Posted on 02/10/2009 8:20:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Same genus, unlike pandas and bears.
Plus, on a thread that puports to be discussing science, at least a tiny bit of accuracy helps.
Here’s an easy example of why: what if I said pear was a rose? Same family.
No they are not. Cats are Felis. Tigers are Panthera.
The situation with the family Felidae is exactly analogous to the one with Ursidae
Plus, on a thread that puports to be discussing science, at least a tiny bit of accuracy helps.
One might hope so, but you can't build accuracy on the foundations of Hamboy's AiG
Natural selection is just that.
Deciding that it can go far enough to produce entirely new species is not science, it’s just deduction based on extrapolation.
'Natural selection' is an artifact of pre-existing biological systems interacting with physical environments. That much is observable science.
Where evolutionists become confused is in assuming that 'natural selection' created those biological systems. This is known as the fallacy of "affirming the consequent".
Contrary to popular belief, making such a fallacious assumption is not scientific deduction, it is belief grounded in philosophical naturalism.
You’re right and I’m out of date. (Felis is a former genus name, I should have known to check. Right now I’m updating a list of plant names and keep getting surprised at changed I never expected. Fungi are worse).
Note though, that I hedged my bet and never called them cats.
And the basic point stands. Would you call a pear a rose?
There is a creationist notion of baramin which seems to mean whatever level of grouping is convenient. Slopping around with families, genera and “kinds” just plays into that.
They are in the same family "Ursidae ", which contains only 2 genus' as far as I can determine: Ursus and Ailuropoda. Like much of zoology, the family-genus-species differentiations are far from perfect. A quick search in my encyclopedias, and on-line, and every refrence I see classifies Pandas as bears. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. PS - gainsaying is not proof.
I wouldn’t call it natural selection. I consider it “adaptation”.
Win what? How will you know when you have won? What will be your prize if you win? Is there a ceremony? If you win five times consecutively have you a trophy that you may then retire? What is the object of the game? Are there other benefits that accrue whether you win or lose, or simply close to no decision?
Just did a quick read through the way the name "panda" came up and given that NO Chinese biological classification system has ever, ever used anything like the word "panda" for these animals, it can fairly be argued that the word was derived from that of the common name of a "Chinese Fast Food" restaurant chain, Panda Express!
Genera and families are distinctions of convenience although we are working toward genetic distance.
A species is distinct from another if they do not interbreed in the wild.
Contrary to popular belief on these threads there’s no on/off switch for speciation, it’s a process involving diminishing fertility and/or breeding opportunities.
As for “they’re in the same family”, as I asked upthread, is a rose a pear (or vice versa)?
Psssst- that's exactly what macroevolution classification does- Baraminology does NO such hting- but you keep beleiving it does- the facts speak for htemselves, and it's clear that Baraminology doesn't need to rely on guesses and a priori assumptions and far reaching linkages such as Macroevolutionary classifications do:
Lol- Way to downplay- but that's what you folks are good at- dismissing by downplaying and generalizing:
Discontinuity science and its methodology has been applied in mainstream research (for example, Scherer 1993).
Hmmmm- being adopted in mainstream science? Tell me it aint so Bart! Seems even mainstream scientists dissagree with your handwaving dismissals!
Baraminological Terms
Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.
Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.
Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[3]
Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.
Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[4] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[5]).
Baraminic Demarcation
In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[6]:
Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.
Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.
Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.
Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.
Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered). [LINK]
Doesn't seem to me to be some loosely defined, arbitrary science at all- but I'm sure a simple wave of hte hand will suffice for you- Baraminologists use morphology science, Homology science, molecular science, forensic science, fossil strata science, Distance science (Which studies and measures the distance between species regarding their genetic information) and discontinuity scientific evidence- Not a whole lot of 'guesswork' as you falsely accuse htem of
LOL!
We are in violent agreement. Their in the Bear family, not genus. Yet, most refer to them as bears, and from what I've read they were formerly thought to be closer to the racoon?!
Contrary to popular belief on these threads there’s no on/off switch for speciation, it’s a process involving diminishing fertility and/or breeding opportunities.
When a barrier is erected that prohibits further breeding, whatever that barrier is, speciation is often the result. By that rule, then, the Great Dane and the Chihuahua may be thought of as seperate species, for I doubt you could get them to breed.
[[By that rule, then, the Great Dane and the Chihuahua may be thought of as seperate species, for I doubt you could get them to breed. ]]
Oh I dunno- with hte proper candlelight, flowers, low light- anythign is possible
==Win what?...
That’s a VERY good question!
That is exactly right. Now if we could only get our FRevos to recognize the difference between emperical science and the philosophy they use to interpret the same.
I got a snappy answer. Actually, I was looking for a thoughtful answer.
Were you directing your questions at me? I thought you were directing them towards the other guy.
I was. Just reportin'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.