What's a "Kind"?

[theIdi0t]

I for the life of me, cannot figure out what "Kind" is, is it just shorthand for whatever you think it kind-of looks like?

Like is a spider a kind of ant?

Tiktaalik a kind of fish, or a kind of lizard?

"Is a platypus a kind of kangaroo or a kind of beaver or a kind of duck?"

Is there some method to this madness?

The creationist I run in to who mention "Kind", seems to not know what it means either; they usually refer me to some nonexistent place in cyberspace, in hopes that I get lost and never ask again.

I assume it comes from Noah's two of each kind, so I guess that makes defining kind a sort of heresy, since if we define kinds then we are saying we know exactly which animals Noah stuffed into the ark.

So if kind is completely subjective then why even use it?

If it serves no use, then why not can it?

Or is there something I'm missing here?

From AiG:
"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy."

 

[laptoppop]

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm

 

[shernren]

Here are two violently dissenting discussions of baraminology:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm
http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2006/01/ineffectual-rebuttal-baraminology.html

Admittedly, some of the points made have been answered in the review. But not all have.

Regardless, there's an absolute gem in the second article: it's an abstract from an actual baraminology paper, about nothing less than humanity!

"Quantitative methods for identifying holobaramins have yet to be introduced into the field of baraminology. In this report we examine some quantitative methods which may be applied to a variety of biological data to empirically estimate the identity of holobaramins. Organismal relationships are based on a measure of dissimilarity called baraminic distance. A set of diagnostic statistics is described that allows the researcher to assess the completeness, variation, resolving power, and associations within a data set. Bootstrapped dendrograms are constructed to identify clusters of organisms, which are subsequently evaluated for phylogenetic discontinuity by comparing baraminic distance variation, and by correlating sets of baraminic distances. Using this approach both related monobaraminic groups and unrelated apobaraminic groups can be identified. The described methods are illustrated using data from humans and nonhuman primates, a group assumed by baraminologists to be polybaraminic. We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates."
​

(emphasis added) Strip away the technical jargon, and what the abstract is really saying is:

We have no idea what statistics are the most important for constructing baramins.
But here's a guess which we think is pretty darn good.
We already know that humans and monkeys are different baramins. How can we tell them apart?
If we focus on looks and houses*, we can distinguish men from monkeys.
But if we look at molecular biology or genetics we can't tell them apart.
​

(corresponding emphases added)

Whoops.

*"houses", that is to say, ecological niches, of which there are really and sadly quite few in which you don't find people.

 

[laptoppop]

Right. I didn't mean to imply there were no objections to baraminology -- just that the question of "kinds" is being pursued by a particular group of scientists -- and that there has been significant work done in the field that is ongoing. It is not that YEC scientists are not interested in a better understanding of "kinds".

 

[shernren]

What do you think of this "important work" when baraminologists themselves say that they can't tell the difference between men and apes on a biochemical level?

 

[theIdi0t]

What do you think of this "important work" when baraminologists themselves say that they can't tell the difference between men and apes on a biochemical level?

You know what always bugged me about "official" creation science, is that it tries and maneuver around the elephant in the room. Case in point you were able to simplify that lengthy passage, into a few sentences. Why should I always have to read between the lines?

Why can't the article just flat out tell me, that they cannot tell the difference between men and apes on a biochemical level? It's the same issue I have with ID, when it trys to maneuver around Yahweh. I want Behe to come out and tell me, "Jesus is the Way", reluctance to do so not only makes me skeptical of ones science, but one's religion as well.

 

[vossler]

Why can't the article just flat out tell me, that they cannot tell the difference between men and apes on a biochemical level? It's the same issue I have with ID, when it trys to maneuver around Yahweh. I want Behe to come out and tell me, "Jesus is the Way", reluctance to do so not only makes me skeptical of ones science, but one's religion as well.

I agree completely, but I would take it a step further. Evolution (Common descent) states as fact that man came from the goo to you without hardly any hard evidence to support it. I want evolutionists to quit stating it's a fact and just tell us the truth that they don't really know but this is their best guess.

 

[theIdi0t]

I agree completely, but I would take it a step further. Evolution (Common descent) states as fact that man came from the goo to you without hardly any hard evidence to support it. I want evolutionists to quit stating it's a fact and just tell us the truth that they don't really know but this is their best guess.

Well, Behe believes in Common descent.

And the same evidence that supports increased diversity (for the creationist this starts from Noah's Ark, to our increased diversity today) is the same that supports from goo to you.

For the evolutionist you and goo, are part of the same "kind".

Which if you really think about it, a literalist "kind" is broader than an evolutionist, since Genesis says we evolved from dirt, man and dirt can be classified as the same "kind".

 

[laptoppop]

What do you think of this "important work" when baraminologists themselves say that they can't tell the difference between men and apes on a biochemical level?

I would say
1) you can't determine an entire field from one article
2) there are differences between folks in the field just like every other field
3) studying this as a modern science discipline is quite new -- the field is still very much developing

 

[theIdi0t]

I would say
1) you can't determine an entire field from one article
2) there are differences between folks in the field just like every other field
3) studying this as a modern science discipline is quite new -- the field is still very much developing

If you know a car is not ready to drive then you shouldn't be putting it out on the market.

