What is a "Kind"?

[LewisWildermuth]

if there is a line that "micro-evolution" cannot cross and become "macro-evolution" there must be a way to define a Biblical "kind".

Please define a "kind" here so that we may know where the boundry is and test it.

 

[Lanakila]

This is the definition from my Creation Science Textbook: "A generally interfertile group of organisms that possess variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time. This could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set which the creation model recognizes." (Hall 69,70)

Hall, James L. History of Life Sixth Ed Hall Publications 1990.

 

[seebs]

So... let's say I have two animals. Can you reliably tell me whether or not they are of a "kind"?

Is being "of a kind" a transitive relationship? If A and B are of a kind, and B and C are of a kind, and C and D are of a kind, are A and D necessarily of a kind?

Can you explain how to tell whether a trait is part of the common set, and thus, its emergence would be inconsistent with your predictions, or whether the trait is "part of the common set", and simply hasn't been expressed in any member species yet?

 

[Morat]

So "species"?

 

[Lanakila]

I am not going into your imaginary scenerio Seebs. I have explained this on another thread. Some animals that were of the the same kind were isolated from the other animals in that kind (Australia, Madagascar) and after much time, and for some reasons will not breed together, although they would be interfertile. For example I have seen a picture of a Liger (lion-tiger) which would make them interfertile, but they will not breed together now.

 

[RufusAtticus]

So, Lanakila, you aren't going to attempt to apply the 'kind' hypothesis to real-life biology?

Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time. This could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set which the creation model recognizes.

An attribute of kinds is that new traits can't be added. However, we know of evolutionary mechanisms that can add traits. Gene duplication plus divergence is one on the molecular level. Long term selection is one on the morphological level. For example, Scottish Folds have a novel ear trait that did not exist in earlier cat populations. We know this because the gene is dominant. There are many more examples of the addition of novel traits from domestication alone. Since kinds require an absence of novelty and novelty is observed, kinds do not exist in actual biology.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So by definition humans and the great apes are the same kind until we can prove that there can be no interbreeding?

 

[randman]

This is a losing argument big-time for evolutionists since defining species is hugely problematic. In fact, one sign in my opinion that an evolutionist doesn't know what he is talking about is that they argue this "kind" issue.
"Kind" has been well-defined, more so than species.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by randman
"Kind" has been well-defined, more so than species.

True. "Kind" refers to the pairs on board the ark. (Or was it sevens?)

 

[randman]

Btw, are pseudo-orcas (killer whales) which are in the same sub-family as orcas (standard killer whales), are the same species as dolphins which are in another sub-family?

The fact is they are classified as in different genera and even different sub-families, but they can and do interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. The classification into different sub-families was made with the knowledge they can and do sometimes interbreed.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
This is a losing argument big-time for evolutionists since defining species is hugely problematic. In fact, one sign in my opinion that an evolutionist doesn't know what he is talking about is that they argue this "kind" issue.
"Kind" has been well-defined, more so than species.

Depending on the context, "species" is an expedient for identifying the organism under study. The only claim that scientists make for species is that there is nothing absolute about them. The claim creationists make for "kind" is that they are (not demonstrably, just by faith) completely reproductively distinct from one another, as all of their ancestors back to the first ones were.

 

[randman]

"The claim creationists make for "kind" is that they are (not demonstrably, just by faith) completely reproductively distinct from one another, as all of their ancestors back to the first ones were."

That's not true and a false straw man. First, Creationists, at least the ones I have read, don't claim this. They claim the original kind could reproduce, and that from these original kinds limited speciation occurs, and that we can infer which species may have descended from each original kind, but admittedly like classifying "species" this is science and not an exact process (lol).

The idea though is that the genome of the original kind limits the types of species that can develop. In other words, there is a range, a potential, within the genome of the kind. Personally, I think the evidence supports this type of limited "evolution", but to make the leap to common descent of all species is a leap of faith.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's not true and a false straw man. First, Creationists, at least the ones I have read, don't claim this. They claim the original kind could reproduce, and that from these original kinds limited speciation occurs, and that we can infer which species may have descended from each original kind, but admittedly like classifying "species" this is science and not an exact process (lol).

