What is your definition of a species?

[AV1611VET]

kind is derived from the bible. the problem with kind is all were represented on the ark and there are many millions of species. creationists get around this by suggesting that there werent lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars, just one big cat. this doesnt alleviate problems either because it makes for an incredibly imprecise definition that has no internal consistency.

So? You're presenting this as a software problem (incredibly imprecise definition), not a hardware problem (one big cat). You're saying that since software -x doesn't run on computer -y, there is no internal consistency.

furthermore it leads to the problem of hyperevolution, since millions of varieties (species) must derive from several orders of magnitude smaller number of kinds in a few thousand years.

Why would hyperevolution be a problem with God? I have already shown how God [possibly] used hyperevolution in Genesis 2. Presenting hyperevolution as a barrier to reconciling the Bible is not the way to go.

 

[juvenissun]

But didn't god, whom the writers chose to quote, and those that claim to be able to interpret such quotes, have something in mind for the word, "kind"?

Genesis 7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, " . . . Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

​

Why should god's meaning of "kind" depend on our meaning of "species"? I assume he knew what he was talking about regardless of how we classify his organisms.

At that time, there was no such term as species. So there was no such confusion.

This is another example that even science allows people to see more details of this universe, it also created more confusions or distractions.

 

[juvenissun]

kind is derived from the bible. the problem with kind is all were represented on the ark and there are many millions of species. creationists get around this by suggesting that there werent lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars, just one big cat. this doesnt alleviate problems either because it makes for an incredibly imprecise definition that has no internal consistency. furthermore it leads to the problem of hyperevolution, since millions of varieties (species) must derive from several orders of magnitude smaller number of kinds in a few thousand years.

Modern biology developed the idea of species. That created all the problems.

No species, no problem. With species, if well defined, no problem either. So, stop picking the term "kind", but focus on the definition of species.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

kind is derived from the bible. the problem with kind is all were represented on the ark and there are many millions of species. creationists get around this by suggesting that there werent lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars, just one big cat. this doesnt alleviate problems either because it makes for an incredibly imprecise definition that has no internal consistency. furthermore it leads to the problem of hyperevolution, since millions of varieties (species) must derive from several orders of magnitude smaller number of kinds in a few thousand years.

Modern biology developed the idea of species. That created all the problems.

No species, no problem. With species, if well defined, no problem either. So, stop picking the term "kind", but focus on the definition of species.

Allow me to clarify. I specifically used the term varieties because it doesnt matter whether or not you accept species as a category, the point is about diversity. there are 300,000 species of beetle. regardless of the word species that is a LOT of different types of animal to arise in a few thousand years.

Creationists read this carefully: Hyperevolution is a problem for creationism. It forces you to accept evolution at a rate and potency (ability to induce change) that is several orders of magnitude greater than evolutionary theory allows for.

Can you really tell me that 300,000 varieties of insect can arise from a relative handfull of kinds in the few thousand years since the flood but in the same breath tell me that it is inconcievable that birds can derive from dinosaurs given millons of years?

you cant accept hyperevolution and then reject macroevolution as improbable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists read this carefully: Hyperevolution is a problem for creationism.

No it's not --- it's a problem for uniformitarianists. I have shown from Genesis 2 that God [possibly] used hyper-growth [albeit, I'll admit, not hyper-evolution] in the Garden of Eden.

If God can populate this earth with plants, animals, and man in two days (like He did during the Creation Week), He can most certainly do it again.

 

[juvenissun]

Allow me to clarify. I specifically used the term varieties because it doesnt matter whether or not you accept species as a category, the point is about diversity. there are 300,000 species of beetle. regardless of the word species that is a LOT of different types of animal to arise in a few thousand years.

Creationists read this carefully: Hyperevolution is a problem for creationism. It forces you to accept evolution at a rate and potency (ability to induce change) that is several orders of magnitude greater than evolutionary theory allows for.

Can you really tell me that 300,000 varieties of insect can arise from a relative handfull of kinds in the few thousand years since the flood but in the same breath tell me that it is inconcievable that birds can derive from dinosaurs given millons of years?

you cant accept hyperevolution and then reject macroevolution as improbable.

We do not know when did the Global Flood take place. And we do not know what was (and is) the rate of speciation, if it ever happened. We do not know if speciation happened continuously or in pulses. And we do not know what is species.

