To Christians, what's a kind?

[blademan9999]

It's frequently claimed by Creationists that we've only ever seen microevolution, which they define as a variation within a "kind", not macroevolution, which they define as a change to a different "kind". But what is a "kind". It's never well defined, and ranges from a species (humans) to a kingdom (bacteria). A "kind" is not a valid taxonomic rank.
Biologists usually use microevolution to mean evolution above the species level, which has been observed!
Apple maggot flies, ecoli capable of eating nylon and using citrate. (EDIT: my mistake it was originally flavobacterium they found were able to eat nylon, but they were able to experimentally induce it into another species of bacteria, and were later able to transfer it to Ecoli via plasmid transfer, so there still is nylon eating bacteria.) Inability to use citrate is one of the ways biologists use to define ecoli from other species.

Really creationists just use "kind" to count anything observed as merely being microevolution.

So how big is a kind really?

EDIT2: Changed christian to creationist.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It's frequently claimed by Christians that we've only ever seen microevolution, which they define as a variation within a "kind", not macroevolution, which they define as a change to a different "kind". But what is a "kind". It's never well defined, and ranges from a species (humans) to a kingdom (bacteria). A "kind" is not a valid taxonomic rank.
Biologists usually use microevolution to mean evolution above the species level, which has been observed!
Apple maggot flies, ecoli capable of eating nylon and using citrate. Inability to use citrate is one of the ways biologists use to define ecoli from other species.

Really christians just use "kind" to count anything observed as merely being microevolution.

So how big is a kind really?

To most Christians, and to most other people, it is a folk-concept, that has been superseded by scientific classification. To creationists, it is a made-up, unbiblical concept, but they hold to it anyway. The bible does not say "reproduce after their kind". It says , "produce after their kind". What does the producing, according to Genesis, is the physical, material world - the waters and the earth. Genesis does not say how the waters and the earth produced all the forms of life.

 

[USincognito]

It's frequently claimed by Christians that we've only ever seen microevolution...

Creationists. There's a healthy contingent of Christians here who accept evolution and reject the claim that "kinds" is valid scientifically.

You also might want to check out this thread I started 2 1/2 years ago on the subject to get an idea of what sort of responses you'll be getting.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7506236/

 

[AV1611VET]

To Christians, what's a kind?

"Kind" ... like "faith" ... is one of those words that is difficult to define.

It has been filtered into obscurity by modern taxonomy, and trying to use it today within the confines of evolution is the equivalent of trying to put a square peg in a triangular hole.

 

[BarryDesborough]

"Kind" ... like "faith" ... is one of those words that is difficult to define.

It has been filtered into obscurity by modern taxonomy, and trying to use it today within the confines of evolution is the equivalent of trying to put a square peg in a triangular hole.

Reading various bibles, including ones in languages other than English, it is clear that "kind" merely means general type or sort. It was never intended to be a precise concept, other than when specifying dietary taboos. Creationists have hijacked it, in direct defiance of the interdiction against adding to scripture.

 

[OllieFranz]

I have had some small success in talking to Creationists by starting with cladistics, and then suggesting that a "kind" is a special sub-category of clade. One whose root species is taken to be one Created during the Genesis Week (tentatively accepting their interpretation of Genesis, chapter one).

I then point out that unless the root species of one clade is a member of a second clade (and the entire first clade is merely a part of the second clade), the two clades never overlap. Because the root of every "kind" is (or would be) a special creation, none are members of other "kinds."

Macro-evolution (as the Creationists envision it -- a cat giving birth to a dog) is just as impossible in cladistics as it is in Creationism. On the other hand, micro-evolution as many Creationists now accept it --classical micro-evolution plus limited speciation -- is evolution. Everything that the ToE teaches is encompassed by this expanded definition of micro-evolution.

Unfortunately, things usually break down here, as they are convinced that evolutionists teach all sorts of unrelated science -- both theories and speculation -- and even non science opinions (such as atheism) as essential parts of Evolution. And nothing I say can convince them otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reading various bibles, including ones in languages other than English, it is clear that "kind" merely means general type or sort.

Didn't I say that in a roundabout way? except without violating my respect for the KJB?

It was never intended to be a precise concept,

Didn't I say that too?

Creationists have hijacked it, in direct defiance of the interdiction against adding to scripture.

... Huh?

 

[BarryDesborough]

... Huh?

They claim that it denotes boundaries to evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, things usually break down here, as they are convinced that evolutionists teach all sorts of unrelated science -- both theories and speculation -- and even non science opinions (such as atheism) as essential parts of Evolution. And nothing I say can convince them otherwise.

You can't shoehorn cladistics and other Linneaus junk into Genesis, without having to make spaghetti of the Bible.

(Or perhaps that's their intent?)

