Organisms come in discrete kinds

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 References 6 Related claims 7 See Also 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

The created kinds are distinct; evolution between them is impossible. "Creation of distinct kinds precludes transmutation between kinds."

Source

• Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, pp. 13, 216-218.
• Gitt, Werner, 1993. Did God Use Evolution?, p. 113

Responses

1. It is true that living things are naturally divided into "kinds", or species. The species designation is in fact the only natural classification: those above it (genera, tribe, family), or below (subspecies, varieties, races, etc.), are purely human constructions. There is discordance among evolutionary biologists on which of the dozens of species concepts published is the most appropriate, but there is no discussion that species are a real (natural) entity. Almost without exception, the most important naturalists and evolutionary biologists of all time have been taxonomists dedicated to the classification of kinds, e.g. Darwin, Wallace, Mayr, Wilson, etc. Additionally, a large part of the bread and butter work of evolutionary biologists is researching systems of classification that can reflect the evolutionary history of organisms, or the field of systematics.
2. The second part of the claim, that "transmutation" between species is impossible, is also technically correct under some species concepts. The process of speciation, according to these, is not reversible. That is, by definition two subpopulations are not considered separate species until the process of speciation is complete. This again has nothing to do with the reality of species.
3. Evolutionary theory does allow for hybridization between closely related species, under those species concepts that allow for it. If the hybridization is frequent and prevalent, the component species are usually not designated "good" species. If the hybridization is infrequent, or only during special circumstances, while the separate species maintain their distinctive character, the speciation is considered true.
4. None of this invalidates the fact that a species can change through time, the process of anagenesis, or that sometimes they split into two, the process of cladogenesis, and that these two follow their own evolutionary paths.
5. Gene flow between plant and bacterial species is common. Hybrids are less common among animals, but nevertheless still can occur (e.g. the liger, the edible frog, mules); the greatly reduced fertility means that animal speciation does not occur this way, but plants can reproduce vegetatively for some time, and tend to be less sensitive to polyploidy, giving them the potential to become a new polyploid species. Therefore arguing that species are always distinct is a simplistic view.
6. Creationist have consistently failed to provide a clear definition of the term "created kind."
7. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Equivocation (terms not well defined)
• add fallacies

References

1. Dewey, John, 1910. The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought, Henry Holt & Co., New York. Reprinted in Fisch, M.H. (ed.), 1951, Classic American Philosophers, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
2. Van Valen & Maiorana, 1991, Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
3. Darwin C, Darwin F (2000) The autobiography of Charles Darwin Prometheus Books, New York.
4. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Related claims

• Stars and galaxies are unchanging
• All kinds could fit
• Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds
• Range of variation is limited within kinds

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments