The Definition of KIND

[Justatruthseeker]

What's the kicker is that now suddenly they want to lump everything together, yet here we have several finches that all interbreed and they want to insist those are all separate. Lol, evolutionists, seems they can never keep a consistent argument from one post to the next. Always changing their stance on every single topic from one post to the next so they no longer even know what they believe, because they believe everything and anything. Whatever sounds good at any given time right guys?

 

[AV1611VET]

Always changing their stance on every single topic from one post to the next so they no longer even know what they believe, because they believe everything and anything. Whatever sounds good at any given time right guys?

[VERSE=Ephesians 4:14,KJV]That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;[/VERSE]

 

[Loudmouth]

What's the kicker is that now suddenly they want to lump everything together, yet here we have several finches that all interbreed and they want to insist those are all separate.

Great Danes and Chihuahuas don't interbreed, yet you want to lump them together.

Lol, evolutionists, seems they can never keep a consistent argument from one post to the next. Always changing their stance on every single topic from one post to the next so they no longer even know what they believe, because they believe everything and anything. Whatever sounds good at any given time right guys?

It is the creationists who can't produce a definition for kind. Every time you try and give a definition, you throw it out within a few posts. For example, AV was saying that kind was the same as genus. Now he is saying that it isn't. So what is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did he now?

Yes, he did. Are you saying that you are no longer using "genus" as your definition of kind?

Carlous Linnaeus: 1707 - 1778.How about YOU use his term?

Why don't you? Or perhaps you don't understand that which species go into which genera is completely arbitrary? You do realize that there are no rules for deciding which species belong to a genus, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great Danes and Chihuahuas don't interbreed, yet you want to lump them together.

No, science itself has determined they all came from the same original wolf breeds. That's why they are classified as different breeds and not as separate species, even by your own evolutionary biologists. Even they understand the record is too clear to give lie to it.

It is the creationists who can't produce a definition for kind. Every time you try and give a definition, you throw it out within a few posts. For example, AV was saying that kind was the same as genus. Now he is saying that it isn't. So what is it?

What is species? Is it birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species; or is it birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are a separate species?

Answer the question. Either way you violate all your beliefs and all the claims you are making now.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, science itself has determined they all came from the same original wolf breeds.

So you admit that populations which currently can not interbreed can come from a common ancestor. Thanks.

What is species? Is it birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species; or is it birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are a separate species?

Species in sexual species are defined by gene pools. It isn't a question of whether they can interbreed, but rather do they interbreed often enough when given the chance so that you get and even mixture of genes within the gene pool.

This would make dogs an example of incipient speciation, an early phase of speciation in progress. We have clear genetic barriers that are preventing free gene flow between populations which will inevitably lead to population specific mutations and further divergence.

 

[juvenissun]

lol

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.

I don't have enough biological knowledge.
I suggested guidelines, which is based on the Biblical information. Every Christian can do a similar.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't have enough biological knowledge.
I suggested guidelines, which is based on the Biblical information. Every Christian can do a similar.

What are those guidelines?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you admit that populations which currently can not interbreed can come from a common ancestor. Thanks.

Have never said anything different. But then again dogs which have an accelerated variation brought on by man do not show the diversity in genetic differences between those of obvious different species.

You assume that because things share the same proteins - when proteins are all made from the same protons and electrons as is everything else, that this is somehow important. What is important is "how" those proteins are used. We expect similarities - all was made from the "dust" (same protons and electrons) as was everything else. You just assume we were slime at first.

Species in sexual species are defined by gene pools. It isn't a question of whether they can interbreed, but rather do they interbreed often enough when given the chance so that you get and even mixture of genes within the gene pool.

How often is often enough? Say often enough to breed them back into one breed as is being done with finches? Even if you want to call them separate species....?

This would make dogs an example of incipient speciation, an early phase of speciation in progress. We have clear genetic barriers that are preventing free gene flow between populations which will inevitably lead to population specific mutations and further divergence.

Except you know they are breeds - call them nothing but breeds. And even if you were to decide to reclassify them, since the grey wolf (or whatever ancestor you care to name) is a species - then local conditions or brought about effects whether from nature or man, would make them merely infraspecific taxa. Don't start the speciation spiel when you haven't even got past breed, let alone the sub-species yet. And on an accelerated time-table.

EDIT: They already tried the speciation spiel with the Finches - and it backfired on them when we got around to actually studying them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Errr... no. You were very explicit:

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

No, you see cows giving birth to cows. Horses giving birth to horses.

Are cows vertebrates, mammals, tetrapods?
Why do you say "no"?

Don't mammals give birth to mammals?
Do you disagree that vertebrates produce vertebrates?

You never see a cow giving birth to a horse, nor ever mating with one and producing fertile offspring as with dog breeds.

I never said that we should see cows giving birth to horses. So I wonder why you think it's relevant.

Yes or no: do mammals give birth to mammals?

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.

