What are "kinds"
According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.
After the creation, creatures of a kind bred either among themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds, species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic variation built into the kind when it was created.
At the time of its creation, each kind was created with sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those that are yet in existence today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind, but they have the net effect of deterioration of that kind. Nevertheless, mutations are always horizontal rather than vertical microevolution, and can never produce a new kind or a more complex kind. They also cannot add to the genetic content of a kind, mutations merely distort already existing information.
This model denies macroevolution -- transformations of one kind into another kind.
Some examples of possible kinds (which would really have to be determined by an experienced taxonomist):
o Horses
o Cattle
o Dogs, Wolves.
o Cats, Tigers, Lions (many species in this kind)
o Spiders (many species)
o Flying insects -- many kinds.
o Fish -- many kinds.
o Dinosaurs -- many kinds.
o Human Beings of all races (one species)
Some kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.
Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system?
It is often difficult for productive dialog to commence between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting worldviews. This is especially true in the area of anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by the evolutionist community to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human, referring to all descendants of the first created man and woman.
It may be surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut, accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic categories, including Homo sapiens. While there is some consensus on these categories, there is enough uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes placed into one classification, only to be switched into another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit well into evolutionary theory.
The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.
The problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics rather than genetics.
Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind.
Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics.
Written By, Darren Gordon gordond@iname.com
According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.
After the creation, creatures of a kind bred either among themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds, species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic variation built into the kind when it was created.
At the time of its creation, each kind was created with sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those that are yet in existence today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind, but they have the net effect of deterioration of that kind. Nevertheless, mutations are always horizontal rather than vertical microevolution, and can never produce a new kind or a more complex kind. They also cannot add to the genetic content of a kind, mutations merely distort already existing information.
This model denies macroevolution -- transformations of one kind into another kind.
Some examples of possible kinds (which would really have to be determined by an experienced taxonomist):
o Horses
o Cattle
o Dogs, Wolves.
o Cats, Tigers, Lions (many species in this kind)
o Spiders (many species)
o Flying insects -- many kinds.
o Fish -- many kinds.
o Dinosaurs -- many kinds.
o Human Beings of all races (one species)
Some kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.
Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system?
It is often difficult for productive dialog to commence between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting worldviews. This is especially true in the area of anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by the evolutionist community to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human, referring to all descendants of the first created man and woman.
It may be surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut, accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic categories, including Homo sapiens. While there is some consensus on these categories, there is enough uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes placed into one classification, only to be switched into another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit well into evolutionary theory.
The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.
The problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics rather than genetics.
Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind.
Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics.
Written By, Darren Gordon gordond@iname.com
) to have descended from one common ancestor.
