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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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".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".
I think we should put that question to rest until we have a (single) definition of "species".
Beware, because with them the goalposts constantly are shifted.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/
No need. Creationist kinds are not dependent on a biological definition of species..I think we should put that question to rest until we have a (single) definition of "species".
That's for sure!Beware, because with them the goalposts constantly are shifted.
You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?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).
I'm sorry, but what exactly in your post refutes what @TagliatelliMonster said?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?
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. "If it looks different, it's a different species" is still most prevalent.Most biologists and all palaeontologists go by phenotype.
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.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.
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."If it looks different, it's a different species" is still most prevalent.
I do. @TagliatelliMonster says it is one of two models of fertility. That's wrong for 99.99% of all species that ever existed.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.
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).You'd wish. Are Grizzlies and Polar Bears one species? Are Humans and Neanderthals?
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.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).
Well, that is certainly an assertion.I do. @TagliatelliMonster says it is one of two models of fertility. That's wrong for 99.99% of all species that ever existed.
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 do. @TagliatelliMonster says it is one of two models of fertility. That's wrong for 99.99% of all species that ever existed.