So, what is the argument?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

No it's not --- it's a problem for uniformitarianists. I have shown from Genesis 2 that God [possibly] used hyper-growth [albeit, I'll admit, not hyper-evolution] in the Garden of Eden.

If God can populate this earth with plants, animals, and man in two days (like He did during the Creation Week), He can most certainly do it again.

how is macroevolution a fallacy to you if you can accept that a much greater scale of growth occured?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

We do not know when did the Global Flood take place. And we do not know what was (and is) the rate of speciation, if it ever happened. We do not know if speciation happened continuously or in pulses. And we do not know what is species.

So, what is the argument?

but we do know how much diversity we have now. no one is gonna give the postdiluvian age millions of years. no matter what rate you give the growth, it's far faster and has a greater potency than macroevolution. why is macroevolution a problem? why is it so inconcievable that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees given 7 million years?

 

[AV1611VET]

how is macroevolution a fallacy to you if you can accept that a much greater scale of growth occured?

I don't believe in macroevolution, I believe in microevolution. God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that even nature cannot cross. I'm sure [genera → genera] is one of them.

 

[29apples]

If your prof specializes in orioles, it is possible he is an ornithologist - are you not curious to know what degrees your professors have?

Along with Washington, I suspect you have misunderstood whatever point your prof was trying to make.

I guess he could be considered an ornithologist. He has published a fair amount of reviewed papers related to evolution.

His professional interests are "use molecular phylogenies and population genetic studies of closely related bird species to study character evolution, speciation, and systematics. Recent research has focused on the New World orioles (Icterus), as well as Holarctic ducks (Anas), and the raven group (Corvus corax). We are interested in plumage color evolution, and a variety of topics related to recent speciation, including lineage sorting, hybridization and building phylogenetic trees of recently diverged species."

I promise you that I did not misunderstand his point. His discussion conveyed that a practical definition of a species is not easy to define.

The end result defined a species as a man made concept of a population of organisms defined by their geographic location, behavior, breeding trends, and morphology. Basically there are many gray areas between the definition of one species to another.

I was just posing the questions and statements in a way that would hopefully spark discussion. Sometimes the best way to achieve that is to appear ignorant of the topic at hand.

 

[juvenissun]

but we do know how much diversity we have now. no one is gonna give the postdiluvian age millions of years. no matter what rate you give the growth, it's far faster and has a greater potency than macroevolution. why is macroevolution a problem? why is it so inconcievable that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees given 7 million years?

Time is not a guarantee of speciation. Bacteria did not change much in the past 4 billion years.

Now you want to say that there are many "species" of bacteria. Then, I am glad that we are going back to the question of the OP.

 

[Radagast]

I do not have a source for the formation of fertile hybrids of animals constituting 1/3 of all animal species. It is partially hearsay at this point, but yes that is what my professor has stated.

If this were true you should be able to list hundreds of examples.

...and Dogs (with wolves).

Since 1993, dogs and wolves have been viewed as the same species, Canis lupus.

a donkey and horse would apply as well

Donkey/horse hybrids are afaik not fertile.

 

[corvus_corax]

But I'll bet you guys will keep asking though, won't you? Over and over and over and over and over.

As for me, only when somebody comes along as uses "kind" as some kind of definition (like you and others have)
Heck, maybe Im wrong.
Someday, some Creationist might come up with a workable definition of kind. (and don't you dare QV me....because you didnt come up with any such thing)

If species could be defined, then the kind could also be defined based on the definition of species.

That's been demonstrated to be false
Yet you post it
Are you asking forgiveness for lying to me yet?
Most likely not.

Why would hyperevolution be a problem with God? I have already shown how God [possibly] used hyperevolution in Genesis 2. Presenting hyperevolution as a barrier to reconciling the Bible is not the way to go.

Why would full blown speciation be a problem for your god? (please answer this before you address any other point of my post).
And you only presented a "possibility" with no actual objective empirical evidence.

Modern biology developed the idea of species. That created all the problems.

All of them, huh?
TOO broad a brush you paint with

No species, no problem. With species, if well defined, no problem either.

You are contradicting yourself
A house divided against itself cannot stand, yes?

So, stop picking the term "kind", but focus on the definition of species.

Stop picking on the definition of "species" and focus on the term "kind", hypocrite

No it's not --- it's a problem for uniformitarianists. I have shown from Genesis 2 that God [possibly] used hyper-growth [albeit, I'll admit, not hyper-evolution] in the Garden of Eden.

