How many different kinds of birds are there?

Once again I make an attempt to open the question of created kinds, or baramins, or whatever you want to call them: groups within which there is common descent but between which there is not. This is an opportunity for the creationists who frequent TSZ to school me on the subject.

I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not? In any case, I’m not asking for precision; an answer within an order of magnitude will do.

Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved. How about you?

460 thoughts on “How many different kinds of birds are there?

  1. CharlieM: All birds do wish to free themselves from the earth in that they are bipedal.

    How about bats? They’re not so much bipedal as they are mostly not able to walk (vampire bats walk in interesting ways, but clearly aren’t capable of extensive ground travel). Bats, by the way, have not become flightless.

    More desire to free themselves? Or the obvious fact that they’re so poor at walking that they’re not going to evolve to become flightless?

    See, science answers things, like why many birds lose their flight powers, and bats do not. Archetypes do as much as ID does, nothing but pretend to have answers.

    Glen Davidson

  2. In ‘A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court’ Twain imagines the advantages that someone with a bit of scientific savvy and info might have in a world where nobody else has any. What we have here are examples of people who prefer to live with whatever disadvantages wilful ignorance bestows.

    Why? Fear of death. Twain discusses that too–in Letters From the Earth. These ‘positions’ aren’t debateable–they’re more like an incurable medical condition or a nervous tic.

    So I don’t really get the interest in ‘debate’: I mean, I guess there’s some humor to be found in the Caterpillaresque responses, but it’s like the humor to be found in the movie ‘The Room.’ 15 minutes ought to be enough.

  3. John Harshman: Clearly, jellyfish had a desire to sting. I have a desire to be immortal, and Charlie must be right because it’s working so far.

    Why would you want to be immortal, John? Is immortality an “evolutionary concept” or you have evolved it independently?
    I just never thought that materialism even had a concept of immortality in the dictionary…

  4. John Harshman,

    Here is a fine example of your inability to be clear. You are using the word “descended” in a completely different way from the way I’m using it, and you seem to think they’re the same. But I can try to work with that. Has each species “descended” or “condensed” separately? How does that work? Does a population of the species just suddenly appear in the material world, like “poof”? Or something else? And how do you know any of this?

    You may not like my analogies but it is the only way I can explain how I see things. Of course populations don’t just suddenly appear. It is more like the crystalization of salt in solution. In a solution there is no separation of solid and liquid, it is a unity. Crystals do not suddenly appear, they grow and radiate from the centre. Even physicists are not against believing that the evolution of the universe came about by the condensation of matter from a state of pure energy through gasious to liquid and finally solid. It is my belief that living being is primal to dead matter and these four states appear to be less alive as they descend from energy through to the solid. Think of a snail, the shell contains less living substance than the soft parts that make up the rest of the organism inside.

    There probably are some, for some definitions of “species”, though it’s hard to tell. Why did you bring that up in connection with humans?

    If you look at these “species” you can say that they have diversified from a unified source, some have remained at an earlier stage and some have progressed further. There is unity in diversity but because we are beings in time and live in the present then we only see the diverity. For a being that is not trapped within time any moment in the life history of that “species” would be as real as any other. It would see the whole whereas we just see the limited part. By closely studying the development of plants throughtout their life cycles and concentrating on the metamorphosis not on the individual static image, Goethe was able to step outside of his limited point of time and actually experience the living reality.

    As I have mentioned above, we mean completely different things by “related”.

    Not completely. I too believe in relationship by descent. Only I don’t like to speculate on how many physical points of origin the “species” originated from. The simple fact is that I do not know. I think the process of crystallization is much more interesting than counting how many sources within the solution the salt crystals originated from.

    That’s a ridiculous characterization. There are no archetypes. What you’re seeing are clades, related by common descent. (And I mean “descent” in the ordinary, physical sense.) Penguins share some of the characteristics we commonly associate with birds not because of some mystical archetype but because they inherited those characteristics from avian ancestors.

