Creationist concept of Species
Copperhead
value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
assurred?
Agkistrodon
Avital Pilpel
Copperhead wrote in message <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
>value?
The creationist reply would be: No, but you'll burn in hell for asking.
John Harshman
agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> assurred?
Creationists would probably have the same difficulties defining species as
anyone else, but there is a simple, operational definition of "kind": two
organisms are in the same kind if they descended from a common ancestor.
And of course we have ways of testing this. The problem here would be that
creationists generally don't accept such evidence. So the definition of
kind is operational, except to creationists.
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> assurred?
>
>
>
Well, Creationists, where are you?? There've been some comments about you
that were none too flattering. Don't you have a definition? Or are you just
blowing air?
Agkistrodon
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>,
> agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> > value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> > received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> > Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> > of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> > Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> > assurred?
> >
> > Agkistrodon
> >
> >
>
> Well, Creationists, where are you?? There've been some comments about you
> that were none too flattering. Don't you have a definition? Or are you just
> blowing air?
>
> Agkistrodon
>
>
The copperhead is coiled and ready to strike.
Scott Chase
Copperhead
>In article <77fcjj$kt8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> > Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
>> > value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
>> > received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
>> > Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
>> > of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
>> > Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
>> > assurred?
>> >
>> > Agkistrodon
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, Creationists, where are you?? There've been some comments about you
>> that were none too flattering. Don't you have a definition? Or are you just
>> blowing air?
>>
>> Agkistrodon
>>
>>
>Hiss, hiss...
>
>The copperhead is coiled and ready to strike.
>
>Scott Chase
>
DON'T TREAD ON ME!! OOOPSSSSSSS, that wassssss a Crotalusssssss.
Agkisssssssstrodon
Stephen Bracker
>value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
>received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
>Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
>of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
>Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
>assurred?
>
>Agkistrodon
Don't hold your breath. There are few points at which creationism is more
vulnerable. With all the rattling and hissing going on in the vicinity, it
would be a brave creationist indeed who steps into this thread.
"Kinds" are mentioned in the Bible of course, and creationists have
struggled mightily to interpret the word in modern terms. Once we achieved
even a first-order understanding of genetics and ontogeny, it was natural to
ask if creationists truly meant to say that the offspring of two members of
a kind automatically inherited membership in the kind, irrespective of how
far their genes had wandered from those in the original gene pool, and to
ask how one is to treat the perfectly fertile polyploids of hybrids between
two distinctly different kinds. Is dual kind citizenship permitted? Is the
natural establishment of a new kind possible?
If there is some sort of a wall or a moat in design space that constitutes
an unbreachable boundary surrounding a kind, and if some lineage within the
kind drifts right up to that boundary, what forces are at work preventing
the next generation from crossing the line? Those of us who aren't caught up
in the creationist mythology strongly suspect that there exist no such
barriers, and that all of life is one big happy kind. Clearly the "no
barriers, one kind" assumption should be the default assumption until
someone provides at least a hint of a good reason for believing differently.
No good reason has yet been forthcoming. Yet if there be no kinds, then what
is to prevent God from realizing his creation using exactly those processes
proposed by evolutionists?
Kinds, sometimes but not always equated with "species" in the creationist
schema, seem to be a pseudo-concept, like "highest integer". Our language is
wonderful in that it allows us to name things which exist in the world,
things which might exist but don't, and things which couldn't possibly
exist. Creationists can rattle on about kinds just as anyone can talk about
hobbits (I hope I'm not upsetting anyone from Middle Earth), but until
genetic processes in the vicinity of kind boundaries can be understood, at
least in outline, it's all just talk signifying nothing.
Comes on, folks! Make yourself famous. Pull on your snakeproof boots and
solve this problem before yet more people walk away from creationism in
disgust.
Regards,
Steve Bracker
david ford
C Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
C value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
C received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
C Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
C of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
C Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
C assured?
contents: comments by Ward and Ehrlich & Holm on the word "species."
Credentials. Peter Douglas Ward is Professor of Geological Sciences and
Curator of Invertebrates, Thomas Burke Museum at the University of
Washington, and wrote _In Search of Nautilus_ and _The Natural History
of the Nautilus_.
Ward, Peter Douglas. _On Methuselah's Trail: Living Fossils and the
Great Extinctions_ (NY: W.H. Freeman, 1992), 212pp. Foreword by Steven
M. Stanley. On 5:
....one {definition} advanced in 1942 by the great biologist Ernst
Mayr: "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding
populations [of organisms] {Ward's bracketing-df} which are
reproductively isolated from other such groups." The key point is
that species are distinguished by the ability to breed successfully
from generation to generation.
This definition, although admirable {actually it's not, as Ehrlich
& Holm demonstrate in their article} for currently living
organisms, is obviously useless to anyone who is studying fossils.
Though the fossil record yields many insights into the mode of life
of extinct organisms, it simply doesn't tell us the juicy details
of who was sleeping with whom back in the Mesozoic. Nevertheless,
paleontologists refer to their fossils as belonging to species, and
in doing so are implying that the various individuals they place
within their species could, when alive, breed successfully. But
the truth is that fossils are grouped in species solely because of
morphological similarity. In other words, they are similar in form
and structure.
Credentials. According to their _The Process of Evolution_ (1963), Paul
Ehrlich and Richard Holm were associate professors in the division of
systematic biology, dept of biological sciences, Stanford University.
According to Paul & Ann Ehrlich's _Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearance of Species_ (1981), Paul Ehrlich is a
professor of biological sciences and Bing Professor of Population
Studies at Stanford U.; as an evolution and ecology expert, he wrote
100+ scientific papers, a series of textbooks, some popular books, and
many articles.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. "Patterns and Populations"
_Science_ 137: 652-7 (1962). On 653:
Many concepts in population biology have low information content
and little or no operational meaning. In this category we should
place such concepts as "competition," "niche," "community,"
"climax," "species," "population fitness," and to some extent
"population" itself. .... As we shall demonstrate, the concept of
genetic (or "biological") species, the idea of the community as a
unit, and many other concepts currently in subdisciplines of
population biology have much in common with the idea of absolute
time.
On 654:
One of the most widely accepted ideas of population biology is that
higher animals tend to occur in rather well-defined clusters called
species. Various theoretical definitions of species have been
attempted, and most of those accepted by modern evolutionists make
some statement about reproductive isolation between, but not
within, the clusters. In older definitions, assumptions concerning
the occurrence or non-occurrence of interbreeding are implicit.
.... It seems clear {from the preceding discussion; get the
article} that the biological-species definition never has been
operational and never will be.
On 655:
The term _species_ should be retained only in its original, less
restrictive sense of "kind." There seems to be no reason why
quantitative methods should not be used to study phenetic
relationships (those based on similarity rather than imagined
phylogeny) at what we now loosely call the species level.
This is not on the topic at hand, but I found it interesting. On 656:
Few nonevolutionists realize that the term _adaptation_ is one of
the least understood and most misused in population biology.
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Hemida...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <77fcjj$kt8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >> agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Agkistrodon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, Creationists, where are you?? There've been some comments about you
> >> that were none too flattering. Don't you have a definition? Or are you just
> >> blowing air?
> >>
> >> Agkistrodon
> >>
> >>
> >Hiss, hiss...
> >
> >The copperhead is coiled and ready to strike.
> >
> >Scott Chase
> >
> DON'T TREAD ON ME!! OOOPSSSSSSS, that wassssss a Crotalusssssss.
>
> Agkisssssssstrodon
>
>
Boy you really get adamanteus about the horridus creationist absence from
this thread.
Are you rattling their cage?
Gavin Tabor
> >value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> >received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> >Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> >of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> >Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> >assurred?
> >
> >Agkistrodon
>
> vulnerable. With all the rattling and hissing going on in the vicinity, it
> would be a brave creationist indeed who steps into this thread.
>
> "Kinds" are mentioned in the Bible of course, and creationists have
> struggled mightily to interpret the word in modern terms. Once we achieved
> even a first-order understanding of genetics and ontogeny, it was natural to
> ask if creationists truly meant to say that the offspring of two members of
> a kind automatically inherited membership in the kind, irrespective of how
> far their genes had wandered from those in the original gene pool, and to
> ask how one is to treat the perfectly fertile polyploids of hybrids between
> two distinctly different kinds. Is dual kind citizenship permitted? Is the
> natural establishment of a new kind possible?
From what I've seen there are two definitions of `kind' : the
microevolutionary
and the authoritarian. Hence :
Microevolutionary defn : two species are in the same `kind' if you can
demonstrate an evolutionary link between them.
Authoritarian : two species are in the same `kind' if some c'ist says
they
are.
The first definition is at least rigorous and applyable, if somewhat
useless.
It reduces the statement `macroevolution (ie. evolution between `kinds')
is unobservable' to the level of a truism, and of course means that as
far
as anyone else is concerned, everything is in the same `kind' (which
is pretty useless unless you are interested in extraterrestrial
biology).
Amusingly, they seem quite happy lumping all beetles in one `kind', but
suggesting we might be related to apes is a real no-no. I think this is
one of the real reasons behind c'ism - some people just can't accept the
idea that we are risen apes, not fallen angels.
The second definition usually comes about like this :
E: Define `kind'
C: Well, dogs and wolves are obviously the same `kind'
E: OK, but what is the definition?
C: Well, horses and donkeys are obviously the same `kind'
E: Aaaarrgh...
IE you need to tow your own c'ist around to identify whether any two
species
are in the same `kind'... probably by divine revelation. Again, this is
another strand in the c'ist makeup, the requirement that you have to go
to some source of authority (and therefore power) to get answers, rather
than think them out for yourself.
>
> If there is some sort of a wall or a moat in design space that constitutes
> an unbreachable boundary surrounding a kind, and if some lineage within the
> kind drifts right up to that boundary, what forces are at work preventing
> the next generation from crossing the line? Those of us who aren't caught up
> in the creationist mythology strongly suspect that there exist no such
> barriers, and that all of life is one big happy kind.
I think of individuals as points in a `genetic space' of N dimensions,
with
N being quite large (number of possible attributes of the individual).
Reproduction and mutation represent scattering between particles in this
space.
Since N is large, the probability of the species being able to
random-walk
around any obstacle is very large.
> Clearly the "no
> barriers, one kind" assumption should be the default assumption until
> someone provides at least a hint of a good reason for believing differently.
> No good reason has yet been forthcoming. Yet if there be no kinds, then what
> is to prevent God from realizing his creation using exactly those processes
> proposed by evolutionists?
>
> Kinds, sometimes but not always equated with "species" in the creationist
> schema, seem to be a pseudo-concept, like "highest integer". Our language is
> wonderful in that it allows us to name things which exist in the world,
> things which might exist but don't, and things which couldn't possibly
> exist. Creationists can rattle on about kinds just as anyone can talk about
> hobbits (I hope I'm not upsetting anyone from Middle Earth), but until
> genetic processes in the vicinity of kind boundaries can be understood, at
> least in outline, it's all just talk signifying nothing.
