Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
.
What if you define it as a the difference between different Orders (in biological classification)?
I'm pushing for more of an answer because I know creationists would want more of an answer.
No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.
I'ld first ask him to define the word "kind" in such a way that I can use that definition to determine if two random organism are of the same "kind".
I posted a question about "kinds" and how hybrids fit. Not a single reply! I have nothing against creationism or baraminology. As a scientist (I use that term loosely, I may not yet have a science degree but I do get paid to conduct research), I welcome different ways to view evidence.
I find "kinds" simply not an acceptable way to classify organisms. Its just way too vague when taxonomy is about finding the relationship of one organism to another in the closest manner possible. Baraminology is literally trying to reinvent the wheel, or tree in this case.
The major problem I have with kinds is that its only applied to animals. All other forms of life are apparently considered not living! Thats a bit hard to accept, actually I cant accept that. Too deny that a organism is alive simply based the on notion that if its not actively moving or doesnt bleed to death when you stab it is just wrong on so many levels.
To deny an living, breathing organism the status of Life is to deny having any responsibility to Life itself. "Its not alive, so why should I care" is exactly what I hear and see. This kind of mentality is why so many ignore or ridicule those who work to protect all living things.
It goes against everything I have learned, observed and believe in.
Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?
No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.
Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.
Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?
[serious];65534724 said:Yes, species is defined that way for all sexually reproducing organisms. I'm unclear what your larger point is though. What is being requested is a similar testable definition of "kinds."
The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.
Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?
[serious];65536119 said:Well, we have observed speciation, so that would provide an example of one kind turning into another.
The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.
The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.
Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?
No. It had and has a definition. The definition has never changed.
"That offspring is the same KIND of animal as it's parents."
Just because you don't like the usage,
is irrelevant.
There is plenty of evidence for "Kinds" crossing over to another kind.
Donkey/Zebra is a possible example.
The problem being that if the crossover can be that fast, then it doesn't fit the macro-evolution standard that your looking to support.
So if it is scientifically testable through experimentation, then it's not macro-evolution anyway.
Only if you can't check it, then maybe, macro evolution is happening.
It's a self defeating problem.
You can take a series of fossils, and pray that you put them in the right order. Or that their even related.
The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.
The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.
Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?
[serious];65536713 said:How? If you have a species of mouse, and that species splits into 2 species that can't interbreed, you have 2 species. If kind = species, then kinds can change into other kinds. Simply using a different term for it doesn't fix the problem.
Then I'll introduce him to the many speciation events that we know of which resulted into 2 new species that could no longer interbreed.
I'll also introduce him to so-called ring species.
Then he'll pretend that I didn't give him these examples, he'll invent some lame excuse for why the examples don't count or he'll just move the goalpost. And we'll be back to square one, where he will ask a new dishonest question or even simply repeat the same question that was just answered.
Amirite?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?