To Christians, what's a kind?

[AV1611VET]

Hello, and thanks for the welcome, but I'm not used to it, so may slip . Man I hate not being able to post links

Evolution ties into radiocarbon dating.

In radiocarbon dating we find that, the theory is based upon:
see Fermi's Interaction wiki
And presented scientifically by Willard Libby in 1949.
see radio carbon dating wiki.

yet in Weak interaction we find something peculiar happens around 1957:
see weak interaction wiki
But we don't use a new approach in radiocarbon dating, we use Libby's theory that he got from Fermi's theory which violates parity. A new theory was devised for the weak interaction, but not for radiocarbon dating, which is an effect of the weak interaction. They still use the broken theory to radiocarbon date objects, when it was shown it did not accurately describe the weak interaction of which beta decay is caused.

The sole reason they still use it is without it they could not but guess at the age of things, but reliance on a theory shown to be incorrect is nothing but a guess anyways.

Well, I hope you enjoy it here!

Roll up your sleeves and jump right in!

The water can get plenty warm at times!

 

[CabVet]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline.

A feline is not a "class of species".

All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind.

You must mean biological species. Lions and domestic cats are both felines, but they cannot interbreed.

There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

According to your own definition (ability to interbreed) a saber-tooh and a lion are not the same kind. They are morphologically very different and belong to groups that cannot interbreed.

Adaptation is clearly observed, if we take 1000 black rabbits and place then up north, in a few generations we will have fat white rabbits, but they will always remain rabbits. They will not become cats. That you have birds with beaks adapted to specific feeding habits is adaptation, not evolution. They have adapted to their environment, but are still of the avian kind and always will be. Exactly why we see no transitory species evolving today, it never occurred. You have observed different forms of the same kind and mistaken that for evolution, yet a Pekinese did not "evolve" from a wolf. The canine kind already contained that genetic information within its DNA, it simply needed brought to the fore. Every canine that has ever lived and every one that may yet be bred is already contained within the DNA for that kind, one merely needs a slight rearrangement of genetic code.

But again, a canine has never been anything but a canine, and will always be a canine till the end of time, even if it does not look like something we today would recognize as a canine. Surely evolutionists are not proposing that the Bambino cat is of a different kind besides feline?

Have you ever heard of fossils?

 

[OllieFranz]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline. All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind. There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

Adaptation is clearly observed, if we take 1000 black rabbits and place then up north, in a few generations we will have fat white rabbits, but they will always remain rabbits. They will not become cats. That you have birds with beaks adapted to specific feeding habits is adaptation, not evolution. They have adapted to their environment, but are still of the avian kind and always will be. Exactly why we see no transitory species evolving today, it never occurred. You have observed different forms of the same kind and mistaken that for evolution, yet a Pekinese did not "evolve" from a wolf. The canine kind already contained that genetic information within its DNA, it simply needed brought to the fore. Every canine that has ever lived and every one that may yet be bred is already contained within the DNA for that kind, one merely needs a slight rearrangement of genetic code.

But again, a canine has never been anything but a canine, and will always be a canine till the end of time, even if it does not look like something we today would recognize as a canine. Surely evolutionists are not proposing that the Bambino cat is of a different kind besides feline?

Welcome to CF. I hope that since you chose to start by jumping into the diving pool, rather than a "safer" one that it means that you will not be discouraged if (when) the discussion becomes stormy.

In any case, look through my posts earlier in this thread and tell me if you can agree with my assumption that "kinds" and clades are basically the same thing, with the additional assumption that the root species of a "kind" is the product of Special Creation (Genesis 1 Creation week Creation).

** If I was not clear about the definition of a clade, it consists of a species (the root species) and all of the species (both extant and extinct) that split off from it. For example the Feline clade consists of the first primitive cat species, and every cat species that came from it. Cladistics allows the root species to be chosen randomly, and so one allowable "random" choice would be to set every species alive 6000 years ago to be the root of a separate clade. These particular clades should then be "kinds" **

 

[Styx87]

@Justatruthseeker: Right. In fact Lions and Tigers can even interbreed but the offspring are only ever infertile hybrids and will never produce anything.

About Dogs or canine kinds (something I have a great deal more experience than cats)

Maybe you can clear some things up for me.... Are Wolves and Foxes of the Canine kind? They are both very dog like, no? If they are the same kind why can't they interbreed? How about something closer related than that... The grey wolf (canis lupus) and African wild dog (lycaon pictus) are both dogs, right? But again, they can't interbreed either, why? Are they not dogs and if not why not? If they aren't then what are they?