Humpf. Stop denegrating hobbits.
>
> Comes on, folks! Make yourself famous. Pull on your snakeproof boots and
> solve this problem before yet more people walk away from creationism in
> disgust.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve Bracker
Gavin
--
Dr.Gavin Tabor
email : ga...@ic.ac.uk
home page : monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/gavin.html
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College,
London SW7 2BY
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
> C value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> C received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> C Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> C of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> C Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> C assured?
>
<A lot of snippage of definitions of species proffered by biologists>
But where is the Creationist's definition. I am familiar with these
definitions and their shortcomings (which didn't even get into the problem of
asexual reproduction and how such a species may be defined) but I want to
hear from the C'ists what they apprehend when they hear the word "species."
Agkistrodon - hisssssss
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Copperhead <agkis...@mindspring.com> on 11 Jan 1999:
>
> C Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> C value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> C received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> C Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> C of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> C Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> C assured?
>
You have outlined thus far, the problems with the definition of species.
There are problems no doubt and the above info is useful in regard to this.
The question would be, if you're arguing from a creationist perspective, what
definition creationists would use and the resulting problems this definition
would have? If a creationist co-opts some definition followed by the
evolutionist camp, that definition would have similar problems. Other
creationists might use the standard "kind" definition, whatever that might be
in explicit terms, and this usually involves some sort of stasis or fixity
when jumping into the debate of whether things can evolve or not. Not all
creationists think alike though.
>
> This is not on the topic at hand, but I found it interesting. On 656:
> Few nonevolutionists realize that the term _adaptation_ is one of
> the least understood and most misused in population biology.
>
>
This is another topic altogether, but if you start a new thread, I'd be
interested in the response from both sides. BTW, do you have access to
antivenin ;-)
Scott Chase
david ford
david ford:
A <A lot of snippage of definitions of species proffered by biologists>
A
A But where is the Creationist's definition. I am familiar with these
A definitions and their shortcomings (which didn't even get into the problem
A of asexual reproduction and how such a species may be defined) but I want to
A hear from the C'ists what they apprehend when they hear the word "species."
I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
And no one knows what it means... that is the point. And yet I hear
Creationists argue about microevolution as simple variation within "species."
I believe that you have used this word in this context as well. In no post
that I have seen has there ever been a definition of "species" given. I
understand variability, I understand microevolution, I understand the nature
of DNA but I do not understand the concept of "species" as used by the
Creationist. Enlighten me!.
Agkistrodon
John Harshman
> Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-dejanews.com> on 13 Jan 1999:
> david ford:
>
> A <A lot of snippage of definitions of species proffered by biologists>
> A
> A But where is the Creationist's definition. I am familiar with these
> A definitions and their shortcomings (which didn't even get into the problem
> A of asexual reproduction and how such a species may be defined) but I want to
> A hear from the C'ists what they apprehend when they hear the word "species."
>
> I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
> word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
This makes perfect sense under the theory of common descent, because
species are not fixed entities. No wonder they are fuzzy and slippery
(hmm...fuzzy slippers...but I digress) when they are always in the process
of subdividing or (sometimes) rejoining.
"Kinds", by contrast, are fixed entities, and should be easy to define.
Shouldn't they?
So what do we observe in the world: hard-to-define continua and ambiguity,
or clear and fixed differences? And what inference can we draw from that?
Kevin D. Quitt
>I understand microevolution
There is no such thing as microevolution. There is only evolution: a change in
allele frequencies within a population. In other words, a change in aggregate
characteristics in a population. That is the all and the everything about
evolution.
This is what creationists call microevolution, and then try to deny that you can
walk from Los Angeles, taking small steps, and end up in New York.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
david ford
Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-dejanews.com> on 16 Jan 1999:
david ford:
df I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
df word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
A And no one knows what it means... that is the point. And yet I hear
A Creationists argue about microevolution as simple variation within
A "species."
I've mostly heard creationists talking about variation within "kinds,"
just as I do below.
A I believe that you have used this word in this context as well.
You're probably thinking of my presentation of the following:
Gilbert et al. "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology"
_Developmental Biology_ 173: 357-72 (1996). On 358:
I. A. Filipchenko (1929) coined the terms microevolution and
macroevolution and argued that one could not be inferred from the
other. Microevolution concerned the origin of varieties and races
within species. Macroevolution concerned the origins of higher
taxa.
A In no post
A that I have seen has there ever been a definition of "species" given.
A I understand variability, I understand microevolution, I understand
A the nature of DNA but I do not understand the concept of "species" as
A used by the Creationist. Enlighten me!
John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 18 Jan 1999:
david ford:
df I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
df word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
JH This makes perfect sense under the theory of common descent, because
JH species are not fixed entities. No wonder they are fuzzy and slippery
JH (hmm...fuzzy slippers...but I digress) when they are always in the
JH process of subdividing or (sometimes) rejoining.
JH
JH "Kinds", by contrast, are fixed entities, and should be easy to define.
JH Shouldn't they?
JH
JH So what do we observe in the world: hard-to-define continua and ambiguity,
JH or clear and fixed differences? And what inference can we draw from that?
file: micropos.g
To clarify my position and definitions: microevolution, i.e.,
horizontal change, occurs all the time. A horse may become after
several generations of man's selective breeding a horse unlike any seen
before-- the original horse population has undergone horizontal change.
A bottlenecking event may occur in which a herd of wild horses gets
drastically reduced in number by some natural disaster, and only a few
horses with their genes are left to continue the tradition. At the end
of it all, the surviving group may look like very different horses than
the original population, but they remain horses-- horizontal change has
occurred.
Another example comes from dogs, which have been mentioned by several in
posts. Look, for example, at the pictures of dogs in the encyclopedia's
"dog" entry. I believe it's entirely possible for one pair of dogs, say
a wolf-like male and female, to have been the ancestors of all those
different-looking dogs you see. There is much variability in the genes
and there are many different combinations of dog genes that can result
from various matings. A series of horizontal changes could very easily
have occurred that resulted in all those different-looking dogs you see
in the encyclopedia: we have dogs looking somewhat dissimilar at the
end of it all, but they remain dogs.
Same deal for bats: big ears, small ears, they're all still bats.
[Revision since this statement was made: this needs to looked at in
terms of major new structures. It may not be as simple as the above
statement implies. Those that classify for a living, i.e. taxonomists,
would be able to say what for major structural differences there exist
among bats, if any.] There is all kinds of variability in bat genes, or
at least, once was.
BTW, this huge amount of variability in animal genomes has its parallel
in the human genome. What Hitler was trying to do in part-- rid the
population of genes causing genetic diseases, was essentially
impossible, even with his murdering people left and right. The human
genome is so incredibly complex, all kinds of things can remain hidden
there, some of which show themselves only when deleterious genes happen
to "gang up" when two people with harmful recessive genes mate.[source
for Hitler and complexity is Daniel J. Kevles, _In the Name of Eugenics:
Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity_ (1985).]
Also, I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, and from them, all
the different-looking people you see around, e.g., black skin, white
skin, yellow skin, red skin, oval faces, square faces, different color
eyes (for a _fruit fly_, 50+ genes determine eye color, with _hundreds_
of genes at work in getting a straight wing - Kevles, 146), round eyes,
oval eyes, different color hairs, different type and texture hairs,
etc., came from Adam and Eve, with a bottlenecking event for Noah's
Flood.
Incidentally, individuals have claimed that an increase in size is an
example of something of significance for a creation vs. evolution
debate. A counterexample to this claim comes from the Japanese. Back
on the home island, the Japanese are overall short compared to
Americans. But in the US, the kids of Japanese parents are growing up
to be taller than their parents. People of Japanese ancestry growing up
taller in the US has everything to do with their now eating greasy
hamburgers and drinking large quantities of milk.
Getting taller has nothing to do with blindwatchmaking.
"Blindwatchmaking" is the arrival of "evolutionary novelties" via non-
intelligence-directed processes. "Evolutionary novelties" are "new body
structures & organs & biochemical pathways that permit the assumption of
new functions."
I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes. I do not
believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years. Nor can a
horse become a cow, nor a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural selection and of
common descent predict the gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-
different organisms with the passage of ever-more time. If the
predicted transitional fossil sequences existed, then paleontologists
wouldn't be able to classify things. Fossil organisms would blend into
each other, making classification very difficult. However, in contrast
to prediction, clear divisions exist in the fossil record, and for
evidence I offer the fact that Darwin (and us) was (are) able to quite
easily classify fossil organisms studied. Some things take more
pictures to describe because there is more variation in them, while
other things require only one picture to identify them, but
paleontologists can still easily classify these things. In sum, we're
able to classify fossils in contravention of what's predicted by the
theories of common descent plus natural selection.
As further evidence that divisions exist in the fossil record, I offer
the fact that we are able to divide up the geological record into eras,
periods, and epochs on the basis of the types of fossils found therein.
In making the classifications of fossil organisms, we look at body
structure. That is the basis for the classification of fossils, since
there is no such thing as mating two fossils and seeing if they are
capable of reproducing to see if we can call them separate "species" or
separate "kinds." Ability to mate and produce fertile offspring is not
what I have in mind when I say "kinds"; body structure is. Thus, a
great dane and a teacup poodle, though they are incapable of mating, are
both of the same kind, for they are both dogs. If they were found
fossilized, paleontologists would be able to classify them together
based on their body structure. So, to repeat, body structure is the
basis for calling something of one "kind" versus another.
Andrew MacRae
|On 16 Jan 1999 19:56:42 -0500, eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
|>I understand microevolution
|
|There is no such thing as microevolution. There is only evolution: a
|change in allele frequencies within a population. In other words, a
|change in aggregate characteristics in a population. That is the all and
|the everything about evolution.
|
|This is what creationists call microevolution, and then try to deny that
|you can walk from Los Angeles, taking small steps, and end up in New
|York.
No, there is such a thing as micro and macroevolution, but, using
your trip analogy, it is merely the fairly arbitrary difference between a
short trip and a long trip, defined at some threshhold -- perhaps the
boundary of your local town or property. Evolutionary scientists would
say that the same processes seen to move people around town could easily
be the processes used for longer trips too (evolutionary theory), and
there is little doubt that such trips happen (the fact of evolutionary
change). There is continuing investigation about the exact means used,
and whether, for example, some modes of transport are used for longer
trips that aren't for shorter ones, or if there is any difference in the
emphasis on particular processes at different scales. Anti-evolutionary
creationists would say there isn't any long distance travel at all, and
people are just created at or near their destination, even if travellers
are found at the side of the road in mid-travel at various points along
the way.