 

[AV1611VET]

They claim that it denotes boundaries to evolution.

One of the biggest boundaries to evolution is time.

 

[BarryDesborough]

One of the biggest boundaries to evolution is time.

This thread is about "kinds".

 

[Strathos]

"Kind" ... like "faith" ... is one of those words that is difficult to define.

Don't you have a clear definition of faith you like to use?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you have a clear definition of faith you like to use?

I do indeed, but kinds is ... well ... sciency.

 

[CabVet]

I do indeed, but kinds is ... well ... sciency.

Not really. The only place you will find mentions of "kinds" is in the Bible. Nobody refers to species as kinds.

 

[pgp_protector]

Don't you have a clear definition of faith you like to use?

I do indeed, but kinds is ... well ... sciency.

Strange, One would think you would use the definition spelled out in the King James Bible.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strange, One would think you would use the definition spelled out in the King James Bible.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Why is that strange?

This clip from Sanford & Son explains it nicely:

[youtube]0izlnjoUYy8[/youtube]

I try to be like the black cop in that clip.

(That's the cop on the right, to you evolutionists. )

 

[Naraoia]

It's frequently claimed by Christians that we've only ever seen microevolution, which they define as a variation within a "kind", not macroevolution, which they define as a change to a different "kind". But what is a "kind". It's never well defined, and ranges from a species (humans) to a kingdom (bacteria). A "kind" is not a valid taxonomic rank.

Some might say there is no such thing as a "valid taxonomic rank", since they're all arbitrary lines in the sand (Well, except biological species, kind of.)

Apple maggot flies, ecoli capable of eating nylon and using citrate.

The original nylon bugs were Flavobacterium, I believe.

So how big is a kind really?

Kind of big?

You can't shoehorn cladistics and other Linneaus junk into Genesis, without having to make spaghetti of the Bible.

(Or perhaps that's their intent?)

I don't think cladistics needs shoehorning to fit. It's simply the idea that creatures should be classified by common ancestry. It's a sensible idea whether common ancestry goes back to LUCA four billion years ago or to the created kinds six thousand years ago.

(Also, cladistics postdates Linnaean taxonomy by about two centuries )

 

[OllieFranz]

You can't shoehorn cladistics and other Linneaus junk into Genesis, without having to make spaghetti of the Bible.

(Or perhaps that's their intent?)

Cladistics does not involve the Linneaus taxonomy -- it cuts across it. And a clade is exactly what most Creationists who accept a limited speciation mean when they speak of a kind, with one exception. The root species of a clade can be any species, but the root species of a kind is the species created in Genesis 1.

Evolution is the rules. The rules don't care where (or when) the objects which follow them come from. It does not matter to the ToE whether the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago, or 6,000,000 years. What matters is what's here and now. Origins sciences are separate from the ToE.

So, whether they believe me or not, a Creationist who accepts a micro-evolution which includes speciation accept the whole of the ToE.

 

[Lethe]

Evolution is the rules. The rules don't care where (or when) the objects which follow them come from. It does not matter to the ToE whether the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago, or 6,000,000 years. What matters is what's here and now. Origins sciences are separate from the ToE.

Good way of putting it, but an odd conclusion. In practice, apologists barely bother to separate the two in their efforts.

 

[Styx87]

Evolution does not act within the confines of time except to express however long a generation is. Species which produce quickly will evolve quickly (if their biology justifies it: EG; nutritional intake, energy expended etc.).

The problem with Kinds is that creationists can't and won't define their own terms. Defining them means having to be accountable for their shortcomings. Like it was already expressed, most creationists will recognize evolution superficially as "Micro-Evolution" wherein an animal can only change within it's own "kind" (even if they won't define the limits of how much something will change).

They'll recognize that all Domestic Dogs are in fact dogs and that by extension the Coyote and Fox are also Dogs (even though they can't interbreed and won't produce viable offspring). You can even argue that Bears are essentially dogs for they're part of the same family and not all that different morphologically (and I've even gotten creationists to accept this term). But to suggest that by that definition, Pinnipeds (that's sea lions, otters and the walrus) are therefor also part of the same "kind" and would also be considered dogs now suddenly we have a problem.

The problem is that they want to define everything as separate and non-related, specially created "kinds" but can't seem to find anywhere to draw the line. Just like you and your siblings are children of the same parents and that by extension your cousins are related being that you're children of the same grand parents, and you can never grow out of that, or breed out of that relationship. Everything that has ever lived EVER will always be related to eachother and everything else for the same exact reason.

If you can find any single animal and I challenge you to fond even 1 that does not have obvious family members both living and extinct represented in the fossil record that is not obviously related to them and by extension everything else, then I will not only abandon Evolution as a scientific theory but I will even join you in your criticism of Evolution.