Wow, you are a mess of contradictions, aren't you?
You can't even get your story straight.
Look at your quote above regarding Hyperevolution and Genesis 2.
So are you just confused, purposefully obfuscating your POV, or lying?
I'll help you out here.
You said-
"I have already shown how God [possibly] used hyperevolution in Genesis 2."
But now you say -
"I have shown from Genesis 2 that God [possibly] used hyper-growth [albeit, I'll admit, not hyper-evolution]"
Tell you what, AV, get to understand Genesis 1 first. Because after that, it (obviously, from your confusion) gets so much more in depth and involved after that.
And no, you have not eaten me for breakfast.
I feast on contradictions and hypocrisy.
Yummy breakfast.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, you are a mess of contradictions, aren't you?
You can't even get your story straight.
Look at your quote above regarding Hyperevolution and Genesis 2.
So are you just confused, purposefully obfuscating your POV, or lying?
I'll help you out here.
You said-
"I have already shown how God [possibly] used hyperevolution in Genesis 2."
But now you say -
"I have shown from Genesis 2 that God [possibly] used hyper-growth [albeit, I'll admit, not hyper-evolution]"
Tell you what, AV, get to understand Genesis 1 first. Because after that, it (obviously, from your confusion) gets so much more in depth and involved after that.
And no, you have not eaten me for breakfast.
I feast on contradictions and hypocrisy.
Yummy breakfast.

Fair enough, Corvus --- let me give you the only answer I'm sure you'll understand --- God did it.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

If species could be defined, then the kind could also be defined based on the definition of species.

That's been demonstrated to be false
Yet you post it
Are you asking forgiveness for lying to me yet?
Most likely not.

Where is the demonstration?

Species is a scientific term. Kind is not. So, if anything needs a definition first, it would be the species.

 

[Tomk80]

If this were true you should be able to list hundreds of examples.

I'd definitely be interested in such a list. In plants species arising from hybridization seem to be propping up occasionally, but I've yet to hear of any viable animal species arising through hybridization.

Since 1993, dogs and wolves have been viewed as the same species, Canis lupus.

Indeed.

Donkey/horse hybrids are afaik not fertile.

Every once in a while one props up. IIRC there are 4 recorded cases of fertile female mules.

 

[corvus_corax]

Fair enough, Corvus --- let me give you the only answer I'm sure you'll understand --- God did it.

Well, I understand the God did it point of view, I just wasn't understanding the apparent contradiction in your statements, that's all.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I don't believe in macroevolution, I believe in microevolution. God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that even nature cannot cross. I'm sure [genera → genera] is one of them.

so a countless diversity can descend from a kind but they will never cross this magic boundary which has no biological basis. show me the boundary and i will take it seriously. where is it? in the genes? gene duplication process?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Time is not a guarantee of speciation. Bacteria did not change much in the past 4 billion years.

1. both of those statements are wrong.
2. "if it aint broke dont fix it" happens in evolution. crocodilians are an excellent example of this.
3. there are countless types of bacteria that have adapted to just about every environment.
4. not all bacteria are bacteria. there are two distinct kingdoms of "bacteria".
5. accumulation of mutations over time WILL eventually lead to genetic change, even if it is not outwardly obvious. Eventually this change will be significant enough to warrant a new classification.

 

[TheGnome]

The definition of species changes in different situations, and it has to. When discussing sexually reproducing organisms, a species isn't just a group that any produce viable offspring, it's also a group that willfully does so. Two species a fish may be two different species depending where one species of fish goes to lay and fertilize eggs. If females of one species typically lays eggs in a certain location, and males of that species swim all the way over there to fertilize those eggs, then humans built a dam that blocks access to that site to many males of that species, the males may fertilize the other species' eggs--thus creating hybrids. Up until the dam was built, they were reproductively isolated due to their behavior, and therefore considered separate species. I know that explanation was horrible, but I'm a lazy man. I just wanted to state that reproductive isolation due to behavior is one reason to define a species.

For nonsexually reproducing organisms, there are several different ways of classifying a species. If the differences are great, then it can be based on morphology, but they also use 16s rRNA gene sequences as well, but even that is arbitrary.

You wouldn't really expect discrete populations due to the very nature of evolution, anyway, but Molecular Systematicists (that's an ugly world and possibly not real) are trying to solve what is possible to solve, I guess.