For anti-evolutionary creationists, the scientific discussion
about the exact modes of transport isn't really relevant (because long
distance transport doesn't happen), but that does not stop them from
citing it as "evidence" of some kind of great doubt that long-distance
travel has occurred at all. Likewise, it doesn't stop people from
claiming the long-acknowledged fuzziness of the threshhold between "long
distance" and "short distance" travel is some kind of problem for the
theory that travel at any scale happens at all. Instead, it is a much
more serious problem for anyone claiming that travel beyond a certain
threshhold doesn't happen. Such a boundary should be quite obvious, and
it should have some kind of fence or other process that prevents travel
beyond it.
I've tried my best, but, naturally, this analogy can be further
abused.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
John Harshman
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I reject your distinction between "horizontal" and other sorts of
evolution. How do you tell the difference?
[snip same point with dogs]
> Same deal for bats: big ears, small ears, they're all still bats.
> [Revision since this statement was made: this needs to looked at in
> terms of major new structures. It may not be as simple as the above
> statement implies. Those that classify for a living, i.e. taxonomists,
> would be able to say what for major structural differences there exist
> among bats, if any.] There is all kinds of variability in bat genes, or
> at least, once was.
Bats are an order, while horses are a species. Are you saying that bats
are a single "kind"? This returns us to the question: how do you tell one
kind from two (or more) kinds? Anyway, horses are all still horses because
we choose to call them horses. Bats are still bats because we choose to
call them bats. You can always collect together a bunch of things under
one name by adjusting the characteristics for inclusion. You might as well
say that mammals are a kind, because no matter how much they change
(horizontal evolution?) they're still mammals. Or tetrapods. Or
vertebrates. Or metazoans. This says nothing about limits.
[snip Hitler]
> Also, I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, and from them, all
> the different-looking people you see around, e.g., black skin, white
> skin, yellow skin, red skin, oval faces, square faces, different color
> eyes (for a _fruit fly_, 50+ genes determine eye color, with _hundreds_
> of genes at work in getting a straight wing - Kevles, 146), round eyes,
> oval eyes, different color hairs, different type and texture hairs,
> etc., came from Adam and Eve, with a bottlenecking event for Noah's
> Flood.
Are you claiming that there have been no new mutations since Adam and Eve,
and that all genetic variability within modern humans was present at the
very start? I want to be clear on this.
[snip environmental influences on human height]
> Getting taller has nothing to do with blindwatchmaking.
> "Blindwatchmaking" is the arrival of "evolutionary novelties" via non-
> intelligence-directed processes. "Evolutionary novelties" are "new body
> structures & organs & biochemical pathways that permit the assumption of
> new functions."
Let's accept this definition for now, noting that it's fairly vague. Would
such differences then require separate kinds?
> I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
> vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
This, as you note below, involved two theories: common descent and
non-direction (e.g. natural selection). Let's be clear on your views: do
you reject both or just the second?
> I do not
> believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years. Nor can a
> horse become a cow, nor a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
> oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
> a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
Stripped of the nonsensical evolutionary pathways that nobody whatsoever
believes (all except land animal to whale and reptile to bird), this would
say that you don't believe large transformations can occur over time.
Correct?
> When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural selection and of
> common descent predict the gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-
> different organisms with the passage of ever-more time.
True.
> If the
> predicted transitional fossil sequences existed, then paleontologists
> wouldn't be able to classify things.
Not true. Indeed, some of the trouble in classifying things is due to
transitionals. Have you ever heard of chronospecies? Smooth, species-level
transitions are fairly rare (though not unknown) but transitions between
traditionally, paraphyletically-defined families and higher taxa are
common enough. Consider the big argument in the literature some years back
over what to call a mammal and what to call a therapsid.
>Fossil organisms would blend into
> each other, making classification very difficult.
Sometimes this does happen. But the spottiness of the record eliminates
many of these problems. And though I'm not convinced that stasis/PE
actually is a common pattern, it may also be a partial explanation.
> However, in contrast
> to prediction, clear divisions exist in the fossil record, and for
> evidence I offer the fact that Darwin (and us) was (are) able to quite
> easily classify fossil organisms studied.
You overestimate this ease.
> Some things take more
> pictures to describe because there is more variation in them, while
> other things require only one picture to identify them, but
> paleontologists can still easily classify these things. In sum, we're
> able to classify fossils in contravention of what's predicted by the
> theories of common descent plus natural selection.
Still, note that we can classify them hierarchically, and that the
hierarchy correlates quite strongly with order in the stratigraphic
record. I wonder why this would be.
> As further evidence that divisions exist in the fossil record, I offer
> the fact that we are able to divide up the geological record into eras,
> periods, and epochs on the basis of the types of fossils found therein.
Well, of course we divide these up largely on the basis of mass
extinctions, times of major faunal turnover. How does this advance your
argument?
> In making the classifications of fossil organisms, we look at body
> structure. That is the basis for the classification of fossils, since
> there is no such thing as mating two fossils and seeing if they are
> capable of reproducing to see if we can call them separate "species" or
> separate "kinds." Ability to mate and produce fertile offspring is not
> what I have in mind when I say "kinds"; body structure is. Thus, a
> great dane and a teacup poodle, though they are incapable of mating, are
> both of the same kind, for they are both dogs. If they were found
> fossilized, paleontologists would be able to classify them together
> based on their body structure. So, to repeat, body structure is the
> basis for calling something of one "kind" versus another.
The problem is that we classify hierarchically. Where do kinds stop?
Species, genus, family, order, class, phylum? All these (and lots of other
unranked groups on all sorts of trees) are classified together on the
basis of body structure. So is "mammal" a kind?
But let's clarify your view a bit. You clearly reject the possibility of
large transformations through unguided mechanisms. But what else does your
position entail? It's hard to argue with you without knowing where you
stand. I think you are perhaps an unusual flavor of creationist, but I'm
not sure. Please respond to these questions so I can know your views.
Do you accept that the earth and life are billions of years old?
That the geologic column is more or less correctly interpreted?
That fossil organisms had approximately the time-distributions we think we see?
Are organisms connected by common descent, with divine intervention to
help big transitions, or was each kind separately created de novo?
Was this de novo creation, if that's the case, done throughout history at
approximately the time we note their fossils? That is, many thousands or
millions of separate creations of individual kinds for the last several
billion years?
Do you think mutations actually occur, and if so that they may be adaptive
or neutral, thus increasing genetic variation within a species?
Finally, what is a kind, anyway? Is it something delimited by a
morphological gap from other kinds? How big a gap is necessary? Name some
kinds, and criteria for recognizing them. Is Homo sapiens a kind? How
about Homo neanderthalensis? Homo erectus? Homo habilis? Australopithecus
afarensis? What about 1Chiroptera? Canis familaris? Canis? Canidae?
Carnivora? Mammalia? To choose another path, is Phacops rana a kind?
Phacops? Trilobita? Arthropoda?
david ford
KQ There is no such thing as microevolution. There is only evolution: a
KQ change in allele frequencies within a population. In other words, a
KQ change in aggregate characteristics in a population. That is the all
KQ and the everything about evolution.
1) [KQ]"a change in aggregate characteristics in a population. That is
the all and the everything about evolution."
2) [KQ]"There is only evolution: a change in allele frequencies within a
population."
Does the "evolution" in 1) have a different meaning than the "evolution"
in 2)? If "yes," please define the word "evolution" as it's used in 1).
KQ This is what creationists call microevolution, and then try to deny that
KQ you can walk from Los Angeles, taking small steps, and end up in New
KQ York.
Copperhead
>
>To clarify my position and definitions: microevolution, i.e.,
>horizontal change, occurs all the time.
There is no such thing as "horizontal change". This would require
that there be only one or two variables in the analysis. You must
include time and when you do you are no longer talking about
"horizontal change." Are you trying to say that there is something
magical that intervenes to prevent changes from going too far and
taking the "species" into the realm of a new "species"?
>A horse may become after
>several generations of man's selective breeding a horse unlike any seen
>before-- the original horse population has undergone horizontal change.
Not at all because it has occurred in time. Time inroduces
non-horizontalness into the mix.
>A bottlenecking event may occur in which a herd of wild horses gets
>drastically reduced in number by some natural disaster, and only a few
>horses with their genes are left to continue the tradition. At the end
>of it all, the surviving group may look like very different horses than
>the original population, but they remain horses-- horizontal change has
>occurred.
There, you have included time in the shift. But they do NOT remain
horses of the parental stock. They become "Ford's horse" and then...
Over time their allelic frequencies shift and they may become not just
different but completely different. They may not even be recognizable
as horses if the process continues in isolation long enough. Indeed,
they may not even be recognizable as anything we've ever seen. Given
fifty million years and appropriate environments, they will probably
break apart (like Darwin's finches) into several different "kinds",
possibly including... indeed, probably including, a predatory
descendant or, like the finches, a vampire. There would be also
giants and dwarves not interbreeding... the criterion we now use to
define a species.
>
Deletage about dogs and bats.
>
>BTW, this huge amount of variability in animal genomes has its parallel
>in the human genome. What Hitler was trying to do in part-- rid the
>population of genes causing genetic diseases, was essentially
>impossible, even with his murdering people left and right. The human
>genome is so incredibly complex, all kinds of things can remain hidden
>there, some of which show themselves only when deleterious genes happen
>to "gang up" when two people with harmful recessive genes mate.[source
>for Hitler and complexity is Daniel J. Kevles, _In the Name of Eugenics:
>Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity_ (1985).]
Hitler had no idea of genetic diseases.. unless there's a gene for
Jewishness, gypsyism, and communism. Hitler was trying to erase a
culture and, although he didn't know it, memes. Further, he could
have eliminated all sorts of genetic diseases with appropriate
selective methodology. The re-emergence of Tay-Sachs (e.g.) would
require that the mutation occur again. I do not know how often that
would happen (if at all) but it would not be a problem if every
carrier of T-S were prevented from breeding. Our next generation
would be T-S free. Same for sickle cell and the others.
>
>Also, I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, and from them, all
>the different-looking people you see around, e.g., black skin, white
>skin, yellow skin, red skin, oval faces, square faces, different color
>eyes (for a _fruit fly_, 50+ genes determine eye color, with _hundreds_
>of genes at work in getting a straight wing - Kevles, 146), round eyes,
>oval eyes, different color hairs, different type and texture hairs,
>etc., came from Adam and Eve, with a bottlenecking event for Noah's
>Flood.
You believe some pretty wild things.
>
>Incidentally, individuals have claimed that an increase in size is an
>example of something of significance for a creation vs. evolution
>debate. A counterexample to this claim comes from the Japanese. Back
>on the home island, the Japanese are overall short compared to
>Americans. But in the US, the kids of Japanese parents are growing up
>to be taller than their parents. People of Japanese ancestry growing up
>taller in the US has everything to do with their now eating greasy
>hamburgers and drinking large quantities of milk.
