Species? Kinds? Species? Something?

[Yazata]

Statement defining evolution, comments from experts here on evolution, please.

I'm not an expert on evolution, but I was a biological science undergraduate. I'm probably best described as an interested/educated layman at this point.

See what you think of the following statement since I'm looking up concept of evolution. So, first off,

"What is evolution?
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time."

Let's start there. To recap, the theory of evolution considers all species to be related and gradually change over time. All species.
What is evolution?.

Yes, I'd agree with it, with several caveats.

First, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. That's the bottom line. Since Darwin and Wallace that's been understood as occurring through natural selection. I personally think that's correct, but it isn't the same idea as change over time. Evolution in the sense of change over time might conceivably have a different mechanism and still be evolution.

Second, 'species' is a controverted concept in biology and the the philosophy of biology. There's a whole literature on how 'species' should be defined. It's pretty clear that 'species' means something very different in microbiology than it means in mammology.

Species concept - Wikipedia

 

[Yazata]

The only place I've heard the term "kinds" though, is from YECs explaining how animals evolved (a little bit) after Noah's flood.

The idea of natural kinds is much more pervasive in both science and everyday life than that. It's going to arise whenever we group collections of individuals into classifications based on shared traits. Typically, natural kind terms are what scientific theories address. 'Silicate', 'gas', 'prokaryote', 'star', 'lepton'...

Natural kind - Wikipedia

 

[SigurdReginson]

The idea of natural kinds is much more pervasive in both science and everyday life than that. It's going to arise whenever we group collections of individuals into classifications based on shared traits. Typically, natural kind terms are what scientific theories address. 'Silicate', 'gas', 'prokaryote', 'star', 'lepton'...

Natural kind - Wikipedia

Hmm... It seems to me that the context in which this is used is different, though. We already have a term used to categorize species. The word "species." Categorizing these things as "kinds" isn't done within the context of "natural kinds" like you reference. This other category exists with the presupposition that nothing can change from one "kind" to another, via the YEC model. Who outside of the YEC references to biological species as "kinds?"

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not an expert on evolution, but I was a biological science undergraduate. I'm probably best described as an interested/educated layman at this point.



Yes, I'd agree with it, with several caveats.

First, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. That's the bottom line. Since Darwin and Wallace that's been understood as occurring through natural selection. I personally think that's correct, but it isn't the same idea as change over time. Evolution in the sense of change over time might conceivably have a different mechanism and still be evolution.

Second, 'species' is a controverted concept in biology and the the philosophy of biology. There's a whole literature on how 'species' should be defined. It's pretty clear that 'species' means something very different in microbiology than it means in mammology.

Species concept - Wikipedia

I have no quibble with your statement here. So thanks for that. There's more but I'll leave it at that now. I'll get into more specifics later, but the idea that things 'happened' to happen is incomprehensible to me at this point. In other words, it just isn't there. There is a theory as to how it happened, but it is conjectured, not proven. That is not to say that viruses don't mutate. I'm sure they do. But yes, gorillas can be cute looking, but they remain gorillas. Ok I said I wasn't going to get into it. Too much. And yes, the main thrust of evolution is, if I understand you correctly, biologic change, right? Ok not going too much further now. Thanks, by the way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the idea that things 'happened' to happen is incomprehensible to me at this point. In other words, it just isn't there.

Textbook argument from incredulity.

So just because it is "incomprehensible" to you, therefor that means "it just isn't there"?

Seriously.... Can you be more blatantly fallacious? I don't think you could. You could try, but you'ld likely not be succesfull.

There is a theory as to how it happened, but it is conjectured, not proven.

It's not conjecture. It's extremely well established and well supported by mountains of evidence. It accounts for all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none.
No, it's not "proven" either - no theory in science ever is. But you know that already off course. You just like to repeat this as if it is somehow a problem, but off course it isn't.

But yes, gorillas can be cute looking, but they remain gorillas.

As has been explained to so many times already: if gorilla's would produce non-gorilla's, then evolution theory would be FALSIFIED.

Can you at least TRY to learn from your mistakes?