    We are in danger of picturing clades as abstract diagrams and forgetting about the real creatures that they represent. Until you can repeat the process that Goethe went through and experience what he experienced then you are not in a position to make judgements on the reality of archetypes.

    My attempt to discuss this with you isn’t getting far either. Let’s accept for the moment that a “kind” is a group that has independently congealed into physical form from the archetype, with physical, genetic common descent within but not between kinds. If so, how do we recognize a kind? Why? And how many kinds of birds are there?

    Our discussion may not be getting far in your eyes, but your probing questions are giving me lots to think about and are helping me to clarify my thoughts in my own mind if in no one else’s.

    I would say that if we can write a unique, interesting biography of its development, lifestyle, habits, appearance, then that is a spiritual individual. The whole physical group makes up the spiritual individual. Anything interesting we can say about emperor penguins applies to the whole species and not to any physical individual penguin. Adapa’s video is interesting only in that it anthropomorphizes the penguin, not that it is supposed to align with reality; which makes my point. If a penguin was to behave like that then that would be interesting!

    So we have two meanings and directions of descent and two meanings of “individual”. Heredity produces the physical individual, but there is are spiritual individuals that occupy physical bodies. As life evolves the spiritual individual and the physical individual come closer together. With emperor penguins for example the spiritual individual’s “body” would be the whole group, it would consist of every physical individual within the species. With humans the spiritual individual has condensed enough so that it aligns with the individual as we see her or him. Different humans have different habits, different emperor penguins do not have different habits.

  5. GlenDavidson: CharlieM: How do you think we recognize penguins as birds?

    Wings, feathers, skeletal structure. No teeth, at least in modern birds.

    Interesting point about teeth. Birds have lost their teeth because they have specialised from the general form which the human still possesses. The more specialized a form the less further evolution is possible. Just think of the difference between what humans can do with their mouth parts compared with what toucans can do with their’s.

  6. GlenDavidson:

    Our physical senses alone cannot tell us this.

    Only our physical senses tell us this. Otherwise there’d be no sound understanding of birds as existing in one clade.

    You need to have a think about the difference between our sense experience before and after our thinking minds interpret what is sensed. “Bird” is a concept, not a bare perception. You would do well to consider the difference.

  7. walto: So I don’t really get the interest in ‘debate’: I mean, I guess there’s some humor to be found in the Caterpillaresque responses, but it’s like the humor to be found in the movie ‘The Room.’ 15 minutes ought to be enough.

    I don’t know if there is a great deal of interest in the “debate,” but the psychology of denialism can be informative, and it’s not all bad to rehash how we know things at all. I think the similarities of science denialism are interesting.

    One encounters flat earthers, and it’s like you already know them via creationists/IDists. There’s the familiar “conspiracy” to keep the righteous truth down, and it seems to me that most of the rest of the rationalizing flows from that (not the initial impulse, which presumably goes back to fear of death). What’s always stunning is to watch how really good evidence means nothing to them, because Satan or whatever other proximate evil, along with some flimsy anomaly or what-not, while their basically evidence-free belief wins by default.

    One wonders, how does anyone think that way? But it’s really more normal than we tend think, with good analytical thinking being what requires some basic education and especially experience–like labs. Basically, your science denier is someone who really never got what science is about–mostly explaining patterns through systematic processes, and above all, not privileging your own presuppositions. Most people really can’t imagine what the latter even means.

    Of course arguing with people who don’t get science and probably never will is not something that’s going to improve their understanding, in fact it often seems to do the opposite. But they were pretty hopeless to begin with, and I think there’s some interesting cognitive psychology to be seen in a Sal becoming = ever less scientific, or a colewd who becoming ever more impervious to evidence as ID tropes trump everything and arguments do a 180 shift to always favor creationism.

    The endless defenses of bad thinking are the most interesting aspect of arguing these things out.

    Glen Davidson

  8. John Harshman: Your analogies are all either opaque or incorrect. I’d advise skipping the analogies and just trying to say what you mean instead. I think you’re trying to come across as a cryptic guru, but you just manage to come across as nonsensical.

