The Definition of KIND

[DogmaHunter]

Do not use any of those names used by evolution biologists. It only confused the understanding.

So... ignore the actual sciences?

I seriously gave a definition and defended it before and it still stands now:

Lol... maybe in your head.

Kind: Lifeforms with similar property and function.

I'ld say that that lumps all living things into one "kind".

The key idea is: Once a life is classified, then do not change it until a practical conflict becomes obvious.

That's what science has been doing for the past centuries. There's even a whole branch of science build around exactly that. It's called taxonomy.

Perhaps you should stop ignoring science.

 

[juvenissun]

I'ld say that that lumps all living things into one "kind".

Dogs and cats are different kind to most people.

If you were king, and you say: they are the same kind. Then they might be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dogs and cats are different kind to most people.

The way you defined "kind", they both are the same "kind".

And "most people" use words in different ways then in certain fields of expertise.
I can also talk about "kinds of dog" and "kinds of primate" and "kinds of mammals" and "kinds of fish".....

The whole point of having a robust definition of the word "kind", in context of biology, is to define it in such a way that we can take two random organisms and determine if they are the same "kind".

So far, the definition you gave is so vague that we can apply it at any level in the tree of life. Including the root, which represents all living things.

If you were king, and you say: they are the same kind. Then they might be.

I could be the president of the universe and declare that the earth is flat. But it won't change the fact that it's not flat.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:What say you?

Does that quote imply then that all grasses are the same genus and all fruit trees are the same genus?

Not at all - else Apple trees and Orange trees would not produce after their Kind, but would produce the same type of fruit. Just as the Dove and Raven were brought upon the Ark to continue propagating their Kind after the flood.

Now all the different varieties of Apple trees may be of one Kind - and all the varieties of Orange trees may be of one Kind. Just as all breeds of dogs are of one Kind and all breeds of cats are of one Kind.

Although I am not opposed to segregating certain animals into their own Kinds - to lump them all together makes both species and Kind irrelevant. If all mammals are of a Kind - then there would of been no need to create more than just 2, as all the variety could have then been produced from that pair.

But this is not what we observe in real life - so all cattle may be of one Kind and all sheep may be of one Kind, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not at all - else Apple trees and Orange trees would not produce after their Kind, but would produce the same type of fruit.

What about oranges and lemons? Or grapefruit? Are those the same "kind"?

Now all the different varieties of Apple trees may be of one Kind - and all the varieties of Orange trees may be of one Kind. Just as all breeds of dogs are of one Kind and all breeds of cats are of one Kind.

"...may be..."?
So... are they the same kind or aren't they?
And why?

Although I am not opposed to segregating certain animals into their own Kinds - to lump them all together makes both species and Kind irrelevant.

Not if you do it correctly. You know, like... hierarchically. Where the root group has sub-groups and those groups have sub-groups,... etc.

You know like.... nested hierarchies.

If all mammals are of a Kind - then there would of been no need to create more than just 2, as all the variety could have then been produced from that pair.

Actually, there would be a very good reason to create a lot more then just 2... because a single breeding pair isn't exactly a very biologically viable population....

"There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

But this is not what we observe in real life - so all cattle may be of one Kind and all sheep may be of one Kind, etc.

What we observe in real life.... are nested hierarchies with a common root.

 

[juvenissun]

The way you defined "kind", they both are the same "kind".

And "most people" use words in different ways then in certain fields of expertise.
I can also talk about "kinds of dog" and "kinds of primate" and "kinds of mammals" and "kinds of fish".....

The whole point of having a robust definition of the word "kind", in context of biology, is to define it in such a way that we can take two random organisms and determine if they are the same "kind".

So far, the definition you gave is so vague that we can apply it at any level in the tree of life. Including the root, which represents all living things.

I could be the president of the universe and declare that the earth is flat. But it won't change the fact that it's not flat.

I did not give any definition of a particular kind. I only gave the principle guidance of defining a kind.

For example, a dog kind has a special definition (to be given), but it is made based on my given principle, basically, on property and function.
Example format: Dogs (kind): Properties: .... ; Functions: .... .

