The definition of kind: can we get one?

[Cheeky Monkey]

Whenever a creationist is asked to define kinds we get examples instead of a definition. (Interestingly the number of species contained in a given example increases with the evolutionary distance from humans.)

So in the vain hope of getting a clearer picture of what a kind is I would like a creationist to assess a group that is less familiar; egg laying mammals. Perhaps through this exercise we can discern the objective properties creationists use to determine what is a kind.

In the order Monotremes there are two families; Ornithorhynchidae and Tachyglossidae (platypus and echidna). There is only one monotypic genus of platypus. There are two genera of echidna; Tachyglossus and Zaglossus. Tachyglossus has one species and Zaglossus has three.

So how many kinds? 1? 2? 3? 5? What objective properties do you use to work it out?

 

[Loudmouth]

So far, the only method I have seen for identifying kinds is if you can describe two species with the same name. Humans and chimps? Primate kind. Humans and bears? Mammal kind. Humans and fish? Vertebrate kind. Humans and plants? Eukaryote kind. Us, our ancestors, and our cousins who share that Eukaryote ancestor have all remained in the Eukaryote kind, so that also makes Eukaryotes a kind.

http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

 

[Lethe]

I need a test or set of criteria that will consistently separate two different animals into kinds.

I expect none is coming.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you want a definition of KIND, or is this just a catchy title to draw someone in and get accused of not addressing this:

So in the vain hope of getting a clearer picture of what a kind is I would like a creationist to assess a group that is less familiar; egg laying mammals. Perhaps through this exercise we can discern the objective properties creationists use to determine what is a kind.

In the order Monotremes there are two families; Ornithorhynchidae and Tachyglossidae (platypus and echidna). There is only one monotypic genus of platypus. There are two genera of echidna; Tachyglossus and Zaglossus. Tachyglossus has one species and Zaglossus has three.

So how many kinds? 1? 2? 3? 5? What objective properties do you use to work it out?

I have a thread to qv you to.

It it is my definition of KIND, but I don't want to find out you're just baiting us.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Do you want a definition of KIND, or is this just a catchy title to draw someone in and get accused of not addressing this:

I have a thread to qv you to.

It it is my definition of KIND, but I don't want to find out you're just baiting us.

If it's capable of answering the question I'm interested, if you're just baiting me I'm less so.

To be fair I'm skeptical that there is a workable definition of kind (but would be happy to be proven wrong) but my real point is that a definition should be useful and not just a bunch of examples.

 

[Strathos]

There has never been a consistent definition given.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally I recommend a definition synonymous with "Clade".

At least that one would be correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it's capable of answering the question I'm interested, if you're just baiting me I'm less so.

To be fair I'm skeptical that there is a workable definition of kind (but would be happy to be proven wrong) but my real point is that a definition should be useful and not just a bunch of examples.

QV please:

I want to see where this goes.

A kind is a subset of life that is linked back to God as its Common Designer.

Notice how Luke does it here with mankind:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Notice I said "that is linked back to God" ... not: "that can be linked back to God."

The lines, of course, would be incompatible with current evolutionary models, since current evolutionary models link kinds together (such as mankind with beasts of the field [apes]).

Kinds also have their share of missing links, therefore a horse, for example, cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the satyr) in the fossil record.

Same with a bull, it cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the unicorn) in the fossil record.

As I said, let's see where this goes.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

QV please:

It would seem you're saying "kind" can't be defined. Correct?

 

[Valiantis]

There is no meaning given in the Bible for the word 'kind' so Christians are free to give it any meaning they like.

As they say, BS baffles brains.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would seem you're saying "kind" can't be defined. Correct?

That is absolutely correct.

It's like the words FAITH and TRINITY: they can't be defined.

Thus a working definition is required.

Remember: Charles Linnaeus was a professional, and professionals built the Titanic.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no meaning given in the Bible for the word 'kind' so Christians are free to give it any meaning they like.

No ... but nice try.

 

[Valiantis]

No ... but nice try.

Yes... and I did not even try.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

That is absolutely correct.

It's like the words FAITH and TRINITY: they can't be defined.

Thus a working definition is required.

Remember: Charles Linnaeus was a professional, and professionals built the Titanic.

Linnaeus' effort was a great first approximation but he never really worked out what it meant. Remember he tried unsuccessfully to apply his method to rocks but it turns out only reproducing entities fall into a nested hierarchy. He never got the key insight from this fact, that it's all about descent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Linnaeus' effort was a great first approximation but he never really worked out what it meant.

Then I'm sure you won't mind if we don't really work out the meaning of kind either; do you?

 

[Valiantis]

Then I'm sure you won't mind if we don't really work out the meaning of kind either; do you?

We expected nothing less.

 

[AV1611VET]

We expected nothing less.

Then I won't disappoint, will I?

 

[Valiantis]

Then I won't disappoint, will I?

You never do, you are an open book.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Then I'm sure you won't mind if we don't really work out the meaning of kind either; do you?

Sure. As long as I never hear anyone say that kinds are a real thing that has some impact on evolution.

 

[Lethe]

Look, page three and nothing but AV1611VET tossing around trash and avoiding the OP, as per standard AV de-rails thread procedure.