The definition of kinds

Recently, as I’ve been working with animal remains, I’ve become increasingly aware of the difficulties creationist thinkers have with defining the word “kind”. They use it a lot to try and get round the problem of speciation. Most creationists try and use it to suggest that animals can speciate within their own kind, but no further, so fish cannot evolve into an amphibian and no matter how many pennies you get, you can’t make a pound. Now the many problem with this is that they never define what a “kind” is. In one topic, I discussed with a creationist, he came up with three definitions, a genus, a biological family and types of enzymes. This short essay attempts to show why the current terminology for taxonomy is adequate for its task and that the concept of “kinds” used by creationist thinkers is fundamentally flawed and has no bearing on taxonomy.

Firstly, let us deal with the idea that a kind is a species. Unfortunately for creationists this is disproven by numerous account of speciation. For example here are a few papers which document these events in both the lab and the wild:

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Attempting to claim speciation does not occur is therefore foolish and displays an ignorance of biology. The fact that creationists working in the field of Baraminology have not settle on this definition shows that they to find this problematic.

Another proposal is that a “kind” is a genus. Now, to me, working with animal remains and having to look up their names, the problem is already apparent. Let us look at the Pig Family or Suidae. Now the domesticate pig and Wild Boar are in the same genus (Sus), however, the Warthog genus (Phacochoerus) isn’t. Therefore, even creationists cannot accept this proposal as acceptable as according to them, they are “pigs”. The same also applies to the Cheetah, (Acinonyx jubatus) which is not part of the Panthera genus of lions, leopards, tigers and jaguars yet is clearly a big cat and related to them. Therefore this concept of “kinds” being the equivalent of the genus is wrong.

Concerning the biological families, this backfires on creationists spectacularly again. If we consider the Homindae family, this contains us, chimps, gorillas, etc. If we ask any creationists, I’m sure they will deny that we have a common ancestor with chimps nor that we belong in the same kind as them! This renders their concept of “kinds” as being unable to apply to their own standards.

Furthermore, with the two above definitions, scientists have come up with them for specific purposes. In taxonomy terms, genus and family have specific meanings and this alternative idea, “kinds” serves no purpose. Genus and Family are used to describe how closely related species are according to traits, both physical and genetic. This leads to a system which accurate describes how closely related modern species are to one another. Whilst it is very good at this, it is not so good when referring to past specimens such as Australopithecus, Ardipithecus and this has led to researchers in this field to describe the system as imperfect (taken from a seminar with Terry O’Connor). As a system it is not good at showing how one genus may evolve out of another (for example, Homo from Australopithecines), nor is it completely reliable when we examine extinct species such as Homo habilis (which may or may not be a species). However, this may be due to Linnaeus purposefully designing a static system as he was unaware of Evolution (Holmes, 2009, Pg 48). 

Another suggestion from creationists is that a kind could be:

“Taxonomically, a kind is a group of organisms that share a basic set of exclusive synapomorphies. Members of the same kind, usually, should be able to interbreed although the resulting offspring may prove to be infertile.”

Taken from here

Now let us look at the Big Cats again, especially from the genus Panthera. In this case, Lions and Tigers definitely can interbreed and so can Lions with Leopards and Jaguars, in fact all of them can with one crucial exception. Leopards and Tigers have all be noted to have never produced any living hybrids. Furthermore, Leopards can produce hybrids with Pumas, a Pumapard. So is the Puma included into this “kind” despite the fact it can’t mate with anything else in the Panthera genus? What about the Wholphin? It is clear that by using the word “kind” in this context would seriously confuse taxonomical issues and would be impossible to use. Furthermore, this is not delving into the term Synamorphy which confirms Evolutionary theory concerning common ancestry.

The problem encountered with the Big Cats also arises with the Larus Gull. This genus is known as a Ring Species. Does that mean that these species are all the same kind?

In general the concept of “kinds” is wrong on various grounds mainly:

1. There is already established words for taxonomy.

2. No creationists can define the term in a rigorous fashion that is of benefit for taxonomy.

3. Animals interbreed in such a variety of ways and produce various hybrids that defining a category for “kind” is near impossible.

4. It admits the possibility that humans could have evolved from an earlier version (which no creationist will admit to) defeating their argument.

With this in mind, we are then directed back towards the normal methods of taxonomy, using definitions of species, genus, etc. Whilst there is some debate occasional about what constitutes as a species, (see the species problem) the system allows the definitions to be rigorous and furthermore provides more precision than “kinds”. Furthermore, it can be adapted from its original static state to show the evolutionary past of a species at the present moment in time. The subclass Elasmobranchii, which includes Skates, rays and sharks, indicates that these fish are more closely related to each other than a shark would be to a rabbit fish. These members of the class Chondrichthyes would be more closely related to each other than another member from the Infraphylum Gnathostomata (vertebrates with jaws) such as a crocodile.

