The Fossil Record and Evolution

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

i do think that the family level should represent the most similar classification of creationists “kinds” for several reasons i mentioned above.

How interesting:

Hominidae

[scd]

@John_Harshman

Why? It looks as if, by your criterion, the big cats are a separate kind from the small cats, incidentally

but some small cats can interbreed with big cats and thus they belong to the same kind.

@John_Harshman

The more important point is that there is no reason to suppose that lack of hybridization is evidence of separate creation

@Rumraket

And if you are conceding that reproductive incompatibility can evolve, there’s doesn’t appear to be any basis for saying the boundaries must exist elsewhere

other criteria can be shared (complex) morphological\genetical traits. all cats species shared the same complex morphological traits and thus are the same kind basically.

and as for the nested hierarchy- we alread discussed about it. remember that even according to design we can get that hierarchy.

[John_Harshman]

@scd

but some small cats can interbreed with big cats and thus they belong to the same kind.

That’s not what the figure you posted shows. Anyway, that isn’t the point, which is that inability to interbreed doesn’t show that two species are different kinds.

@scd

other criteria can be shared (complex) morphological\genetical traits.

Great. Then all Carnivora are one kind based on their shared complex traits, such as carnassial teeth. All mammals are one kind based on their shared complex traits, such as a dentary-squamosal jaw joint. All amniotes are one kind based on their shared complex traits, such as the amnion. You get the idea.

@scd

remember that even according to design we can get that hierarchy.

No, that was something you claimed, but you were never able to show it with anything other than a constantly changing set of cartoon diagrams.

[Timothy_Horton]

@scd

other criteria can be shared (complex) morphological\genetical traits. all cats species shared the same complex morphological traits and thus are the same kind basically.

By that vague criteria humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are all the same “kind”. Is that your point?

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd has already admitted that “kind” is the creationist equivalent of “family” in standard taxonomy. So that would mean all members of the family hominidae (including chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans) are a “kind.”

Cue the special pleading…

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

and yet we consider them to belong to the same family.

Then why did you say that being able to distinguish between them put them in different kinds?

[Rich_Hampton]

Since all the kinds are descendants of one pair/group of 7, then we ought to be able to see an “evolution” of species within kinds as they migrated to their eventual homes. This should be readily apparent in the fossil record as this happened only 4 thousand years or so ago. But nothing like this exists.

Why is that, scd?

[scd]

@John_Harshman

Great. Then all Carnivora are one kind based on their shared complex traits, such as carnassial teeth.

not that fast. some of them have complex traits that other dont. thus there are many kinds of carnivora\mammals. im talking about species that share all of the complex traits and not just some of them.

@John_Harshman

No, that was something you claimed, but you were never able to show it with anything other than a constantly changing set of cartoon diagrams.

there is no problem for designer to make animals by groups and sub groups. thus nested hierarchy doesnt prove non design.

@Timothy_Horton

By that vague criteria humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are all the same “kind”. Is that your point?

no. human for instance can speak when gorila and chimp cant. that is a complex trait and thus human is a different kind.

@Faizal_Ali

@scd has already admitted that “kind” is the creationist equivalent of “family” in standard taxonomy.

actually i didnt said that. i said that in general that is true but not always.

@T_aquaticus

Then why did you say that being able to distinguish between them put them in different kinds?

see above. i think that the main criteria should be shared complex traits. all dogs shared the same complex traits and thus belong to the same kind.

@Rich_Hampton

This should be readily apparent in the fossil record as this happened only 4 thousand years or so ago. But nothing like this exists.

Why is that, scd?

im not sure i got your point. i also dont talk about creationism but about ID here.

[Timothy_Horton]

@scd

no. human for instance can speak when gorila and chimp cant. that is a complex trait and thus human is a different kind.

Where is the list of complex traits required for “kind-ness”? You just made up that excuse to backtrack on your earlier claims.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@scd

not that fast. some of them have complex traits that other dont. thus there are many kinds of carnivora\mammals. im talking about species that share all of the complex traits and not just some of them

Define a “complex trait”. If you can do it in such a way that all members of a “kind” share all of these traits to the exclusion of other “kinds”, that would be a huge step forward for baraminology. If you can’t do that, we’re left with a nested hierarchy of traits, just as we’d expect according to evolution.

@scd

there is no problem for designer to make animals by groups and sub groups. thus nested hierarchy doesnt prove non design.

