Why creationists keep getting the "kind" argument wrong

[pitabread]

There are two ideas in claims regarding biological "kinds" of organisms:

1) That kinds represent lineages of organisms with independent origins.

2) That are limits to evolutionary changes that can occur re: kinds.​

In most contexts, creationists are usually trying to argue point #2 re: kinds. Usually this is phrased as "a kind cannot evolve into a different kind".

The problem is that creationists often use point #1 to try to support point #2.

Lineages are by definition fixed. A "kind" cannot suddenly change its lineage any more than one can change their biological parents. Any descendants of a particular lineage will always be part of that lineage.

A "kind cannot evolve into a different kind" will always be true regardless of the starting point one chooses. This holds true whether one believes there was one originally created kind or thousands.

The fixity of lineages doesn't imply a limit on any subsequent biological change over time. For example, there is nothing that inhibits a modern terrestrial population from evolving and becoming fully-aquatic in the future. Using the idea of independent created lineages to imply evolutionary limits doesn't really work. The latter is not dependent on the former.

If one wishes to make an argument re: evolutionary limits over time, one cannot do so simply by arguing independent origins of lineages.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two ideas in claims regarding biological "kinds" of organisms:

1) That kinds represent lineages of organisms with independent origins.

2) That are limits to evolutionary changes that can occur re: kinds.​

In most contexts, creationists are usually trying to argue point #2 re: kinds. Usually this is phrased as "a kind cannot evolve into a different kind".

The problem is that creationists often use point #1 to try to support point #2.

Lineages are by definition fixed. A "kind" cannot suddenly change its lineage any more than one can change their biological parents. Any descendants of a particular lineage will always be part of that lineage.

A "kind cannot evolve into a different kind" will always be true regardless of the starting point one chooses. This holds true whether one believes there was one originally created kind or thousands.

The fixity of lineages doesn't imply a limit on any subsequent biological change over time. For example, there is nothing that inhibits a modern terrestrial population from evolving and becoming fully-aquatic in the future. Using the idea of independent created lineages to imply evolutionary limits doesn't really work. The latter is not dependent on the former.

If one wishes to make an argument re: evolutionary limits over time, one cannot do so simply by arguing independent origins of lineages.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Come on, AV (welcome back BTW!). Your return was heralded by your resurrecting a dead thread on this very topic. Surely you have some more nuanced and informative thoughts to offer on the OP than amusingly feigning a lack of knowledge?

 

[AV1611VET]

Come on, AV (welcome back BTW!). Your return was heralded by your resurrecting a dead thread on this very topic. Surely you have some more nuanced and informative thoughts to offer on the OP than amusingly feigning a lack of knowledge?

I like the word pitabread used: "lineage".

A "kind" is a "fixed lineage," preset by God during the Creation Week.

In other words, God foreordained that an animal He created would only evolve to a given point, then cease for whatever reason (sterility, extinction, whatever).

For example, He created the Panthera.

Later, it gave us the lion, the tiger, the leopard, and the jaguar.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I like the word pitabread used: "lineage".

A "kind" is a "fixed lineage," preset by God during the Creation Week.

In other words, God foreordained that an animal He created would only evolve to a given point, then cease for whatever reason (sterility, extinction, whatever).

For example, He created the Panthera.

Later, it gave us the lion, the tiger, the leopard, and the jaguar.

I've asked you this before and you never answered. Is it your belief that, for example, pumas, jaguars and cheetahs are all different kinds that are not actually biologically related to each other but only show "common design"? That an ancestor of each of these, which everyone agrees are "cats", was on the ark?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've asked you this before and you never answered. Is it your belief that, for example, pumas, jaguars and cheetahs are all different kinds that are not actually biologically related to each other but only show "common design"? That an ancestor of each of these, which everyone agrees are "cats", were on the ark?

Whichever animal is at the top of the pyramid, that's all that had to board.

I think the term is "common ancestor."

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Whichever animal is at the top of the pyramid, that's all that had to board.

I think the term is "common ancestor."

What? The 3 examples I gave you are all different genera. According to your definition of "kind" these animals are not related and an ancestor of each would have had to have been on the ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

What? The 3 examples I gave you are all different genera. According to your definition of "kind" these animals are not related and an ancestor of each would have had to have been on the ark.

Oh, sorry.

Yes ... the ancestor of each would have to have been on the Ark.

 

[pitabread]

A "kind" is a "fixed lineage," preset by God during the Creation Week.

