dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/13/84)
>[Phil Polli] >I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants >and animals". Here you go. This may not be good enough. Say so if not, and why. --- Gish, D. "Evolution - The Fossils Say No!", Creation-Life Publishers, 1973, San Diego. "We must here define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic animal or plant kind would include all animal or plants which were truly derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool. All humans, for example, are within a single basic kind, _Homo sapiens_. In this case, the basic kind is a single species. In other cases, the basic kind may be at the genus level. It may be, for instance, that the various species of the coyote, such as the Oklahoma Coyote (_Canis frustor_), the Mountain Coyote (_C. Lestes_), the Desert Coyote (_C. estor_), and others, are of the same basic kind. It is possible, even likely, that this basic kind (which we may call the dog kind) includes not only all coyote species, but also the wolf (_Canis lupus_) and the dog (_Canis familiaris_)." [...] "In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock." --- Note that creationists do not deny variability that takes place within what is above defined as a kind. What is denied is that two kinds have a common ancestor. For example, dog and cat kinds would not be said to have a common ancestral kind. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "A nose, and two nostrils. That proves it."
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/14/84)
[This space is blank]
A while ago, in a fit of cynicism, I offered the following
definitions:
Variation within kinds - changes in the characteristics of
any population of animal or plant which are well documented
in the historical record.
Variation between kinds - all others
In the absence of any definition of "kind" other than "sharing
a common ancestral population" I seem to have been more accurate
than I thought.
There is a recurrent problem in biology about the definition
of species which other people have mentioned, i.e. what is a "species"
anyhow? "Everyone" knows the answer to this in the sense that observers
from different cultures will, in analyzing a given ecosystem, divide
up creatures into the same sets of species. (I think this comparison
has actually been done for American ornithologists and Papuan headhunters).
However, inevitable ambiguities arise. From an evolutionary point of
view this is normal. Speciation occurs as isolated breeding groups
develope incompatible habits and biochemistry. There will always
be examples of groups that are somewhat distinct, have slightly
different ranges or habits, and do not *normally* interbreed. Many of
them may never become truly distinct species. From a creationist point
of view this ambiguity is more irritating. The definition suggested
by Paul Dubois (I know he didn't make it up, but I forget his source),
gets around this problem but only by making variation between "kinds"
impossible by definition.
Ethan Vishniacrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/25/84)
> >I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants > >and animals". > > "We must here define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic > animal or plant kind would include all animal or plants which > were truly derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, > it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool. >...[explanation that basic kind might occur at a level which, according to conventional taxonomy, is species in one case; genus in another--illustrates difference between "kind" and "species"]... > "In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as > including all of those variants which have been derived > from a single stock." > --- > Note that creationists do not deny variability that takes > place within what is above defined as a kind. What is denied > is that two kinds have a common ancestor... In effect, then, I see two salient characteristics of "kind": - the term means whatever it must mean--I'm referring to the idea that "kind" refers to all animals plants derived from a single stock. What is a single stock? Well, gee, it's what makes up a "kind". Stated differently, circular definition: see definition, circular . . . definition, circular: see...(oh come on, you can guess it:-) - the term is defined so as to exclude evolution a priori, as a consequence of the definition. One could not use arguments and evidence for evolution to argue against this taxonomic scheme, because it rejects an evolutionary explanation by definition-- "what is denied is that two kinds have a common ancestor..." -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (09/28/84)
>>[Phil Polli] >>I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants >>and animals". >[Paul DuBois] >Here you go. This may not be good enough. Say so if not, and >why. >--- >Gish, D. "Evolution - The Fossils Say No!", Creation-Life >Publishers, 1973, San Diego. > >"We must here define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic >animal or plant kind would include all animal or plants which >were truly derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool. >All humans, for example, are within a single basic kind, _Homo >sapiens_. In this case, the basic kind is a single species. > >In other cases, the basic kind may be at the genus level. ... >Note that creationists do not deny variability that takes >place within what is above defined as a kind. What is denied >is that two kinds have a common ancestor. For example, >dog and cat kinds would not be said to have a common ancestral >kind. Ok, I'd like more information on *exactly* where you and/or D. Gish draw the line around the human kind. The definition of _H. sapiens_ is a bit fuzzy around the edges, since there is good fossil evidence for a number of (what appear to be) transitional forms between _H. sapiens sapiens_ (modern humans) and _H. erectus_ (which most evolutionists believe to be a direct ancestor of _H. sapiens sapiens_). These range from Cro Magnon man (nearly indistinguishable from modern humans, and generally generally classed within _H. sapiens sapiens_), to Neanderthal man (which has a more swept back skull than _H. s. s._, and is classed seperately, as _H sapiens neandertalensis_), to even earlier forms (sorry, no names), to Java man and Peking man (_H. erectus_, noted for an even more swept back skull (almost pointed in back), heavy brow ridges, and lack of a chin). There is also good evidence of a continuum between _H. erectus_ and _H. habilus_. It seems to me that, wherever you try to draw the line, there'll be considerable evidence against it, so unless you can come up with some evidence *for* drawing the line, Occam's razor says to go with theories that *don't* separate humans from apes, no matter whether they're creationist or evolutionist. -- Human: Gordon Davisson USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon Disclaimer: I'm a computer scientist, not a physical anthropologist, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. (but don't let that keep you from answering my questions)
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/27/85)
[]
The other day, as I was tying some Green Drakes in anticipation
of a Spring fishing trip to the Frying Pan, it occured to me that I
knew that the insect I was trying to imitate well enough to fool a
trout was Ephemerellidae Ephemerella glacialis.
Actually, I had to look that up. Just before I take these flies
fishing I'll look up, once again, the life style and emergent habits of
this species. Thus do I hope to catch more fish.
If creationism were science, their notion of kinds would be as useful
as the entomologists' notion of species. I suspect that there has been
no attempt to do any serious comprehensive catagorization of life into
an ordering of kinds.
Is this true? Is there any serious body of creation science? Or is this
just another bit of evidence that creationism is nothing more than an
attack on science itself?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307