What "kind" is it?

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:17 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #34



I did not say a mammal was a basic kind. It is one of the basic groups, there are many kinds within that group.

Try and pay attention.

You didn't say that. This is what you said:

"kind:  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

There are about 4 basic groups in the water, 4 on land and the birds. mammal, reptile, cattle & insects."

A kind is a group, and there 4 basic groups on land.  It's clear that those land groups are each a kind, by what you said.

Now, of course, you are backing off because I showed the problem with this.

Now, if kinds come from the "same ancestral gene pool" how is this different from evolution?  You are also saying common ancestry. Evolution says all organisms came from the "same ancestral gene pool" -- common ancestry. 

It would appear that you are saying that there are several different ancestral gene pools. But that gets us back to Lady Shea's problem: how do you identifiy, from looking at the organisms, where the separate gene pools are?

After all, cats and dogs could be from the same ancestral mammalian gene pool.  How do you know they aren't?
 

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:23 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #36

Well, that is what I get for using a common word. Ok, I will go back and do it again and just give you the hebrew word that Moses uses and you can figure it out from there. I am just doing this as a convience for you guys.

So what is that Hebrew word?


Don't be stupid ok. We know you have intelligence so don't go acting like you don't

I can always tell when I've made an argument you can't answer -- you insult me.  John, the point still is that if mammals are the basic group (= kind by your post) then humans are a variation within a kind and there was no historical Adam and Eve created a la Genesis 2.  All humans descended from a common gene pool. 

It's simply following your statements to their logical conclusion.  No need to get testy at me if your statements end up contradiction your other statements.

 

[JohnR7]

earth: nephesh, bhemah, remes, adam


 

 

[judy]

John, I am still wondering whether you would classify all the Great Apes as the same biblical "kind."

And if you would, why would you exempt human beings from this classification?

Because we're so special?

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:52 PM lucaspa said this in Post #42

I can always tell when I've made an argument you can't answer -- you insult me.  John, the point still is that if mammals are the basic group

I did not claim to have all the science answers. I just started to work on this. This is science, not theology. Your the one who is not doing your job. Don't go putting it off on me.

Unless of course you want to renounce that your a scientist?

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:25 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #37

 

What makes you think that is our job? You do not want to teach theology in the science class. So why do you expect us to teach science in the theology class? 

But you aren't teaching theology, John. You are teaching science.  It's just that you are (mis)using a theological book to get your science.

Jon tried using passages of Genesis to tell us what "kinds" are.  However, it didn't work because it really doesn't help tell us, by looking at it, what "kind" the legless lizard belongs to.  Is it a snake? Is it a lizard.  Or the echinoderm -- is it a lizard or a mammal? Or it's own separate kind?

What you've just admitted, John, is that "kind" doesn't apply to biology but instead is a theological term. But if that is the case, you can't take it out of theology and put it into science by saying that one "kind" can't turn into another "kind". That's science.

You can't have it both ways, John. Either read Genesis as theology and not as science or history, or stop trying to use this dodge when you get in trouble trying to make Genesis be science. 

 

[Arikay]

John, first of all Luca has a very good point. You classified Mammals as a group.

Second, is calling him stupid and then a jerk really called for?

1st April 2003 at 06:52 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #43





You are a class A jerk.

Here is the information I said I would get for you:

water: sherets, gadowl tanniyn, nephesh, dagah

air: owph

earth: nephesh, bhemah, remes, adam


 

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:52 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #43


Here is the information I said I would get for you:

water: sherets, gadowl tanniyn, nephesh, dagah

air: owph

earth: nephesh, bhemah, remes, adam  

And how does this change your original post?

Now, let me put my questions to you again and see if you will do me the courtesy of an answer this time:

Now, if kinds come from the "same ancestral gene pool" how is this different from evolution?  You are also saying common ancestry. Evolution says all organisms came from the "same ancestral gene pool" -- common ancestry. 

