• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationist and Kinds

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Creationists - what is the definition of a kind?

STOP!

I did not ask for examples. I asked for a definition. What are the complete list of criteria that I can use to determine if any two random animals are of the same kind/

Like their species?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Creationists - what is the definition of a kind?

STOP!

I did not ask for examples. I asked for a definition. What are the complete list of criteria that I can use to determine if any two random animals are of the same kind/
I think we should put that question to rest until we have a (single) definition of "species".
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Creationists are too simple minded on kinds which is as rudimentary as it gets.

Things that fly, things that chew the cud, all lumped together in groups for which the animals are not even related.

Like bats and birds clumped in the same group for example as being the same kind.

It's understandable for the day , but nowhere accurate as science discovered since then.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I recommend using Borges' classification system:

In The Analytical Language of John Wilkins, Borges describes 'a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,' the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into:
  1. those that belong to the Emperor,
  2. embalmed ones,
  3. those that are trained,
  4. suckling pigs,
  5. mermaids,
  6. fabulous ones,
  7. stray dogs,
  8. those included in the present classification,
  9. those that tremble as if they were mad,
  10. innumerable ones,
  11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
  12. others,
  13. those that have just broken a flower vase,
  14. those that from a long way off look like flies.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think we should put that question to rest until we have a (single) definition of "species".

To my knowledge, there are 2 operating definitions for species and which one is used depends on context.

1. those animals that reproduce in the wild, belong to a single species

2. those animals that can reproduce and produce viable and fertile off spring, but don't necessarily do so in the wild, belong to a single species.

In the second one, populations of the "same species" under that definition are however on track of diversion from one another to the point where interbreeding will no longer be possible, due to the genetic isolation between them. The populations over time will inevitably diverge to a point where they will no longer be able to reproduce (and produce viable / fertile off spring).
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Creationists - what is the definition of a kind?

STOP!

I did not ask for examples. I asked for a definition. What are the complete list of criteria that I can use to determine if any two random animals are of the same kind/
Beware, because with them the goalposts constantly are shifted.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I think we should put that question to rest until we have a (single) definition of "species".
No need. Creationist kinds are not dependent on a biological definition of species..
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
To my knowledge, there are 2 operating definitions for species and which one is used depends on context.

1. those animals that reproduce in the wild, belong to a single species

2. those animals that can reproduce and produce viable and fertile off spring, but don't necessarily do so in the wild, belong to a single species.

In the second one, populations of the "same species" under that definition are however on track of diversion from one another to the point where interbreeding will no longer be possible, due to the genetic isolation between them. The populations over time will inevitably diverge to a point where they will no longer be able to reproduce (and produce viable / fertile off spring).
You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?
No. Depending on who you ask (and depending on whether the knowledge about interbreeding is available) the definition changes. Most biologists and all palaeontologists go by phenotype.
And that is a principle problem. Inter-fertility isn't a binary thing. There are cases where A(m) and B(f) can have viable offspring whereas A(f) and B(m) can't. There are Ring Species, where A and B are "one species", and B and C are - but A and C aren't.
The species concept is messy and no simple definition exists (or can exist).
Now, you might say "but don't tell the creationists" and usually I'd agree, it's just too complicated for them and they'll misunderstand and misconstrue but one of the rare cases where I could convince a creationist was when I explained Ring Species.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?
No. Depending on who you ask (and depending on whether the knowledge about interbreeding is available) the definition changes. Most biologists and all palaeontologists go by phenotype.
And that is a principle problem. Inter-fertility isn't a binary thing. There are cases where A(m) and B(f) can have viable offspring whereas A(f) and B(m) can't. There are Ring Species, where A and B are "one species", and B and C are - but A and C aren't.
The species concept is messy and no simple definition exists (or can exist).
Now, you might say "but don't tell the creationists" and usually I'd agree, it's just too complicated for them and they'll misunderstand and misconstrue but one of the rare cases where I could convince a creationist was when I explained Ring Species.
I'm sorry, but what exactly in your post refutes what @TagliatelliMonster said?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Often enough data about interfertility doesn't exist. So, against @TagliatelliMonster's opinion, the usual definition of species doesn't rest on genetics at all.
You are going to have to expand on that one for me? Are you simply pointing to the fct that we differentiate between two extinct species by morphology? If, so, I do not think that makes your point.

