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?
You might want to get that memory checked out 😉
check it out
Species are personal things because they exist in minds however just because something is mental does not mean that it is subjective.
Equating physical with objective and real is the original sin of “naturalism”.
It’s the un-examined and unsupported presupposition that is at heart of every single argument that the “skeptics” make here.
So, go on then, explain species by appealing to non-physical processes too.
Why? Your claim is that you can explain species better then anyone else then you link to actual scientists doing actual science? What relevance does that link have to your claim of non-physical processes?
What content in that link supports your ideas?
I just did
Species exist in minds if there were no minds there would be no species. Species are simply the artifact of mental categorization.
Minds categorize things it’s what we do
That is not my claim at all.
My only claim is that the old biological concept of species is increasingly obsolete in a world where introgression and HGT is ubiquitous.
My link is to an article describing what that looks like in practice.
The argument is not between me and scientists. It’s between philosophical naturalists and reality.
Such shenanigans have led Ertter to what she calls the “fuzzy species concept.” After looking at all the kinds of evidence she might muster for a plant, from its genes and distribution to the details of petals, leaf hairs and other parts, she sides with the preponderance of data to designate a species.
Mustering evidence and siding with what we determine to be the preponderance of data is what only minds can do.
Minds are physical.
I think FMM thinks he’s genuinely made some sort of point.
You are confusing minds with brains.
The only way a brain can ever be considered a mind is if you begin with the nutty presupposition that only physical things exist.
It’s that sort of goofy confusion that gave us the “biological species concept” in the first place.
That organisms tend to cluster into distinct groups is an observable fact.
minds are what observe.
You seem to be saying there is nothing that can *reasonably* be said to be an observable fact; that the apple falls from the tree, for instance. If you can’t agree, at least arguendo, that such observations are possible, then you can’t do science.
No I’m saying that *reasonable* does not equal physical or non-mental
I’m not saying that such observations are not possible.
I’m saying that all observations are not possible unless minds exist
Please try and understand what is being said.
I realize you have difficulty with things like discrete personal identity and I would hate to have to put you on ignore again.
Good. Minds exist. Now, the apples falls from the tree, and organisms observably tend to cluster into distinct groups. Agreed?
If minds observe that to be the case then yes.
Minds are required to determine where apples fall and when an undifferentiated mass becomes discrete clusters.
The boundaries and relative distances exist in the mental rather than the physical world
Isn’t that what you are objecting to?
Just as an “inch” ultimately exists in our minds, what that inch measures exists physically , assuming of course anything does.
Perhaps you are projecting your belief in absolutes onto scientists.
That would seem to me to be expected if common descent was true.
Scientists think they have a provisional explanation.
You conclusion does not follow from your premises.
What we call them exist in the mental state
We already agreed that minds exist. So we observe the apple fall, just as we observe that organisms tend to cluster into distinct groupings. Is that correct?
Where do the barriers to interbreeding between species exist?
I don’t care that the concept is “mental” (duh), but that the mentation should reflect meaningful groupings in the world.
it depends on the organism and the circumstance. Also it’s important to remember that interbreeding is not the only way for the exchange of genetic information between species.
Minds are precisely what give the groupings in the world meaning.
Our act of naming is a big part of what gives the boundaries meaning.
Just finished pruning a lemon tree. It would be interesting to ask how many kinds of citrus trees there are, and how you define different.
Not at all, I’m objecting to the idea that any species concept is definitive and binding in the absence of mental discernment and I’m especially objecting to the idea that the so called biological species concept is authoritative in an of itself.
The decision that inch is a relevant distance for a particular measurement but plank length or light year can be ignored is also a mental thing.
Not scientists per say just adherents of philosophical naturalism.
Like I said earlier the argument is not between me and scientists it’s between philosophical naturalists and reality.
No we could just as easily have sharp boundaries and common decent.
The fuzzy boundaries are not the result of common decent they are the result of lack of an effective mechanism to separate one population from another.
explanation for what?
For minds or for the distinctions that minds make?
My conclusion is that there is more to the world than the physical. That follows necessarily from my premises. I just have different premises than you 😉
I just came from a stroll in the local woods. It would also be interesting to ask how many kinds of Oak tree are growing there.
I could make a case for as little as one and as many as nine or more different kinds of oaks. It all depends on the criteria I choose to use and the level of detail I want to specify.
Only if you change the meaning of “kinds” to something outside the topic. Similarly, all your talk of species is irrelevant to the topic. The topic isn’t species but kinds, or baramins if you prefer. It’s my impression that you have no opinion on the actual topic of this thread. If that’s so, isn’t it better to remain silent than to change the subject?
I also, incidentally, think you count it as a victory if people fail to understand what you’re talking about. If so, you win.
again If you define “kind” to mean something that does not make sense then you will have a hard time finding anyone to discuss it with you.
I can leave you to continue to talk to yourself if you like.
Just don’t think you have made some kind of point against “creationists”.
As apposed to constructing a non-biblical straw-man definition of kind then using it to set up a juvenile rhetorical trap and counting it as victory when no one takes the bait?
For a guy who ends every post with “peace” you seem unusually hostile. Whether the meaning of “kind” is unbiblical is irrelevant; it’s what creationists use, and I’m trying to discuss the matter with creationists. If you aren’t a creationist, I’m not trying to discuss it with you, so there seems no reason for you to hijack the thread to discuss your own obsessions.
Now, I don’t know if I’d call it a victory when no creationists try to answer the question, but I would say that it doesn’t reflect credit on the creationists. But why should you care?
That’s a great idea. Why don’t you leave TSZ and post exclusively at UncommonlyDense from now on? You’d raise the average IQ of both places simultaneously. 🙂
We understand the point, that perhaps boundaries can be somewhat arbitrary, but the question raised was whether we can observe clustering, just as we observe the apple fall.