Sure, so what?
>
Deletage of stuff I don't have time to deal with now.
Later.
Agkistrodon
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Kevin D. Quitt <Ke...@Quitt.net> on 18 Jan 1999:
>
> KQ There is no such thing as microevolution. There is only evolution: a
> KQ change in allele frequencies within a population. In other words, a
> KQ change in aggregate characteristics in a population. That is the all
> KQ and the everything about evolution.
>
> 1) [KQ]"a change in aggregate characteristics in a population. That is
> the all and the everything about evolution."
> 2) [KQ]"There is only evolution: a change in allele frequencies within a
> population."
> Does the "evolution" in 1) have a different meaning than the "evolution"
> in 2)? If "yes," please define the word "evolution" as it's used in 1).
There is really nothing inconsistent here. We may define evolution to be a
change in allelic frequencies within a population over time. Then that change
would bring about a change in aggregate characteristics. It's a redundancy
but not a contradiction. In fact, evolution is usually defined as KQ's 2) and
it is often detected as KQ's 1).
I have two questions?
1. Do you know what an allele is? It seems to me that I recall a long ago
exchange between ford and James Acker in which Acker showed clearly that you
didn't.
2. Why do you indulge in these non-standard attributes? It is disconcerting
to have to break these lines up like this and makes it harder to read. Or do
you do that deliberately?
howard hershey
Which of the following organisms (some living, some extinct) are
included in the 'kind' horse within which only 'horizontal' change
occurs?
Equus caballus, the asses, the zebras, the quagga, the various members
of the following genera: Dinohippus, Nannipus, Hipparion,
Stylohipparion, Comohipparion, Neohipparion, Pseudhipparion, Calippus,
Astrohippus, Protohippus, Merychippus, all the above being *grazing*
horses found as fossils largely in the Miocene. And that is not even
including the *browsing* horses from that or earlier eras. In the
Miocene horse species were as common as antelope (rumniant) species are
today.
The reason I asked is because I had earlier said that the next person
using a phrase like "But they are still horses" without qualifying or
specifying what he or she means qualified for "idiot of the millenium"
or "horse's a__ of the millenium" standing.
>
> Another example comes from dogs, which have been mentioned by several in
> posts. Look, for example, at the pictures of dogs in the encyclopedia's
> "dog" entry. I believe it's entirely possible for one pair of dogs, say
> a wolf-like male and female, to have been the ancestors of all those
> different-looking dogs you see. There is much variability in the genes
> and there are many different combinations of dog genes that can result
> from various matings. A series of horizontal changes could very easily
> have occurred that resulted in all those different-looking dogs you see
> in the encyclopedia: we have dogs looking somewhat dissimilar at the
> end of it all, but they remain dogs.
Where do you place foxes, jackels, hyenas, etc., etc., plus all the
fossil carnivores with some claim to 'doginess'?
>
> Same deal for bats: big ears, small ears, they're all still bats.
Do you realize how *many* different bat species there are and the major
differences between the microchioptera and the megachioptera?! This
goes way beyond the 'kind' is the same as genera or family argument and
into the "They are all still bacteria" superkingdom-is-a-kind argument I
have heard occassionally. What are the criteria of 'kindness' and what
makes you think that saying "X (some vague non-technical word covering
some group with common properties) is still an X" represents intelligent
discussion rather than 'idiot of the millenium' evasion?
> [Revision since this statement was made: this needs to looked at in
> terms of major new structures. It may not be as simple as the above
> statement implies. Those that classify for a living, i.e. taxonomists,
> would be able to say what for major structural differences there exist
> among bats, if any.] There is all kinds of variability in bat genes, or
> at least, once was.
>
[snip remainder; one thing at a time]
Stephen Poley
among other things:
>I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
>vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes. I do not
>believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years. Nor can a
>horse become a cow, nor a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
>oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
>a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
> Thus, a
>great dane and a teacup poodle, though they are incapable of mating, are
>both of the same kind, for they are both dogs. If they were found
>fossilized, paleontologists would be able to classify them together
>based on their body structure. So, to repeat, body structure is the
>basis for calling something of one "kind" versus another.
Right, so you believe that all living things are clearly divided into
"kinds", which have no common ancestorship. But where are the
boundaries of your kinds?
Take the herring gull, Larus Argentatus, as a starting point. What
other animals are of the same kind? Is the yellow-legged gull, Larus
[argentatus] cachinnans the same kind? How about the ring-billed gull?
All Larus gulls? All gulls? Terns? All Charadriiform birds? All living
birds? Archaeopteryx? Just where do you place the boundaries? If your
"kinds" are so clearly separated, surely it should be easy to list
them?
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...
>Replies to Agkistrodon and John H.
>Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-dejanews.com> on 16 Jan 1999:
>david ford:
>
>df I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
>df word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
>
>A And no one knows what it means... that is the point.
Or rather, there is no one single biological situation that the word
always implies. There are a diversity of concepts that get called
species, with applicability that vary from case to case. Asexual lineages
of fungi or dandelions aren't "species" in the same sense as biological
species of mammals. There are also many examples of cases that fall into
gray zones between "clearly two geographic forms of one species" and
"clearly two related but separate species", but that's not a problem of
species concepts. Evolutionary biology would expect that "species" will
often be fuzzy concepts, with numerous lineages in various stages of
becoming distinct.
"Kinds", on the other hand, ought to always be very clear-cut and easy to
define and delimit. Why aren't they?
>A And yet I hear
>A Creationists argue about microevolution as simple variation within
>A "species."
>
>I've mostly heard creationists talking about variation within "kinds,"
>just as I do below.
And it's always rather pointless, much as it is below. What are some
clear objective criteria for recognizing "kinds" and their limits?
[snip]
>John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 18 Jan 1999:
>david ford:
>
>df I'm a creationist/ seeingwatchmakingist. I've just heard you say the
>df word "species." I don't know what you mean by the word.
>
>JH This makes perfect sense under the theory of common descent, because
>JH species are not fixed entities. No wonder they are fuzzy and
slippery
>JH (hmm...fuzzy slippers...but I digress) when they are always in the
>JH process of subdividing or (sometimes) rejoining.
>JH
>JH "Kinds", by contrast, are fixed entities, and should be easy to
define.
>JH Shouldn't they?
>JH
>JH So what do we observe in the world: hard-to-define continua and
ambiguity,
>JH or clear and fixed differences? And what inference can we draw from
that?
As he said.
[snip]
>To clarify my position and definitions: microevolution, i.e.,
>horizontal change, occurs all the time.
This is clarifying? Sheesh. What on earth might "horizontal change" mean?
[as opposed to "vertical change", I presume?] There's no such thing in
biology. Change in the genetic makup of populations is evolution.
Change within one species is microevolution, speciation and changes in
supraspecific lineages are macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
>A horse may become after
>several generations of man's selective breeding a horse unlike any seen
>before-- the original horse population has undergone horizontal change.
There's no "horizontal" or "vertical" to it. If speciation has occurred
it's macroevolution.
[snip of more horsey stuff]
Are all living species of Equus one "kind"? How does one tell? Are the
early fossil Equidae also of the same "kind", or only the one-toed branch
of the family? If early lines of "horses" with more primitive feet and
teeth are also members of a horse "kind", what about tapirs and rhinos?
>Another example comes from dogs, which have been mentioned by several in
>posts. Look, for example, at the pictures of dogs in the encyclopedia's
>"dog" entry. I believe it's entirely possible for one pair of dogs, say
>a wolf-like male and female, to have been the ancestors of all those
>different-looking dogs you see.
That's nice, but you seem to have no good reason for you to believe this.
What about the wild ancestral wolves and the other various wild species
of Canis? Are they also of the same "kind"? How do you tell? What
about foxes, and other canids like Otocyon, Chrysocyon, Nyctereutes,
Speotheos, etc.? How do you tell if they are one "kind" or many?
> There is much variability in the genes
>and there are many different combinations of dog genes that can result
>from various matings. A series of horizontal changes
Define "horizontal" here. AFAICT, it's meaningless.
This assertion of yours could lead to an experimental program for any
"scientific" creationists who might try to support your belief: take a
few pairs of wolves and try to show that this vast amoung of hidden
variability is already there and needs no new mutations. Do"various
matings", and select out the chihuahuas and poodles from among their
offspring. Or, they could look at what we already know about dog genetics
and try to show that all the many different unique dog alleles could all
have been present in one or a few pairs of ancestors. Good luck.
>could very easily
>have occurred that resulted in all those different-looking dogs you see
>in the encyclopedia: we have dogs looking somewhat dissimilar at the
>end of it all, but they remain dogs.
But are they still wolves? Yes, "they remain dogs". Big deal. They also
remain Canidae, and remain Carnivora, and remain placental mammals, and
remain therian mammals, and remain mammals, and synapsids and amniotes
and tetrapods and sarcopterygians and gnathostomes and vertebrates and
chordates and metazoans. That's the way common descent works. Humans,
gorillas and chimpanzees all "remain Hominidae".
>Same deal for bats: big ears, small ears, they're all still bats.
What an remarkably glib dismissal of one of the largest and most diverse
orders of Mammalia.
How about: "Same deal for humans, the other apes, and monkeys and lemurs:
long tails, short tails, much fur, little fur, they're all still
primates." Yep, it all makes a lot of sense when you put it like that.
;-)
>[Revision since this statement was made: this needs to looked at in
>terms of major new structures. It may not be as simple as the above
>statement implies. Those that classify for a living, i.e. taxonomists,
>would be able to say what for major structural differences there exist
>among bats, if any.] There is all kinds of variability in bat genes, or
>at least, once was.
And since it seems there are no major new structures in the
monkey/human/ape "kind"...
[snip]
>Also, I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, and from them, all
>the different-looking people you see around, e.g., black skin, white
>skin, yellow skin, red skin, oval faces, square faces, different color
>eyes (for a _fruit fly_, 50+ genes determine eye color, with _hundreds_
>of genes at work in getting a straight wing - Kevles, 146), round eyes,
>oval eyes, different color hairs, different type and texture hairs,
>etc., came from Adam and Eve, with a bottlenecking event for Noah's
>Flood.
You're welcome to believe whatever you please, but it's still all
biological nonsense. [It's tempting to borrow your complete fossil-record
"prediction" from below to ask where we can see all the graves and
skeletons of A & E et al.]
[snip]
>
>Getting taller has nothing to do with blindwatchmaking.
>"Blindwatchmaking" is the arrival of "evolutionary novelties" via non-
>intelligence-directed processes. "Evolutionary novelties" are "new body
>structures & organs & biochemical pathways that permit the assumption of
>new functions."
