Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[everready]

I have seen certain posters on ToL desire discussion of "kinds" vs. species.

So where did the idea of species come from? It's quite old but the modern conception of taxonomy and scientific names originated with Carolus Linnaeaus.

Linneaus was a Christian, a creationist and a originally a "fixist" (meaning species could not change over time) though he eventually changed his position.

So the idea of species came from a creationist viewpoint.

Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?

"Kinds" as described in baraminology are a modern creationist invention often posited as having a biological equivalent to family. The problem is there's absolutely no Biblical basis for such an idea and is instead an accommodation of the incontrovertible truth of evolution, that species change over time.

Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?

When evolutionists start these threads I'm always drawn to this text.

II Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

With attention to verse 5 "denying the power thereof" you refuse to believe God spoke his creation into existence.


everready

 

[Alate_One]

When you buy a car, it has already begun to degrade. Because it is close to its "creation", you don't notice it. It will keep its "new car smell" for quite awhile. Nevertheless, it is still degrading. Eventually it will rust into the ground. Animals closer to the creation event still had their "new car smell". :car:

So, when you buy a kitten. Has it "already begun to degrade"?

Then of course there are these guys:

The Animal that Wouldn't Die

 

[6days]

So, when you buy a kitten. Has it "already begun to degrade?

Yes... it has begun to die.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes... it has begun to die.

It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.

 

[George Affleck]

It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.

Your paradigm states that development and increase is improvement. But this is a construct of your own - your "happy place".

Physical increase and development is only part of the story of the process of death by living.

Is 40:7KJV 1 Pet 1:24KJV Rom 8:22KJV

 

[Alate_One]

Your paradigm states that development and increase is improvement. But this is a construct of your own - your "happy place".

Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality. The senescence and dying part only comes after the organism is mature. Biology uses energy from the sun to create and make things more complex.

I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.

 

[George Affleck]

Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality.

Nope, the reality is that life produces death.

 

[George Affleck]

I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.

Why does it surprise you that God has left this clue for evolutionary biologists? He is not willing that any should perish and will witness to them, if necessary, by providing them a sample of how eternal life is biologically possible.

 

[Jonahdog]

Why does it surprise you that God has left this clue for evolutionary biologists? He is not willing that any should perish and will witness to them, if necessary, by providing them a sample of how eternal life is biologically possible.

The fact that a hydra may be immortal is a "clue for evolutionary biologists" but the other "clues" of evolution, deep time, etc are either not clues or left by someone else?

 

[Stripe]

We know why Alate does not want to respond.

 

[6days]

It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.

Hopefully that kitten is not dying right away
But, aren't the telomeres getting shorter?

 

[6days]

Nope, it's a reflection of biological reality. The senescence and dying part only comes after the organism is mature. Biology uses energy from the sun to create and make things more complex.
Rev. 6:14
I note nobody has addressed the hydra that is actually immortal.

The dying part comes because we live in a fallen world where death exists.'Biology' uses genetic information which God programmed into the organism. Certainly the sun provides energy, but even it is dying, albeit not for a 'few' more years. (Not till God rolls up our universe like a scroll)

 

[Wick Stick]

How would a generic "cat kind" have the ability to have enough genetic information to both produce a housecat and a lion, tiger, cheetah etc.?

You'd need information for social structure, but also the ability to move very fast, for spots of different sizes, to both purr and roar at the same time (no cat today can do this).

In other words you're appealing to magic/miracles and evolutionary processes that are impossible in the amount of time since the flood.

Every genome in existence contains a vast number of "deactivated" genes. That is, the genes to do something or change the animal somehow exist, but are kind of switched to "off." Early genetic researchers posited that some 95% of our genome was "junk DNA" which did nothing. They were sort of correct. 95% of the genes we have are not active, but they hold the possibility of being switched on.

So even if you look at the genome for your tabby, she has genes in there to become huge, roar, and devastate small Argentinian villages. They just aren't "on."

Miracles not required.

Jarrod

 

[Jose Fly]

That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.

Plus, all this took place during a time when creationists also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.

 

[Stripe]

That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood...

:darwinsm:

You are so close. :up:

 

[Wick Stick]

That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.

They aren't functional. That's kind of the point.

"Intact" is an interesting question. It typically takes multiple such inactive genes working together to produce something viable. The odds of those things activating or inactivating at the same time via random mutation decrease precipitously as the number of interdependent genes increases.

Plus, all this took place during a time when creationists also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.

I don't claim any of those things. I was just attempting to answer the question.

Jarrod

 

[Jose Fly]

They aren't functional. That's kind of the point.

Exactly. That raises the obvious question of how non-functional sequences managed to escape mutation.

"Intact" is an interesting question. It typically takes multiple such inactive genes working together to produce something viable. The odds of those things activating or inactivating at the same time via random mutation decrease precipitously as the number of interdependent genes increases.

Yes, it is a highly unlikely scenario, isn't it?

I don't claim any of those things. I was just attempting to answer the question.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Stripe]

Exactly. That raises the obvious question of how non-functional sequences managed to escape mutation.

Yes. Please tell us how non-expressed genes escaped mutation over millions of years.

:up:

I can tell you how they did it since the flood: They didn't. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

I can tell you how they did it since the flood: They didn't. :chuckle:

Why didn't those genes experience mutations after the flood?

 

[Alate_One]

Every genome in existence contains a vast number of "deactivated" genes. That is, the genes to do something or change the animal somehow exist, but are kind of switched to "off." Early genetic researchers posited that some 95% of our genome was "junk DNA" which did nothing. They were sort of correct. 95% of the genes we have are not active, but they hold the possibility of being switched on. So even if you look at the genome for your tabby, she has genes in there to become huge, roar, and devastate small Argentinian villages. They just aren't "on."

But those inactive "genes" you speak of are mostly transposons or viral genes, depending on the organism in question. There isn't an extra lion genome sitting inside of housecats.

We know this because the genomes of housecats and of tigers have been sequenced.

The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes. Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2433

The tiger genome sequence shows 95.6% similarity to the domestic cat (Supplementary Table S11) from which it diverged approximately 10.8 million years ago (MYA)15; human and gorilla have 94.8% similarity and diverged around 8.8 MYA (from TimeTree).

So if tigers and housecats can share a common ancestor, why can't humans and gorillas?