Which is quite irrelevant to the point being made.
You very clearly implied that cows and horses are not the same "kind" because cows produce cows and horses produce horses.

Since pitbulls don't produce st bernards, they can't be of the same kind according to your very own rule.

Except you know both pitbulls and chiwawas have the same ancestor

So do cows and horses, as is evidenced by their collective genome.

and that many of those breeds can mate and produce fertile offspring.

Many? So, not all of them?

Besides, ever seen a dog that looked like a horse or cow?

Ever seen a chiwawa that looks like a st bernard?

We have no evidence apple trees and orange trees originated from the same tree.

Only if you ignore the genetic evidence.

If we did you might have an argument

And we do, so I have.

- as it currently stands you are left with nothing but strawmen.

Lol... head-sand-syndrome.

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

Yea, whatever you think fits your ad hoc argument best, ey?
It's quite obvious that you are pulling all this arbitrarily out of your sleeve.

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

So, do lemon trees produce oranges?
Are they the same "kind"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, science itself has determined they all came from the same original wolf breeds.

Yep. And in exactly the same way, since has determined that mammals all come from the same ancestral "root" mammalian species. And the same goes for reptiles, tetrapods, eukrayotes, ambhibians, fish, flowers, grass, trees,.........

That's why they are classified as different breeds and not as separate species, even by your own evolutionary biologists.

Wolves and chiwawa's are the same species? Do you wish to put money on that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What are those guidelines?

From my experience, these guidelines seem to be:
"Assert that X and Y are the same 'kind' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs".

 

[Jan Volkes]

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?

If this is the kind [no pun intended] of thing Americans waste their time on I can certainly see why the 1% have most of the money in America.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you would like to share your definition of KIND with us, so we could see where your time & money went?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Perhaps you would like to share your definition of KIND with us, so we could see where your time & money went?

I have wasted enough time on this childish subject as it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

If this is the kind [no pun intended] of thing Americans waste their time on I can certainly see why the 1% have most of the money in America.

Perhaps you would like to share your definition of KIND with us, so we could see where your time & money went?

I have wasted enough time on this childish subject as it is.

And what about your money?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From my experience, these guidelines seem to be:
"Assert that X and Y are the same 'kind' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs".

Agree 100% - "Assert that X and Y are the same 'species' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs in evolution" (bold, italics mine)

Similar to: "Assert that X and Y are different 'species' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs in evolution, even if X and Y are all interbreeding and producing fertile offspring" (bold, italics mine)

I'm still not sure what stance any of you take. Species are those that interbreed and produce fertile offspring - until those that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are not wanted to be the same species. I'm still trying to figure out what a species is???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yep. And in exactly the same way, since has determined that mammals all come from the same ancestral "root" mammalian species. And the same goes for reptiles, tetrapods, eukrayotes, ambhibians, fish, flowers, grass, trees,.........

No, they all came from the same "dust" (electrons and protons) and you have confused that to mean evolution through mutation - even if all we ever observe is breed mating with breed producing new breeds.

Wolves and chiwawa's are the same species? Do you wish to put money on that?

I sure do, how much you want to give me?

http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~dmv/dog1.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5598/1610.short

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, they all came from the same "dust" (electrons and protons) and you have confused that to mean evolution through mutation - even if all we ever observe is breed mating with breed producing new breeds.

You're not making any sense at all.
I don't even know how to respond to such random nonsense.

I sure do, how much you want to give me?
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~dmv/dog1.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5598/1610.short

It's funny how these sources not only clearly assumes the normal scientific evolutionary worldview, it doesn't support your point at all, nore your larger view on genetics etc. Quite the opposite.

It discusses origins of dogs as a subspecies from wolf ancestors based on genetic studies.

You know.... the kind of studies that build phylogenetic trees, revealing nested hierarchies.

The kind of studies you don't like and object to, except when you feel like you can make a point. Like now. And you're not even doing it right.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Agree 100% - "Assert that X and Y are the same 'species' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs in evolution" (bold, italics mine)

Similar to: "Assert that X and Y are different 'species' if you think it supports your faith-based beliefs in evolution, even if X and Y are all interbreeding and producing fertile offspring" (bold, italics mine)

[/quote]

In science, evidence is required. Bare assertions don't really make much of an impact.

Religions make their evidence conform to the beliefs.
Science makes the theories conform to the evidence.

You follow your emotions.
Science follows the evidence.

I'm still not sure what stance any of you take. Species are those that interbreed and produce fertile offspring - until those that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are not wanted to be the same species. I'm still trying to figure out what a species is???

In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Species

Classification of species is a hard thing to do, because of the gradual nature of evolution.

As has been said many times, every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents, but extremely slightly different (variation/mutation). And those differences gradually accumulate over generations.

So if there is no clear line you can draw in a bloodline and say "now it's a new species", it makes sense that classifying animals into species isn't always as obvious. Especially not if humans have messed around with a lineage by breeding through artificial selection....

The many breeds of dogs would not exist if it wasn't for us steering those evolutionary pathways, don't forget that.