To Christians, what's a kind?

[CabVet]

fish don't mate, (only mammals, whales, dolphins, etc) and reptiles.

You asked for no snide remarks, so I will try my best, but before I address the rest of the post I will have to address this portion. Not only fish mate, but the most primitive ones (sharks) do.

[youtube]JHUm6cgLbYY[/youtube]

 

[CabVet]

Since reptiles still lay hard shelled eggs not like the soft shelled eggs of fish which allow the sperm to pass through, it cannot be claimed it arose to aid in the reproductive process, apparently they have never changed, but how did they reproduce before the sex organs became fully functional?

So much misinformation in a single post, oh my... Not only reptile eggs are soft, but all eggs (even ours, yes, we do have eggs) allow for sperm penetration only until they are fertilized, after that no other sperm enters.

 

[HitchSlap]

Can I ask a question without getting snide remarks? I would prefer to keep things civil.

What good is the stick between your legs until it and the entire reproductive system in both male and female is entirely formed and functional? Harmful and useless mutations are bred out of a species, and those that remain are almost always fatal. but the fossil record shows clams, and mollusks, then fully formed reptiles. But it had to have taken millions of years for reproductive organs to form, fish don't mate, (only mammals, whales, dolphins, etc) and reptiles. So until the sex organs were fully formed in both sexes at the same exact time, they were completely useless, an unnecessary expenditure of energy going against survival. Since reptiles still lay hard shelled eggs not like the soft shelled eggs of fish which allow the sperm to pass through, it cannot be claimed it arose to aid in the reproductive process, apparently they have never changed, but how did they reproduce before the sex organs became fully functional? The same with humans, having a child lessens survival chances as a pregnant woman can not flee a predator, thereby the mother AND young would be in danger. While egg clutches may get destroyed, the male and female live to reproduce again by fleeing the nest if unable to defend it. And if one or both dies, the chances some eggs may hatch anyways and survive is only lessened, not stopped.

Simple organism reproduce by division, supposedly the same as they did billions of years ago. Why are they not still evolving into reptiles, and reptiles into birds? As a matter of fact, why are they not evolving into anything from anything? The only appearance change besides color we have ever observed is when man tinkers with the genes, yet they still remain the same species. I say there is more evidence against evolution than for it. I will gladly agree that adaptation occurs, but there is no evidence for one species changing into another. The differences of form may have led some to come to that wrong conclusion, but as we see with any animal that has its genes maniplulated to make different forms, they are always still the same kind as originally. That we can do it shows form change can occur naturally, but not species change. A pug dog does not resemble a wolf at all, yet biologists believe they came from the same class. So that one might believe by appearances alone that an animal evolved into something that does not even look alike is understandable, but misguided. We just don't know half as much as we like to think we do. Was it not Stephen Hawking that said we were close to a theory of everything? That's quite pompous if you ask me, as if no major discoveries in science are yet to be made that they have all already been made and now we just need to refine theories. I'd say exactly what that is, but don't want to use bad language.

Do you accept the possibility you may not understand ToE, and you just might be wrong?

 

[CabVet]

Do you accept the possibility you may not understand ToE, and you just might be wrong?

He doesn't seem to understand the most basic levels of biology either.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

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.
​

Cab:>>In other words, there is no definition.

Dear Cab, Not for those who have a problem comprehending simple things. If you have a question about my definition, be a little more specific. Are you sure English is your first language? Perhaps you have a problem with Jesus?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Justatruthseeker]

CabVet; Hitchslap;

Sharks belong to a completely different class of swimming creature of the cartilage structure, they do not have bones like any other species of fish, they are closer to rays than actual fish. That once again you have chosen to lump them in the same species just because they live in water and swim and have fish-like appearances, just shows how malleable your theory of classification is that we were just debating. I told you, it is silly putty that you can do with as you please and not reliable as a basis on which to judge any theory. If it was they still wouldn't be arguing over what should be placed where in the class structure, it would of been settled already. You need to understand what's going on in the real world of biological research and study, not just what someone has said it is, or was printed ages ago and no one has bothered to change because they don't know what to change it to. They are debating whether to redo the entire structure, but the problem is everyone has a different idea of how it should be done, so in the meantime they just leave it as it is.