Nice "definitions". Make them up yourself? Are "new body structures &
organs & biochemical pathways always very different from merely _changed_
body structures & organs & biochemical pathways, which is what evolution
is about? Are these "new functions" always so clearly distinguishable
from "changed functions"?
>I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
>vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
Your idiosyncratic terminology is not very relevant to the biologists'
definition of macroevolution [= speciation, and long-term trends in
supraspecific lineages].
>I do not
>believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years.
Well, good, since nobody else does either. They are separate lineages
that share a remote common ancestor.
You do agree that a Pleistocene wolf could become a modern chihuahua over
thousands of years, right? Couldn't an early Tertiary proto-Carnivora
become cats and dogs and bears and seals and weasels and hyaenas and
raccoons? Why not?
>Nor can a horse become a cow,
Separate lines, again. They'd share common ancestry only among early
ungulates
>nor a reptile a bird.
Taxonomists would now say that birds are one subgroup of Reptilia, and
fossil "reptile"/bird intermediates are of course known.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm
>A peach tree can't become an
>oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
>a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
And these are mostly strawman arguments, since peaches and oaks or humans
and chimps, share common ancestry, and aren't one another's ancestors.
Early land mammals on the other hand did become whales. Flying squirrels
aren't anywhere close to birds, but may serve as analogue models of bat
ancestors [but colugos are closer].
>When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural selection and of
>common descent predict the gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-
>different organisms with the passage of ever-more time.
> If the
>predicted transitional fossil sequences existed,
There's no such prediction that all organisms or all species that ever
existed will get fossilized and found.
>then paleontologists wouldn't be able to classify things.
Not so, but it could be difficult to correctly place every specimen of
the lineages close to the branching points. [The specimen-storage problem
would be rather bigger than the classificatory one if all individuals of
all species were preserved... ;-)]
>Fossil organisms would blend into
>each other, making classification very difficult. However, in contrast
>to prediction, clear divisions exist in the fossil record,
Smooth speciation-level fossil transitions are scarce but not nonexistent
[but are boring since they only show what a creationist would call
"microevolution"]. Higher-level intermediates are well-known.
[snip]
> In sum, we're
>able to classify fossils in contravention of what's predicted by the
>theories of common descent plus natural selection.
In contravention only of your own strawman "predictions". Researchers who
understand the fossil record and the theory of common descent wouldn't
agree with the predictions. The fossil record is probably about as good
as we'd predict it should be, based on what we know of biology, taphonomy
and geology. Sometimes we even get lucky: Ambulocetus, Archaeopteryx,
Ardipithecus...
[snip]
>Ability to mate and produce fertile offspring is not
>what I have in mind when I say "kinds"; body structure is. Thus, a
>great dane and a teacup poodle, though they are incapable of mating, are
>both of the same kind, for they are both dogs. If they were found
>fossilized, paleontologists would be able to classify them together
>based on their body structure. So, to repeat, body structure is the
>basis for calling something of one "kind" versus another.
Ahh, so it's the common body structure of "dogs" what lets you call them
one "kind"? What about the commonalities of the body structure shared
with the rest of the Canidae? Then again, why doesn't the basic body
structure of the Carnivora make them all one "kind"? What about the many
basic shared features of body structure of placental mammals? Amniotes?
Tetrapods? Oops. Seems we're still stuck with having to decide somehow
just what degree of difference in body structure is enough to delimit
"kinds". Back to square one...
You presumably would want to claim that chimpanzees and humans are not
the same "kind", but gee whiz, they sure do seem to share the same basic
"body structure" with the other apes. If timber wolves and Pekinese are
to be one "kind", I guess humans and great apes must also be considered
one "kind" [especially since the interbreeding thing isn't to be part of
the criteria]...
cheers
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
In article <787sld$i0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
He might be looking for his snake bite kit.
You better hope he's not that "Crocodile Hunter" guy. He might come back on
this thread and say something like: "This 'ere is a Copperhead, one of the
most dangerous snakes in t.o. I'm gonna sneak up on it and grab it by the
tail. Don't try this at home, mate."
Scott Chase
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I have two questions?
> > >
> > > 1. Do you know what an allele is? It seems to me that I recall a long ago
> > > exchange between ford and James Acker in which Acker showed clearly that
you
> > > didn't.
> > >
> > > 2. Why do you indulge in these non-standard attributes? It is
disconcerting
> > > to have to break these lines up like this and makes it harder to read.
> > Or do
> > > you do that deliberately?
> > >
> > > Agkistrodon
> > >
> > Where did he go?
> >
> >
> >
> He might be looking for his snake bite kit.
>
> You better hope he's not that "Crocodile Hunter" guy. He might come back on
> this thread and say something like: "This 'ere is a Copperhead, one of the
> most dangerous snakes in t.o. I'm gonna sneak up on it and grab it by the
> tail. Don't try this at home, mate."
>
> Scott Chase
>
form, mutated, inspected, neglected, and selected for my particularly potent
venom, double jointed neck, and BIG hemipenis. ;-}
Agkistrodon
rw...@lcc.com
eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <78950f$3ia$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Hemida...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agkistrodon
> > > >
> > > Where did he go?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > He might be looking for his snake bite kit.
> >
> > You better hope he's not that "Crocodile Hunter" guy. He might come back on
> > this thread and say something like: "This 'ere is a Copperhead, one of the
> > most dangerous snakes in t.o. I'm gonna sneak up on it and grab it by the
> > tail. Don't try this at home, mate."
> >
> > Scott Chase
> >
> Well, he'll find that I'm not the usual "KIND" of Copperhead! I'm an evolved
> form, mutated, inspected, neglected, and selected for my particularly potent
> venom, double jointed neck, and BIG hemipenis. ;-}
Once more with four-part harmony and feeling.
Rick Wise
rw...@lcc.com (soon to change)
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
rw...@lcc.com wrote:
> In article <789mq2$i8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <78950f$3ia$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > Hemida...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > >
> [Snip challenge by agkistroron]
> > > > >
> > > > > Agkistrodon
> > > > >
> > > > Where did he go?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > He might be looking for his snake bite kit.
> > >
> > > You better hope he's not that "Crocodile Hunter" guy. He might come back
on
> > > this thread and say something like: "This 'ere is a Copperhead, one of the
> > > most dangerous snakes in t.o. I'm gonna sneak up on it and grab it by the
> > > tail. Don't try this at home, mate."
> > >
> > > Scott Chase
> > >
> > Well, he'll find that I'm not the usual "KIND" of Copperhead! I'm an evolved
> > form, mutated, inspected, neglected, and selected for my particularly potent
> > venom, double jointed neck, and BIG hemipenis. ;-}
>
> Once more with four-part harmony and feeling.
>
> Rick Wise
> rw...@lcc.com (soon to change)
>
> > Agkistrodon
> > >
> >
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Agkistrodon
>
>
Well, twelve days and still no Creationist definition!! Are you out there?
John Harshman
> In article <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>,
> agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> > value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> > received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> > Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> > of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> > Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> > assurred?
> Well, twelve days and still no Creationist definition!! Are you out there?
You will notice if you stick around that creationists are rare here and
most of them are incapable of anything better than what Karl Crawford
handed you. So I'll substitute.
Better to define "kind" than "species", since kinds are fundamental to
creationist biology. So, then, operational definition of kind: two
organisms belong to the same kind if there is strong evidence that they
descended from a common ancestor.
Now, if we apply this definition, we discover that there is one kind, the
"life" kind. But that's not my problem.
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
eosin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <harshman.diespamdi...@pm4-205.sfo.infi.net>,
> harshman....@sjm.infi.net (John Harshman) wrote:
> > In article <78cikg$vb6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3698993...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > > agkis...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > Is there a Creationist concept of "species" that has some operational
> > > > value? I have been asking this question for quite some time and have
> > > > received absolutely no answer from any Creationist other than the
> > > > Biblical term "kind." This is, of course, useless because of its lack
> > > > of operational value and its vagueness. So, I ask again. What is the
> > > > Creationist concept of species and by what mechanism is immutability
> > > > assurred?
> >
> > > Well, twelve days and still no Creationist definition!! Are you out there?
> >
> > You will notice if you stick around that creationists are rare here and
> > most of them are incapable of anything better than what Karl Crawford
> > handed you. So I'll substitute.
> >
> > Better to define "kind" than "species", since kinds are fundamental to
> > creationist biology. So, then, operational definition of kind: two
> > organisms belong to the same kind if there is strong evidence that they
> > descended from a common ancestor.
> >
> > Now, if we apply this definition, we discover that there is one kind, the
> > "life" kind. But that's not my problem.
> >
> So I perceive. I now proceed to give up and crawl by into my hole.
>
>
I'm sure there will be an unsuspecting Creationist that will stumble through
these parts. Just give it time. The wait is always the worst part of the
hunt.
Talk.origins often ends up as evolutionists debating other evolutionists.
It's like a low-grade sci.bio.evolution in many respects.
Once in a while a died-in-the-wool YEC comes tearing through here and
everyone unleashes on them.
Scott Chase
david ford
david ford:
df To clarify my position and definitions: microevolution, i.e.,
df horizontal change, occurs all the time. A horse may become after
df several generations of man's selective breeding a horse unlike any seen
df before-- the original horse population has undergone horizontal change.
df A bottlenecking event may occur in which a herd of wild horses gets
df drastically reduced in number by some natural disaster, and only a few
df horses with their genes are left to continue the tradition. At the end
df of it all, the surviving group may look like very different horses than
df the original population, but they remain horses-- horizontal change has
df occurred.
JH I reject your distinction between "horizontal" and other sorts of
JH evolution. How do you tell the difference?
JH
JH [snip same point with dogs]
df Same deal for bats: big ears, small ears, they're all still bats.
df [Revision since this statement was made: this needs to looked at in
df terms of major new structures. It may not be as simple as the above
df statement implies. Those that classify for a living, i.e. taxonomists,
df would be able to say what for major structural differences there exist
df among bats, if any.] There is all kinds of variability in bat genes, or
df at least, once was.
JH Bats are an order, while horses are a species. Are you saying that bats
JH are a single "kind"? This returns us to the question: how do you tell one
JH kind from two (or more) kinds? Anyway, horses are all still horses because
JH we choose to call them horses. Bats are still bats because we choose to
JH call them bats. You can always collect together a bunch of things under
JH one name by adjusting the characteristics for inclusion. You might as well
JH say that mammals are a kind, because no matter how much they change
JH (horizontal evolution?) they're still mammals. Or tetrapods. Or
JH vertebrates. Or metazoans. This says nothing about limits.
JH
JH [snip Hitler]
df Also, I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, and from them, all
df the different-looking people you see around, e.g., black skin, white
df skin, yellow skin, red skin, oval faces, square faces, different color
df eyes (for a _fruit fly_, 50+ genes determine eye color, with _hundreds_
df of genes at work in getting a straight wing - Kevles, 146), round eyes,
df oval eyes, different color hairs, different type and texture hairs,
df etc., came from Adam and Eve, with a bottlenecking event for Noah's
df Flood.
