Researchers Evolve A Complex Genetic Trait In The Laboratory

ScienceDaily ^

[Creationist]

No, I mean, define *kind*. Specifically. And scientifically.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language

----kind----

1. [Archaic] (a) origin (b) nature (c) manner; way
2. a natural group or division (the rodent kind) sometimes used in compounds (human-kind)
3.essential character
4. sort; variety: class

Is that specific and scientific enough for you.

Because species is used now as the word of the day does not cancel out the word "kind" as a scientific word. Because you do not want to acknowledge it as a scientific word does not void it. Definitions 1(a), 2, and 4, clearly state it in a scientific way.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, I mean, define *kind*. Specifically. And scientifically."

*Kind* has no scientific meaning at all.

" Is that specific and scientific enough for you."

No, it's incredibly vague and has nothing to do with biological classification.

" Because species is used now as the word of the day does not cancel out the word "kind" as a scientific word."

Yes it does.

[Creationist]

Kind is a scientific term. A german shepard is a kind of dog. A robin is a kind of bird. It is an interchangable word with species. I do not use the word species because it is a new word created by evolutionist to distant themselves fromt the Biblical term kind.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language ----kind---- 1. [Archaic] (a) origin (b) nature (c) manner; way 2. a natural group or division (the rodent kind) sometimes used in compounds (human-kind) 3.essential character 4. sort; variety: class

This definition is of the word kind it can be use in place of the word species and still convey to a person what is meant in a conversation even with a scientist.

Definition no. 4 clearly states everything that would be said about a German Shepard, It is a sort of dog, it is a variety of dog, it is a class of dog. You are just lying to yourself when you deny that kind is a scientific term, look up very old scientific documents they used the word kind not species, because the word species was not created.

The word species is used to distance yourself from the Bible.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Kind is a scientific term."

No, it really isn't.

"It is an interchangable word with species.:

No, it's is very, very different. For instance there are over 1,000 species of Birds. Saying an organism is a *Robin* is not the same thing as saying it's a bird. *Bird* is not a synonym for a particular species. It's the name of a class.

"I do not use the word species because it is a new word created by evolutionist to distant themselves fromt the Biblical term kind."

Species is a word that predates evolution. You are very confused.

" The word species is used to distance yourself from the Bible."

No, it's the tern that has been used for hundreds of years to designate a particular biological population.

[Creationist]

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language ----kind---- 1. [Archaic] (a) origin (b) nature (c) manner; way 2. a natural group or division (the rodent kind) sometimes used in compounds (human-kind) 3.essential character 4. sort; variety: class

The word kind has been around longer and has the original meaning of organisms that are of the same kind.

We have the dog kind. Within the dog kind we have the German Shepard kind, which if you read above the definition clearly states sort, variety, class. We have the Chesapeake Bay Retriever kind, sort, variety, class, of a dog.


We have the bird kind. A chicken is a kind of bird, sort, variety, class. Within that kind we have Rhode Island Red kind, sort, variety, class. The Japanese Silky kind, sort, variety, class. We have the cat kind. A Siamese kind, sort, variety, class. We have the Manx kind, sort, variety, class.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Kind has no scientific meaning. Period.

" The word kind has been around longer and has the original meaning of organisms that are of the same kind."

Circular argument. You are saying *kinds correctly describe kinds*.

"We have the dog kind. Within the dog kind we have the German Shepard kind, which if you read above the definition clearly states sort, variety, class. We have the Chesapeake Bay Retriever kind, sort, variety, class, of a dog."

There are 35 species in the family canidae.

"We have the bird kind. A chicken is a kind of bird, sort, variety, class. Within that kind we have Rhode Island Red kind, sort, variety, class."

There are over 10,000 species of birds in the world. Including ostriches, penguins, hummingbirds, and owls. Claiming they all speciated in the last 4,000 years from the two or so *bird kinds* on the ark is preposterous.

"We have the cat kind. A Siamese kind, sort, variety, class. We have the Manx kind, sort, variety, class."

There are 36 species of wild cats. Including the lion, tiger, bobcat, ocelot, domestic cat. The domestic cat will not (cannot) breed with a lion. They are fundamentally different species. Saying they are the same *kind* and thinking that is in any way specific enough is insane.

The problem with your *kinds* is that they shift constantly depending on who you are asking. Species on the other hand describes a real biological community. That is why, when presented with the task of categorizing organisms, most *primitive* peoples, with no concept of western science or knowledge of our classification systems, will correctly identify what science has discovered to be species. That's because species are real divisions, while *kinds* are figments of a creationists imagination.

[Creationist]

There are 35 kind of dog in the dog kind.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There are 35 kind of dog in the dog kind."

Before you said the *kind* was *dog*. Now you are changing that to 35 *kinds*. Or are you saying that *kind* can describe EACH of the 35 AND be used to describe *dog* in general? Sorry, that type of sloppy logic doesn't cut it. The family canidae has 35 SPECIES. *Kind* is as relevant to modern biology as *humours* is to medicine. In other words, it has no scientific meaning.

