What in [insert preferred deity’s name here]’s name is a kind?

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Those of you who have been involved in this debate for a reasonable length of time have come to realize that while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming fundamentalists have all drawn a proverbial line in the sand at the biblical “kind”. They all stand behind this line and boldly claim that evolution may not cross it.

Something strange happens when asked for information about these “kinds” however. Even though this “kind” is so critical and central to their argument most creationists cannot even muster a definition for the word. Those that attempt to define it lack the wear withal to defend their definition when shown evidence that evolution has crossed it.

So I ask the ardent creationist line drawers to show the fortitude to define your infamous “kind” and defend your claim that evolution cannot cross it. I want to know what a “kind” is and, more importantly, what exactly differentiates one kind from another.

Let’s see if this famous creationist claim actually stands up to scrutiny once and for all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I ask the ardent creationist line drawers to show the fortitude to define your infamous “kind” and defend your claim that evolution cannot cross it. I want to know what a “kind” is and, more importantly, what exactly differentiates one kind from another.

Let’s see if this famous creationist claim actually stands up to scrutiny once and for all.

Gladly --- I define "kind" as an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

Now, granted, this may need some work, as it's just off the top of my head, but that's what I go with so far.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Gladly --- I define "kind" as an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

Thanks for participating AV.

A couple nitpicks before we begin. Using the word “top” when discussing taxons is a bit misleading. It reinforces the fallacious belief that evolution has a goal. Don’t forget this picture:

Additionally, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “maximum alleles” but the number of alleles seems to only be significant if you are under the false impression that evolution has a goal like the ladder picture above. In fact, extra chromosomes more often than not generate genetic disorders.

Now onto the crux of the discussion. For clarity, what exactly do you mean by “top of its taxon”? Are you referring to a specie?

 

[Edx]

Gladly --- I define "kind" as an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

Now, granted, this may need some work, as it's just off the top of my head, but that's what I go with so far.

Oh look AV is trying to use scientific words he doesnt understand again. So AV is "alleles" and "taxon" like "Thermodynamics" where you "dont care" what they actually mean?

 

[corvus_corax]

Gladly --- I define "kind" as an animal at the top of its taxon,

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

I would advise that you investigate what a taxon actually is

 

[Edx]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

I would advise that you investigate what a taxon actually is

He should, but he thinks he can use scientific terms and use his own definition because he doesnt care what it really means.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for participating AV.

My pleasure, sir; you're one of the easier ones to talk to (q.v. the remarks from the peanut gallery).

A couple nitpicks before we begin. Using the word “top” when discussing taxons is a bit misleading. It reinforces the fallacious belief that evolution has a goal.

In my Book, there is no room for evolution - time (or the lack thereof) kills it dead in its tracks.

However, I think the word "top" is accurate, as, for lack of a better term, I like to think of this as "trickle-down speciation".

Therefore, we start at the top of the [taxon, list, menu, tree, line, whatever you want to call it] and work our way down.

For instance, without getting my book out, I believe the coyote [top of the taxon] gave us the domestic dog, which gave us the wolf, which gave us the dingo.

Therefore, only coyote needed to board the Ark.

Don’t forget this picture:

Indeed --- my preference is the one on the right --- with each animal there (excluding man) being what God calls "kinds".

Additionally, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “maximum alleles” but the number of alleles seems to only be significant if you are under the false impression that evolution has a goal like the ladder picture above.

As I said, the tree is my preference, the ladder shows upward movement, whereas I believe in "trickle-down" movement.

In fact, extra chromosomes more often than not generate genetic disorders.

Not prior to the Fall.

Now onto the crux of the discussion. For clarity, what exactly do you mean by “top of its taxon”? Are you referring to a specie?

No --- "kind".

 

[corvus_corax]

Gladly --- I define "kind" as an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

Please provide examples of animals at the top of 'their' taxon, containing 'maximum' alleles.
Then, and possibly only then, will we have some idea of what you are referring to when you refer to "kinds"

For instance, without getting my book out, I believe the coyote [top of the taxon]....

The 'top' of what taxon specifically? Without knowing this, your statement clarifies nothing

 

[AV1611VET]

Please provide examples of animals at the top of 'their' taxon, containing 'maximum' alleles.
Then, and possibly only then, will we have some idea of what you are referring to when you refer to "kinds"

coyote → domestic dog → wolf → dingo

 

[corvus_corax]

coyote → domestic dog → wolf → dingo

Ah, so are you referring to common ancestors then? Because that's exactly what your explanation looks like

Edit- It seems to me that you are limiting "kinds" to the Family level of Taxonomy. In your above instance, you seen to be referring to the Canidae in general. Do I have this about right?