If something doesn't have to be able to interbreed to be of the same kind then what are the criteria? Shared characteristics perhaps? If so then are the Hippo and Pig of the same kind? (that there be a trick question)

So about all the chaos in my post there, maybe you can sort it out a bit, please let me know if you can shed some light for me. Thank you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A feline is not a "class of species".

You must mean biological species. Lions and domestic cats are both felines, but they cannot interbreed.

According to your own definition (ability to interbreed) a saber-tooh and a lion are not the same kind. They are morphologically very different and belong to groups that cannot interbreed.

I would have used the proper classification name of "Felidae", but figured most would go whaaaat? Are you telling me you believe that my black house cat is not of the same species as a lion, even though today they can not interbreed? We have made Ligers, showing Tigers and Lions could mate if needed. Other breeds of the large cats (Ocelot) have been known to produce offspring with house-cats. That the gene for interbreeding has been repressed for lack of survival needs, does not mean they do not belong to the same kind, when their genetic makeup is exactly the same???

You appear to want man to come from an ape, when their genetic makeup does not even contain the same amount of chromosomes and clearly puts them in a separate species. It is you who are implying two separate species genetically is of the same kind, not me who simply agrees that two cats whether lion or tabby house-cat are the same species or kind as they have the same chromosomal makeup. Do not imply something to me of which I did not state and I will not do the same.

Now had you said that man and ape both might be merely different physical forms of the same species one merely loosing chromosomes, not one from the other, you might have had a case. After all, a donkey and a horse can breed, even though you claim they are of separate species because of chromosonal count. Yet man and ape can not.

Have you ever heard of fossils?

I could ask the same. We have over one hundred million fossils in museums around the world. We have how many billions of years of evolution according to mainstream? And of this you have maybe 100 fragments, usually found in amongst a mix of bones of hundreds of species. They have used fragments of pig skulls to fragments of orangutang skulls in a misguided effort to defend evolution. Well documented historical forgeries. Almost all of the fragments you claim belong together were not even found in close proximity. Lucy a prime example. Over 200 yards and 50 feet of elevation separating the individual fragments you claim are one, yet its proof, lookie see. Fossilized trees, growing right in amongst all your layers of billions of ages of settlement. Crossing one boundary to the next. A dating theory that was based upon a theory discarded in the 50's as unworkable. yet still claimed as proof.

So yes, let us discuss fossils, where do you want to start?

Styx87
Agreed! A complicated subject is kind after kind. It's not that bad tho. If all cats came from the same source, then all would share a basic base makeup that might vary in physical appearance greatly. Look what we have done with cats and dogs over just a short span of time. Yet they are all still cats and dogs, even though quite a few are sterile and cannot interbreed. When I get to the point where I can post links we'll discuss the scientific definition of God and whether it is possible for such to exist. I do not believe science knows what a species or classification is. Some they class on chromosomal count, some merely because they have like appearances. There is no true one basic rule that governs what seperates each kind. One is therefore able to apply any theory to it one wants, as it is like silly putty and can cover any idea. Look alike, must be the same species. Different chromosome count (man and rabbit), must be different species. Different chromosome count (man and ape), must be same species. Same chromosome count (man and sable antelope) must be different species. Whaaaaat? I can apply any theory I want to that complete mess. I say there currently exists no way to show anything except if it can mate, it is of the same kind. beyond that no one has a clue.

Figure if you gonna get wet you might as well dive in

 

[Aman777]

To Christians, what's a kind?
Blade:>>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.

Dear Blade, Sure it is. It is the eternal definition of the differences in "His kinds." The His being Jesus Christ, for without Him was nothing made which was made. The current classification system will be burned, along with our world, soon. His "kinds" will replace the current, incomplete, changable system of men. God's Truth changes NOT.

In Love,
Aman

 

[CabVet]

I would have used the proper classification name of "Felidae", but figured most would go whaaaat? Are you telling me you believe that my black house cat is not of the same species as a lion, even though today they can not interbreed?

I will stop right there and not even going to address the rest of your post. No, your black house cat is certainly not the same species as a lion. They are not even the same genus. The species of the domestic cat is Felis catus, the lion is Panthera leo. Contrarily to what you say, all of them have lots of genetic differences. This phylogenetic tree is based on their DNA differences:

If you say that cats and lions are the same species, humans and orangutans are too.

 

[CabVet]

Dear Blade, Sure it is. It is the eternal definition of the differences in "His kinds." The His being Jesus Christ, for without Him was nothing made which was made. The current classification system will be burned, along with our world, soon. His "kinds" will replace the current, incomplete, changable system of men. God's Truth changes NOT.