Therefore, whilst the current system of taxonomy can obscure the fluidity of Evolution at the same time it can provide a great aid in deducing the relationships and connections between current species, genera, etc. The current system provides a service for biology that Baraminology, the creationist study of what constitutes a “kind”, cannot provide.

Holmes, R., (2009) The Age of Wonder,  Harper Press UK

Interesting articles

My bright idea: humans found a nicer way to evolve

Cuts to science funding will 'destroy UK's potential' as world leader

A secularist manifesto

Evolution is true!

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 29, 2009

So we were talking about Evolution says Creationist Scientist

Creation Scientists admitted to day that they may have been discussing Evolution in their writings. This occurred after scientists pointed out a recent entry in Answers Research Journal happened to suggest Evolution.

The entry: Purdom, G, 2009, The Role of Genomic Islands, Mutation, and Displacement in the Origin of Bacterial Pathogenicity, Answers Research Journal 2: 133-150. indicated that mutations may have occurred in bacteria which then were naturally selected for in their environment.

"On examination of this paper we find that this does indeed contain aspects of Darwinian theory" stated Ken Ham, "However, we feel that this suits the creation model as it describes Evolution according to the Bible. Thus we propose that Evolution is merely the mechanism described in the Bible."

When pointed out that the Bible contradicted the current model of Evolution Ken stated: "Ah, however, this is our version and I'm sure with a little research we'll be able to make an argument."

New Term, new tricks

From today I am officially a PGCE Science student, learning how to educate children in the facts and philosophy of science. I must admit it sounds daunting, especially after all the paperwork we've been given and the suggestions on what we need to do. But I picked it for the simple reason that I want to ensure children become scientifically literate, that they understand how science works and avoid the traps of those seeking to infect others with their delusions. Whilst I love archaeology and I would love to go into academia in that area, I feel that I am not ready for this. Furthermore, I would prefer going into this rich and varied career and coming out confident enough to do a post-grad degree and knowledge of the education sector. Anyway, enough about that, let us tread into the weekly news.

It is with great regret that I found out this week that Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort, they of the banana fame has announced their proposal to published an "altered" version of the great book, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. This edition is rumoured to be heavily edited, with almost half the pages of the original. As the copyright on Origin of Species has run out, it is perfectly legal to do what they are doing, censoring a scientific work to produce their own propaganda. I wonder how many people are going to read this new version and start rehashing tired old arguments of design simply because of idiotic censorship turning quote mines into actual quotes. For more info links are here:

http://www.inlookout.com/2009/09/22/kirk-cameron-to-distribute-new-origin-of-species-that-discredits-darwin-theory-of-evolution/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html
http://doctore0.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/kirk-cameron-ray-comfort-change-the-origin-of-species/

In further news, the remains of Ardipithecus ramidus was given a special treatment in Science with several research papers being published on it.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1001/1

I think I am going to try and abuse my university ATHENs account to try and get my hands on the papers.........

Onto reviews and yesterday for the first time I more or less couldn't stop laughing after seeing a fat, flightless, green parrot dance on a zoologist's head. Last Chance to See brought us the kakapo, a rare and endangered parrot from New Zealand. I must admit, whilst the format is generally the same (45 minutes of analysing conservation efforts in the area along with other rare species, followed by the last 15 minutes on the actual species), you've got to love the animals they see.

And just for everyone, here is Sirocco's famous moment on TV.....

Lucy prefers a bitter

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 26, 2009

Missing link is found in British pub

The English pub is noted for its availability for conversation and some good drinks to quench your thirst. However, scientists have recently found that it was home to much more than alcoholic drinks.....

Analysing the anatomy of several locals from a selection of village pubs around England, scientists found that their features closely resembled several species of hominin "found" in the fossil record.

"After analysing several members of the communities and then comparing their measurements and bone structure we found that they closely resembled specimens such as Lucy, Turkana Boy and Shanidar skeletons." said Dr Afreud, Lecturer in Christian sciences at the Patriot Bible University. "We can even demonstrate this with the fact that the Piltdown man was discovered to be human too. This conclusively proves that these fossils that are being dug up by anthropologists are merely the remains of pre-Flood humans. Any discrepancies from this can also be explained as breeding between the Nephilim and the more perfect humans from the time."

