The Definition of KIND

Yttrium said:

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

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

That favors evolution, not creationism.

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

Yttrium said:

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

Click to expand...

Yup.

Yttrium said:

Creationists propose that there are many kinds,

Click to expand...

Yup.

Yttrium said:

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

Click to expand...

We let science do it.

Kind = Genus

Yttrium said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Yttrium said:

Creationists propose that there are clear boundaries between kinds,

Click to expand...

Yup.

Yttrium said:

... which they have yet to demonstrate.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

Can the cats mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

Can the dogs mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

Can the horses mix and match?

If not, then those creationists are wrong.

The Barbarian said:

I'm sure you're sincere.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

The Barbarian said:

But as you see, you're completely wrong.

Click to expand...

Only on paper.

The Barbarian said:

Genera usually can't interbreed.

Click to expand...

That's correct.

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

The Barbarian said:

But since evolution is a gradual process, some can.

Click to expand...

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.

The Barbarian said:

Another problem with the idea of "kinds."

Click to expand...

Nope.

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

The Barbarian said:

Seems rather odd that "different kinds" can interbreed.

Click to expand...

Only on paper.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

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.