When you compare that with the current definition of dogs, you can see the obvious difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did not give any definition of a particular kind. I only gave the principle guidance of defining a kind.

In that case, I'ld have to say that, according to that "guiding principle", all life is of the same kind.

For example, a dog kind has a special definition (to be given), but it is made based on my given principle, basically, on property and function.
Example format: Dogs (kind): Properties: .... ; Functions: .... .

Out of curiosity, can you give some examples of what points you'ld put under "functions" for a dog?

When you compare that with the current definition of dogs, you can see the obvious difference.

lol, yes, obviously.

 

[juvenissun]

Out of curiosity, can you give some examples of what points you'ld put under "functions" for a dog?

OK, I am not a biologist, but this is my quick response to that. 1. A dog has a [high scale] of smelling function. The scale is to be defined; 2. A dog is a safe companion to human; 3. ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, I am not a biologist,

yeah.... I was already extremely aware of that.

1. A dog has a [high scale] of smelling function. The scale is to be defined;

Wouldn't that rather be a "trait"?

2. A dog is a safe companion to human; 3. ...

Is it?

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/2-Month-Old-boy-dead-after-pit-bull-attack-in-Dallas-300612991.html


Having said that...
It still is completely unclear to me how you would go about putting animals in their respective (and mysterious) "kind".

It's also kind of strange to me that you point out that you aren't a biologist.... As if biologists classify animals in this way...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What about oranges and lemons? Or grapefruit? Are those the same "kind"?

Ever see a lemon tree produce a grapefruit?

"...may be..."?
So... are they the same kind or aren't they?
And why?

Ever see an apple tree produce anything but apples???????

Not if you do it correctly. You know, like... hierarchically. Where the root group has sub-groups and those groups have sub-groups,... etc.

You know like.... nested hierarchies.

Which is exactly what you have. You have all the apple tree varieties nested into a hierarchy back to the original apple tree. You have all dogs in a nested hierarchy all the way back to the original dog Kind. Why the strawman????

Actually, there would be a very good reason to create a lot more then just 2... because a single breeding pair isn't exactly a very biologically viable population....

"There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population



What we observe in real life.... are nested hierarchies with a common root.

We already discussed your strawman of nested hierarchies above.

You mean as we observe today after bottlenecks have already been produced and genes lost along the course of time from the original perfect genetic makeup?

You know, those bottlenecks that should tell you the genome does not improve - but only remains the same or looses function. Now there may be recessive or dominant combinations that appear to improve the genome - but then they already exist within the genome to begin with and are never anything new. Just your mistaken belief that something that already exists is new.

 

[juvenissun]

It's also kind of strange to me that you point out that you aren't a biologist.... As if biologists classify animals in this way...

A creation biologist can certainly do a better job than I could.

My way is Biblical. It is also, in fact, a better way than the popular one used today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ever see a lemon tree produce a grapefruit?

I'm just trying to find out how one would go about classifying species into their appropriate "kinds".


Are pitbulls and chiwawa's the same "kind"? I certainly have seen creationists talk about the "dog" kind.

But pitbulls don't produce chiwawa's, right?
So, why wouldn't oranges and grapefruit be of the same "kind"?

Ever see an apple tree produce anything but apples???????

Ever see a mammal produce anything but a mammal?

Which is exactly what you have. You have all the apple tree varieties nested into a hierarchy back to the original apple tree.

Right, and that apple tree sits in a nested hierarchy itself:

Kingdom: Plantae
(unranked): Angiosperms
(unranked): Eudicots
(unranked): Rosids
Order: Rosales
Family: Rosaceae
Genus: Malus
Species: M. domestica

You have all dogs in a nested hierarchy all the way back to the original dog Kind. Why the strawman????

And the dog "kind" itself sits in a nested hierarchy as well:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris

We already discussed your strawman of nested hierarchies above.

Did you even read what you quoted before writing that?
I wasn't talking about nested hierarchies. I was talking about Minimum Viable Population. As in: how many breeding pairs does it take for a species to at least survive the next couple of centuries.

As it turns out, a species with a population of a single breeding pair is doomed to extinction within a few generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A creation biologist can certain do a better job than I could.

lol

My way is Biblical. It is also, in fact, a better way than the popular one used today.

