Observed change in kinds.

[loveofourlord]

The definition of kind is so absurd at times it's not even funny, how often do we hear them talk about fish kind, or insect kind as if thats anything usable, at at that level then they accept humans are apes, since more difference betwee some fish then all mamals.

 

[AV1611VET]

The definition of kind is so absurd at times it's not even funny, how often do we hear them talk about fish kind, or insect kind as if thats anything usable, at at that level then they accept humans are apes, since more difference betwee some fish then all mamals.

It's a big mystery, isn't it?

I'm thankful my existence and mental stability doesn't require I have a precise definition of "kind".

 

[[serious]]

Then let's try:

A subset of life that can reproduce after itself.

What defines the subset? All life reproduces after itself, so as written all life is one kind. I'm fine with that, but I'm guessing you will want some more specificity.

 

[AV1611VET]

What defines the subset?

Reproducibility?

 

[[serious]]

Reproducibility?

All life is one kind under that definition. Evolution can take us from unicellular life to present day diversity with no crossing of kinds.

 

[AV1611VET]

All life is one kind under that definition. Evolution can take us from unicellular life to present day diversity with no crossing of kinds.

I think you know exactly what I'm saying.

So let's end it here, shall we?

If you want to play ignorant, please do it with someone else.

You're too good at it for me.

 

[juvenissun]

So what is the definition of kind?

What is wrong with the one I gave you?

 

[[serious]]

I think you know exactly what I'm saying.

So let's end it here, shall we?

If you want to play ignorant, please do it with someone else.

You're too good at it for me.

I'm honestly not playing games. If we are to divide out animals by "kinds" we need to define those kinds. How do determine what is and isn't a kind? This is the same process we use defining anything in science. Nailing down a hard and fast definition of our terms is necessary to ensure we aren't just talking past one another and prevents either party for trying to engage in a definitional dodge.

 

[[serious]]

What is wrong with the one I gave you?

The problem with the one you gave me was you weren't actually using it.

If kind = species, we've observed changes in kinds. If kind =/= species, you need to present an alternate definition.

You first said:

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

then you backed off that track and said:

Yes, definition of kind and species could be different due to practical purposes.

So if kind =/= species, you still haven't defined kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

An animal kind is a kind of animal. It can be anything kind of animal, as long as its described it such a way that relates it to an animal kind that was on the ark.

Dogs are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Wolves are a monobaramin of the dog holobaramin.

An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins.
Human holobaramin and the Dog holobaramin for a apobaramin
but the negroid monobaramin and wolf monobaramin do not.

A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

That is nothing more than the cooption of standard cladistics that uses polyphyletic, monophyletic, paraphyletic, etc. All they have done is replace the word -phyletic with -baramin and pretend as if it means something. As you say, they really don't say anything that is useable.

The real question is why can't humans belong to the ape baramin? If chimps, gorillas, and orangutans belong to the same ape baramin, then this poses a real problem for creationists. Namely, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do gorillas or orangutans. If chimps and orangutans mark the genetic diversity that can be found within a kind, then humans are within the ape baramin.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I need to have a supply of beef, then yes, buffalo and cattle are the same kind. But horse will not be in that kind.

If you need to supply australian cattle dogs to herd those animals, the wolf will not be in that kind. In fact, chihuahua would not be in that kind. Does this mean that the australian cattle dog, chihuahuas, and wolves are all different kinds?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then let's try:

A subset of life that can reproduce after itself.

That would make chihuahuas, great danes, and wolves different kinds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm thankful my existence and mental stability doesn't require I have a precise definition of "kind".

My "existence and mental stability" also doesn't require me understanding that the lights going on after I flip the switch isn't the result of supernatural fairies responding to my flip command.

But it's nice and usefull to have some knowledge about how it really works.

This is exactly your problem. You simply don't care. Your prefer holding fundamentalist beliefs about some bronze age god. That's fine - I guess. But then why are you here? You willingly stopped using reason as a guide to gain knowledge. I mean... you must know that what you believe doesn't agree with the actual observations we make in the world and the universe and the data that we gather.

Therefor you must understand that when you discuss these topics with people who DO value reason over bronze age stories, you're not going to score points. Ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would make chihuahuas, great danes, and wolves different kinds.

Fair enough.

I don't lose sleep over it.

Do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefor you must understand that when you discuss these topics with people who DO value reason over bronze age stories, you're not going to score points. Ever.

"Kind" is ... well ... it's ... it's ...

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I need to have a supply of beef, then yes, buffalo and cattle are the same kind. But horse will not be in that kind.

Ow, I would definatly put them in the same kind.
A good nicely grilled horse steak. I know it freaks Americans out. Sorry guys

Anyway, this shows how it becomes futile to talk about a word where apparantly everyone gets to create its own definition of it.

So can you give a clear and unambiguous definition of "kind" or not?
If no, just say no.
If yes, say "yes" immediatly followed by that definition.

Thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough.

I don't lose sleep over it.

Do you?

Then the challenge set forth at the beginning of the thread has been met. We have observed a change in kinds during human history, most notably the breeding of dogs from wolf-like ancestors.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have observed a change in kinds during human history, most notably the breeding of dogs from wolf-like ancestors.

Depends on your definition of "kind," I suppose.

 

[[serious]]

Ow, I would definatly put them in the same kind.
A good nicely grilled horse steak. I know it freaks Americans out. Sorry guys

Anyway, this shows how it becomes futile to talk about a word where apparantly everyone gets to create its own definition of it.

So can you give a clear and unambiguous definition of "kind" or not?
If no, just say no.
If yes, say "yes" immediatly followed by that definition.

Thank you.

If using the "tastes like" definition of kind, there's lots of animals in the chicken kind!

 

[Loudmouth]

Depends on your definition of "kind," I suppose.

I was using your definition of kind.