    It doesn’t matter what you think about my motives, you still haven’t explained why the buttercup plant, the organs with in such as leaves and flowers and the cells within the leaves do not form a nested hierarchy.

  9. So the answer to how many kinds of birds there are appears to be identical to the answer for how decisions are made in phoodoo world.

  10. CharlieM: Heredity produces the physical individual, but there is are spiritual individuals that occupy physical bodies.

    I completely disagree.

    Most of the DNA in your body does not come from your parents. It was created by you. There’s a continual flux of physical material, with atom leaving the body and new ones entering.

    Your heredity gave you biochemical processes (the spiritual individual), and some physical material as an implementation detail to support that spiritual indivual. Thereafter, most of the physical material comes from you (the spiritual individual) building the physical framework needed to support and implement the processes which constitute the spiritual individual.

    The important inheritance is the spiritual individual (the processes), and the physical individual is merely an implementation detail, mostly built by those processes.

  11. Moved a comment to guano. I sense the frustration but please try to address the comment without insulting the commenter.

  12. John Harshman: If you intend that to be relevant, you will have to explicitly make the claim that kinds are the same as species, or at least clarify what you think the connection is.

    I think that kinds and species are mental constructs that exist in minds more than in the DNA of organisms.

    I think that an understanding like that is pretty foreign to both YEC and modern neo-darwinism.

    I also think that discussing this sort of thing is next to impossible here because everyone is looking to score points instead of trying to understand the diversity of life that we see.

    peace

  13. CharlieM: You may not like my analogies but it is the only way I can explain how I see things.

    That’s unfortunate, since your analogies explain nothing. An analogy only works if the reader can see the correspondences between the analogy and what’s being explained. And the correspondences in your analogies are opaque. This one, for example:

    It is more like the crystalization of salt in solution.

    In what way?

    In a solution there is no separation of solid and liquid, it is a unity.

    Not true, actually. A solution is entirely liquid, period.

    Crystals do not suddenly appear, they grow and radiate from the centre.

    Now that’s true, but what does it have to do with the origin of a species? No clue. I’m just going to snip the irrelevant blathering that comes next.

    If you look at these “species” you can say that they have diversified from a unified source, some have remained at an earlier stage and some have progressed further. There is unity in diversity but because we are beings in time and live in the present then we only see the diverity. For a being that is not trapped within time any moment in the life history of that “species” would be as real as any other. It would see the whole whereas we just see the limited part.

    I have absolutely no idea what this means.

    By closely studying the development of plants throughtout their life cycles and concentrating on the metamorphosis not on the individual static image, Goethe was able to step outside of his limited point of time and actually experience the living reality.

    You talk about Goethe as if he were the Buddha, having a moment of ineffable enlightenment, in which you apparently share. Not useful.

    I too believe in relationship by descent.

    Perhaps you do, but I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by “descent”, so the commonality of the word is useless.

    We are in danger of picturing clades as abstract diagrams and forgetting about the real creatures that they represent. Until you can repeat the process that Goethe went through and experience what he experienced then you are not in a position to make judgements on the reality of archetypes.

    So you claim, but I see no reason to believe you. Have you experienced what he experienced? Are you perhaps a bodhisattva?

    Our discussion may not be getting far in your eyes, but your probing questions are giving me lots to think about and are helping me to clarify my thoughts in my own mind if in no one else’s.

    Why can’t you manage to clarify to anyone else? Seems a bit selfish of you.

    I would say that if we can write a unique, interesting biography of its development, lifestyle, habits, appearance, then that is a spiritual individual.

    What does a spiritual individual have to do with a kind? And I think you underestimate the individuality of the members of other species.

    So we have two meanings and directions of descent and two meanings of “individual”. Heredity produces the physical individual, but there is are spiritual individuals that occupy physical bodies. As life evolves the spiritual individual and the physical individual come closer together.

    My current interest, the one that’s on topic, is in the physical meanings of descent and of individuals, and I wish you would consider answering staying on topic. Speaking in terms of physical bodies, how many kinds of birds are there? How much common descent is there, within the physical meaning of common descent? Are you capable of answering?