It would appear that you are saying that there are several different ancestral gene pools. But that gets us back to Lady Shea's problem: how do you identifiy, from looking at the organisms, where the separate gene pools are?

After all, cats and dogs could be from the&nbsp;same ancestral mammalian gene pool.&nbsp; How do&nbsp;you <B>know</B> they aren't?

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:55 PM judy said this in Post #44 John, I am still wondering whether you would classify all the Great Apes as the same biblical "kind."

I do not know how to classify Apes, that is a science question, not a theology question. I thought they had all the records for that in the DNA. Can't they just trace the DNA back? They do not seem to have any trouble to identify who is a Levi and qualifed to serve in the Temple with a simple DNA test.

And if you would, why would you exempt human beings from this classification? Because we're so special?&nbsp;[/B]

Of course I would classify them seperate. They were created seperate, there is a different account of their creation in the Bible.

&nbsp;Mankind was&nbsp;seperate, because in some way they were created in the image of God. Also I believe Adam and Eve were set apart from mankind when God breated His Spirit into them. Adam and Eve could actually talk to God. In the non Bible literature they were refered to as gods. Or someone would be 3/4 man and 1/4 god, something like that.

 

[judy]

1st April 2003 at 10:06 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #49



Of course I would classify them seperate. They were created seperate, there is a different account of their creation in the Bible.

&nbsp;Mankind was&nbsp;seperate, because in some way they were created in the image of God. Also I believe Adam and Eve were set apart from mankind when God breated His Spirit into them. Adam and Eve could actually talk to God. In the non Bible literature they were refered to as gods. Or someone would be 3/4 man and 1/4 god, something like that.

If we're separate, why do we share 98% or our genetic code with chimpanzees?

Rather than refuting evolution, the more we learn about microbiology and DNA, the more evidence we have that it did occur, and that we're not really all that special.

We're really just animals, John. Really smart, hairless apes. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:01 PM lucaspa said this in Post #48&nbsp; But that gets us&nbsp;back to Lady Shea's problem: how do you identifiy, from looking at the organisms, where the separate gene pools are?

I thought you were the Biologist? Why are you asking me this question? You have to trace it back.

After all, cats and dogs could be from the&nbsp;same ancestral mammalian gene pool.&nbsp; How do&nbsp;you <B>know</B> they aren't?&nbsp;

That is simple. Dogs and cats can not reproduce together.&nbsp;Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.

&nbsp;

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1st April 2003 at 10:12 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #51

That is simple. Dogs and cats can not reproduce together.&nbsp;Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.

Therefore, kinds = species.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:48 PM lucaspa said this in Post #41&nbsp;


Now, if&nbsp;kinds come from the "same ancestral gene pool" how is this different from evolution?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Are you talking about evolution before or after Darwin hijacked it?

 

[Arikay]

John, thats very similiar to the definition of a species. So, now are you saying a "kind" is like a species?

1st April 2003 at 07:12 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #51
That is simple. Dogs and cats can not reproduce together.&nbsp;Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:55 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #45

I did not claim to have all the science answers. I just started to work on this. This is science, not theology. Your the one who is not doing your job. Don't go putting it off on me.&nbsp;

First, I am doing my job as a scientist. I am testing claims/hypotheses.&nbsp; You made the hypothesis/claim about kinds. I'm testing that in an attempt to falsify it.&nbsp; Seems that I am doing a good job.

Second, you apparently contradict yourself. In post #37 you said "You do not want to teach theology in the science class. So why do you expect us to teach science in the theology class?"&nbsp; Now you are calling it science, not theology.&nbsp; Please make up your mind.

As to "kinds", science did it's job long ago.&nbsp; Science doesn't use "kinds", but species and populations.&nbsp; Populations are: "a group of conspecific organisms that occupy a more or less well defined geographical region and exhibit reproductive continuity from generation to generation."