In other words, there is no definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I will stop right there and not even going to address the rest of your post. No, your black house cat is certainly not the same species as a lion. They are not even the same genus. The species of the domestic cat is Felis catus, the lion is Panthera leo. Contrarily to what you say, all of them have lots of genetic differences. This phylogenetic tree is based on their DNA differences:

If you say that cats and lions are the same species, humans and orangutans are too.

And you have based you fancy theory on what? You need to look up species and the "species problem" discussed amongst biologists, not what evolutionists are telling you it is. Will quote only from wiki since I can't post links to the real papers right now.

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomical rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).
Species hypothesized to have the same ancestors are placed in one genus, based on similarities. The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes, especially their DNA sequences, where available. All species are given a two-part name a "binomial name". The first part of a binomial name is the generic name, the genus of the species. The second part is either called the specific name (a term used only in zoology) or the specific epithet (the term used in botany, which can also be used in zoology). For example Boa constrictor is one of four species of the Boa genus. The first part of the name is capitalized, and the second part has a lower case. The binomial name is written in italics when printed and underlined when handwritten.
A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity, though other taxonomic levels such as families may be considered in broad-scale studies. Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to assign precise taxonomic rankings, which is why higher taxonomic levels such as families are often used for fossil-based studies.

So not only is your whole classification system based upon mere whimsy in most cases, you are even more limited in fossils, and have to use a broad stroke pen.

Species problem"

Disagreements and confusion happen over just what the best criteria are for identifying new species. In 1942, Ernst Mayr wrote that, because biologists have different ways of identifying species, they actually have different species concepts. Mayr listed five different species concepts, and since then many more have been added. The question of which species concept is best has occupied many printed pages and many hours of discussion

So I doubt we'll solve it here or agree on it one bit, just as it is currently disagreed on amongst biologists. You have a classification system based upon whimsy that is made of silly putty that you can mold into any shape you need to fit any theory I so choose to apply it to. The very fact that there are at least a dozen different ways argued to classify a species shows reliance upon such classification is not supported. For a theory to be valid it must have concrete concepts, not based upon a ideas that can adapt to anything anybody wants to define a species as. Want to say animals that look alike are the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals that look alike aren't the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals with the same chromosome count are the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals with different chromosome counts are different species, it allows that. it allows me to say whatever I choose to say it says. it will always agree with any theory of species.

But I am curious why you use radiocarbon dating to try to prove your theory when the one it was based upon was disproved over 50 years ago?

 

[OllieFranz]

@Justatruthseeker: Right. In fact Lions and Tigers can even interbreed but the offspring are only ever infertile hybrids and will never produce anything.

Not quite. Many liger females are fertile, and when bred back with one of the parent species (I don't remember which) have given birth. It is a rare occurance, but it happens. They can't breed with other ligers, or with tigons, or with the other parent species, though. And there is the same situation with the horse/donkey hybrids (mule and hinney). It helps show that the speciation is not quite complete.

About Dogs or canine kinds (something I have a great deal more experience than cats)

Maybe you can clear some things up for me.... Are Wolves and Foxes of the Canine kind? They are both very dog like, no? If they are the same kind why can't they interbreed? How about something closer related than that... The grey wolf (canis lupus) and African wild dog (lycaon pictus) are both dogs, right? But again, they can't interbreed either, why? Are they not dogs and if not why not? If they aren't then what are they?

I tend to overlook bad terminology (in this case a poor understanding of taxonomic levels), and focus on what we can agree on. It may be the difference in our philosophies in approaching a Creationist. I am more interested in showing them that the ToE is not the demon that they have been taught "Darwinism" is, and that, in fact, they probably already accept the ToE, than in looking for things to fight about.

If something doesn't have to be able to interbreed to be of the same kind then what are the criteria? Shared characteristics perhaps? If so then are the Hippo and Pig of the same kind? (that there be a trick question)

So about all the chaos in my post there, maybe you can sort it out a bit, please let me know if you can shed some light for me. Thank you.

 

[OllieFranz]

And you have based you fancy theory on what? You need to look up species and the "species problem" discussed amongst biologists, not what evolutionists are telling you it is. Will quote only from wiki since I can't post links to the real papers right now.
So not only is your whole classification system based upon mere whimsy in most cases, you are even more limited in fossils, and have to use a broad stroke pen.