  14. fifthmonarchyman: I think that kinds and species are mental constructs that exist in minds more than in the DNA of organisms.

    I think that an understanding like that is pretty foreign to both YEC and modern neo-darwinism.

    I also think that discussing this sort of thing is next to impossible here because everyone is looking to score points instead of trying to understand the diversity of life that we see.

    I think you’re wrong about everything you have said there. If you will look at the definition of “kind” in the OP, it’s pretty clear. It should be a simple question to answer. Kinds, by that definition, must be real, as reproduction and descent are real.

    I have no idea what you think about this, since you won’t say. If your understanding is foreign to YEC and “neoDarwinists”, what is that understanding?

    And I’m not trying to score points. I’m desperately trying to find out what anyone thinks about the subject, and why. So far, nothing. Nobody will admit to any comprehensible point of view, much less attempt to justify it.

  15. CharlieM: It doesn’t matter what you think about my motives, you still haven’t explained why the buttercup plant, the organs with in such as leaves and flowers and the cells within the leaves do not form a nested hierarchy.

    If you know what a nested hierarchy is, you should be able to show me wrong by detailing what the hierarchy is, and what your evidence is for it.

  16. John Harshman: I think you’re wrong about everything you have said there.

    How many points is that worth? 😉

    John Harshman: If you will look at the definition of “kind” in the OP, it’s pretty clear. It should be a simple question to answer.

    If you define “kind” in a way that makes it impossible to give an answer then it should not surprise you that no one offers an answer.

    In normal conversation that sort of thing is usually a hint that you need to modify your definition.

    John Harshman: If your understanding is foreign to YEC and “neoDarwinists”, what is that understanding?

    I gave my understanding in the very first paragraph of my first response to you. You must have missed it because you were to busy declaring it to be out of order.

    John Harshman: So far, nothing. Nobody will admit to any comprehensible point of view, much less attempt to justify it.

    You would think that would cause you to look at your original definitions/question and see if you need to modify them in some way. But so far nothing has been forthcoming.

    peace

  17. John Harshman: Kinds, by that definition, must be real, as reproduction and descent are real.

    Kinds are real but so are a lot of other things that exist in minds and not in DNA.

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: If you define “kind” in a way that makes it impossible to give an answer then it should not surprise you that no one offers an answer.

    I agree. But why should it be impossible to give an answer the way I’ve defined it? I would think that separately created kinds should be obvious. No?

    Now you prefer a definition of “kind” that makes it a human construct. But what is that definition? You don’t say anything other than that it’s a human construct. And is this sort of kind in any way relevant to the OP? For example, are different kinds related by common descent? Are all kinds related by common descent?

  19. John Harshman:

    CharlieM: Obviously there is a range between the multiple species of birds that there are. Everything from ostriches to wandering albatrosses. Albatrosses show a greater desire to be free from the earth than ostriches. Why do you want to paint everything black and white?

    I don’t. I’m just pointing out that your whole “desire” thing makes no sense. This desire to be free from the earth is not evident in the data, and flight doesn’t even unite birds.

    I didn’t expect you to even consider that feelings such as desire could be attributed to bird species. But maybe your are not so set against the idea of the relative freedom of birds to the earth.

    When we compare birds and mammals, the former contain the lightest species and the latter the heaviest. We can say that generally they are less affected by the gravity of the earth. It is among the birds that we find the vertebrates that spend the most time furthest from the surface of the earth. Some species only alight to breed or to feed. Even ratites although they do not free themselves completely from the earths surface still hold themselves above the surface by their relatively long legs and hold their forelimbs free of the surface.

    All birds do wish to free themselves from the earth in that they are bipedal. Crocodiles and birds are closely related but compare how they move about on earth. which do you think has remained more connected with the earth?

    Nonsensical question incapable of a sensible answer. If being bipedal is being free from the earth, then you have to look way beyond birds for this so-called freedom. Most dinosaurs, for example. Would you consider a tyrannosaur more free from the earth than a cheetah? Do snakes have a desire to be unfree? All this nonsense about desire explains nothing.