"If it looks different, it's a different species" is still most prevalent.
Your "if it looks different" seems to hide a multitude of vagaries. "Looks different" means different things at different levels of scrutiny. Anything from sitting in a lounge chair drinking a beer to constructing an engineering report of the biomechanics of a collection skeletal structures.

I could be wrong, but from what I am seeing at the moment, these look like red herring objections.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You are going to have to expand on that one for me? Are you simply pointing to the fct that we differentiate between two extinct species by morphology? If, so, I do not think that makes your point.
I do. @TagliatelliMonster says it is one of two models of fertility. That's wrong for 99.99% of all species that ever existed.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?
Humans and Neanderthals are both part of the homo sapiens species, and there seem to be genetic records indicating that the two populations interbred to some degree (although how frequently this actually happened is anybody's guess).
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Humans and Neanderthals are both part of the homo sapiens species, and there seem to be genetic records indicating that the two populations interbred to some degree (although how frequently this actually happened is anybody's guess).
The majority opinion on that matter is that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are different species in the genus Homo. But there is no consensus, the "lumpers" and the "splitters" still have to battle that out.
(I'm more of a "splitter" but I recognize the problem.)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?
No. Depending on who you ask (and depending on whether the knowledge about interbreeding is available) the definition changes. Most biologists and all palaeontologists go by phenotype.
And that is a principle problem. Inter-fertility isn't a binary thing. There are cases where A(m) and B(f) can have viable offspring whereas A(f) and B(m) can't. There are Ring Species, where A and B are "one species", and B and C are - but A and C aren't.
The species concept is messy and no simple definition exists (or can exist).
Now, you might say "but don't tell the creationists" and usually I'd agree, it's just too complicated for them and they'll misunderstand and misconstrue but one of the rare cases where I could convince a creationist was when I explained Ring Species.

You are correct. I was thinking about extant populations only which indeed is too simplistic, especially in light of extinct populations.

In my second definition, the problem is actually made clear: 2 populations that could interbreed and produce viable off spring, but don't (for whatever reason). These are on a path of inevitable diversion to the point where interbreeding will no longer produce viable off spring (or off spring at all). This is what occurs in ring species.

It's also what occurs in lineages. Every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents. But go back by skipping 100.000 generations and the ancestor you meet there... hardly the same species as the current extant descended.

A point I was thinking about adding to my post (and in retro-spect, I should have...) is that the concept of "species" really only makes sense as a "snapshot" of the "current state of life".

Species indeed is a very dynamic / fluid thing which is already hard enough to pin down for extant life only. It only gets more complex if we include extinct life also.


As a useful analogy, I really like the concept of "language" as the development / evolution of language follows the same gradual pattern. At what point did spanish became spanish? When did it stop being Latin? And if we would go to the middle of that evolution, what would we call that? Spatin?
Or take the extreme dialects of any language. At which point does it "stop" being the original language and when is it a new language?

In the netherlands, there is a great example of this. All the way in the north is Friesland.
Start in the south and work your way north. In the south, I understand every word they say: it's just dutch. The same language I speak (even though our dutch is called "flemish"... which imo is just an accent / dialect difference). The further north we go, the less I understand of it. By the time we get to Friesland, I literally do not understand a single word of it!

So where does it stop being "dutch"? I have no idea.


So in summary.... I stand corrected.
Although I think that for extant life, the two definitions I gave are very workable.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I do. @TagliatelliMonster says it is one of two models of fertility. That's wrong for 99.99% of all species that ever existed.

I don't think that's entirely accurate though.

When a paleontologist studies 2 different fossils and concludes that the fossil individuals are from the same species, I'ld think that that paleontologist is of the opinion that those two would be able to breed and produce viable off spring.

You gave the example of neanderthals and homo sapiens. A good example though.
But it raises the question.... are they truly "different species"?

The question could be asked... if 100.000 years from now, a paleontologist finds the fossil remains of 2 radically different breeds of dogs, would he consider it different species? Assuming no access to genetics or records about ability to breed etc... my guess is that yes: they would classify it as different species.
But they are not today. They are called "breeds", but the same species.

Maybe the same should be true for Neanderthals and sapiens.


It's a fascinating subject and I think the bottom line is that in the end, it's all rather arbitrary. We are trying to classify things into neatly separate boxes, while in reality these things are all very gradually interrelated and very fluid.

The thing is that, especially when we look at it from a historical lineage point of view, it's near impossible to tell where one species ends and another begins.
 
Top