And it isn't even evolution I am against. It's your firm insistence that I "believe" it is true without a miracle, even though you require just that in your Big Bang. All of existence formed in an explosive release of energy from nothing, hmmm, where have I heard that theory before? Dare I mention that it was proposed by a priest? If you choose to "believe" that is fine with me, I could actually care less if you believe, I am just here because I like to debate . Jesus said "turn the other cheek" not bend over. Which is taken out of context by the way. The custom of the time was to slap someone with your right hand - one ate with their left hand and wiped themselves with their right. By turning the other cheek one forces them to use the left hand acknowledging you an equal if they choose to strike again, and therefore not an insult. People always forget the customs of the times, which makes a parable rather useless.

So if we are going to classify species, let's at least get a sensible order out of it. I actually have no problem thinking Modern Man and Neanderthal may be of the same kind, evidence suggests they existed within the same span, it's just your dating that is flawed. And we see the different forms a species can take just with dogs and cats. Why do we use dogs and cats almost exclusively someone asked? Because they are the most studied and genetically experimented upon animals, its only natural one would use the best evidence that might actually say something instead of just supposition about things we know not.

 

[CabVet]

=
Dear Cab, Not for those who have a problem comprehending simple things. If you have a question about my definition, be a little more specific. Are you sure English is your first language? Perhaps you have a problem with Jesus?

I have no problem with Jesus, please don't put words in my mouth. I am asking for a definition of "kind" and you are yet to provide one, so that leads me to conclude that there isn't one.

 

[OllieFranz]

Can I ask a question without getting snide remarks? I would prefer to keep things civil.

What good is the stick between your legs until it and the entire reproductive system in both male and female is entirely formed and functional? Harmful and useless mutations are bred out of a species, and those that remain are almost always fatal. but the fossil record shows clams, and mollusks, then fully formed reptiles. But it had to have taken millions of years for reproductive organs to form, fish don't mate, (only mammals, whales, dolphins, etc) and reptiles. So until the sex organs were fully formed in both sexes at the same exact time, they were completely useless, an unnecessary expenditure of energy going against survival. Since reptiles still lay hard shelled eggs not like the soft shelled eggs of fish which allow the sperm to pass through, it cannot be claimed it arose to aid in the reproductive process, apparently they have never changed, but how did they reproduce before the sex organs became fully functional? The same with humans, having a child lessens survival chances as a pregnant woman can not flee a predator, thereby the mother AND young would be in danger. While egg clutches may get destroyed, the male and female live to reproduce again by fleeing the nest if unable to defend it. And if one or both dies, the chances some eggs may hatch anyways and survive is only lessened, not stopped.

Simple organism reproduce by division, supposedly the same as they did billions of years ago. Why are they not still evolving into reptiles, and reptiles into birds? As a matter of fact, why are they not evolving into anything from anything? The only appearance change besides color we have ever observed is when man tinkers with the genes, yet they still remain the same species. I say there is more evidence against evolution than for it. I will gladly agree that adaptation occurs, but there is no evidence for one species changing into another. The differences of form may have led some to come to that wrong conclusion, but as we see with any animal that has its genes maniplulated to make different forms, they are always still the same kind as originally. That we can do it shows form change can occur naturally, but not species change. A pug dog does not resemble a wolf at all, yet biologists believe they came from the same class. So that one might believe by appearances alone that an animal evolved into something that does not even look alike is understandable, but misguided. We just don't know half as much as we like to think we do. Was it not Stephen Hawking that said we were close to a theory of everything? That's quite pompous if you ask me, as if no major discoveries in science are yet to be made that they have all already been made and now we just need to refine theories. I'd say exactly what that is, but don't want to use bad language.

You might want to look up the word cloaca. Most non-mammals only have one opening "down there" that serves for both kinds of waste and for reproduction. They mate by lining up their cloacas. IIRC, only a few species of birds have any structure to make that alignment easier. So we can see exactly how they reproduced "before the sex organs became fully functional" just by looking at living examples.

Likewise "a theory of everything" is not a claim to everything that can be known, it is a physics theory combining several currently irreconcilable theories. Einstein called it a Unified Field Theory, but that was when it was thought gravity and electro-magnetism were the only fundamental forces.