    Only nonsensical if one holds that the form of the various species are due to accidental circumstances. I do not think it is nonsensical to ask questions like these about the natural world.

    You ask interesting questions.

    Compare a tyrannosaur to say an eagle. The centre of gravity of the tyrannosaur is much lower even although they are both bipedal. The eagle becomes bipedal in a balanced way which not only maintains but enhances the formative forces in its upper limbs which are beautiful, purposeful structures. The tyrannosaur becomes bipedal but the formative forces are concentrated in the lower limbs and tail while the upper limbs actually degenerate.

    The cheetah is a creature which is in perfect, elegant balance between the earthly gravitational forces and the heavenly levitational forces. Just look at the graceful way they move.

    Snakes are the direct opposite of birds, they use their energy in being close to the earth. Some snakes are even fossorial but there are no true fossorial birds although some use burrows when nesting.

  20. dazz: Of course it’s us. Archetypes & concepts are human constructs

    Evolution is a concept. Is that a human construct?

  21. John Harshman: I would think that separately created kinds should be obvious. No?

    For one thing created kinds are not genetically separated (lev 19:19). So your definition does not make sense

    peace

  22. Corneel:

    CharlieM: Yes. All the following attributes are just some of what it is to be human: Single cellular, multi-cellular, unconscious, conscious, self-conscious, capable of rational thought, sessile, motile, no senses, sight, hearing, sense of touch, sense of smell, sense of taste, does not produce any sound, vocal, able to express feelings through sound, temperature dictated by environment, advanced thermoregulation, aquatic, terrestrial, no true tissues or organs, complex organs, no circulatory system, advanced circulatory system, no respiratory system, advanced respiratory system, no nervous system, advanced central nervous system, no excretory system, advanced excretory system, can use tools, sexual reproduction, limbs with uses other than locomotion.

    You left out the kitchen sink. So this list does what? Specify the animal archetype? Not really specific to animals, I would say. Or did you mean there is a single archetype for all cellular life?

    The above list is a list of various things that can be attributed to humans. The archetype is all encompassing not specific.

    CharlieM: Compare the jellyfish to the gastrula that you once were.

    Comparing. Hmmmm. No, not the same. I don’t think I ever had any cnidocytes.

    I am talking about the general form of jellyfish, not specific features.

  23. John Harshman: I agree. But why should it be impossible to give an answer the way I’ve defined it? I would think that separately created kinds should be obvious. No?

    Now you prefer a definition of “kind” that makes it a human construct. But what is that definition? You don’t say anything other than that it’s a human construct. And is this sort of kind in any way relevant to the OP? For example, are different kinds related by common descent? Are all kinds related by common descent?

    If you mean “common descent” as “common designer”… yeah.

  24. CharlieM,

    If I ask interesting questions, here’s another: Does any of that stuff you said about various animals actually explain anything, or is just you free-associating on shapes?

    : Only nonsensical if one holds that the form of the various species are due to accidental circumstances.

    Nobody holds this. The forms of the various species are due to a) physical constraints of materials, mechanics, and such, b) historical constraints due to inheritance and c) adaptation to particular environments. Nothing you said is a reasonable alternative.

  25. J-Mac: If you mean “common descent”as “common designer”… yeah.

    No, I mean “common descent” as “common descent”. I’m kind of the opposite of Humpty-dumpty there.

  26. dazz: Sure. Do you see that as some sort of slam dunk?

    To elaborate on this, you said:

    CharlieM: How do you think we recognize penguins as birds? Our physical senses alone cannot tell us this. It is only through thinking that we gain the concept, “bird”. It is not us who invent the concept. The concept is objectively real. Our senses do not give us this reality. It is our apprehending the concept which gives us the reality. The archetype is the reality obtained in the same way as we obtain these concepts.

    And I would say we produce concepts, some of which correspond to real things and processes and some don’t. It’s not a “top-down” endeavour where concepts exist and have causal powers and we discover them. We observe reality and use abstract ideas like concepts, theories, archetypes… etc to explain that reality.