In communicating which pattern we are referring to.
Perhaps you mean Young Earth Creationists but even that is too broad.
You really are talking about a very small subset of Young Earth Creationists who you use the term is a way that is somewhat similar to the way you are.
This brings us to some limitations of hybridization in determining kinds. While well documented hybrids can confirm that two species belong to the same baramin, lack of hybridization data is inconclusive.
There are several reasons why hybrid data may be lacking between individuals within the same baramin. First, it is relatively difficult to gather good hybrid data in the wild, and often the opportunity for hybridization is lacking when animals live in different parts of the world. As a result, hybrid data is more complete for animals that are domesticated or held in captivity (for example, in zoos).
Second, as described earlier with sheep and goats, even for animals that have produced hybrids, many attempts may be unsuccessful. This may be the result of genetic changes (mutations) that have accumulated in one or both species since the Fall, that causes a loss of ability to interbreed. Finally, if an animal is only known from the fossil record there is no opportunity for it to hybridize with animals alive today.
There are of course many instances where creatures from different genera can hybridize together, even producing fertile offspring. For example, camels and llamas giving rise to camas. Many creationist scientists and thinkers (including from CMI) would, based on the biblical ‘after their kind’, see this as an indicator that the entire family Camelidae likely represents the offspring of the original created kind.
Gordon respects this view (he’s comfortable with family-level baramins when the disparity between genera isn’t too huge), but says, ‘While I think the hybridization criterion is an OK assumption, it’s not possible to prove it from Scripture definitively. I tend to think that God could have made some different types genetically compatible.’
So as you can see even among YEC the idea of “brarmins” being genetically separated populations that are able to interbreed is not universal.
If you want to discuss this with creationists or even YECs you need to modify your definition.
sorry, Zac this entire discussion has been ruled out of order by the author of the OP. perhaps we can talk another time.
Because I’m a creationist and I have lots friends who are Young Earth Creationists and I don’t appreciate the sort of cheap gotcha tactic you are attempting to employ here.
Asking someone to define a term is a gotcha tactic only when someone lacks a definition for the term they employ.
Defining a term in an idiosyncratic way using it to ask a loaded question and then declaring victory when no one answers you is a gotcha tactic.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see what’s wrong with the definition in John’s OP (groups within which there is common descent but between which there is not); In my understanding, baramins are independently created groups so indeed they do not descend from a common ancestor. Potential interbreeding is not part of the definition, as far as I can tell.
No, I mean creationists. Both old earth and young earth creationists believe in separately created kinds. Your first quote is irrelevant; it just states that reproductive isolation might evolve within a kind. The second quote suggests that the ability to hybridize between kinds can’t be absolutely ruled out. But it still assumes that there are indeed created kinds. I would be happy to discuss the matter with any of those people. But there seems to be great difficulty in discussing anything with you.
When you say you’re a creationist, what do you mean?
What would be the acceptable non- idiosyncratic definition of ‘kind’?
I beg your pardon. I’m an old earth creationist and I think creation is a holistic process. There is no reason I can see why God couldn’t create kinds all at once in a single act or individually little by little over time as long as God is taking the initiative instead of kinds being unintended consequences of evolution.
Perhaps by “separately created” you simply mean to exclude anyone who does not reject common descent.
If that is the case I suggest you narrow your focus and modify your definition. clarity is always good.
I believe that the Bible is telling the truth when it says the following.
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
before you ask
I’m not anti-evolution and I don’t have a problem with an old earth a local flood or common descent.
The important thing for me is that the Bible is true and God is the creator of everything that exists.
I like this one that I previously linked to.
If you grant potential interbreeding between kinds and also that individuals within the same baramin might not be able to interbreed. Then there is no reason to expect that baraminology would not be subject to the same limitations that other forms of classifications are.
That is because that in the end species/kinds exist in minds and not as physical entities.
Then we really have nothing to discuss here. You would appear to be a creationist roughly in the sense that any theist must be, as Theodosius Dobzhansky was, as any theistic evolutionist is. Feel free to have your personal definition of any word you want, but please don’t demand that others adopt it.
1) You do realize that this website was originally set up as a place to discuss intelligent design and not YEC? If you are only looking to discuss with YECs who deny common decent I would suggest this is perhaps not the best place for you. You might want to check out a local bible study.
2) My creationism is not remotely the same as that you find in theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists would probably call me a fundamentalist Bible thumper.
3) If the only thing you are interested in is debating common descent I would suggest there are much better ways to go about it than discussing kinds as genetically isolated groupings.
Back at you buddy.
That goes for words like *creationism* and especially as related to this thread *kind* .
You do know this website was originally set
Why would they? How does your creationism differ from that of a theistic evolutionist?
John, to fifth:
That’s a chronic problem with fifth, and very unhelpful.
fifth, to John:
No, fifth. Lizzie set it up as a place to discuss “controversial positions about life, the universe and everything”.
YEC certainly qualifies, and so does separate creation in general.
Do you have any idea what sort of creationist he is?
That’s a complete mischaracterization of what John is doing. From the OP:
He made himself absolutely clear, and his usage is not idiosyncratic, as you can see by what pops up when you Google “baramin definition”:
Your laziness is a real problem, fifth.
I always thought he accepted common descent but believed that evolution was divinely guided. I was a bit surprised recently when he, like Mung, expressed skepticism regarding the arguments for common descent. But it was never clear to me whether that reflected actual doubts about common descent or just doubts regarding the evidence.
Unless it was a classification of an omniscient being which created/ designed ‘kinds’ as revealed by The Bible. Again God acts very similiar to humans.
Pretty mushy. Thought ‘kinds’ were the result of the divine creation and design not blind undirected nature.