I have been telling the others on this thread to be more respectful of Creationists, but a post like this where someone pontificates on something he cleary does not understand makes it hard.

 

[CabVet]

Sharks belong to a completely different class of swimming creature of the cartilage structure, they do not have bones like any other species of fish, they are closer to rays than actual fish.

You are wrong, sharks are fish, and so are rays. And just to show you how wrong you are I will give you examples of other fish (fish that have bones, since you moved the goalpost) that mate and have internal fertilization.

[youtube]tzSWlWyEKoA[/youtube]

[youtube]CmA2A-1Ne38[/youtube]

Guppies and platies are just two examples, I can post many more if you want. But go ahead and say that they are not fish (like sharks, LOL), I will find more.

Please, try to learn some basic biology before you attempt to debate it.

 

[CabVet]

It's your firm insistence that I "believe" it is true without a miracle, even though you require just that in your Big Bang.

For the record, nobody here is insisting that you "believe" in anything. You can believe in whatever you want, that is your choice, not exactly sure where you live but in most places of the world that holds true. What I (and others here) don't like seeing is someone making up wrong "facts" about evolution and biology in general, which is what you are doing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have no problem with Jesus, please don't put words in my mouth. I am asking for a definition of "kind" and you are yet to provide one, so that leads me to conclude that there isn't one.

There isn't, any more than there is a definition of species. We are limited to the same vocabulary you are and the same lack of understanding. Kind after kind is all we know, and that has all that has ever been observed within the natural world around us or in the lab. We have never observed any other form of continuance of a species except kind after kind. We can imagine anything happens, but the only facts we have ever seen is reproduction kind after kind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Likewise "a theory of everything" is not a claim to everything that can be known, it is a physics theory combining several currently irreconcilable theories. Einstein called it a Unified Field Theory, but that was when it was thought gravity and electro-magnetism were the only fundamental forces.

I have been telling the others on this thread to be more respectful of Creationists, but a post like this where someone pontificates on something he cleary does not understand makes it hard.

Oh I understand its a pain sometimes for both sides, but we won't get into the theory of the universe and how wrong mainstream theory is just now until I can post links. And yes, I believe in Relativity completely as Einstein first envisioned it, not as lesser men twisted it afterwards. I believe the title of his first paper says it all.

 

[CabVet]

There isn't, any more than there is a definition of species. We are limited to the same vocabulary you are and the same lack of understanding. Kind after kind is all we know, and that has all that has ever been observed within the natural world around us or in the lab. We have never observed any other form of continuance of a species except kind after kind. We can imagine anything happens, but the only facts we have ever seen is reproduction kind after kind.

I can give you 50 definitions of species. Here is one:

"A species is a group of individuals which can breed together (panmixia). However, they cannot breed with other groups. In other words, the group is reproductively isolated from other groups."

The one above is called the biological species concept. Do you want others? How about this:

"A species is a lineage with its own evolutionary role and tendencies."

That is the evolutionary species concept. This one:

"A species is a set of organisms exploiting (or adapted to) a single niche."

That is the ecological species concept.

By the way, you still have to address the points I made about fish reproduction.

 

[ChristianT]

Hello. I'm studying biblical Greek and was amazed to find a precursor to a science word we know. It means "kind, race, or type" and the Greek word is "genos," more or less, the same as the Latinized "genus." Of course, being in pre-evolution theory history, the word had just that simple meaning.

And the previous Hebrew word for "kind" is even less descriptive, describing a "kind, sort, variation." So by biblical standards of language, "variation in kinds," which is microevolution, which is proven, is the same as Evolution proper (macroevolution).

So to me, a novice biblical languages student, the idea of evolution being a controversy is absurd. I respect those who disagree, but the Kinds Argument doesn't work, and I can't say it ever has.

 

[USincognito]

"A coyote leaves a DNA trail down to the dingo, then the trail ends."

How do you figure? Care to cite a genetic study showing this?

How do you follow a genetic trail, and how do you determine where it ends?

He, like many people ignorant of biology but willing to offer their opinion englessly nonetheless, thinks dingos are a separate canid species. People that actually know what they're talking about know that dingoes are feral subspecies of Canis Lupus and most likely are domesticated dogs gone feral - that is they're descended from wolves (like all domestic dogs) and not coyotes.