    Kame-hame-ha is a concept too, did Akira Toriyama discover it using his inner thinking? Not really

  27. fifthmonarchyman: For one thing created kinds are not genetically separated (lev 19:19). So your definition does not make sense

    I’d be interested to see a YEC’s take on this verse.

    But I don’t think it invalidates my definition even if we agree on what it means. It doesn’t say different kinds aren’t genetically separated, if you refer to separate ancestry. It just says that you shouldn’t form hybrids. Hybrids between kinds might not happen in nature, and anyway a few hybrids shouldn’t upset the general pattern.

    I’d also be interested to know your position on the creation of life. Is common ancestry of all life, including humans, something you’re willing to accept?

  28. CharlieM: The above list is a list of various things that can be attributed to humans. The archetype is all encompassing not specific.

    But the animal archetype should be specific to animals, right? So what traits unite all organisms that “descend” from the animal archetype? Also, you haven told me if there are archetypes for non-animals, like say the “tree archetype” or something.

    CharlieM: I am talking about the general form of jellyfish, not specific features.

    The general form of a jellyfish is completely unlike a human gastrula-stage embryo as well. But there is a reason I brought up cnidocytes. Cnidocytes are a diagnostic feature of all cnidarians. That includes the diverse group of corals, sea anemones, jellyfish, and a bunch of others. If cnidocytes is not a feature of the archetype, why is it shared by such diverse groups? Did they acquire that through a desire to sting? And if jellyfish represent a less refined form than us, how come they are sporting cool features that we don’t have?

  29. John Harshman: No, I mean “common descent” as “common descent”. I’m kind of the opposite of Humpty-dumpty there.

    You mean common descent as you see it? How many experiments have you done that prove common descent, as you see it?

  30. fifthmonarchyman: For one thing created kinds are not genetically separated (lev 19:19)

    “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”.

    So your definition does not make sense

    What happened since the definition now makes sense?

    peace

  31. Corneel: But the animal archetype should be specific to animals, right? So what traits unite all organisms that “descend” from the animal archetype? Also, you haven told me if there are archetypes for non-animals, like say the “tree archetype” or something.

    The general form of a jellyfish is completely unlike a human gastrula-stage embryo as well. But there is a reason I brought up cnidocytes. Cnidocytes are a diagnostic feature of all cnidarians. That includes the diverse group of corals, sea anemones, jellyfish, and a bunch of others. If cnidocytes is not a feature of the archetype, why is it shared by such diverse groups? Did they acquire that through a desire to sting? And if jellyfish represent a less refined form than us, how come they are sporting cool features that we don’t have?

    Jelly fish is immoral…well almost…I’m surprised John Harshman has not done any experiments with them as he seems to be looing for immortality formula… without God or supernatural…however…

  32. GlenDavidson:

    CharlieM: All birds do wish to free themselves from the earth in that they are bipedal.

    How about bats? They’re not so much bipedal as they are mostly not able to walk (vampire bats walk in interesting ways, but clearly aren’t capable of extensive ground travel). Bats, by the way, have not become flightless.

    More desire to free themselves? Or the obvious fact that they’re so poor at walking that they’re not going to evolve to become flightless?

    See, science answers things, like why many birds lose their flight powers, and bats do not. Archetypes do as much as ID does, nothing but pretend to have answers.

    Science answers nothing. It is a method used by enquiring minds to ask and attempt to answer apt questions about the world around us. The scientific method is a tool that can be used by anyone, it is not the exclusive domain of materialists or physicalists or anyone else.

    And as you have implied bats are so specialized that they are in an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

  33. CharlieM:

    How about bats? They’re not so much bipedal as they are mostly not able to walk (vampire bats walk in interesting ways, but clearly aren’t capable of extensive ground travel). Bats, by the way, have not become flightless.

    More desire to free themselves? Or the obvious fact that they’re so poor at walking that they’re not going to evolve to become flightless?

