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

[AV1611VET]

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

One kind, as far as I know, goes "meow".

Another, as far as I know, goes "ruff, ruff".

Another, as far as I know, goes "oink, oink".

Etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

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


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.

Well, were YOU in the Garden of Eden?

Were YOU on the Ark?

The OP, if I remember right, said something about drawing the line, and as far as I'm concerned, it's still drawn.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

One kind, as far as I know, goes "meow".

Another, as far as I know, goes "ruff, ruff".

Another, as far as I know, goes "oink, oink".

Etc.

Herein lies the problem with this kind of classification. Take a look at this oldie but goodie thread created by AronRa called Here Kitty Kitty Kitty. Many of these organisms aren’t around any more to know what sound they made. Show me how you would separate these organisms into appropriate “kinds”. Or do you reckon they are all the same “kind”?

 

[flatworm]

Could we please get a definitive answer from a creationist who both understands the term he's defining and the terms he's using to define it?

 

[corvus_corax]

Well, were YOU in the Garden of Eden?

Were YOU on the Ark?

To the best of my knowledge, no. But then again, neither were you.
Besides, what the heck do those two questions have to do with figuring out (in the here and now) what a 'kind' is?
Your questions weren't even responses to what I said

The OP, if I remember right, said something about drawing the line, and as far as I'm concerned, it's still drawn.

Unfortunately, you cant describe, explain or define the line. You did try, I'll give you that, but you used terms the definitions of which you werent even aware

 

[AV1611VET]

Many of these organisms aren’t around any more to know what sound they made.

That's why I was careful to include the pharase, "as far as I know". I knew better than to say, "One kind goes 'meow'", etc.

Show me how you would separate these organisms into appropriate “kinds”.

I wouldn't - (unless you were talking about Aron-Ra's post, which I don't intend to read).

That was Adam's job:

[bible]Genesis 2:20[/bible]

Or do you reckon they are all the same “kind”?

I kinda have the feeling that all the "kinds" that were present in the Garden of Eden went extinct, and not one of them exist today.

Whatever those animals (and plants) were, their specific taxon is long gone.

That's why taxonomists don't have a category for them.

But that's just conjecture on my part.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could we please get a definitive answer from a creationist who both understands the term he's defining and the terms he's using to define it?

And get put through the Techno-Veg-O-Matic?

 

[RedAndy]

The problem with the definition of "kind" is that it is necessary to keep it vague. There are definite problems associated with trying to define "kind" as broad enough to include, for example, all members of the cat family, but narrow enough to separate humans from any other animal. This is why most Creationists tend not to specify what a "kind" actually is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, you cant describe, explain or define the line. You did try, I'll give you that, but you used terms the definitions of which you werent even aware

The terms I used were the closest I could get to satisfying the OP, which, as I'm now starting to suspect, wasn't asked so the requester could understand his Bible better.

If someone else can do better, good for them. I'm curious myself as to what the answer is --- but, in my opinion, only those who lived from Adam to Job know.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with the definition of "kind" is that it is necessary to keep it vague. There are definite problems associated with trying to define "kind" as broad enough to include, for example, all members of the cat family, but narrow enough to separate humans from any other animal. This is why most Creationists tend not to specify what a "kind" actually is.

I would agree with that, but I don't think it's necessary to "keep it vague". I'd like to know myself what it is.

 

[atrijez]

AV,

i have discussed the "dog kind" specifically with creationists before, and i'm very curious to know which animals are in the "dog kind". -- we already know that according to you the "dog kind" contains coyotes, domesticated dogs, wolves, and dingos, but what about the following animals?:

- maned wolves
- bush dogs
- foxes
- bat-eared foxes
- raccoon dogs
- raccoons
- pandas
- bears
- hyaenas

please don't respond with "i don't know", because i'm not asking what you know., i'm simply asking what you think. you should have at least an idea as to whether or not YOU consider these animals to be part of the "dog kind".

and i realize that just because your usage of the word "kind" when referring to dogs is at the genus or family level, that doesn't mean that the word "kind" ALWAYS has to be synonymous with "genus" or "family". (even in taxonomy, these taxons vary in meaning from one group to the next.) but because of this, i'm also hoping you can provide me with a couple of other "kinds" and specify which members they include.

for example, 1. are penguins and ostriches both of the same kind? (meaning, did they both microevolve from the same ancestor who stepped off the arc 4,000 years ago?)

2. what about all of the bats? are they all of the same kind?

3. what about panthers and tigers?

4. or octopuses and squids?

5. or moths and butterflies?

these are just a few, but please write back with your answers numbered 1 through 5, and feel free to include any other "kinds" that you are sure constitute a valid microevolutionary taxon.

secondly, i think i understand what you mean by "maximum alleles". please correct me if i'm wrong. are you saying that all of the gene alleles found in dogs and wolves can also be found in coyotes, but that all of the alleles found in the coyote genome canNOT necessarily be found in dogs and wolves? in other words, is it your position that dogs and wolves have genomes that are essentially just simplified versions of the coyote genome??

please answer all of my questions, because i am genuinely curious about what your position is and why it is your position.

