The Definition of KIND

[Astrophile]

Ever see a lemon tree produce a grapefruit?





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

Did you ever see two donkeys produce a horse? Did you ever see two jackals produce a fox? Did you ever see two swans produce a goose? Do donkeys and horses belong to the same kind? What about jackals and foxes, or swans and geese?

 

[SkyWriting]

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

"Kind" means "Those parents will produce that kind of offspring." The definition has never changed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did you ever see two donkeys produce a horse? Did you ever see two jackals produce a fox? Did you ever see two swans produce a goose? Do donkeys and horses belong to the same kind? What about jackals and foxes, or swans and geese?

Exactly - so why are you claiming one thing evolves into another when you only see only breeds in a species mating and producing new breeds????? Those fox will always be foxes - even if they live for the next billion years without going extinct. The only way a new fox will come into the fossil record is when circumstances enable the breeding of one fox breed with another producing a new breed of fox, with no evolution through mutation of one into the other.

What about swans and geese? Clearly of the same species - just different breeds of the same species.

"Swans are birds of the family Anatidae within the genus Cygnus. The swans' close relatives include the geese and ducks."

Geese, ducks and swans are merely different breeds of the same species, because you constantly label them incorrectly. Just as you incorrectly labeled all those finches of Darwin's that all interbreed. You know, those finches none of you want to discuss, even if they are supposed to be the prime example of evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That only demonstrates that a limited number of genetic differences are responsible for differences in morphology. Given that only 5-10% of mammalian genomes are under selective pressure, it isn't too surprising.

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.

They don't share the exact same proteins.

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.

You still can't explain why those similarities and differences produce an objective nested hierarchy. Evolution can.

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....?

Incipient speciation is seen in cases where the populations start to accumulate population specific mutations. This produces 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.

What accelerated time-table? If anything, dogs are on a reduced time-table because of their lack of population size which limits the mutations that can occur and accumulate. The lack of genetic diversity within dog breeds is evidence of a slowed time table.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly - so why are you claiming one thing evolves into another when you only see only breeds in a species mating and producing new breeds????? Those fox will always be foxes - even if they live for the next billion years without going extinct. The only way a new fox will come into the fossil record is when circumstances enable the breeding of one fox breed with another producing a new breed of fox, with no evolution through mutation of one into the other.

What about swans and geese? Clearly of the same species - just different breeds of the same species.

"Swans are birds of the family Anatidae within the genus Cygnus. The swans' close relatives include the geese and ducks."

Geese, ducks and swans are merely different breeds of the same species, because you constantly label them incorrectly. Just as you incorrectly labeled all those finches of Darwin's that all interbreed. You know, those finches none of you want to discuss, even if they are supposed to be the prime example of evolution?

If we found that there is more genetic diversity between swans, geese, and ducks than there is between humans and other apes, would you agree that humans belong in the ape kind?

 

[Papias]

Good point.

I'll have to cogitate somewhat on that.

AV-

I think we had a good and scripture based discussion earlier here. Any new thoughts?

In His name-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think?

I'm sticking with genus.

 

[Papias]

I'm sticking with genus.

It seems to me that "genus" doesn't fit with your boolean standards, since there is scripture in Lev. 19:19 suggesting otherwise. Not that I have a problem with you revising your boolean standards - they are yours, after all.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sticking with genus.

Would that be your own personal definition of genus, or the definition used by taxonomists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would that be your own personal definition of genus, or the definition used by taxonomists.

I don't know how taxonomists define "kind," so I don't know.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know how taxonomists define "kind," so I don't know.

Then why would you use the term?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why would you use the term?

Because I'm not a taxonomist.

 

[TheBear]

Then why would you use the term?

Excellent question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because I'm not a taxonomist.

Then don't use their terms.

Give us the criteria you are using to determine if two species belong to the same kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then don't use their terms.

Give us the criteria you are using to determine if two species belong to the same kind.

I gave you the Biblical definition of "kind," and I gave you the etymology of the word "genus."

And I'm defining "kind" as "genus."

Kind = Genus

If that isn't good enough to stress how I define it, I can't help you any further.

 

[Papias]

I gave you the Biblical definition of "kind," .

Where? Can you point to the verse that has that definition?

As pointed out before (posts 4-7), the best clarification we have about "kind" from the world of God is Leviticus 19:19, and your response was pretty much that "Leviticus can take a hike".

Right?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

Where? Can you point to the verse that has that definition?

QV the OP please.

 

[Loudmouth]

I gave you the Biblical definition of "kind," and I gave you the etymology of the word "genus."

And I'm defining "kind" as "genus."

Kind = Genus

If that isn't good enough to stress how I define it, I can't help you any further.

Show how you use that definition to determine if two species belong to the same kind or not.

 

[Papias]

The verse in the OP (Gen 1:11) doesn't include "genus". The etymology you gave doesn't specify genus either, since other words, such as "phylum" work just as well.

So it looks like we are back to your idea that "Leviticus can take a hike.'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bumped for Estrid.