    See, science answers things, like why many birds lose their flight powers, and bats do not. Archetypes do as much as ID does, nothing but pretend to have answers.

    Science answers nothing.

    Oh, you took it literally. How pathetic.

    It is a method used by enquiring minds to ask and attempt to answer apt questions about the world around us.

    How would you know?

    The scientific method is a tool that can be used by anyone, it is not the exclusive domain of materialists or physicalists or anyone else.

    I see, strawman. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. Science can be used by anyone who applies it properly, rather than shoehorning in their preconceptions as you do.

    And as you have implied bats are so specialized that they are in an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

    l
    Yes, there is nothing at all that indicates that archetypes have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, rather than picking up on that you just restate the fact that would inform someone who uses scientific thinking.

    Glen Davidson

  34. John Harshman: Hybrids between kinds might not happen in nature, and anyway a few hybrids shouldn’t upset the general pattern.

    The “general pattern” is that species are not genetically separate. Genes flow back and forth willy nilly between species

    Here is another recent example

    https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/sequencing-extinct-and-living-elephants-reveals-genetic-admixture

    A big problem with both YEC and neo-darwinism is that they take a mental construct (species/kind) and try to treat it like it is a physical entity.

    I can’t wait till we all finally abandon that silly fools errand.

    John Harshman: Now you prefer a definition of “kind” that makes it a human construct. But what is that definition?

    My definition is not new it’s the same definition that everyone used BC (before Charlie Darwin).

    check it out.

    https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/natural-kinds/v-2/sections/the-semantics-of-natural-kind-terms

    peace

  35. newton: What happened since the definition now makes sense?

    The biblical commonsense definition has always made perfect sense.

    Difficulties only arise when we try to shoehorn the modern so-called biological species concept into our biblical interpretation.

    peace

  36. Neil Rickert:

    CharlieM: Heredity produces the physical individual, but there is are spiritual individuals that occupy physical bodies.

    I completely disagree.

    Most of the DNA in your body does not come from your parents. It was created by you. There’s a continual flux of physical material, with atom leaving the body and new ones entering.

    I completely agree.

    Your heredity gave you biochemical processes (the spiritual individual), and some physical material as an implementation detail to support that spiritual individual. Thereafter, most of the physical material comes from you (the spiritual individual) building the physical framework needed to support and implement the processes which constitute the spiritual individual.

    Your heredity also determines things like your sex. The physical process does not produce spiritual individual. The spiritual individual makes use of the physical process.

    The important inheritance is the spiritual individual (the processes), and the physical individual is merely an implementation detail, mostly built by those processes.

    So you are saying that the the processes equal the spiritual individual. So the physical individual is mostly built by the spiritual individual. I partially agree 🙂

  37. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano. I sense the frustration but please try to address the comment without insulting the commenter.

    The insults don’t bother me. Maybe Glen would like to re-post his arguments in a way that is more in line with the rules.

  38. J-Mac: You mean common descent as you see it? How many experiments have you done that prove common descent, asyou see it?

    No, I mean common descent, period. Are you not sure of the definition of the term? If we can agree on what the term means, we can start discussing the evidence for it. But it seems pointless to start before that.

  39. fifthmonarchyman: The “general pattern” is that species are not genetically separate. Genes flow back and forth willy nilly between species

    No they don’t, not to the degree you imply here. Genes flow between a few pairs of species and even then almost always with much less flow between than within species. Out of the millions of species you can certainly find a few cases of major introgression. But only a few.

    Here is another recent example

    And there’s one. I’m sure you could find dozens if you looked. But so what?

    A big problem with both YEC and neo-darwinism is that they take a mental construct (species/kind) and try to treat it like it is a physical entity.

    If “kind” is a mental construct, do you have any problem with common descent of all life? Do you have any views on creation?

    My definition is not new it’s the same definition that everyone used BC (before Charlie Darwin).

