Do you agree with these statements?

[AV1611VET]

Probably heartburn. Fortunately for us, there are people who study these things, and they don't say what you do.

Good.

Then they can exclude me from the pack.

They're probably synonym-poor, and can't come up with a viable synonym for "kind," and have to make up something that sounds academic.

Like "baraminology" or something.

 

[Kylie]

No!?

Which question changed them?

It's not a single thing. It's lot's of single things adding up over time.

If I take an empty glass and add a single drop of water, you wouldn't say the glass is full.

But if I have a full glass and remove a single drop, you wouldn't say the glass is no longer full.

The addition of a single drop makes very little change, but lots of drops adding up makes all the difference. Likewise, if we have lots of little tiny changes, we'd get to the point where the group that started out as zebras are no longer zebras, but no one single change is enough to qualify as the thing that tipped it over the edge.

TYVM!

Hope everything is good with you.

 

[Kylie]

When's the last time a Feline became a Bovine; or a Canine became a Homo?

Or any other genus became another genus?

Never. See my post 490 for an explanation of why that doesn't happen.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm more interested in synonyms than definitions.

But for the record, a google search (of "genus") yielded this definition, which I like:

"a principal taxonomic category that ranks above species and below family, and is denoted by a capitalized Latin name, e.g. Leo."

Thus a kind is a principal taxonomic category that ranks above species and below family, and is denoted by a capitalized Latin name, e.g. Leo.

I asked for a definition of kind and you gave me a definition of genus. Typical creationist tactic - avoid the question because you have no answer.

 

[SelfSim]

This totally baffles me.

Are they zebras, or aren't they?

It appears they are.

Glad to see you baffled - shows some hope.
The meaning of what 'a zebra' is, changes.
A lot of time has elapsed. Things change over such timeframes .. including the environment and the organism response to those changes.
We assign new labels to reflect that, or simply say that what 'zebra' originally meant, has changed.

Same happens with all of science's operatinal definitions - eg: electron, (etc). An electron was once a tiny little solid ball, then it changed to a cloud, etc, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a single thing. It's lot's of single things adding up over time.

If I take an empty glass and add a single drop of water, you wouldn't say the glass is full.

But if I have a full glass and remove a single drop, you wouldn't say the glass is no longer full.

The addition of a single drop makes very little change, but lots of drops adding up makes all the difference. Likewise, if we have lots of little tiny changes, we'd get to the point where the group that started out as zebras are no longer zebras, but no one single change is enough to qualify as the thing that tipped it over the edge.

Then what's the herd you're talking about in Question 7?

Hope everything is good with you.

Thank you, Kylie.

I appreciate the warm welcomes back.

I had determined that I wasn't going to come back.

But had a change of mind!

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked for a definition of kind and you gave me a definition of genus.

Maybe they're both the same?

 

[AV1611VET]

Glad to see you baffled - shows some hope.
The meaning of what 'a zebra' is, changes.
A lot of time has elapsed. Things change over such timeframes .. including the environment and the organism response to those changes.
We assign new labels to reflect that, or simply say that what 'zebra' originally meant, has changed.

Same happens with all of science's operatinal definitions - eg: electron, (etc). An electron was once a tiny little solid ball, then it changed to a cloud, etc, etc.

* sigh *

 

[Jok]

It's not so much a question whether distinctions based on the use of the word "kinds" in Genesis can be drawn, but the extent to which biological evolution can transcend them.

Well I guess it wouldn’t even matter then. Since in the view of evolution even 50,000 years of humanity is said to be too short for any significant evolution to occur (I think). I see what people are saying when they say that the distinctions made between ancient writers and evolutionary biologists would differ. But I would say that I half agree then, because I think certain distinctions would be equally made by any civilization no matter how far removed from each other, like I don’t see any civilization considering mammals and insects to be the same kind.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Maybe they're both the same?

Can you find me a definition of genus that matches the definition of kind? If not then genus clearly =/= kind, and there goes your whole claim.

 

[fwGod]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

#7 contradicts #1.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not a single thing. It's lot's of single things adding up over time.

If I take an empty glass and add a single drop of water, you wouldn't say the glass is full.

But if I have a full glass and remove a single drop, you wouldn't say the glass is no longer full.

The addition of a single drop makes very little change, but lots of drops adding up makes all the difference. Likewise, if we have lots of little tiny changes, we'd get to the point where the group that started out as zebras are no longer zebras, but no one single change is enough to qualify as the thing that tipped it over the edge.

This is an example closely related to the ancient Sorites paradox, i.e. precisely when do a number of small changes add up to a 'big' change? It's an issue of arbitrary category boundaries that many creationists seem to have a particular problem with - they seem to be able to accept small changes to a species (microevolution), but unable to accept that the accumulation of small changes will eventually mean that the final population is sufficiently different from the initial population (e.g. reproductively incompatible) to justify calling it a different species (macroevolution).