 

[FishFace]

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

How is something at the top of its taxon? The only way I can see that making sense is either a) with teleology - which assumes no evolution, or b) by assuming evolution, and saying "top" is the first species of the taxon. Either ones is unviable.

containing maximum alleles.

For a given gene, most organisms can only have two alleles. To have more would require the organism in question to have more than two copies of each chromosome. This also implies that things such as bacteria only ever have one allele.

 

[flatworm]

And get put through the Techno-Veg-O-Matic?

And show the concept has some sort of validity. So far it looks like just a buzzword used to wave away evidence for evolution. I think creationists are well aware that if they define it at too high a taxonomic level, they establish that "macroevolution" must have happened. Conversely if they define it at too low a level, someone will present proof that evolution at that level has been observed. Intermediate levels may do both, so creationists simply avoid defining it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The concept of kind is not useful if it has no coherent definition. Being unuseful, it cannot be used as an argument against evolution or as a competing model with linnaean taxonomy. I think the phrase "after their kind" is pretty clear, reproductive compatability. Reproductive compatability is the same definition biologists use to define a species. Creationists don't want kind at the level of species because then you can't fit everything on the boat.
I understand what it is meant by "maximum alleles". This is the idea that since the fall everything has degraded. The problem is, this is a testable claim. This if true, would be obvious in the genes and its not there so, it's not the case.

 

[flatworm]

I think the phrase "after their kind" is pretty clear, reproductive compatability. Reproductive compatability is the same definition biologists use to define a species. Creationists don't want kind at the level of species because then you can't fit everything on the boat.

Worse than that- we have observed instances of evolution happening at that level.

 

[FishFace]

I understand what it is meant by "maximum alleles". This is the idea that since the fall everything has degraded. The problem is, this is a testable claim. This if true, would be obvious in the genes and its not there so, it's not the case.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind it, but since an allele is a variation occurring at a specific locus, it is impossible to have more than one allele on one strand of DNA, making it impossible to have more alleles than the [WIKI]ploidy[/WIKI] of the organism, in each cell.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

That's why I was careful to include the pharase, "as far as I know".

I wouldn't - (unless you were talking about Aron-Ra's post, which I don't intend to read).

I'd like to know myself what it is.

So after a few pages we’re left with only one creationist to even attempt to define this core term to the anti-evolution position who ultimately had to admit that he really doesn’t know what a “kind” is (nor does he appear to want to do any work to figure it out).

I don’t fault anyone for not knowing something since we are all ignorant to one degree or another. But I do find it ridiculous for a person to hinge the central argument for their core belief on a term that has no meaning to them. Without knowing it the person is basically saying that while they don’t even know what a “kind” is they are certain that evolution can’t change one “kind” to another “kind” and that’s enough to serve as the foundation for their entire belief that evolution is false. Moreover, trying to figure out what a “kind” is by applying it to actual organisms is something to be avoided.

Are there any creationists that know what a “kind” is so that we can actually discuss whether or not evolution can produce new “kinds”? For all the huffing and puffing and verbal acrobatics I have yet to get one good definition from a creationist that they can use to back up the core claim that evolution can’t produce a new one.

 

[corvus_corax]

2. what about all of the bats? are they all of the same kind?

Apparently not, as he seemed to be classifying 'kind' with the Family taxonomic level.
Bats are, of course, Order Chiroptera, with several Families within that Order.
Now, Im willing to grant that perhaps some Creationists (if they adhere to a similar paradigm as AV1611VET) may state that there are varying bat 'kinds'......but I seriously doubt it

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually felt sympathetic, until I read this statement:

I don’t fault anyone for not knowing something since we are all ignorant to one degree or another. But I do find it ridiculous for a person to hinge the central argument for their core belief on a term that has no meaning to them. Without knowing it the person is basically saying that while they don’t even know what a “kind” is they are certain that evolution can’t change one “kind” to another “kind” and that’s enough to serve as the foundation for their entire belief that evolution is false. Moreover, trying to figure out what a “kind” is by applying it to actual organisms is something to be avoided.

I want to go on record as saying that I have never used that term ("kind") to disprove evolution. There is a much, much, much stronger term that kills evolution dead-on (actually two terms):

1. created
2. time

I have posted several times four rock-solid irrefutable evolution-debunking points from Scripture as to how the Bible and evolution are not compatible, and "kinds" has never, nor ever will be, one of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently not, as he seemed to be classifying 'kind' with the Family taxonomic level.

Again, and in my opinion, the taxonomic class known as "kind" went extinct long before taxonomy, as a science, was ever invented.

Only Adam to Job could have classified these animals; and whatever they were, they're long-gone.