    I do not find that definition biologically useful; it just means “set united by at least one real property”. There are vast numbers of overlapping kinds by that definition. One kind would be made up of spherical bacteria, bowling balls, and everything else spherical. However, one sort of kind, one with a real biological meaning, would consist of all organisms united by common descent. Why are you not interested in discussing those sorts of kinds?

  40. John Harshman: Out of the millions of species you can certainly find a few cases of major introgression. But only a few.

    Sez who? we are only now starting to sequence the genomes of “higher” organisms with regularity and what we find is the more we look the more introgression we find. It’s everywhere.

    Check it out

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12371/full

    and this

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

    and this
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/interspecies-hybrids-play-a-vital-role-in-evolution-20170824/

    etc etc etc

    expect more of this the more genomes we explore

    John Harshman: If “kind” is a mental construct, do you have any problem with common descent of all life?

    1) I don’t have any philosophical or theological objection to common descent but I’m not sure how you would distinguish it from common design.

    2) In a world where DNA is shared between species pretty much as needed common decent is irrelevant.

    3) We haven’t even explored all the places life could be found on this planet let alone the solar system. We don’t have an agreed on definition for life. Declaring that all life shares a common ancestor seems to be arrogant.

    4) The base of the hypothetical tree of life is very murky and controversial some say that a ring is a more fitting metaphor

    check it out

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/09/13/tree-or-ring-the-origin-of-complex-cells/

    John Harshman: Do you have any views on creation?

    I’m a big fan

    John Harshman: I do not find that definition biologically useful

    who died and made you the grand decider?

    John Harshman: One kind would be made up of spherical bacteria, bowling balls, and everything else spherical.

    yep, if you are thinking about the “kind” of things that are spherical then all things that are spherical should be included.

    John Harshman: However, one sort of kind, one with a real biological meaning, would consist of all organisms united by common descent. Why are you not interested in discussing those sorts of kinds?

    Because those kinds of “kinds” are relics of an early twentieth century understanding of specieation that seem to be increasingly less useful the more we understand about nature.

    it will be a good thing when we move on from it.

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman: The biblical commonsense definition has always made perfect sense.

    Of course, you believe it is the word of God.

    Difficulties only arise when we try to shoehorn the modern so-called biological species concept into our biblical interpretation.

    Seems like what is true should be the same not matter how you describe it. Science is a bottom up process ,the Bible top down.

    Strange an omnipotent God leaves so much to interpretation and possible mistakes considering He could make know stuff without It.

    peace

  42. fifthmonarchyman: Because those kinds of “kinds” are relics of an early twentieth century understanding of specieation that seem to be increasingly less useful the more we understand about nature.

    it will be a good thing when we move on from it.

    Sounds good , what is your 21st century more useful alternative?

  43. newton: Sounds good , what is your 21st century more useful alternative?

    If I recall correctly, it’s something along the lines of accepting that god knows what species are what and we should pray for revelation. If not exactly that then something equally as useful.

    It’s what they never quite work out. Scientists are keen to replace what they have with something that works even better. It’s that “works even better” part that people like FMM have a problem with – they don’t understand how the current part “works” at all, so how can they conceptualise what it means to replace a part with a better one – if you don’t understand the utility in the first place you’ve literally no idea what “better” even means. And so we fall back to personal, subjective definitions. FMM’s species idea is “better” because it returns primacy to his childish deity-as-rapist.

  44. newton: Sounds good , what is your 21st century more useful alternative?

    I think the Morphological and Ecological idea of species have some merit and are useful in biology and conservation.

    The important thing is to realize that species ultimately exist in minds and not physically. The edges of species will always be controversial as long as persons are not computers.

    That does not mean that species are not real things whose origin calls out for explanation. It just means that you won’t explain species by appealing to purely physical processes.

    peace

  45. newton: Strange an omnipotent God leaves so much to interpretation and possible mistakes considering He could make know stuff without It.

    Why is that strange? I get tons of satisfaction in trying to understand stuff. It’s a big part of what makes life worth living. If there was no possibility for error life would certainly be less interesting

    quote:
    It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
    (Pro 25:2)
    end quote:

    peace

Leave a Reply