Posted by Orion on September 10, 1998 at 21:34:08:
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
Henry Morris, (Impact Article #85)
I have yet to see a definition of 'kind', but I am told that Creationists are working on just such a definition. That said, how can it then be stated that no new 'kinds' can evolve from the basic 'kinds' if nobody knows what a 'kind' is?
Further, if Creationists admit to evolutionary processes (hyper-evolution after the 'flood'), just what is the nature of the brake that permits variation but prohibits the creation of new 'kinds', especially when we don't know what a 'kind' is?
Posted by karl on September 10, 1998 at 22:08:58:
I believe by todays use of the taxonomic rank, the "best fit" would be the Genus rank.
To date the evolutionists have not demonstrated evolution above the species level. The only evolution shown is speciation within the ranks of their original genera.
Response to karl
Posted by MagFlare on September 10, 1998 at 22:29:40:
This has been unceremoniously ripped from Talk.Origins . . .
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Hmm . . . looks like the algae also changed family, too, . . . is that enough evidence that creatures can change 'kinds', now?
Response to MagFlare
Posted by karl on September 10, 1998 at 22:52:17:
It's a sad day for evolution when they have to rely on something like algae to try and support their theories. Way to much room for errors in this experiment. Are you sure the "change" wasn't already living in the pump?
BTW:Any references or just this claim?
Come on fellows, show me something with fins, scales or fur evolving. I mean,,,if it happened, you should have no problem.
Response to karl
Posted by MagFlare, who's attempting to grow fins in order to appease K on September 10, 1998 at 23:22:52:
Oh, I see what you want. You want evidence of a vast physical change in a multicellular organism, all within a single generation. So, if we find a snake with feathers and molars, that'll finally be enough evidence for evolution? The algae evolved into a new species, genus, and family. That seems to be fairly conclusive evidence.
BTW, here's the page from which this evidence comes: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Happy reading. And, please remember: the biggest changes aren't always the most obvious.
Also, something I just happened to recall from a few years back . . . Boa constrictors have hips. Not only that, but they have vestigial,--*USELESS CLAWS*--attached to said hips. Work that out.
Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 10, 1998 at 22:55:20:
PK: I doubt that I agree w/ Morris on what he said, I don't understand it for sure so I won't dissect.
PK: I would nominate a super-species group for a created kind. This would be a level below the existing genus. When species have no postmating isolation, but are distinct species due to pre-mating isolation, I would categorize them as the same created kind--members of the same super-species group. I think that this is distinct from sub-species in that gene flow is currently possible between sub-species and not currently possible between two different species of a super-species group. I am not sure, but I infer that Morris is suggesting taht created kinds are species and he is acknowledging variation w/in species; I could be wrong about what Morris means, of course.
PK: Polyploids should be considered of the same super-species group as their non-polyploid ancestors.
Response to Mockingbird1
Posted by Deb on September 11, 1998 at 13:20:07:
What is a "super-species"?? I just checked about four books and none of them listed a "super-species". Subspecies is there, as is superfamily and superorder, but superspecies?
Or is this something else you just made up?
Response to Deb
Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 11, 1998 at 14:04:42:
PK: The answer was in the message above: a proposed creation kind definition.
Posted by Helen on September 10, 1998 at 23:45:11:
The term "kind" is a lot closer to a biologic definition right now than any of the Linnean taxonomic rankings. So let me throw it back at you. Please define any of the following:
any one will do, you don't even have to go for all of them.
As far as the nature of the brake goes, use a little common sense. Whether or not we can explicitly define it as per genetic interactions, we can see it everyday. It is known the same way Pluto was discovered, the electon was discovered, and DNA itself was discovered--by inference. I believe there was a discussion about the scientific uses of inference below?
Response to Helen
Posted by Orion on September 11, 1998 at 00:03:09:
You answer a question with a question? Again, what is a 'kind'? No need to challenge me. Just answer the question. What is a kind? Do you have an answer or not?
Response to Orion
Posted by Helen on September 11, 1998 at 00:18:01:
My point was that there are NO definitions for ANY taxonomic ranking with the exception of a couple of vague ones for "species" which only work sometimes anyway. "Kind" is certainly no worse than any of the others in that regard. But I do think it is ahead of the others because it is dealing with something that is ultimately testable and findable--that barrier. That we have not found it as a biochemical entity does not say anything about its existence. In the meantime, the fact that (you have heard this one before) lizards stay lizards, moths stay moths, E.coli stays E.coli, etc. etc. etc. gives us a pretty good indication that there really is such a thing as the Biblical kind, or baramin.
In the meantime, there is nothing testable or findable about the various rankings I listed in my last post. They are each matters of arbitrary choices.
Response to Helen
Posted by Deb on September 11, 1998 at 07:32:15:
Taxonomic rankings are merely categories of (usually) morphological inclusiveness. They are not meant to be "defined" in the way that a "kind" must be. Trying to prove a "kind", which is a very diffferent entity than a taxonomic category is a strawman, Helen, because they are not the same thing!
With the exception of species, taxonomic ranks are human constructs. You know this, and virtually every decent biology book says this.
"Kinds", however, are indeed supposed to be real, but you simply cannot explain how we are supposed to know one when we see one!
Response to Deb
Posted by Helen on September 11, 1998 at 09:49:12:
There is no real way for you to tell a plant from an animal?
What about a bear from a lion?
In your explanation of "morphological inclusiveness" are you ignoring genetics? If so, then we truly are dealing with two different things because, as you know, "kind" has a referral to genetics, which is a field with rather vast horizons left to be explored and mapped.
Therefore to demand a definition of "kind" is a little premature. We can easily infer "kind" even without the Bible. But, like Pluto, its actual definitive discovery will just have to wait until a few more of those horizons are explored. In the meantime, you cannot invalidate the concept because of our lack of knowledge, especially when it IS inferable and work in genetics and breeding has verified that.
I didn't realize it until recently, but to ask for a definition of kind at this point, which is what is frequently demanded by you folks, is actually a straw man. It is a bit like trying to describe the interior of Jupiter--or maybe even of the moon. We know that interior is there, but we do not yet have the tools to define and describe it. Kinds are real, whether or not we have the ability to technically define them at this point. If they were not, we should have seen, by now, evidence of far greater genetic mixing than we see in nature.
Response to Helen
Posted by Deb on September 11, 1998 at 13:08:38:
You completely ignored the point, didn't you?
The purpose of taxonomic categories is not to be able to identify taxa, and they are not used to do that. Organisms are placed in the appropriate categoery after they have been identified. And even though you indulged in some selective quoting (i.e. you seem to have ignored the word "usually"), you know full well that the vast majority of organisms are identified via morphological similarities, and that the Linnaean ranks were invented rather a long time before genetics was even a twinkle in Mendel's eye.