After wandering into several British pubs, it seems that the research can be confirmed. In the York Arms, outside the York Minster, several misformed and grotesque individuals can be detected nursing their pints in quiet corners. In any rate it seems that the Piltdown Man's drink of choice is a local bitter.....

Darwin made me do it!

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 24, 2009

Darwin made me do it, Dawkins explains serial killings.

Earlier today Richard Dawkins, former advocate of Evolutionary Biology was found guilty of murder on 15 accounts and charged with life imprisonment. After the trial we were able to get an exclusive interview with the man where Dawkins explains the reasons behind his murders.

"Well I've often been accused of not following true Darwinian philosophy, being a generally law-abiding person, so when a random Creationist loudly pointed this out to me last year I thought about this a lot. I realised that he was completely and utterly right and that I was being completely hypocritical.

Evolution states that it is "survival of the fittest", that there are no laws, no commandments from God, no morals, etc, just who is the strongest wins. After thinking on this I changed my lifestyle.

I started murdering people shortly after, often picking on the weak as they were obviously not fit for survival. Those that actually did survive, I admire them for their strength. I used my natural abilities including my brains and devised elaborate traps to test their fitness. Those that failed died.

This lifestyle lead me to be selfish and hedonistic, as my book the Selfish Gene depicts. I killed mainly men to clear the competition too, so that I could impregnate as many women as I could, as Darwinism preaches.

I believe I've done nothing wrong. After all, aren't I just trying to re-introduce Darwinism back into the lives of people? The fact that somebody caught me merely shows that I am weak and not fit any more to pass on my genes."

Last Chance to See

I often wonder whether or not some creationists are mentally ill. Whilst I agree my last post was a little over the top, it does make me wonder whether some of the illogical things they have been known to do for their faith are the acts of a disturbed mind. Ignoring the religious fundamentalists that blow themselves up to promote their visions, creationists can be some of the most dangerous religious people around. Acts of illegal censorship, hoaxes, frauds and down right lying show how far these people will often go to keep their reality intact as well as attempting to propagate it. Those vocal and energetic defenders of the faith who tour countries, write books, spam web forums, fake evidence just to try and prove a belief without ever questioning the ethical dilemma this poses are indeed worrying people. Only logic and the outcasting of such insanity can truly hope to banish it to the fringes again.

I watched the extremely good first episode of Stephen Fry's Last Chance to See. The show is based upon the original series of the same name presented by Stephen Fry's friend, Douglas Adams, who become a passionate conservationist after researching the series. After Douglas Adams' death, Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine (the original zoologists that Douglas Adams did the show with) set out to discover how the rare species from the first series 20 years ago, fare today.

The first trip took us to the Amazon where Fry and Carwardine saw the rare manatee, a type of underwater cow for lack of a better description. In this, we saw how rare these animals were and what steps were being taken to try and save it from extinction. At the same time we got to see some pink river dolphins (possibly the best way of hooking the audience by showing them one of the most loved animals around in a pretty shade of pink) and Stephen unfortunately breaking his arm towards the end. However, I found the shots of the animals together with Fry's boyish enthusiasm combined with his exquisite vocabulary entirely viewable. Rhinos tomorrow I think.

Creationism, the new mental illness

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 23

Creationism, the new mental illness

Today mental institutions were in shock as it was announced throughout the medical community that the people who propose the idea that a deity created the Earth as it currently is, without any acceptance of Evolution are to be considered mentally disturbed and in some cases dangerous.

A report was recently published in the scientific journal Nature, which demonstrated the lack of connection between creationists and the modern world, showing that prominent creationists such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc, were living in a fantasy world of their own devising which could cause them to resort to extreme measures in order to maintain these illusions.

Dr Suess of the Royal Institute for Mental Illness stated this morning that:

"The people that often propose the literal translation of the Bible is true, often have been found to resort to deceit, threats of violence, intimidation, paranoia and immature behaviour in order to propagate their own world view. Evidence of this includes attempts of illegal censorship, death threats towards prominent scientists and the common practice of internet trolling. This has been found not only occurring with the prominent figures supporting creationism but normal internet posters. After extensive study of their behaviours including laboratory tests, psychological researchers have requested that some of the prominent figures in the creationist campaign are put in a secure institute for the safety of others and that re-education should be attempted.

Doctors at a range of mental institutes have reacted with horror at the news.

"We're going to run out of facilities in religious areas" moaned one un-named psychologist. "With a high percentage of people in places like the Bible Belt in the USA, it'll mean putting whole communities in the institutes! We haven't the room!"