For sexually reproducing populations, species are "the members of a group of populations that interbreed or potentially interbreed with each other under natural conditions".&nbsp; Or, put slightly differently "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Mayr 1942)

The reality is that there are only species. Any "higher" taxa is a construct of human classification.

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 10:12 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #51

I thought you were the Biologist? Why are you asking me this question? You have to trace it back.

Nice try, John. But I didn't make the claim. You did.&nbsp;

Also, when science tried to do this via phylogenetic analysis, we couldn't find any "break" point where you could say that the cat "kind" was not linked to the dog "kind".&nbsp; They are linked through their historical connections (common ancestry).

That is simple. Dogs and cats can not reproduce together.&nbsp;Kinds can only reproduce after their kind.&nbsp;

&nbsp; Now you have "kinds" equalling biological species.&nbsp; Of course, the problem is that we are not sure all dogs can reproduce with all other dogs any more.&nbsp; Genetic analysis indicates that dogs are actually 3 species.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:12 PM judy said this in Post #50 If we're separate, why do we share 98% or our genetic code with chimpanzees?

The only thing I know about DNA is what the Biologist tell me. So you will have to talk to them. But my experance of working with Biologiest is you can only believe half of what they say.

We're really just animals, John. Really smart, hairless apes. Sorry to burst your bubble.&nbsp; [/B]

Adam and Eve were different from the animals in the naphach. The breath of life that God breathed into them. This gave them neshamah, and this gave them a divine inspiration or a divine intellect.

Even you contradict yourself when you say we are "really smart". Because that in and of itselfs sets us apart and makes us different. God gave us dominion over the animals.

If all you are is a animal, then you will be destroyed, just like the animals are. I am going to live forever. We will receive eternal life. <B></B><B>&nbsp;

</B>


&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 10:15 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #53



Are you talking about evolution before or after Darwin hijacked it?

LOL!&nbsp; This doesn't fly because Darwin never "hijacked" it.

However, you are dodging.&nbsp; I specifically used Darwin's phrase of "common ancestry".&nbsp;

Here are the questions for the third time.&nbsp; Please do me the courtesy of an answer:

Now, if&nbsp;kinds come from the "same ancestral gene pool" how is this different from evolution?&nbsp;&nbsp;You are also saying common ancestry. Evolution says all organisms came from the "same ancestral gene pool" -- common ancestry.&nbsp;

It would appear that you are saying that there are several different ancestral gene pools. But that gets us&nbsp;back to Lady Shea's problem: how do you identifiy, from looking at the organisms, where the separate gene pools are?

After all, cats and dogs could be from the&nbsp;same ancestral mammalian gene pool.&nbsp; How do&nbsp;you know they aren't?

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 10:06 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #49

I do not know how to classify Apes, that is a science question, not a theology question.

But you are talking science. Are apes a single kind, variation within a larger kind, or many separate kinds?

I thought they had all the records for that in the DNA. Can't they just trace the DNA back?

When we "trace the DNA back", we find that all life is a single "kind" because it all came from a single gene pool.

Of course I would classify them seperate. They were created seperate, there is a different account of their creation in the Bible.

So humans are a separate kind?&nbsp; How can you tell that from the DNA?&nbsp; Remember, we are talking science and not theology.&nbsp; The DNA shows common ancestry with chimps.&nbsp; That means chimps and humans come from a single gene pool.&nbsp; That makes them variations within a&nbsp;kind, not a separate kind.

&nbsp;In the non Bible literature they were refered to as gods. Or someone would be 3/4 man and 1/4 god, something like that.

What non-Bible literature? Can you give us the names of the books, John?&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp;

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:21 PM lucaspa said this in Post #56&nbsp;&nbsp; They are linked through their historical connections (common ancestry).&nbsp;

Show me your evidence for common ancestery, sense this seems to contradict the Bible.

Are you trying to say that some kind of reproduction took place before kinds became established?