No one is claiming that the nested hierarchy is “proof” of “non design”. It’s consistent with evolution, and at best only consistent with one particular ad hoc version of ID.
Therefore, the nested hierarchy is strong evidence of in favour of evolution, not “proof”.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

i think that the main criteria should be shared complex traits. all dogs shared the same complex traits and thus belong to the same kind.

We share complex traits with all other vertebrates. Are vertebrates a created kind?

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

actually i didnt said that. i said that in general that is true but not always.

Ah, so as I suspected: “Kind” is a weasel word that means nothing to creationists except what they want it to mean at the moment. Got it.

[John_Harshman]

@scd

im talking about species that share all of the complex traits and not just some of them.

I don’t you will find any species that share all the complex traits. Every species is different, and complex traits arise at all levels of the tree. This is yet more evidence that you don’t understand nested hierarchy.

@scd

there is no problem for designer to make animals by groups and sub groups. thus nested hierarchy doesnt prove non design.

Of course a designer could do anything. You consistently ignore the point, which is that since a designer can do anything, there’s no reason to expect him to produce a result that looks exactly as expected from common descent.

@scd

that is a complex trait and thus human is a different kind.

You are choosing which complex traits to pay attention to in order to get your pre-determined result. This is not science.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

Ah, so as I suspected: “Kind” is a weasel word that means nothing to creationists except what they want it to mean at the moment. Got it.

@Faizal_Ali

The only coherent discussion on “kinds” that I have read was, ironically, from Rev. Hovind.

He points out that the Genesis of KIND is any group of creatures that can reproduce a new generation.

So a tiger and a wolf … NOT a kind.

A horse and a mule… NOT a kind.

2 Kangaroos (male & female) … YEP… that is a KIND… and not the same KIND as some other hopping animal, since kangaroos and rabbits are not compatible.

[Rich_Hampton]

@scd

i also dont talk about creationism but about ID here.

The concept of kinds had nothing to do with Intelligent Design theory, it’s strictly YEC. Since you brought it up, why doesn’t the fossil record show an evolution within kinds as they migrated off the ark toward their destinations?

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

The only coherent discussion on “kinds” that I have read was, ironically, from Rev. Hovind.

The definition is clear, and that is not the problem.

The problem arises when they try to classify organisms according to this definition. They need to find discontinuities where organisms cannot share a common ancestor. And those don’t exist, because creationism is a crock.

[scd]

@Timothy_Horton

Where is the list of complex traits required for “kind-ness”?

@evograd

Define a “complex trait”. If you can do it in such a way that all members of a “kind” share all of these traits to the exclusion of other “kinds”, that would be a huge step forward for baraminology.

a complex trait can be any trait that show evidence for design. by doing that i think that we can get a good estimation of kinds.

@T_aquaticus

We share complex traits with all other vertebrates. Are vertebrates a created kind?

but not all of them. im talking about a set of shared complex traits.

@John_Harshman

Every species is different,

i dont think so. usually you will not find a species in a family that has a complex trait that other species in that family dont share. at least in most cases. now, notice that some traits can be lost so remember that im talking about the rule and of course that we might find cases that break that rule but it will be a small minority.

@John_Harshman

there’s no reason to expect him to produce a result that looks exactly as expected from common descent.

actually i dont think that even evolution predict nested hierarchy. but i dont want to get into this right now. lets stay in focus.

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

a complex trait can be any trait that show evidence for design.

Whomp whomp.

[Timothy_Horton]

@scd

a complex trait can be any trait that show evidence for design.

LOL! Design is indicated by complex traits, and complex traits are ones that indicate design. Your definition couldn’t be more circular or more worthless if you tried.

[John_Harshman]

@scd

a complex trait can be any trait that show evidence for design. by doing that i think that we can get a good estimation of kinds.

Only if you can decide by observation what traits show evidence for design. How do you do that?

@scd

but not all of them. im talking about a set of shared complex traits.

Why do these complex traits fit into a nested hierarchy so well? Separate creation doesn’t explain it. And you still need to identify all the complex traits. In fact you can’t determine kinds until you identify every single complex trait.

@scd

i dont think so. usually you will not find a species in a family that has a complex trait that other species in that family dont share.

Hard to say until you manage to identify all the complex traits. How will you do that?

@scd

actually i dont think that even evolution predict nested hierarchy

That seems a ridiculous claim. Not the sort of thing you should say if you don’t want to get into it.