If you are going to use the word "Kind" so often, yet have no method to define what it means, the word should not be used, because it's an accident waiting to happen.

 

[plainswolf]

I for the life of me, cannot figure out what "Kind" is, is it just shorthand for whatever you think it kind-of looks like?

Like is a spider a kind of ant?

Tiktaalik a kind of fish, or a kind of lizard?

"Is a platypus a kind of kangaroo or a kind of beaver or a kind of duck?"

Is there some method to this madness?

The creationist I run in to who mention "Kind", seems to not know what it means either; they usually refer me to some nonexistent place in cyberspace, in hopes that I get lost and never ask again.

I assume it comes from Noah's two of each kind, so I guess that makes defining kind a sort of heresy, since if we define kinds then we are saying we know exactly which animals Noah stuffed into the ark.

So if kind is completely subjective then why even use it?

If it serves no use, then why not can it?

Or is there something I'm missing here?

From AiG:
"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy."

This is a good question and the very one I was wondering about. I suppose it would depend on how the writer of Genesis defined "Kind", and that's what I'd like to know..




+

 

[shernren]

I agree completely, but I would take it a step further. Evolution (Common descent) states as fact that man came from the goo to you without hardly any hard evidence to support it. I want evolutionists to quit stating it's a fact and just tell us the truth that they don't really know but this is their best guess.

"without hardly any" = "with lots and lots of"? Double negatives are really confusing. It's probably a very premature claim to make while your thread with gluadys is still running its course. In any case, the latest piece of evidence is coming from no less than the creationists themselves: in terms of biochemistry they can't distinguish between man and ape, even though their grand baraminological scale says they should be able to.

I would say
1) you can't determine an entire field from one article
2) there are differences between folks in the field just like every other field
3) studying this as a modern science discipline is quite new -- the field is still very much developing

Well, if they can admit that their own methods can't find biochemical differences between man and ape, even when their methods are biased from the start to find such a difference, that's really all I need to hear - until, of course, they can fix it. I'm looking forward to seeing what else they can come up with.

 

[laptoppop]

Again - be careful about drawing too much from the abstract of a single article.

 

[vossler]

"without hardly any" = "with lots and lots of"? Double negatives are really confusing.

Yikes! Now that was pretty ugly. (How's that for an oxymoron )

In any case, the latest piece of evidence is coming from no less than the creationists themselves: in terms of biochemistry they can't distinguish between man and ape, even though their grand baraminological scale says they should be able to.

As laptoppop pointed out, it's a bit early to start building any foundations of thought or truth on this just yet.

 

[mark kennedy]

I for the life of me, cannot figure out what "Kind" is, is it just shorthand for whatever you think it kind-of looks like?


From AiG:
"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy."

I would say that the term 'kind' is best reflected by the term genus. Partly because I like the etymology of the word, it actually means origin and has the same root as Genesis. At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

 

[shernren]

Like I said, I'll be looking forward to anything more they can say on the matter. I accept that this is a preliminary conclusion - having said that, you can't deny that it is a conclusion of sorts.

 

[theIdi0t]

I would say that the term 'kind' is best reflected by the term genus. Partly because I like the etymology of the word, it actually means origin and has the same root as Genesis. At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

If genus already serves the purpose, then why even introduce "kind" particularly when it just leaves everyone scratching their head. I guess that's the purpose?

 

[gluadys]

I would say that the term 'kind' is best reflected by the term genus. Partly because I like the etymology of the word, it actually means origin and has the same root as Genesis. At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

This piqued my curiosity enough to check out how the early translations of the Hebrew handled the Hebrew term 'min' (kind)

The Septuagint indeed translates it as "genus" throughout Genesis 1.

But what is really interesting is the Vulgate translation.

Here the Hebrew is translated sometimes as "genus" and sometimes as "species". And the balance is remarkable, almost as if Jerome wanted to give as much weight to one translation as the other.

11 Et ait: Germinet terra herbam virentem, et facientem sperm, et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum juxta genus suum, cujus sperm in semetipso sit super terram. Et factum est ita.

12 Et protulit terra herbam virentem, et facientem sperm juxta genus suum, lignumque faciens fructum, et habens unumquodque sementem secundum speciem suam. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.


21 Creavitque Deus cete grandia, et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem, quam produxerant aquæ in species suas, et omne volatile secundum genus suum. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.

24 Dixit quoque Deus: Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, jumenta, et reptilia, et bestias terræ secundum species suas. Factumque est ita.

25 Et fecit Deus bestias terræ juxta species suas, et jumenta, et omne reptile terræ in genere suo.
Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.

Of course, the Latin speaking theologians and scientists of Western Europe adopted the Latin term "species" with the understanding that it meant "kind". And it was with this understanding that Linneaus made "species" (i.e. "kind") the basic unit of his hierarchical classification of life forms.

Until the Linnean system of classification became standard "genus" and "species" were to all intents and purposes synonyms. Both meant "kind".

 

[artybloke]

"without hardly any" = "with lots and lots of"? Double negatives are really confusing.

From the Grammar Police:

In English a Double Negative means "more negative". English isn't Latin, it's half-German, half Norman French.

And it's not a double negative anyway. It's a single negative with an adverb qualifying the verb "to do" (which in this case has been removed from the sentence.)

Carry on. See that it doesn't happen again.

The Grammar Police.