[Creationist]

will this make you happy there are 35 varieties of the dog kind. Simple enough for a layman and descriptive enough for a scientist.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"will this make you happy there are 35 varieties of the dog kind. Simple enough for a layman and descriptive enough for a scientist."

They are all separate, non-interbreeding species. *Kind* is not a scientific word.

[Creationist]

Dogs are not interbreeding. New one on me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Foxes don't breed with wolves. Both are in the family canidae. You know, the one you said were all *dog kind*.

I notice you skipped over your claim for *bird kind*. Since there are 10,000 known species of birds, it makes any claim that even a small number were on the alleged Ark ludicrous. How did that many species come about in 4,000 years from just a few *kinds*? *Kinds* has no scientific meaning.

While we are talking about the Ark, how did all these animals and plants (Noah would have had to bring thousands of species of plants on board, since most would have died out in a world wide flood) get reintroduced around the world after the flood waters receded? Remember, there are only 8 people to do this job. Most animals can't migrate that far on their own; there is of course the immense difficulty of going over the oceans. How did the koala get onto Australia? How did ANYTHING get to Australia? Or Hawaii, or Alaska, or ... you get the picture. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Oh, almost forgot. There are over 5 to 6 million insect species. Can you tell me how many *kinds* of insects there are? How would one make such a determination? And how did Noah take care of these *kinds* on the Ark? You DO know that most would not have survived a global flood that last for months, right? Most are very highly adapted to a particular environment, especially the plants they eat or the prey they catch.

[Ichneumon]

How did it evolve if its genome didn't change?

they studied are instances in which animals with the same genetic makeup can produce quite different traits, or phenotypes, in different environments.

You're misreading the passage, although admittedly it's not as clear as it could be. It's not saying that the evolved versions had the "same genetic makeup" as the originals, it's saying that the evolved version was situationally able to produce two different traits out of the same (new) genetic code.

[Ichneumon]

Variation within it's kind does not mean evolution.

It most certainly does. Why don't you toodle off and learn some biology before you attempt to lecture us again?

But while you're at it, feel free to define "kind" in a way that can be objectively determined. Is the vertebrate taxon a "kind"? Why or why not, and how have you determined this? How about "mammals"? "Eukaryotes"? "Eutherians"?

"Carnivores"? "Ungulates"? Share your wisdom with the people who do this kind of thing for a living, they're just dying to acquire the hard-won insights of someone who has read a few creationist pamphlets.

A Doberman and Pekingese are still dogs.

But they are no longer the same, genetically or phenotypically, as their ancestors. Nor are they even the same species as their more distant ancestors, the wolves. that's evolution.

A Shetland and a Clydesdale are still horses.

But they are no longer the same, genetically or phenotypically, as the ancestral horse from which they descended. That *is* evolution. It's not *speciation*, but then no one but clueless anti-evolutionists think that evolution consists only of speciation.

A short person and tall person are still humans.

No one said they weren't. Enjoy beating up that straw man.

[Ichneumon]

This is no more evolution than that which occurred when I watched a neighbor install a fuel injector on a 1957 Chevy.

Wrong, but thanks for playing. Your analogy fails on every level.

[Ichneumon]

He did define "kind", definition by a list of examples is a valid way to make a definition.

No, it isn't, since it provides absolutely no method by which other groups can be similarly classified -- i.e., determined whether they too are a "kind" or not.

Nor did he even state how he determined (if he actually did, which is unlikely) whether the items in his laundry list really are "kinds" or not. What criteria is he using, other than "whatever I feel like saying at randomly and slapping the label 'kind' on"?

This is what separates actual science from creationist ramblings.

The definition of "species" is quite variale,

True, for good reason -- contexts vary. For example, living things can be classified by their ability to interbreed, whereas obviously that is an impractical way to classify extinct animals, since you can't test dead things by attempting to breed them.

and about as specific as that simple list, btw. Same order of magnitude of specificity.

Utterly false, but thanks for revealing your utter lack of knowledge on this topic. Biological definitions of species involve testable criteria, not just laundry lists of "we call these few things a species, now guess what else might qualify" like "Creationist's" cop-out.

[tallhappy]

the evolved version was situationally able to produce two different traits out of the same (new) genetic code.

I'm quite curious as to what this "new genetic code" might be?

Perhaps aug is now a stop codon?

[muawiyah]

I suggest you take a gander at the article on viruses in this month's Discover magazine. Quite interesting stuff.

There's a "hint" that changes in critters are much more akin to putting fuel injectors in '57 Chevys than anyone ever imagined.

[muawiyah]

Quick, which is the correct term: "specieation" or "speciation"?

You can find both terms used in scientific peer reviewed journals. I prefer to use the one that suggests folks are into this for the purpose of turning obscure knowledge into real money, probably via foundation or government research grants.