JH Are you claiming that there have been no new mutations since Adam and Eve,
New mutations occur all the time, and overwhelmingly are either deleterious
or neutral in effect.
JH and that all genetic variability within modern humans was present at
JH the very start? I want to be clear on this.
A particular change in fruit fly eye color is brought about by a change in
a single gene, so I suspect that some of the above-mentioned traits could
very well be brought into existence via a mutation(s). However, I'd add
that I strongly suspect that in general, the above-mentioned traits were
present in the Adam and Eve, with matings since revealing the extent of
that hidden variability.
JH [snip environmental influences on human height]
df Getting taller has nothing to do with blindwatchmaking.
df "Blindwatchmaking" is the arrival of "evolutionary novelties" via non-
df intelligence-directed processes. "Evolutionary novelties" are "new body
df structures & organs & biochemical pathways that permit the assumption of
df new functions."
JH Let's accept this definition for now, noting that it's fairly vague.
===============begin inserted text===============
Mayr, Ernst. Essay "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties" in _The
Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future_, ed. Sol Tax
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 349-80. On 351:
What particular changes of the phenotype, then, would qualify [as
an 'evolutionary novelty']? Certainly any change that would permit
an organism to perform a new function. Tentatively, one might
restrict the designation "evolutionary novelty" to any newly
acquired structure or property which permits the assumption of a
new function.
================end inserted text================
Actually, I'm trying to get away from use of the word "evolution" in all
its forms-- and that includes micro and macroevolution-- so I'll equate
"evolutionary novelties" as I've defined it with "biological novelties."
JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
"kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
question. Exception: aberrations, e.g. we're breeding horses and one
day we get a horse born without legs-- this legless horse is an
aberration and doesn't constitute a "kind" separate from 4-legged
horses. Another exception: differences consisting of male vs. female
reproductive systems-- we wouldn't want to call a male horse one "kind"
and a female horse another "kind" based on their having different
reproductive organs.
I invite you to present pairs of organisms that
1) meet the above criteria of being called members of the same "kind" and
2) you think I'd have trouble calling members of the same "kind."
I'll then attempt to refine the definition.
df I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
df vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
JH This, as you note below, involved two theories: common descent and
JH non-direction (e.g. natural selection). Let's be clear on your views:
JH do you reject both or just the second?
I don't think the neo-Darwinian mechanism can bring into existence
"biological novelties." I think the input of intelligence is required
for the rise of biological novelties.
The intelligent-design-of-biology idea can be combined with the idea of
common descent. Examples:
1) have the original organism(s) be designed so that all later organisms
are encoded in the original organism(s); with the passage of time, the
encodings are expressed. Kinda like a computer program that has
encoded in it a slew of other programs that get expressed come certain
key dates.
2) starting with a population of designed organisms, different
succeeding organisms have their genomes periodically changed by an
intelligence(s) to result in the rise of biological novelties.
I don't have much of an opinion on common descent at this time. I'm
inclined toward the successive-creations view, so I guess that means I'm
inclined against accepting the idea of common descent. It doesn't
really matter to me whether there was or was not common descent.
df I do not
df believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years. Nor can a
df horse become a cow, nor a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
df oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
df a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
JH Stripped of the nonsensical evolutionary pathways that nobody whatsoever
JH believes (all except land animal to whale and reptile to bird), this
JH would say that you don't believe large transformations can occur over
JH time. Correct?
df When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural selection and of
df common descent predict the gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-
df different organisms with the passage of ever-more time.
JH True.
Actually not. Darwin's theory of natural selection predicts the
gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-different organisms with the
passage of ever-more time. (BTW, both the step-by-step and
ever-more-different predictions aren't borne out by the fossil record.)
The theory of natural selection also implies that/ predicts that common
descent will occur. The converse isn't true, since the idea of common
descent doesn't imply that natural selection as a blindwatchmaking force
exists. Nor does the idea of common descent imply that the
Goldschmidtian view or the intelligence-directed-changes-of-genomes-at-
various-moments view is correct.
df If the predicted transitional fossil sequences existed, then
df paleontologists wouldn't be able to classify things.
JH Not true.
Gould, Stephen Jay. "A Quahog Is a Quahog" in his _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 204-213. On 204-5:
Common sense dictates that the world of familiar, macroscopic
organisms presents itself to us in "packages" called species. ....
The birds of Massachusetts and the bugs in my backyard are
unambiguous members of species recognized in the same way by all
experienced observers.
This notion of species as "natural kinds" fit splendidly with
creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. ....
But how could a division of the organic world into discrete
entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed
ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature? Both Darwin
and Lamarck struggled with this question and did not resolve it to
their satisfaction. Both denied to the species any status as a
natural kind.
[snip paragraph consisting of comments by Darwin and Lamarck]
Yet--and this is the irony--both Darwin and Lamarck were respected
systematists who named hundreds of species. Darwin wrote a four-
volume taxonomic treatise on barnacles, while Lamarck produced more
than three times as many volumes on fossil invertebrates. Faced
with the practicum of their daily work, both recognized entities
where theory denied their reality.
JH Indeed, some of the trouble in classifying things is due to
JH transitionals. Have you ever heard of chronospecies? Smooth, species-
JH level transitions are fairly rare (though not unknown) but transitions
JH between traditionally, paraphyletically-defined families and higher taxa
JH are common enough. Consider the big argument in the literature some
JH years back over what to call a mammal and what to call a therapsid.
df Fossil organisms would blend into
df each other, making classification very difficult.
JH Sometimes this does happen. But the spottiness of the record eliminates
JH many of these problems. And though I'm not convinced that stasis/PE
JH actually is a common pattern, it may also be a partial explanation.
Unfortunately for the validity of the theory of natural selection,
abrupt appearance followed by stasis is _the_ pattern of the fossil
record.
df However, in contrast
df to prediction, clear divisions exist in the fossil record, and for
df evidence I offer the fact that Darwin (and us) was (are) able to
df quite easily classify fossil organisms studied.
JH You overestimate this ease.
I don't understand how I could be overstating the ease of classifying
when not-Space-Age societies have produced classifications closely
similar to those of visiting Western scientists. See Gould's "Quahog."
df Some things take more
df pictures to describe because there is more variation in them, while
df other things require only one picture to identify them, but
df paleontologists can still easily classify these things. In sum, we're
df able to classify fossils in contravention of what's predicted by the
df theories of common descent plus natural selection.
JH Still, note that we can classify them hierarchically, and that the
JH hierarchy correlates quite strongly with order in the stratigraphic
JH record. I wonder why this would be.
df As further evidence that divisions exist in the fossil record, I offer
df the fact that we are able to divide up the geological record into eras,
df periods, and epochs on the basis of the types of fossils found therein.
JH Well, of course we divide these up largely on the basis of mass
JH extinctions, times of major faunal turnover. How does this advance
JH your argument?
Mass extinctions followed by brief periods when radically different
organisms appeared isn't consonant with the theory of natural selection.
df In making the classifications of fossil organisms, we look at body
df structure. That is the basis for the classification of fossils, since
df there is no such thing as mating two fossils and seeing if they are
df capable of reproducing to see if we can call them separate "species" or
df separate "kinds." Ability to mate and produce fertile offspring is not
df what I have in mind when I say "kinds"; body structure is. Thus, a
df great dane and a teacup poodle, though they are incapable of mating, are
df both of the same kind, for they are both dogs. If they were found
df fossilized, paleontologists would be able to classify them together
df based on their body structure. So, to repeat, body structure is the
df basis for calling something of one "kind" versus another.
JH The problem is that we classify hierarchically. Where do kinds stop?
JH Species, genus, family, order, class, phylum? All these (and lots of
JH other unranked groups on all sorts of trees) are classified together
JH on the basis of body structure. So is "mammal" a kind?
JH
JH But let's clarify your view a bit. You clearly reject the possibility of
JH large transformations through unguided mechanisms. But what else does your
JH position entail? It's hard to argue with you without knowing where you
JH stand. I think you are perhaps an unusual flavor of creationist, but I'm
JH not sure. Please respond to these questions so I can know your views.
JH
JH Do you accept that the earth and life are billions of years old?
I believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life was on
the earth about as soon as it could survive once the earth had cooled
sufficiently, say 3.8, 3.9 billion years ago.
JH That the geologic column is more or less correctly interpreted?
How is the geologic column interpreted?
JH That fossil organisms had approximately the time-distributions
JH we think we see?
Sounds fine.
JH Are organisms connected by common descent, with divine intervention to
JH help big transitions, or was each kind separately created de novo?
I'm leaning toward de novo, but again, it doesn't really make a
difference either way to me.
JH Was this de novo creation, if that's the case, done throughout history at
JH approximately the time we note their fossils? That is, many thousands or
JH millions of separate creations of individual kinds for the last several
JH billion years?
That's the general idea.
JH Do you think mutations actually occur, and if so that they may be
JH adaptive or neutral, thus increasing genetic variation within a species?
Cancer is a consequence of mutations, and I've said so before.
The NIEH: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381287
Remarks by Koestler, Waddington, and Dobzhansky about mutations, and a
remark for Gould: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360056263
Some forms of cancer: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381286
I don't know what you mean by "adaptive," "genetic variation," and
"species."
JH Finally, what is a kind, anyway? Is it something delimited by a
JH morphological gap from other kinds? How big a gap is necessary? Name
JH some kinds, and criteria for recognizing them. Is Homo sapiens a kind?
JH How about Homo neanderthalensis? Homo erectus? Homo habilis?
JH Australopithecus afarensis? What about 1Chiroptera? Canis familaris?
JH Canis? Canidae? Carnivora? Mammalia? To choose another path, is
JH Phacops rana a kind? Phacops? Trilobita? Arthropoda?
Pim van Meurs
david ford wrote:
> New mutations occur all the time, and overwhelmingly are either deleterious
> or neutral in effect.
>
Or benificial... You forget the important ones.
>
> df I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
> df vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
>
> JH This, as you note below, involved two theories: common descent and
> JH non-direction (e.g. natural selection). Let's be clear on your views:
> JH do you reject both or just the second?
>
> I don't think the neo-Darwinian mechanism can bring into existence
> "biological novelties." I think the input of intelligence is required
> for the rise of biological novelties.
>
Personal (in)credulity is a good start for scientific inquiry, not for scientific
arguments.
> Unfortunately for the validity of the theory of natural selection,
> abrupt appearance followed by stasis is _the_ pattern of the fossil
> record.
>
Two problems, first of all gradual changes exist and second of all abrupt
appearance is
not necessarily a problem for natural selection.