Species problem"
So I doubt we'll solve it here or agree on it one bit, just as it is currently disagreed on amongst biologists. You have a classification system based upon whimsy that is made of silly putty that you can mold into any shape you need to fit any theory I so choose to apply it to. The very fact that there are at least a dozen different ways argued to classify a species shows reliance upon such classification is not supported. For a theory to be valid it must have concrete concepts, not based upon a ideas that can adapt to anything anybody wants to define a species as. Want to say animals that look alike are the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals that look alike aren't the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals with the same chromosome count are the same species, it allows that. Want to say animals with different chromosome counts are different species, it allows that. it allows me to say whatever I choose to say it says. it will always agree with any theory of species.

But I am curious why you use radiocarbon dating to try to prove your theory when the one it was based upon was disproved over 50 years ago?

All levels of Linnean taxonomy above species are artificial in that they were devised by man for his convenience. That is why we sometimes get half-levels, sub-levels, etc. Species is the only one based on a natural division, and even there, in cases of incomplete speciation, as seen in mules or in Ring Species, there is some muddying of the bright line (Not to mention the problem of the traditional "able to interbreed" definition when applied to creatures that do not reproduce sexually). That does not rener Linnean taxonomy useless, but it does illustrate that, when studying evolution, cladistics is a bettr tool.

Linnean taxonomy can be a red herring for either side in a discussion of evolution, and both sides should avoid arguing about it.

With cladistics we don't need to debate whether two groups are the same species, or if not how far up the taxonomic ladder we have to climb before they are grouped together. All we need to ask is "Are they related?" If the answer is yes, then they are in the same clade, and have a common ancestor.

 

[USincognito]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline. All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind. There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

Why do Creationists, when trying to explain "kinds" only talk about the barnyard or petting zoo animals? Horsies, moo cows and kitty cats aren't the only animals in the world and such myopia ignores "kinds" of plants and fungi.

What about mollusks?
What about arthropods?
What about roundworms?
What about sedges?
What about cacti?
Etc.

 

[USincognito]

You appear to want man to come from an ape, when their genetic makeup does not even contain the same amount of chromosomes and clearly puts them in a separate species.

Humans are apes.
You might want to read up on Human Chromosome 2.
Who, well anywhere, is sugging that humans and our fellow apes are the same species?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do Creationists, when trying to explain "kinds" only talk about the barnyard or petting zoo animals? Horsies, moo cows and kitty cats aren't the only animals in the world and such myopia ignores "kinds" of plants and fungi.

What about mollusks?
What about arthropods?
What about roundworms?
What about sedges?
What about cacti?
Etc.

I like my list better.

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions
9. whalefish
10. cud-chewing hare

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

So it doesn't matter if we talk about them, or bring up cryptids, does it?

The results are the same, are they not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are apes.

I disagree.

 

[blademan9999]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline. All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind. There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

Adaptation is clearly observed, if we take 1000 black rabbits and place then up north, in a few generations we will have fat white rabbits, but they will always remain rabbits. They will not become cats. That you have birds with beaks adapted to specific feeding habits is adaptation, not evolution. They have adapted to their environment, but are still of the avian kind and always will be. Exactly why we see no transitory species evolving today, it never occurred. You have observed different forms of the same kind and mistaken that for evolution, yet a Pekinese did not "evolve" from a wolf. The canine kind already contained that genetic information within its DNA, it simply needed brought to the fore. Every canine that has ever lived and every one that may yet be bred is already contained within the DNA for that kind, one merely needs a slight rearrangement of genetic code.

But again, a canine has never been anything but a canine, and will always be a canine till the end of time, even if it does not look like something we today would recognize as a canine. Surely evolutionists are not proposing that the Bambino cat is of a different kind besides feline?

What's stopping successive small changes from becoming big changes.
Also there's the long term ecoli experiment which managed to get Ecoli which use citrate. There's nylon eating bacteria. There's the apple maggot fly.
Some more here www .talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[blademan9999]

I like my list better.


So it doesn't matter if we talk about them, or bring up cryptids, does it?

The results are the same, are they not?

Nope, they're your problem not mind, since they don't exist in reality.

 

[BarryDesborough]

What's stopping successive small changes from becoming big changes.
Also there's the long term ecoli experiment which managed to get Ecoli which use citrate. There's nylon eating bacteria. There's the apple maggot fly.
Some more here www .talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That's Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[blademan9999]

That's Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]

I've less then 50 posts so I can't post links.
Thanks for posting the link though!

 

[AV1611VET]

What's stopping successive small changes from becoming big changes.

Time.