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.
It's a big mystery, isn't it?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.
Then let's try:
A subset of life that can reproduce after itself.
Reproducibility?[serious];65541637 said:What defines the subset?
Reproducibility?
I think you know exactly what I'm saying.[serious];65541651 said:All life is one kind under that definition. Evolution can take us from unicellular life to present day diversity with no crossing of kinds.
[serious];65541452 said:So what is the definition of kind?
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.
What is wrong with the one I gave you?
then you backed off that track and said:Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?
Yes, definition of kind and species could be different due to practical purposes.
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.
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.
Then let's try:
A subset of life that can reproduce after itself.
I'm thankful my existence and mental stability doesn't require I have a precise definition of "kind".
Fair enough.That would make chihuahuas, great danes, and wolves different kinds.
"Kind" is ... well ... it's ... it's ...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.
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.
Fair enough.
I don't lose sleep over it.
Do you?
Depends on your definition of "kind," I suppose.We have observed a change in kinds during human history, most notably the breeding of dogs from wolf-like ancestors.
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.
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?