When one considers that these individuals don't seem to have a problem with everyday arbitrary category boundaries like small→medium→large→extra-large, or baby→child→youth→adult→elderly, it becomes clear that this is a case of wilful denial.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The dictionary definition of 'kind' may not be particularly useful for those that think the biblical 'kind' identifies specific categories of creatures. The dictionary definition of 'kind' is a generic meaning, like 'type', which can be applied to identify membership of any category, e.g. a kind of animal, a kind of vertebrate, a kind of mammal, a kind of horse.

 

[Speedwell]

This is an example closely related to the ancient Sorites paradox, i.e. precisely when do a number of small changes add up to a 'big' change? It's an issue of arbitrary category boundaries that many creationists seem to have a particular problem with - they seem to be able to accept small changes to a species (microevolution), but unable to accept that the accumulation of small changes will eventually mean that the final population is sufficiently different from the initial population (e.g. reproductively incompatible) to justify calling it a different species (macroevolution).

When one considers that these individuals don't seem to have a problem with everyday arbitrary category boundaries like small→medium→large→extra-large, or baby→child→youth→adult→elderly, it becomes clear that this is a case of wilful denial.

They're Platonists. Speciation is, for them a qualitative change. Microevolution represents quantitative change, but something different must happen at speciation* which, they rightly observe, evolution neither predicts nor explains.

*Or at a "kinds" boundary, wherever they happen to draw it.

 

[AV1611VET]

- they seem to be able to accept small changes to a species (microevolution), but unable to accept that the accumulation of small changes will eventually mean that the final population is sufficiently different from the initial population (e.g. reproductively incompatible) to justify calling it a different species (macroevolution).

Are you saying that a species giving rise to another species is an example of macroevolution?

If so, I disagree.

I can accept a lion (Panthera leo) and a jaguar (Panthera onca) being the same kind, since they are both Panthera.

But you seem to be saying lions and jaguars are examples of macroevolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you saying that a species giving rise to another species is an example of macroevolution?

If so, I disagree.

I can accept a lion (Panthera leo) and a jaguar (Panthera onca) being the same kind, since they are both Panthera.

But you seem to be saying lions and jaguars are examples of macroevolution.

That's how the term is defined, yes.

In fact, speciation is the only significant evolutionary event. The higher taxa are arbitrary human constructs which are a generated as speciation proceeds.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's how the term is defined, yes.

In fact, speciation is the only significant evolutionary event. The higher taxa are arbitrary human constructs which are a generated as speciation proceeds.

Then we see where the problem lies, don't we?

God calls them "kinds," but humans had to get involved and changed the word of God to "genus."

Now all this confusion.

This is why I'm a KJVO.

 

[Speedwell]

Then we see where the problem lies, don't we?

God calls them "kinds," but humans had to get involved and changed the word of God to "genus."

Now all this confusion.

This is why I'm a KJVO.

Well, not exactly. In the text of Genesis, "kind" is used as a relative qualifier rather than a prescriptive taxon.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying that a species giving rise to another species is an example of macroevolution?

If so, I disagree.

I can accept a lion (Panthera leo) and a jaguar (Panthera onca) being the same kind, since they are both Panthera.

But you seem to be saying lions and jaguars are examples of macroevolution.

It doesn't make a substantial difference to my point.

I'm using the common understanding of 'macroevolution' as evolutionary change above the species level. It seems broadly accepted that speciation has both micro and macroevolutionary aspects:

"...(3) evolution that is guided by sorting of interspecific variation (as opposed to sorting of intraspecific variation in microevolution). Here, it is argued that only definition 3 allows for a consistent separation of macroevolution and microevolution. Using this definition, speciation has both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary aspects: the process of morphological transformation is microevolutionary, but the variation among species that it produces is macroevolutionary, as is the rate at which speciation occurs."

So the (admittedly fuzzy) boundary of species change seems a reasonable point at which to change scale from micro to macro evolution.

But in any case, I don't find the micro-macro evolutionary distinction particularly useful, except to the extent that it can help when talking to people who do find it a useful distinction; unfortunately, as the need for this clarification shows, it's meaning among people who use it is as fuzzy as the distinction it purports to make - it's just another arbitrary category boundary; in this case, an unnecessary one in my view.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, not exactly. In the text of Genesis, "kind" is used as a relative qualifier rather than a prescriptive taxon.

It doesn't make a substantial difference to my point.

I'm using the common understanding of 'macroevolution' as evolutionary change above the species level. It seems broadly accepted that speciation has both micro and macroevolutionary aspects:

I always get the impression, when I read [stuff] like this, that at one time, "genus" was an acceptable term.

Until evolutionists started losing debates with creationists.

So academia has now watered-down this term of theirs in order to save face.

Notice you first said, "above the species level"?

What's the next thing above the species level?

"Genus"!

But then you quote something only a Philadelphia lawyer would understand.

And, right in the middle of the quote, is this doosey:

speciation has both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary aspects:

I'm not buying that.

It's an attempt to drag "genus" down one notch into the "species" category.

"Genus" is academia's (Satan's) cheap imitation for the Bible word "kind."