Then why does it matter that you aren't a biologist? Since you know better anyway then all those people that studied in the field of biology for decades.

You certainly think a lot of yourself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In that case, I'ld have to say that, according to that "guiding principle", all life is of the same kind.

And you violate the definition just by observing any mating pair. "After their Kind" Do you see bears giving birth to horses? So then bears can not be the same Kind as horses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you violate the definition just by observing any mating pair.

Wait, you were very explicit in making sure that what you gave was a "guiding principle" and NOT a "definition".

Perhaps you should first decide on it before continuing.
So, what will it be.... is it a "guiding principle" or a "definition"?

"After their Kind" Do you see bears giving birth to horses?

I see mammals giving birth to mammals.
I see tetrapods giving birth to tetrapods.
I see vertebrates giving birth to vertebrates.
I see eukaryotes giving birth to eukaryotes.

Do you see pitbulls giving birth to chiwawas?
Is "dog" a kind?

So then bears can not be the same Kind as horses.

Okay then.
Since pitbulls don't give birth to chiwawas, pitbulls are not the same kind as chiwawas.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps God's genera list is a little different from Linnaeus'?

Linnaeus is the one who came up with the term "genus". If you aren't going to use Linnaeus' terms, then please propose some new ones.

It appears that we are back to square one with the definition of "kind".

 

[Loudmouth]

And you violate the definition just by observing any mating pair. "After their Kind" Do you see bears giving birth to horses? So then bears can not be the same Kind as horses.

Do you see Great Danes giving birth to Chihuahuas? No. That means they are different kinds.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all - else Apple trees and Orange trees would not produce after their Kind, but would produce the same type of fruit.

Now all the different varieties of Apple trees may be of one Kind -

Granny apple trees do not make Red Delicious apples. They are different kinds because they have different fruit, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Linnaeus is the one who came up with the term "genus".

Did he now?

(biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from PIE root *gene- "to produce, give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to family and tribal groups.

Carlous Linnaeus: 1707 - 1778.

If you aren't going to use Linnaeus' terms, then please propose some new ones.

How about YOU use his term?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wait, you were very explicit in making sure that what you gave was a "guiding principle" and NOT a "definition".

Perhaps you should first decide on it before continuing.
So, what will it be.... is it a "guiding principle" or a "definition"?

I gave specifics - not anything general. You just want to interpret what I said as general so you can claim anything you want.

I see mammals giving birth to mammals.

No, you see cows giving birth to cows. Horses giving birth to horses. You never see a cow giving birth to a horse, nor ever mating with one and producing fertile offspring as with dog breeds.

I see tetrapods giving birth to tetrapods.

No, you see cows giving birth to cows. Horses giving birth to horses. You never see a cow giving birth to a horse, nor ever mating with one and producing fertile offspring as with dog breeds.

I see vertebrates giving birth to vertebrates.

No, you see cows giving birth to cows. Horses giving birth to horses. You never see a cow giving birth to a horse, nor ever mating with one and producing fertile offspring as with dog breeds.

I see eukaryotes giving birth to eukaryotes.

All bacteria are indeed the same Kind - just different breeds therein. As all virus are their own Kind. There may also be seperations within those making others Kinds - we would just have to study them and see.

Do you see pitbulls giving birth to chiwawas?
Is "dog" a kind?

And yet you also know both the pitbull and the Chiwawaw came from the same animal and are merely different breeds, breeds which then reproduce according to that breed.

Okay then.
Since pitbulls don't give birth to chiwawas, pitbulls are not the same kind as chiwawas.

Except you know both pitbulls and chiwawas have the same ancestor and that many of those breeds can mate and produce fertile offspring. Besides, ever seen a dog that looked like a horse or cow?

We have no evidence apple trees and orange trees originated from the same tree. If we did you might have an argument - as it currently stands you are left with nothing but strawmen.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n10/full/ng.654.html

Although we might consider all citrus trees as being of the same Kind - just different breeds thereof.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110118101600.htm

Quite apparent since orange trees can be crossed with other citrus trees - but never the Apple tree.