Do you agree with these statements?

[inquiring mind]

Except that the Bible didn't get the basics right.
The word 'kind' is always tried to be used to refer to species ever since the definition came about, which is a classic case of post hoc logic. It's even used by some creationists to refer to the genus level too, which really should go some way to show that it's not usable when talking science.

And I am genuinely sorry that science of 'convoluted' for you, and you using that phrase really just screams out the fact that you don't understand science, especially evolutionary theory.

I really like the “intricately folded, twisted, or coiled” part of the 'convoluted' definition here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I really like the “intricately folded, twisted, or coiled” part of the 'convoluted' definition here.

Cute.

 

[pitabread]

Clear-cut like it is with species???

You're once again conflating things here.

Biologists expect taxonomic classifications to be fuzzy because these are artificial classifications that aren't actually real in nature. Such classifications are useful because it makes it easier to talk about different groups of organisms at different categorical levels.

Creationists are claiming that "kinds" have a biological reality (e.g. that they represent independently created lineages). Yet creationists are unable to demonstrate or agree upon any definition thereof.

In the latter case, creationists are claiming that "kinds" should be clear-cut, but can't demonstrate that. In the former case, biologists recognize that artificial human classifications are just that: artificial and therefore will not perfectly encapsulate the organisms they classify.

 

[pitabread]

So, Kind boundaries are fuzzy because there is no biology involved. What's the point?

"Kind" boundaries aren't even fuzzy, they are non-existent. Again, the whole discussion of "kinds" is a complete non-starter.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes

Question for you:

Are they still zebras?

 

[SelfSim]

... Question for you:

Are they still zebras?

Depends on what you mean by 'zebras'.
Is that what everyone else means?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes

Question for you:

Are they still zebras?

This is not a counting thread, AV

 

[Jok]

"Kind" boundaries aren't even fuzzy, they are non-existent. Again, the whole discussion of "kinds" is a complete non-starter.

Isn’t the claim that kinds are non-existent slipping into the realm of extreme monism philosophies that claim there is no distinction between my 2nd cousin and an orange? Unless I’m misunderstanding you because I jumped into your conversation late

 

[Shemjaza]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes

Question for you:

Are they still zebras?

He's Back!

 

[Kylie]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes

Question for you:

Are they still zebras?

No.

And when fish evolved into amphibians by a similar process, they were no longer fish, and when those amphibians evolved into reptiles they were no longer amphibians, and when the reptiles evolved into mammals they were no longer reptiles.

Evolution leads to a change in species, so it is silly to think they will remain the same species, or even the same genus once sufficient changes have occured.

However, as evolution occurs, new groups are formed, and all descendants of a life form in that group remain in that group. For example, the common ancestor of all plants, animals, fungi, protists, etc was a Eukaryote, and all of that creature's descendants are still to this day in the Eukaryote group. Evolution will never lead to an organism that is not a Eukaryote. When the first animals evolved, they were in a sub group of Eukaryotes called Metazoa. Plants were a different sub group. But both sub groups remain within the Eukaryote group.

And may I say, it's good to see you back. Hasn't been the same here without you.

 

[Speedwell]

Isn’t the claim that kinds are non-existent slipping into the realm of extreme monism philosophies that claim there is no distinction between my 2nd cousin and an orange? Unless I’m misunderstanding you because I jumped into your conversation late

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

No!?

Which question changed them?

And may I say, it's good to see you back. Hasn't been the same here without you.

TYVM!

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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

Or any other genus became another genus?

 

[Speedwell]

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

Or any other genus became another genus?

Never.

 

[inquiring mind]

You're once again conflating things here.

Biologists expect taxonomic classifications to be fuzzy because these are artificial classifications that aren't actually real in nature.

Sounds a whole lot like the supernatural charge you throw our way. That’s not fair that you can claim it and we can’t.

Such classifications are useful because it makes it easier to talk about different groups of organisms at different categorical levels.

That’s similar to what we say about the Bible and the human condition.

Creationists are claiming that "kinds" have a biological reality (e.g. that they represent independently created lineages).

Sure, we don’t hold to fuzzy, artificial classifications, and not real in nature ‘stuff.’

Yet creationists are unable to demonstrate or agree upon any definition thereof.

We’ve tried, you just won’t let yourself hear it. I tried to tell you that the scientific definition of species, a ‘johnny-come-lately,’ aligns with the biblical kind, in that they must be able to interbreed. And, in a broader sense av has been saying for quite some time that Kind=Genus, and that the online etymological dictionary supports this.

Even Merriam-Webster agrees:

Definition of genus

1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic…

In the latter case, creationists are claiming that "kinds" should be clear-cut, but can't demonstrate that.

So, what gives with this?

In the former case, biologists recognize that artificial human classifications are just that: artificial and therefore will not perfectly encapsulate the organisms they classify.

We’ve been in agreement on this all along.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never.

I agree.

Biological evolution cannot transcend kinds.

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

God is God of boundaries.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds a whole lot like the supernatural charge you throw our way. That’s not fair that you can claim it and we can’t.

Except that biological taxonomy is an ad hoc classification system based on observing the characteristics of living creatures. It has no ontological status of the sort you are claiming for "kinds."

 

[pitabread]

So, what gives with this?

What gives is that creationists keep making claims about biology that have zero demonstrability.

That's about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What gives is that creationists keep making claims about biology that have zero demonstrability.

This confuses me.

The "claim" is that two words are synonymous.

If one word can't be demonstrated, then neither can the other; since they are both the same.

A car is an automobile: does an automobile have "zero demonstrability"?

 

[Speedwell]

This confuses me.

The "claim" is that two words are synonymous.

If one word can't be demonstrated, then neither can the other; since they are both the same.

A car is an automobile: does an automobile have "zero demonstrability"?

We are not claiming that the terms are synonymous, but so what? You can assert that "kinds" = species or genera or whatever you want, but what good does that do you?