In other words, God foreordained that an animal He created would only evolve to a given point, then cease for whatever reason (sterility, extinction, whatever).

That's not what I'm saying though. Having independent origins for different biological lineages does not automatically imply that there are fixed evolutionary limits.

That is why creationists keep getting the "kind" argument wrong. You can't argue fixed evolutionary limits based on independent origins. You need some other mechanism in order to claim there are fixed limits.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Oh, sorry.

Yes ... the ancestor of each would have to have been on the Ark.

So, just to be clear...

You think this animal:

and this animal:

Are completely unrelated biologically? They share no DNA due to common ancestry?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, just to be clear...

Just to be clear, if the two animals have been labeled with two different genuses, then they have been labeled with two different kinds.

 

[pitabread]

Are completely unrelated biologically? They share no DNA due to common ancestry?

This is where one can pull the ol' "common parts = common design" claim.

Of course given the lack of any biological definition for "kinds", any claims of independently created lineages is completely arbitrary. There is no way for creationists to confirm any of these claims.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Just to be clear, if the two animals have been labeled with two different genuses, then they have been labeled with two different kinds.

It's ridiculous to say that Pumas and Leopards are not biologically related, which is what your definition implies. In that context your definition of "kind" is invalid. There are many animals that easily break your kind=genus concept.

"Kind" as used in Genesis was meant roughly as "species". It has no precise scientific definition because that was not the intent. The intent was horses beget horses, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, goats beget goats, etc. It was what people observed day-to-day. The attempt to make it a scientific term and shoehorn it into something more than that is simply folly.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's ridiculous to say that Pumas and Leopards are not biologically related, which is what your definition implies.

I disagree.

My definition should imply that Puma and Panthera are different genera.

"Kind" as used in Genesis was meant roughly as "species".

Again, I disagree.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I disagree.

My definition should imply that Puma and Panthera are different genera.Again, I disagree.

Puma and Panthera are not examples of different genera. One is an actual animal and the other is a classification. I don't think you've actually thought about or studied this deeply.

 

[AV1611VET]

Puma and Panthera are not examples of different genera. One is an actual animal and the other is a classification.

Wikipedia says otherwise.

Puma is a genus in the family Felidae that contains the cougar ...

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I stand corrected. My source listed Pumas (the actual cat) as Felis concolor and did not list "puma" as a genus.

My assessment still stands, though. It's ridiculous to say that those animals in different genera are not biologically related. A more detailed phylogeny shows that you would have to say that cloud leopards and jungle leopards are not related either since they also belong to different genera. That just doesn't make sense. We call the entire family Felidae "cats" because we can tell visually that these animals are all related and DNA analysis backs that up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand corrected. My source listed Pumas (the actual cat) as Felis concolor and did not list "puma" as a genus.

My assessment still stands, though. It's ridiculous to say that those animals in different genera are not biologically related. A more detailed phylogeny shows that you would have to say that cloud leopards and jungle leopards are not related either since they also belong to different genera. That just doesn't make sense. We call the entire family Felidae "cats" because we can tell visually that these animals are all related and DNA analysis backs that up.

They may have the same innards (like DNA), but they aren't linked.

If I make a snowman in my yard, and someone next door makes a snow cow, are both of those related?

After all, they are both made up of 100% ingredients ... snow.

 

[pitabread]

They may have the same innards (like DNA), but they aren't linked.

It's a bit more complicated than that. When looking at genomes of organisms, it's not just that they share common genetics, it's that the pattern of common genetics fits the evolutionary constraints via common ancestry and inheritance.

If one wanted to argue for independent lineages, we would expect some sort of discontinuity. Such discontinuity doesn't exist in nature.

IOW, if those species were descended from independently created lineages, they don't look like it. Everything in biology has the appearance of evolution and common ancestry.

Which begs the question: why would a supernatural being independently creating lineages be bound by the same constraints as evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a bit more complicated than that. When looking at genomes of organisms, it's not just that they share common genetics, it's that the pattern of common genetics fits the evolutionary constraints via common ancestry and inheritance.

If one wanted to argue for independent lineages, we would expect some sort of discontinuity. Such discontinuity doesn't exist in nature.

IOW, if those species were descended from independently created lineages, they don't look like it. Everything in biology has the appearance of evolution and common ancestry.

Which begs the question: why would a supernatural being independently creating lineages be bound by the same constraints as evolution?

And around and around we go.