Isn't that more or less what I said? Of course I acknowledge that YEC's admit that speciation can take place within a kind, but the claim is that, all the way back to the first ancestors, members of kind A are reproductively distinct from kind B. It is basically a definition that assumes creationism is true, but has no application.

What we are looking for is a definition that will allow us to examine the credibility of the claims that are made about "kinds":
a) that they have distinct ancestry
b) There are a fixed number, greater than one.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
Btw, are pseudo-orcas (killer whales) which are in the same sub-family as orcas (standard killer whales), are the same species as dolphins which are in another sub-family?

The fact is they are classified as in different genera and even different sub-families, but they can and do interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. The classification into different sub-families was made with the knowledge they can and do sometimes interbreed.

This illustrates why I have the opinion I do about this topic. "Kinds," "species," phylogenic trees, etc., are almost always arbitrary classifications and have no practical meaning. One species of mosquito experiences reproductive isolation and suddenly they cannot interbreed. Yet you can mate a lion with a tiger and get a fertile offspring. That pretty much makes any terminology about speciation meaningless.

 

[randman]

I think the same thing is said about looking for evidence for common descent.

But let me point out, that on your first question on distinct ancestry, evolutionists themsleves beleive this, that all of the species today can be traced to prior species that produced them. I find it humorous that Creationists theorize about kinds, but admittedly cannot determine altogether what all of the original kinds were, but evolutionists make the same conclusions as if it is fact, and then turn around and state there is no evidence for "kinds."

Oh well, don't let logic get in your way Jerry.

 

[Jerry Smith]

If a science advocate says there is no evidence for "kinds" they are basically saying that there is no evidence that the claims made about "kinds" is true, and that "kinds" are not defined in such a way that the claims made about them are testable.

Scientists have shown that species evolve. Creationists, apparently unhappy with that, have replied "well, 'kinds' cannot". If that is your position, please give us a definition of kinds that will allow us to test it. If not, then what, exactly, is your position?

 

[randman]

It sounds to me like the evolutionists don't want to afford Creationist scientists the same level of latitude in determining "kinds" as they have granted themselves in determining phylogenies.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
It sounds to me like the evolutionists don't want to afford Creationist scientists the same level of latitude in determining "kinds" as they have granted themselves in determining phylogenies.

Why, what claims about phylogenies have we made, and how have we refused to define phylogeny in a way that those claims can be tested empirically?

 

[randman]

Also, when you say scientists have shown that species evolve, but in reality "species" is an arbitary definition according to you, and is hugely problematic, I must conclude evolutionists are dodging the issue entirely.

The fact is evolutionists are not being intellectually honest here. They can't define species in a hard and fast manner that covers all creatures. So "species" can't be said to evolve necessarily in that "species" is just illustrative.

"Kinds" is a similar illustrative term, but more defined actually in that it has a theoritical distinct beginning, or beginnings. Moreover, everyone knows clearly what creationists refer to. A cat may "evolve" new cats, but never a non-cat.

Also, having difficulty defining as you put it something does not negate its existence. "Light" is something we observe but can be hard to define as well, and I am sure there are better examples. Science can't write off tanglible things just because it lacks the ability yet to get a good grip on them.

 

[randman]

Tell you what Jerry. Define gravity. Tell us what it is in a way that can emperically test it, not its effects, but what gravity actually consists of.

As you know, we can't. We don't know for sure what gravity is, or in lay-man's terms, what causes gravity, but no one states it is not a valid concept, though perhaps a few dispute gravity. I've heard some go back to a form of the ether theory basically, and actually had some interesting data to back it up.

"Kind" is a valid concept. The difficulties in proving it are far less than proving, say, abiogenesis, for instance, and less than proving common descent in my view. First, both camps agree that all life forms today stemmed from some common ancestors. Thus, evolutionists admit that "kinds" exist in that sense, but Creationists beleive the evidence supports their idea that God created "kinds" and not a single-cell organism from non-living matter as the life-form we all descended from. I think the evidence supports the Creationist view, but does not support the common descent view. Certainly, the mutations and "evolution" we have observed fits quite well with descent from "kinds", but there is no observation of macro-evolution, and there are a lot of problems with the idea a single-cell could gradually mutate into the complexity we see today..