The Definition of KIND

[Yttrium]

The proper definition of a kind should be: a complete set of organisms that share common ancestors. So effectively, the Theory of Evolution proposes that there is one kind. Creationists propose that there are many kinds, but they are completely incapable of identifying them. Under the Theory of Evolution, one would predict that the separation between species is clear as mud because, y'know, we're all one kind. Creationists propose that there are clear boundaries between kinds, which they have yet to demonstrate.

 

[AV1611VET]

The proper definition of a kind should be: a complete set of organisms that share common ancestors.

Uh-huh.

That favors evolution, not creationism.

Science is already playing connect-the-dots will all the organisms.

So effectively, the Theory of Evolution proposes that there is one kind.

Yup.

Creationists propose that there are many kinds,

Yup.

... but they are completely incapable of identifying them.

We let science do it.

Kind = Genus

Under the Theory of Evolution, one would predict that the separation between species is clear as mud because, y'know, we're all one kind.

Yup.

Creationists propose that there are clear boundaries between kinds,

Yup.

... which they have yet to demonstrate.

We let science demonstrate it.

Then we'll tell them if they're right or wrong.

Credit to sfs for showing a chart that has ten species of bird -- (I forget what it is) -- under seven different genuses.

This [pun] kind of [/pun] garbage is what you get when you play loose with the definition of "kind" and define it above the level of genus.

 

[The Barbarian]

Uh-huh.

That favors evolution, not creationism.

Reality. Not everyone's new idea is a good one. Creationism has a reality problem.

Science is already playing connect-the-dots will all the organisms.

As you know, that's not evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, thought that God might have orginally created any number of organisms. But genetics shows that all known life on Earth has a common ancestor.

We let science do it.

Kind = Genus

Nope.
For example, the "cat kind", according to creationists, is a family with a number of subfamilies.
The "dog kind" is a family with several subfamilies.
The "horse kind" is a family with several subfamilies.

This [pun] kind of [/pun] garbage is what you get when you play loose with the definition of "kind" and define it above the level of genus.

I'm sure you're sincere. But as you see, you're completely wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, the "cat kind", according to creationists, is a family with a number of subfamilies.

Can the cats mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

The "dog kind" is a family with several subfamilies.

Can the dogs mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

The "horse kind" is a family with several subfamilies.

Can the horses mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

I'm sure you're sincere.

Thank you.

But as you see, you're completely wrong.

Only on paper.

 

[The Barbarian]

Can the cats mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

That's the rub; if they can't, suddenly, not enough room on the Ark. Rock and a hard place.

But as you see, you're completely wrong.

Only on paper.

In the real world. The Ark wasn't a tardis, and you can't "mix and match" even within the creationist notion of "kinds." Genera usually can't interbreed.

But since evolution is a gradual process, some can. Another problem with the idea of "kinds."

 

[AV1611VET]

Genera usually can't interbreed.

That's correct.

That's why I prefer GENUS to FAMILY as the definition of KIND.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genera usually can't interbreed.

That's correct.

But since evolution is a gradual process, some can. Another problem with the idea of "kinds."

That's why I prefer GENUS to FAMILY as the definition of KIND.

Seems rather odd that "different kinds" can interbreed. Why not just accept that "kind" refers to all living things on Earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

But since evolution is a gradual process, some can.

I disagree.

Did you follow the conversation after sfs posted a chart of some ten different species of the same kind of bird, but had seven different KINDS assigned to them on paper?

When I ask about that, it was explained to me that they arbitrarily give different GENUS names to the same kinds of animals.

Thus, if you see two different species of animals procreating successfully, but they have two different GENUS names, I submit they are mislabeled.

Another problem with the idea of "kinds."

Nope.

It's a mislabeling on the part of taxonomists (or whomever).

Seems rather odd that "different kinds" can interbreed.

Only on paper.

Why not just accept that "kind" refers to all living things on Earth?

Nope.

If I did that, I would be buying into sciences' errors, mistakes, mislabels, chiselings, number crunchings, decimal point slidings, data forcefittings, connecting the dots, blue-lining over missing links, and a host of other things, including some things that would get me moderated if I listed them.

KIND = GENUS

It's really that simple.