> JH Well, of course we divide these up largely on the basis of mass
> JH extinctions, times of major faunal turnover. How does this advance
> JH your argument?
>
> Mass extinctions followed by brief periods when radically different
> organisms appeared isn't consonant with the theory of natural selection.
>
Please explain ? I believe that such events would make for excellent candidates
for natural selection.
> JH Do you think mutations actually occur, and if so that they may be
> JH adaptive or neutral, thus increasing genetic variation within a species?
>
> Cancer is a consequence of mutations, and I've said so before.
That does not answer the question. May they be neutral or adaptive ?
>
> The NIEH: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381287
> Remarks by Koestler, Waddington, and Dobzhansky about mutations, and a
> remark for Gould: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360056263
> Some forms of cancer: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381286
>
> I don't know what you mean by "adaptive," "genetic variation," and
> "species."
>
Oh boy...
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
Agkistrodon
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 19 Jan 1999:
> david ford:
>
> JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
>
> Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> question.
This definition looks somewhat vague to me (what is a function ?) and leads
probably to consequences that are awkward for your POV:
1. Penicillin-resistant strains are a separate kind since they can perform the
function of deactivating penicillin.
2. Chihuahuas and - let's say - Rottweilers are different kinds since only the
latter have organs (limbs and teeth) which can perform the function "killing
foxes".
By 1. and 2. macroevolution - "across kinds" - has been shown.
3. What exactly are the "functions" that make humans and bonobos different
kinds ? Which structures, organs or pathways do one of those groups lack ?
Enquiring minds would like to know.
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
<rest snipped>
John Harshman
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 19 Jan 1999:
> david ford:
>
> df To clarify my position and definitions: microevolution, i.e.,
> df horizontal change, occurs all the time.
[snips]
To what extent would the presence of more than a single mitochondrial
haplotype in humans disprove your notion? And how can you tell created
alleles from evolved alleles at a locus?
> JH [snip environmental influences on human height]
>
> df Getting taller has nothing to do with blindwatchmaking.
> df "Blindwatchmaking" is the arrival of "evolutionary novelties" via non-
> df intelligence-directed processes. "Evolutionary novelties" are "new body
> df structures & organs & biochemical pathways that permit the assumption of
> df new functions."
>
> JH Let's accept this definition for now, noting that it's fairly vague.
>
> ===============begin inserted text===============
> Mayr, Ernst. Essay "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties" in _The
> Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future_, ed. Sol Tax
> (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 349-80. On 351:
> What particular changes of the phenotype, then, would qualify [as
> an 'evolutionary novelty']? Certainly any change that would permit
> an organism to perform a new function. Tentatively, one might
> restrict the designation "evolutionary novelty" to any newly
> acquired structure or property which permits the assumption of a
> new function.
> ================end inserted text================
Even if Ernst Mayr is the source, it's still fairly vague. Don't you think
so? What is your point in giving the source? The problem with this
definition is that new functions and newly acquired structures seem to
happen gradually. Is a lung a new structure? If so, is a slight depression
of the pharynx with slightly greater vascularization than was present in
the ancestor, a new structure?
> Actually, I'm trying to get away from use of the word "evolution" in all
> its forms-- and that includes micro and macroevolution-- so I'll equate
> "evolutionary novelties" as I've defined it with "biological novelties."
Sure.
> JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
>
> Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> question. Exception: aberrations, e.g. we're breeding horses and one
> day we get a horse born without legs-- this legless horse is an
> aberration and doesn't constitute a "kind" separate from 4-legged
> horses. Another exception: differences consisting of male vs. female
> reproductive systems-- we wouldn't want to call a male horse one "kind"
> and a female horse another "kind" based on their having different
> reproductive organs.
I don't think you necessarily mean this, unless you think that such
differences show the two organisms are not related by common descent.
Which you apparently don't.
> I invite you to present pairs of organisms that
> 1) meet the above criteria of being called members of the same "kind" and
> 2) you think I'd have trouble calling members of the same "kind."
> I'll then attempt to refine the definition.
Problems here: a) You have only given criteria for being called members of
different kinds, not the same kind; b) If your only definition of "kind"
is the one you give above (the criteria of 1) then there is logically no
possibility of finding such a pair, since it must both fit and not fit
your criteria. You must have unexpressed elements of your definition. Do
you mean, in 2, organisms I think you'd have trouble considering as
related by common descent? As far as I can tell you are willing to accept
the idea that all organisms on earth are related by common descent. You
may prefer (for unexpressed reasons) to believe otherwise, but you don't
seem to consider the question important.
> df I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e. non-intelligence-directed
> df vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
>
> JH This, as you note below, involved two theories: common descent and
> JH non-direction (e.g. natural selection). Let's be clear on your views:
> JH do you reject both or just the second?
>
> I don't think the neo-Darwinian mechanism can bring into existence
> "biological novelties." I think the input of intelligence is required
> for the rise of biological novelties.
We have a conflict of definitions. I would say that natural selection is
not a required component of the definition of macroevolution. You can
indeed accept that macroevolution happens without accepting that natural
selection is the major mechanism, or even *a* major mechanism.
> The intelligent-design-of-biology idea can be combined with the idea of
> common descent. Examples:
> 1) have the original organism(s) be designed so that all later organisms
> are encoded in the original organism(s); with the passage of time, the
> encodings are expressed. Kinda like a computer program that has
> encoded in it a slew of other programs that get expressed come certain
> key dates.
> 2) starting with a population of designed organisms, different
> succeeding organisms have their genomes periodically changed by an
> intelligence(s) to result in the rise of biological novelties.
Precisely, so why confuse two issues that are logically and empirically
separate? Let's argue about natural selection or common descent, but not
both at once.
> I don't have much of an opinion on common descent at this time. I'm
> inclined toward the successive-creations view, so I guess that means I'm
> inclined against accepting the idea of common descent. It doesn't
> really matter to me whether there was or was not common descent.
A sufficient number of successive creations (ex nihilo) are
indistinguishable from common descent in the fossil record. There are
excellent and sufficient arguments against successive creations, though. I
don't at this point know why you reject common descent even though it's
not important to you.
Divine tinkering with the genomes of organisms is indistinguishable by any
method I can think of right off from common descent without such
tinkering.
Unpacking of previously existing potentials and variations is easily
distinguishable unless you make the further assumption that all the
unpacking has happened already, without leaving traces in the genomes of
extant organisms, and that there was some unknown genetic mechanism that
allowed all this unexpressed variation to exist and be preserved for
billions of years. (Also, in angiosperms, there are actually data that I
believe disallow both of these assumptions.)
> df I do not
> df believe that a dog can become a cat over millions of years. Nor can a
> df horse become a cow, nor a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
> df oak, and a land animal can't become a whale. A chimpanzee can't become
> df a human, and a flying squirrel can't become a bird.
>
> JH Stripped of the nonsensical evolutionary pathways that nobody whatsoever
> JH believes (all except land animal to whale and reptile to bird), this
> JH would say that you don't believe large transformations can occur over
> JH time. Correct?
>
> df When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural selection and of
> df common descent predict the gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-
> df different organisms with the passage of ever-more time.
>
> JH True.
>
> Actually not.
You are claiming that you were wrong?
> Darwin's theory of natural selection predicts the
> gradual, step-by-step arrival of ever-more-different organisms with the
> passage of ever-more time. (BTW, both the step-by-step and
> ever-more-different predictions aren't borne out by the fossil record.)
Only given various other factors: variation continues to arise,
environments and niches become more and more different from the past, and
there is branching to allow life to take advantage of multiple
environments. (I disagree with the parenthetical remark too.)
> The theory of natural selection also implies that/ predicts that common
> descent will occur.
Not so. Natural selection operates even if all species were created,
separately, only 6000 years ago.
>The converse isn't true, since the idea of common
> descent doesn't imply that natural selection as a blindwatchmaking force
> exists. Nor does the idea of common descent imply that the
> Goldschmidtian view or the intelligence-directed-changes-of-genomes-at-
> various-moments view is correct.
This I agree with. In fact it was my original point.
Another quote? What do you, personally, think and why? What we call
species are sometimes easy to define and sometimes not, because of the
branching nature of the tree of life. Sometimes it seems easy to describe
the packages in which diversity comes (although a closer look, especially
at genetic variation, will often show that reality differs from our
initial ideas.) You yourself argue that species aren't easy to define,
which is why it's puzzling for you to quote Gould this way. This is a
prediction of common descent, not of natural selection. Since you don't
want to argue about common descent, what is the relevance?
> JH Indeed, some of the trouble in classifying things is due to
> JH transitionals. Have you ever heard of chronospecies? Smooth, species-
> JH level transitions are fairly rare (though not unknown) but transitions
> JH between traditionally, paraphyletically-defined families and higher taxa
> JH are common enough. Consider the big argument in the literature some
> JH years back over what to call a mammal and what to call a therapsid.
>
> df Fossil organisms would blend into
> df each other, making classification very difficult.
>
> JH Sometimes this does happen. But the spottiness of the record eliminates
> JH many of these problems. And though I'm not convinced that stasis/PE
> JH actually is a common pattern, it may also be a partial explanation.
>
> Unfortunately for the validity of the theory of natural selection,
> abrupt appearance followed by stasis is _the_ pattern of the fossil
> record.
1. I am not convinced that there is any such pattern; perhaps you could
cite me publications in which the prevalence of stasis has been adequately
documented.
2. Eldredge and Gould originally (1972) attribute supposed pattern to poor
geographic sampling coupled with Mayr's notions about the need for genetic
revolutions during peripatric speciation to disrupt the stability of the
genotype. Can you reject this theory? (I think I can, but that's another
point.)
3. It's hard to use the fossil record to test natural selection, simply
because it's hard to think of any exclusive predictions natural selection
makes about the fossils we find, especially in the absence of any data
about the selective environment. So how do you claim to falsify natural
selection? (Presumably you allow natural selection to exist, but disallow
it as the explanation for large-scale evolutionary change.)
> df However, in contrast
> df to prediction, clear divisions exist in the fossil record, and for
> df evidence I offer the fact that Darwin (and us) was (are) able to
> df quite easily classify fossil organisms studied.
>
> JH You overestimate this ease.
>
> I don't understand how I could be overstating the ease of classifying
> when not-Space-Age societies have produced classifications closely
> similar to those of visiting Western scientists. See Gould's "Quahog."
We were talking about fossils, were we not? I'm referring to those
well-known transitional fossils, like Archeopteryx, Morganucodon,
Hyracotheriam, Basilosaurus, the transitional productid (or are they
richtofenid?) brachiopods that Andrew MacCrae has posted, and other sorts.
It's easy to classify the extant biota (at least down to the level at
which they start exchanging genes) because they are what we based the
categories on. If birds and reptiles weren't clearly separate, for
example, we wouldn't have those two gross categories. Archeopteryx muddies
the categories.
