What is a "kind"?

[MarcusHill]

I know we've tried this before, but it seems to have cropped up in quite a few threads lately, so I thought I might give the creationists another chance.

Creationists, can you please give a clear and concise definition of a "kind". In order to be complete, any person using the definition needs to be able to tell from the definition which "kind" any living thing (whether currently alive or extinct) would be part of. The classification must be the same for every user of the definition, so you can't appeal to "common sense", which isn't common and is frequently not good sense.

In order for the definition to be of any use to creationists, of course, nothing from one "kind" must have evolved from something of another "kind".

Once we have this definition, we'll all be overjoyed - scientists because we won't have to keep asking for this definition, creationists because they will now have a falsifiable prediction of creationism - that nothing can evolve out of its own "kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

...creationists because they will now have a falsifiable prediction of creationism - that nothing can evolve out of its own "kind".

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

Evolution can't occur because God is a god of boundaries, and has set boundaries that [alleles, DNA, genes, whatever] cannot cross.

 

[FishFace]

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

You do need one for creationism to qualify as A) science and B) worth believing.

Evolution can't occur because God is a god of boundaries, and has set boundaries that [alleles, DNA, genes, whatever] cannot cross.

But coincidentally, you don't know what these boundaries are or how they work or, actually, have any evidence for them whatsoever!

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible gives no "clear" definition of the term KIND. I see kind as type. Humans are one kind, cows are another kind, hippopotamas are another kind. dogs are another kind, doves are one, and ravens are another. The Bible is specific in stating that one "kind" will not beget another "kind." The Bible doesn't; however, demonstrate a limit to variety WITHIN kinds.

 

[MarcusHill]

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

I didn't claim that such a prediction was necessary for jubilation, merely that it was sufficient.

Evolution can't occur because God is a god of boundaries, and has set boundaries that [alleles, DNA, genes, whatever] cannot cross.

Great. Where are those boundaries? Be precise, please.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

Evolution can't occur because God is a god of boundaries, and has set boundaries that [alleles, DNA, genes, whatever] cannot cross.

Typical AV way of dodging the question.

 

[peteos]

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

I disagree with Fishface about "B: worth believing". But he is right about A. If you don't make a falsifiable prediction of any kind, it simply isn't a scientific statement. If there is no way to falsify it then there is no meaningful statement we can make about it within a scientific context.

 

[peteos]

Humans are one kind, cows are another kind, hippopotamas are another kind. dogs are another kind, doves are one, and ravens are another.

How about foxes and dogs, are they the same kind?

How about lions and tigers, are they the same kind?

Lions and house cats?

 

[AV1611VET]

But coincidentally, you don't know what these boundaries are or how they work or, actually, have any evidence for them whatsoever!

That's because I don't worship the femal deity that atheists worship (Mother Nature).

I am more interested in the One Who established the boundaries, than I am the boundaries themselves.

 

[peteos]

I am more interested in the One Who established the boundaries, than I am the boundaries themselves.

How do you know they are there if you can't identify them?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is no way to falsify it then there is no meaningful statement we can make about it within a scientific context.

Paint yourselves into a corner then --- throw out the Documentation that can (and does) falsify it.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't need a "falsifiable prediction of creationism" in order to be overjoyed.

Evolution can't occur because God is a god of boundaries, and has set boundaries that [alleles, DNA, genes, whatever] cannot cross.

Do you have an support for this statement about God being a god of "boundaries?" I thought anything is possible through God..

The Bible gives no "clear" definition of the term KIND. I see kind as type. Humans are one kind, cows are another kind, hippopotamas are another kind. dogs are another kind, doves are one, and ravens are another. The Bible is specific in stating that one "kind" will not beget another "kind." The Bible doesn't; however, demonstrate a limit to variety WITHIN kinds.

How do you know doves and ravens are two different "Kinds?" How do you know that "birds" are not all one "Kind?" You're not just guessing are you?

That's because I don't worship the femal deity that atheists worship (Mother Nature).

I thought we worshiped "Time."
In any case, you worship a man-made book written by superstitious primitives.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know they are there if you can't identify them?
[/size][/font]

Because I know Who was there --- and He doesn't lie --- and I read His Documentation on the subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, you worship a man-made book written by superstitious primitives.

Wow --- anti-Semitism is alive and well, isn't it?

 

[Impaler]

Because I know Who was there --- and He doesn't lie --- and I read His Documentation on the subject.

So what does God have to say about boundaries of evolution? I presume there is some passage that clearly mentions this limit to variation?

 

[Molal]

Still no definition of kind. Not sure the creationists know.

 

[moogoob]

Still no definition of kind. Not sure the creationists know.

This question has been asked time and time again, with no straight answer. You might as well google "kind" and "baraminology" with reference to sites like AIG, if you can stand reading those sites.

 

[Molal]

This question has been asked time and time again, with no straight answer. You might as well google "kind" and "baraminology" with reference to sites like AIG, if you can stand reading those sites.

I do not like reading those sites.

But kind is such a nebulous concept. It provides no information whatsoever. Whereas the definition of species is exact and testable.

So, where does kind end? Maybe it ends at the kingdom level - there are only two kinds animals and plants.

EDIT: I'm joking - just incase you didn't realise that........

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible gives no "clear" definition of the term KIND. I see kind as type. Humans are one kind, cows are another kind, hippopotamas are another kind. dogs are another kind, doves are one, and ravens are another. The Bible is specific in stating that one "kind" will not beget another "kind." The Bible doesn't; however, demonstrate a limit to variety WITHIN kinds.

Well here it is. My guess is that a few conveniently missed it

 

[BananaSlug]

Many different species of animals can hybridize and create fertile offspring (coyotes and wolves come to mind). Does that mean they are one "kind"? We know through genetic, morphological, and behavioral evidence that they are different species. Where does "kind" fit in?
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

A human is a "kind" of ape, which is a "kind" of primate, which is a "kind" of mammal, which is a "kind" of vertebrate, which is a "kind" of chordate, which is a "kind" of animal, which is a "kind" of eukaryote. If creationists want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, then they need to get together and make definitions for the words they use. Even better, why don't they use the current system other biologists use? Or is that too secular for creationists since the whole tree of life is based on evolution?