 

[blademan9999]

I will gladly agree that adaptation occurs, but there is no evidence for one species changing into another.

Apple magot flies.

 

[USincognito]

What good is the stick between your legs until it and the entire reproductive system in both male and female is entirely formed and functional?

This is really one of the most bizarre and confusing questions I see Creationists ask. I know they have a bit of a straw version of evolution, but with this question they appear to be suggesting that evolution says a fully formed - but completely anatomically different - being will emerge in a single generation with no influence on the form or function of it's reproductive organs from it's ancestors.

Primate external and internal genetalia and the female reproductive organs are, like viritually every other organ (eyes, larynx, thyroids, kidneys, patellas, etc.) in just about the same place for all species. The same goes for nearly all placental mammals (at least the terrestrial ones).

 

[USincognito]

And we see the different forms a species can take just with dogs and cats. Why do we use dogs and cats almost exclusively someone asked? Because they are the most studied and genetically experimented upon animals, its only natural one would use the best evidence that might actually say something instead of just supposition about things we know not.

What is it with Creationists and limiting the "kinds" discussion to barnyard (or household or petting zoo) animals?

How about slugs, snails, clams, octopus, nautiloids, ammonites, etc.?
How about spiders, crabs, Eurypterids, crayfish, flies, beetles, grasshoppers, etc.?
How about cacti, grasses, evergreens, sedges, water lillies, apple trees, etc.?
How about athlete's foot, Candidia, morels, truffles, bakers yeast, bread mold, etc.?
How about earthworms, acorn worms, round worms, flatworms, silkworms, etc.*?


* This one's a trick question.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can give you 50 definitions of species. Here is one:

"A species is a group of individuals which can breed together (panmixia). However, they cannot breed with other groups. In other words, the group is reproductively isolated from other groups."

The one above is called the biological species concept. Do you want others? How about this:

"A species is a lineage with its own evolutionary role and tendencies."

That is the evolutionary species concept. This one:

"A species is a set of organisms exploiting (or adapted to) a single niche."

That is the ecological species concept.

By the way, you still have to address the points I made about fish reproduction.

That's the problem, you can give me 50 deffinitions and I am sure we could find 50 more. As I said, silly putty that can be molded to fit any theory one so chooses and therefore not a valid basis upon which to form any theory.

So you have chosen to accept one hypothesis out of 50 and have decided that one is correct and the other 49 are wrong????? I'm a bit confused there, you mean all the other classifications the system is built upon are incorrect except the one that points to your theory? 50 explanations means 50 theories, but you single out one that coincides with your "belief" system.

And you have yet to address the points I made about radiocarbon dating.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is it with Creationists and limiting the "kinds" discussion to barnyard (or household or petting zoo) animals?

How about slugs, snails, clams, octopus, nautiloids, ammonites, etc.?
How about spiders, crabs, Eurypterids, crayfish, flies, beetles, grasshoppers, etc.?
How about cacti, grasses, evergreens, sedges, water lillies, apple trees, etc.?
How about athlete's foot, Candidia, morels, truffles, bakers yeast, bread mold, etc.?
How about earthworms, acorn worms, round worms, flatworms, silkworms, etc.*?


* This one's a trick question.

because cats and dogs are the most genetically experimented upon animals and those man has the most knowledge of being they have lived amongst us for thousands of years, why wouldn't you want to use what you know best in a theory? I am confused as to that reasoning, as if using something unknown is somehow better than using what is known? Why do they seem to want to exclude these? Perhaps because they have never seen anything but a dog or cat no matter how hard they have tried genetically to make something else?

How about those others, still kind after kind from generation to generation. I understand they would prefer to use as examples things we know nothing about, as we don't live with earthworms, and it's easier to apply things to them that don't belong. Things you can't apply to dogs and cats as they have lived with us for thousands of years and we know better. The fact that they object to us using something every human is familiar with and has lived amongst us for thousands of years and instead prefer to use ones we barely understand shows avoidance and fear. Because in those thousands of years we have observed them they have changed shape and form, yet are still dogs and cats.