to use arbitrary criteria for the purpose of classification of no purpose. Some are schemes deliberately set for a purpose. Usually if you cared about a scheme of classification, then you won't pay attention to other valid schemes of classification because they don't fit your purpose.

So, before classify anything, we should first ask: why bother?
So, do you know the purpose of baraminology? If you don't or don't agree, of course it won't make any sense to you. That is absolutely normal. Whatever you are not interested does not mean it is bad or is wrong.

For example, the highlighted item E is a legitimate purpose. So it can be "scientifically" done by selecting key criteria for that purpose. There is nothing wrong with that.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Are buffalo and cattle the same kind? Are horses and zebras the same kind? Are mountain lions and tigers the same kind?

Click to expand...

If I need to have a supply of beef, then yes, buffalo and cattle are the same kind. But horse will not be in that kind.

juvenissun said:

Yes, definition of kind and species could be different due to practical purposes. The "new" mice could be called by a different name, but not necessary a new kind. Vikings and Japanese are the same kind.

Click to expand...

So what is the definition of kind?

[serious];65541452 said:

So what is the definition of kind?

Click to expand...

A biological unit (plant, animal, man) that can reproduce after itself?

AV1611VET said:

A biological unit (plant, animal, man) that can reproduce after itself?

Click to expand...

Under that definition, every individual person is it's own kind. After all, they are biological units capable of reproduction. Every living thing would be a unique kind. Thus, simple reproduction would be creating a new kind.

[serious];65541479 said:

Under that definition, every individual person is it's own kind. After all, they are biological units capable of reproduction. Every living thing would be a unique kind. Thus, simple reproduction would be creating a new kind.

Click to expand...

Then let's try:

A subset of life that can reproduce after itself.