22 Oct 06
7 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt can also refer to a single lower taxon which serves as a defining example for a higher taxon in the same way that a type specimen serves as a defining example of a species.
Okay a "type specimen" I can live with, but that refers to a single, individual organism.
Each genus must have a designated type species (the term "genotype" was once used for this but has been abandoned because the word has been co-opted for use in genetics, and is much better known in that context). The description of a genus is usually based primarily on its type species, modified and expanded by the features of other included species. The generic name is permanently associated with the name-bearing type of its type species.
Ideally, a type species best exemplifies the essential characteristics of the genus to which it belongs, but this is subjective and, ultimately, technically irrelevant, as it is not a requirement of the Code. If the type species proves, upon closer examination, to belong to a pre-existing genus (a common occurrence), then all of the constituent species must be either moved into the pre-existing genus, or disassociated from the original type species and given a new generic name; the old generic name passes into synonymy, and is abandoned, unless there is a pressing need to make an exception (decided case-by-case, via petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_%28zoology%29
In any case, the term is used by scientists much differently than it seems to be used by creationists. Creationists seem to use the term as some sort of taxonomic term in it's own right; for example, I believe it's common to refer to a "cat type", and I believe it would be consistent with typical creationist use of the term to say that tigers, housecats and jaguars would all be of the "cat type" whereas in biology there would be only one genus that would serve as the type genus for family Felidae. These three animals are all in different geni so could not be all in the cat type genus as the term is used by taxonomists.
EDIT - It seems that Felis is the type genus for Felidae. Therefore, tigers and jaguars are not of the "cat type" as the term is used in taxonomy and biology, though they are cats.
http://www.answers.com/topic/genus-felis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felis
As with other scientific terms such as "information" and "entropy", "type" is misunderstood and misused by creationists to convince themselves and others that their ideas have scientific merit when they actually do not.
Freaky, when I was discussing O. gigas, which specimen or taxonomic categories were you referring to as the "types within types"?
23 Oct 06
Feakys various claims are all flawed from the beggining as they are all based on words that either he has not defined or he claims the standard or scientific definitions of. If he does not accept the standard or scientific definitions then he must provide a definition otherwise the statement is meaningless. If he accepts the standard or scientific definitions of species or type then his statements cannot be true as both definitions are fairly open and subject to consensus and choice.
For example dogs and wolves can interbreed. Scientists can declare them different species and different 'types' and it will not violate thier definition of species or type and yet the resultant ofspring will violate freakys claims.