Outside the Texas Home for the Mentally Frail, a shot of Kent Hovind is shown, being dragged in a strait jacket into his new home whilst angry protestors demand his release.

"This isn't fair, you can't lock up people simply for having a different viewpoint" cried one angry protestor. "Afterall, its just as equally valid as Evolution!"

Whilst this may be a successful day for reason, it seems a dangerous day for free speech.

Holidays beckon

Good afternoon and welcome to another week of articles, etc.


I am sorry to say that next week there will be no updates as I will be in Belgium and whilst I could update, I would rather spend time on more pressing things, i.e. the girlfriend I will be with. Updates will hopefully resume as normal the week after.

I might also add, the article may be late this week as I am busy today. Fear not, because the news shall still be posted here.

Firstly, this reposted article on RD.net made me stop and think. It kinda makes you think how much creationism considered the lunatic fringe and really has no place in science. Unfortunately, with their tendency to shout and scream as well as throw their toys out of the pram, creationists are a serious threat. Simply because the doctrine is idiotic.

I managed to get my July edition of Current Archaeology today. One of the things I noticed was their feature on Alice Roberts. It seems that the general archaeological community is supporting her program as fairly good. There is a brief extract in the link, but the article does back up the claims Alice Roberts makes.

The free paper on British transport, The Metro, had this article on exorcisms done on homosexuals in Britain this week.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Homosexuals_left_traumatised_by_ceremonial_cure&in_article_id=692445&in_page_id=34 (please note, the link was problematic for me)

And a week ago I was complaining about practices in the Middle East!

On and on a lighter note, LucidFlight posted this on the RD.net

AIG- The ultimate Poe

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 12, (2009),

AIG- The ultimate Poe

Creationists were shocked today as Ken Ham revealed that Answers In Genesis, his company which promotes the teaching of creation science in education is a hoax.

The prominent creationist told journalists that:
“We are sorry to announce to creationists that the organisation, Answers in Genesis is a hoax. The organisation was created in order to satirise creationist beliefs and the example taken from our creationist museum highlights this. Unfortunately, people have taken this seriously and as a result have perpetuated this hoax far more than we could ever do. We must state that creationism is truly ridiculous and should not be used as an example of how God created the earth.”

Evolutionary Biologists and science educators claimed that this particular hoax was extremely damaging.

“We had no idea it was a Poe” said Eugenie Scott. “We’ve been struggling against them for years, raising our blood pressure with their ridiculous arguments and then they go and tell us they were joking? Do they know how much time and effort has been directed away from research and instead defending Evolution? This really has wasted the time of academics and teachers everywhere….”

Creationists have also expressed their opinions on the matter.

“Ken Ham is a godless man and his lies and deceit will be noticed and punished by God. The creation sciences will overthrow Evolution and prove that God made the Earth as stated in the Bible.”

A Flight from Science & Reason

Hello and welcome back. Whilst last week was relatively quiet, I have some snippets of news this week as well as some discussions.

As Volume 11 shows, I have turned a blog post towards the idiocy that is the creationist battle cry “It’s Just a Theory!” This is probably one of the oldest and stupidest arguments that a creationist can claim. If they use it, it indicates that they sincerely do not know what science actually is, or more succinctly, they don’t know what the words scientific theory mean. It is amazing that they don’t consider this in light to other theories. Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Collision Theory, Atomic Theory and the theories of General and Special Relativity. I mean, I could name hundreds of these theories and they will not insist that these are just “theories”. They will insist that there is evidence for them. So why exactly are they called theories? Because theory has a particular meaning in science.

I decided to look at this in more detail during an essay of mine for my course. I had found, in a book I particularly enjoyed, an essay by James Trefil called “Scientific Literacy”. In this, Trefil argues that understanding how science works is more important than facts and figures and considering creationists, I think it is a brilliant point. For those interested, the paper is from a conference called “A Flight from Science & Reason” (see Bibliography).

Another thing I saw this week was again from my friend Gav. He introduced me to Penn & Teller, Bullshit! I’ve put the link on my site, but I absolutely love the way they are able to explain how science works in a way which is great for anyone that has no background in science. The creationist episode which involved a rabbit to demonstrate the lack of democracy in science was particularly well done I think. I highly recommend watching at least a few episodes.

My other post this week I couldn’t resist. I’m sorry but sometimes I truly do wonder whether Ken Ham and co. are seriously trying to fuck with our heads, ala Andy Kaufmann style.

Bibliography
Trefil, J. (1996), Scientific Literacy, In Gross, PR., Levitt, N. & Lewis, MW. (1996), The Flight from Science And Reason, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 775