> df Some things take more
> df pictures to describe because there is more variation in them, while
> df other things require only one picture to identify them, but
> df paleontologists can still easily classify these things. In sum, we're
> df able to classify fossils in contravention of what's predicted by the
> df theories of common descent plus natural selection.
>
> JH Still, note that we can classify them hierarchically, and that the
> JH hierarchy correlates quite strongly with order in the stratigraphic
> JH record. I wonder why this would be.
This is one of the strongest arguments for common descent. Since you don't
reject common descent (though I wonder why you don't accept it either),
it's irrelevant to whatever you are arguing about.
> df As further evidence that divisions exist in the fossil record, I offer
> df the fact that we are able to divide up the geological record into eras,
> df periods, and epochs on the basis of the types of fossils found therein.
>
> JH Well, of course we divide these up largely on the basis of mass
> JH extinctions, times of major faunal turnover. How does this advance
> JH your argument?
>
> Mass extinctions followed by brief periods when radically different
> organisms appeared isn't consonant with the theory of natural selection.
How so?
I mean that we can agree that, e.g., Jurassic rocks all over the world are
really of Jurassic age, and that we agree what Jurassic age means. Nothing
but absolute and relative dating.
> JH That fossil organisms had approximately the time-distributions
> JH we think we see?
>
> Sounds fine.
>
> JH Are organisms connected by common descent, with divine intervention to
> JH help big transitions, or was each kind separately created de novo?
>
> I'm leaning toward de novo, but again, it doesn't really make a
> difference either way to me.
Then you probably won't be interested in discussing why you lean that way.
Too bad. It's my favorite.
> JH Was this de novo creation, if that's the case, done throughout history at
> JH approximately the time we note their fossils? That is, many thousands or
> JH millions of separate creations of individual kinds for the last several
> JH billion years?
>
> That's the general idea.
I believe I can demonstrate that such serial creation is implausible, but
if you don't care, never mind.
> JH Do you think mutations actually occur, and if so that they may be
> JH adaptive or neutral, thus increasing genetic variation within a species?
>
> Cancer is a consequence of mutations, and I've said so before.
> The NIEH: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381287
> Remarks by Koestler, Waddington, and Dobzhansky about mutations, and a
> remark for Gould: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360056263
> Some forms of cancer: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=359381286
>
> I don't know what you mean by "adaptive," "genetic variation," and
> "species."
By adaptive (at least here) I mean having the result of increasing the
fitness of the new genotype relative to the old genotype, in the
environment at hand. Genetic variation means (some measure of) the
differences in genotypes among members of the species. Species is of
course a nebulous term, as is expected under theories of common descent;
use your favorite species definition from the literature, and I won't
complain.
Louann Miller
> > > Well, twelve days and still no Creationist definition!! Are you out there?
> > Better to define "kind" than "species", since kinds are fundamental to
> > creationist biology. So, then, operational definition of kind: two
> > organisms belong to the same kind if there is strong evidence that they
> > descended from a common ancestor.
> >
> > Now, if we apply this definition, we discover that there is one kind, the
> > "life" kind. But that's not my problem.
> >
> So I perceive. I now proceed to give up and crawl by into my hole.
I'm sorry the SciCre's wussed out on you. You're right that it's a cheap
shot for us to answer for them, but quoting serious YEC documents should
be allowable. The closest I've found in their own words is that paper on
'The Currant State of Creationist Astronomy' (their typo) at
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
begin quote:
What modern science has to say about the origin and history of the world
has caused many to dismiss these three events. [Creation, the Fall of
Man, and Noah's Flood -- LM]
On the other hand creation scientists take the Biblical account
seriously, and so accept these events as real and have attempted to
reexamine the world for evidence for those events. In the fields of
biology and geology much progress has been made. The biological creation
model assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with
reproduction only occurring within "kinds." The term "baraminology" has
been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind. It seems that
for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the species, but for
others it is at the genus or higher levels. At one time most
creationists argued that speciation (as defined by reproductive
viability) does not occur. However most now accept that reproductive
barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise today, but our
model allows this to occur within certain limits. This process operating
since the flood would have greatly reduced the number of animals
required on the ark.
(end quote)
We who aren't YEC's are wont to summarize this as "A kind is whatever
grouping will allow the YEC to look good in a given argument." Is this a
fair summary? Your call.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
he...@eznet.net
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 19 Jan 1999:
> > david ford:
> >
>
> > JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
> >
> > Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> > saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> > "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> > that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> > organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> > question.
Piggy backing on Hans-Richard's post...
I just realized that David's definiton of "kind" meanns that my wife and I
are different "kinds". The exercise of specifying the
structures/organs/biochemical pathways is left as an exercise to the student
:-)
Also, my diabetic friend Jeff and I are of different "kinds", in that he lacks
the biochemical pathway to metabolize sugars that I possess.
And my sickle cell carrier friend Anthony is a different "kind", in that he
has a biochemical pathway that protects him from malaria, which I do not
possess.
Chris
mel turner
wrote...
[snip]
>I'm sorry the SciCre's wussed out on you. You're right that it's a cheap
>shot for us to answer for them, but quoting serious YEC documents should
>be allowable. The closest I've found in their own words is that paper on
>'The Currant State of Creationist Astronomy' (their typo) at
>http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
>
>begin quote:
[snip]
>In the fields of
>biology and geology much progress has been made. The biological creation
>model assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with
>reproduction only occurring within "kinds." The term "baraminology" has
>been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind. It seems that
>for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the species, but for
>others it is at the genus or higher levels.
How odd that they never seem to be able to express just what allows them
to decide this.
>At one time most
>creationists argued that speciation (as defined by reproductive
>viability) does not occur. However most now accept that reproductive
>barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise today, but our
>model allows this to occur within certain limits.
And again, they have no evidence for these "certain limits" being real,
nor a scientific explanation for their existence.
>This process operating
>since the flood would have greatly reduced the number of animals
>required on the ark.
And Noah and family could peel bananas with their feet, since they were
presumably the common ancestors of humans and the other apes [if our
"kind" is to be consistent with those required for other animals]...
The ark story fails for many other reasons, of course:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
>(end quote)
>
>We who aren't YEC's are wont to summarize this as "A kind is whatever
>grouping will allow the YEC to look good in a given argument." Is this a
>fair summary? Your call.
That seems to be evidence against the existence of "kinds", since YECs
never look particularly good in arguments.
cheers
John Harshman
> In article <78htlr$j52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 19 Jan 1999:
> > > david ford:
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
> > >
> > > Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> > > saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> > > "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> > > that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> > > organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> > > question.
>
> Piggy backing on Hans-Richard's post...
>
> I just realized that David's definiton of "kind" meanns that my wife and I
> are different "kinds". The exercise of specifying the
> structures/organs/biochemical pathways is left as an exercise to the student
> :-)
>
> Also, my diabetic friend Jeff and I are of different "kinds", in that he lacks
> the biochemical pathway to metabolize sugars that I possess.
>
> And my sickle cell carrier friend Anthony is a different "kind", in that he
> has a biochemical pathway that protects him from malaria, which I do not
> possess.
If you'll look a bit later in df's post, you will find weasel-words that
specifically except the examples you mention from being different kinds.
The problem with df's definition is that he doesn't (apparently) intend it
to define kinds as separate, ex-nihilo creations. Thus different kinds, in
his view, may indeed be related by common descent. This, to me, makes his
definition pointless.
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
he...@eznet.net wrote:
> In article <78htlr$j52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > John Harshman <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> on 19 Jan 1999:
> > > david ford:
> > >
> >
> > > JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
> > >
> > > Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> > > saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> > > "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> > > that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> > > organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> > > question.
>
>
> I just realized that David's definiton of "kind" meanns that my wife and I
> are different "kinds". The exercise of specifying the
> structures/organs/biochemical pathways is left as an exercise to the student
> :-)
>
> Also, my diabetic friend Jeff and I are of different "kinds", in that he lacks
> the biochemical pathway to metabolize sugars that I possess.
>
> And my sickle cell carrier friend Anthony is a different "kind", in that he
> has a biochemical pathway that protects him from malaria, which I do not
> possess.
>
>
>
You people are far too nominalistic. "Kind" should reflect the bare
essentials of higher taxa. For me, kind = phylum and there ain't no changin'
that. Kinds are static and immutable. I think I'm borrowing a little from
Cuvier here (i.e.- the *embranchements*).
Scott Chase
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
harshman....@sjm.infi.net (John Harshman) wrote:
> In article <78komb$uv7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, he...@eznet.net wrote:
>
> > In article <78htlr$j52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > JH Would such differences then require separate kinds?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. As a first attempt at defining "kinds," I'll define the word by
> > > > saying what it's not. Definition: two organisms are _not_ of the same
> > > > "kind" if 1 organism has a structure or organ or biochemical pathway
> > > > that performs a function, while the 2nd organism lacks that structure or
> > > > organ or biochemical pathway and cannot perform the function in
> > > > question.
> >
> >
> > I just realized that David's definiton of "kind" meanns that my wife and I
> > are different "kinds". The exercise of specifying the
> > structures/organs/biochemical pathways is left as an exercise to the student
> > :-)
> >
> > Also, my diabetic friend Jeff and I are of different "kinds", in that he
lacks
> > the biochemical pathway to metabolize sugars that I possess.
> >
> > And my sickle cell carrier friend Anthony is a different "kind", in that he
> > has a biochemical pathway that protects him from malaria, which I do not
> > possess.
>
> specifically except the examples you mention from being different kinds.
I agree that sex differences are specifically excluded, but IMHO the
Rottweiler/Chihuahua difference (only Rottweiler have limbs&teeth which can
perform the function of killing foxes) is not.
HRG.
> The problem with df's definition is that he doesn't (apparently) intend it
> to define kinds as separate, ex-nihilo creations. Thus different kinds, in
> his view, may indeed be related by common descent. This, to me, makes his
> definition pointless.
>
> --
>
> *Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
> to my address if you reply by email.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
StellrJ
>days ago. The operational definition of species is found in Genesis: kind.
In case you hadn't noticed, the discussion was about what constitutes a kind.
What criteria determine whether two given animals are the same kind?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jason Hernandez
Naturalist-at-Large
"Gregariousness has always been the refuge of mediocrities"
--Boris Pasternak
eosin...@my-dejanews.com
lou...@post.cis.smu.edu wrote:
>
>
> We who aren't YEC's are wont to summarize this as "A kind is whatever
> grouping will allow the YEC to look good in a given argument." Is this a
> fair summary? Your call.
>
>
Pretty fair. Indeed, it's a case of the shoehorn striking back! "Whatever the
facts may be, I'll just change my definition to fit them."
Agkistrodon