 

[flatworm]

coyote → domestic dog → wolf → dingo

He seems unwilling to disclose it directly, but AV1611VET's example would put "kind" at the taxonomic level of "Family".

Do you agree with that assessment, AV1611VET?

 

[AV1611VET]

He seems unwilling to disclose it directly, but AV1611VET's example would put "kind" at the taxonomic level of "Family".

Do you agree with that assessment, AV1611VET?

I don't know --- I'm afraid if I agree, I'll get sliced and diced and made into a techo-burger.

So for the record, I don't know what a family is - (and don't care).

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so are you referring to common ancestors then? Because that's exactly what your explanation looks like

Edit- It seems to me that you are limiting "kinds" to the Family level of Taxonomy. In your above instance, you seen to be referring to the Canidae in general. Do I have this about right?

Beats the snot outta me! --- I just call'em "kinds".

 

[corvus_corax]

I don't know --- I'm afraid if I agree, I'll get sliced and diced and made into a techo-burger.
So for the record, I don't know what a family is - (and don't care).

Beats the snot outta me! --- I just call'em "kinds".

Wait, you toss around terms like "taxon" and "maximum alleles", but you dont care what a taxonomic family is?
Please, I politely request, refrain from using terms when you dont know (or even care to know) the meanings of said terms.
Im not trying to be antagonistic here, but when you use such terms, we (or at least I) assume that you actually know what they mean.

Of course, this leads to pointless and wasteful discussion due to the simple fact that you (admittedly) dont even know what it is you are referring to. Thanks

 

[Bombila]

No wonder we can't figure out what 'kind' means.

AV, do you mean:
1. anything looking a bit like the domestic dog is a 'Dog Kind', or
2. anything that can mate successfully with a domestic dog is a 'Dog Kind', or
3. anything with features in common with domestic dogs such as same number and distribution of teeth, non-retractible claws, etc., is a 'Dog Kind'?

Because those three vague definitions would include or exclude a lot of different animals.

 

[lemmings]

coyote → domestic dog → wolf → dingo

All of the species listed in your example where from the Genus Canis, thus your definition of ‘kind’ is the Genus level.

This is a list of creatures that where in our Genus level, Homo.
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo georgicus
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens sapiens – This is us


Of course some spies where more closely related to the great apes than to us. What does that say about Eve?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

…I believe the coyote [top of the taxon] gave us the domestic dog, which gave us the wolf, which gave us the dingo.

Okay, so when you say “top of the taxon” you mean a taxon around the family level of the taxonomic classification. For example, at the family level, dogs belong to the “Canidae” family (more commonly known as canine).

Now, more importantly, for “kind” to be useful at all please tell me what differentiates one “kind” such as canines from another kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait, you toss around terms like "taxon" and "maximum alleles", but you dont care what a taxonomic family is?
Please, I politely request, refrain from using terms when you dont know (or even care to know) the meanings of said terms.
Im not trying to be antagonistic here, but when you use such terms, we (or at least I) assume that you actually know what they mean.

Of course, this leads to pointless and wasteful discussion due to the simple fact that you (admittedly) dont even know what it is you are referring to. Thanks

And I'll respectfully pass. How much do YOU care what a "kind" is?

When I see "scientists" who don't care what things in the Bible are, I ROFL when they ROFL when I don't care what things in their science books are.

It's kind of a mutual thing - (pardon the pun).

 

[corvus_corax]

And I'll respectfully pass

Of course
I guess it was too much on my part to hope that you would use terms that you understand

How much do YOU care what a "kind" is?

Actually, Im involved in this discussion specifically to find out what a "kind" is.
Unfortunately, all Ive gotten from it is terms bandied about that werent even understood by the user.
IOW, so far, this entire discussion has revealed not one whit of actual information regarding what a "kind" is.

 

[AV1611VET]

No wonder we can't figure out what 'kind' means.

AV, do you mean:
1. anything looking a bit like the domestic dog is a 'Dog Kind', or
2. anything that can mate successfully with a domestic dog is a 'Dog Kind', or
3. anything with features in common with domestic dogs such as same number and distribution of teeth, non-retractible claws, etc., is a 'Dog Kind'?

Because those three vague definitions would include or exclude a lot of different animals.

Beats me, Bombila.

Whatever got on the Ark.

"Scientists" are the ones that came up with taxonomy, and if they taxonomied themselves out of knowing what a "kind" is, I can't help them.

I'm just as ignorant as the best "scientists" when it comes to knowing what a "kind" is, so I just have to shake my head in wonderment (and sorrow) when they're arguing how so many animals could have gotten aboard Noah's Ark, yet want to argue when we Christians give the answer.