Define "Kind"

It's not at all a matter of being "up front" -- we simply do not KNOW what a kind is for certain. What we see now is end generations of varieties of whatever the original kinds were, and there have been many extinctions in between. There is no doubt a lot less of the original genetic capacity in any given living representative of the original kind.Yes, a kind is not necessarily any of the classifications used by science at present for the reasons you mention. "Species" used to be taken to be more or less synonymous with kind, but in the last few decades that term has come to designate what used to be called "varieties" of a kind. It seems to me a kind must include a variety that has diverged from a parent group to the point that it can no longer interbreed with that group, so that interbreeding capacity is not definitive of a kind. These varieties can't interbreed with the parent population most likely because of their reduced genetic variability compared to the parent population. Overall, specialization does lead to this reduced genetic variability, which doesn't fit well with the ToE. But others have insisted I'm wrong about this even though people responsible for taking care of environmentally threatened "species" (varieties according to me) have acknowledged it as a major problem. The original kinds would have had enormously more genetic variability than any of the "species" or "varieties" that have since (micro)"evolved" from them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[/qs]Creationists believe that there has been a massive change in the climate of the whole planet since the Flood, from an environment everywhere suited to immense fecundity to extremes of dryness and coldness that make for hard conditions for life to survive in some places. Also creationists believe that the continents were once united and drifted apart to their present positions, most likely as a result of tectonic action set in motion by the disturbances of the ocean floor that were part of the Flood. Sure. See above. We figure Noah preserved representatives of all the Kinds, not every single variety, enormous numbers perished in the Flood, and apparently the ones preserved became extinct since the Flood, perhaps due to the climate changes mentioned above.

Is that really how you remember it? I mean, seriously?

I don't do well with the contentiousness on these questions and you are one with whom it frequently occurs, so if I didn't understand something, chalk it up to that effect. Yes that is how I remember it.

probably the best argument. here, for instance, is leviticus listing a few kinds:

quote:

---

Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

​

Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind;

​

Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

​

Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

​

Lev 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

---

• vultures: family Accipitridae, family Cathartidae
• kites: subfamily Milvinae, subfamily Elaninae
• raven: several species of the genus Corvus
• owl: order Strigiformes
  • family Strigidae
  • family Tytonidae
• nighthawk: several genera of family Caprimulgidae
  • genus Nyctiprogne
  • genus Podager
  • genus Lurocalis
  • genus Chordeiles
• cuckoo: family Cuculidae
• hawk:
  • subfamily Accipitrinae, or
  • all other members of family Accipitridae not previously included
• locust: family Acrididae
• bald locust: ?
• beetle:
  • order Coleoptera, or
  • some have suggested this means crickets, family Gryllidae
• grasshopper: suborder Caelifera (including all locusts)
• weasel: genus Mustela
• mouse: genus Mus
• tortoise: family Testudinidae

to be entirely honest, there's a few we can fudge a little in one direction or another. for instance we can probably push the definition of "mice" reasonably up to the family Muridae and include rats and gerbils, and "weasel" up to family Mustelidae and include otters, badgers, and wolverines. we could probably also include all crows, magpies, and jays with ravens, and say it refers to family Corvidae. maybe.looking it over, i'd say the closest definition of "kind" would be family. though as looking these up has demonstrated, it's hardly a complete and consistent definition. and, of course, the authors of the bible were using terms in the vernacular, not linnean scientific nomenclature.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

It's just kind of funny, is all. The way it actually happened was like this - everybody agreed that allopatric speciation caused a reduction in diversity in both populations, as you've maintained. But it was repeatedly pointed out that this was not an obstacle for evolutionary theories because mutation was sufficient by itself to, over time, overcome the initial loss of diversity. And, indeed, this is borne out by both the fossil record and the genetic record, which describe an overarching tendancy of increasing diversity of living things.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

The kinds in Leviticus are no doubt vernacular classifications as you say, and whether they are identical to the original kinds created in the beginning isn't knowable.I wouldn't even venture a guess as to which taxonomic classification if any is synonymous with any of the original kinds. There is simply no way to know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't remember that "everybody" agreed with me by a long shot, and yes I do recall that the argument was not so much that I was wrong about this specific point but that mutation overcame the effect. Sometimes the argument was put in a more general way, so that people would reply to me that OVERALL there was an increase in variability, never acknowledge that there was EVER a decrease at any point. And the proofs that mutation would overcome this decrease were either not convincing or over my head and just a kind of snow job. As I recall.

I don't remember a single person who disagreed that the form of speciation you were referring to constituted a reduction in the diversity of both populations. Maybe that's just my memory, though. Ah, yes. Well, you wouldn't be a creationist if you were willing to admit that there might be aspects of the study of the natural world that would be beyond your expertise.

well, the term probably had similar (if not identical) meaning throughout the language. we can't say for sure, but leviticus certain does give us a hint at what the word itself means, and how it was used by people of the approximate time and place. i would, and did. as far as i know, no creationist has even tried. i'm unaware of any other example of logic or reasoning to support a proposed definition of kind. well, "i don't know" isn't a very good answer. especially when "kind" is being proposed as a strict limit for evolutionary adaptation -- but the term itself has no strict definition. that's just poor form, and kind of a cop-out way to avoid falsification. if there is no definition for "kind" then using it as a limit is meaningless.Edited by arachnophilia, : bad tag. bad, bad bad, tag. no cookie for you.

---

quote:

---

lol no we can't. but feel free to try anyways

---

thanks I just got done reading the thread that the post I replied to was spun off of and I see what you mean.

i'm sorry jaderis, i've already answered that claim and i have no intention of repeating myself or even pointing to where i did so.(welcome to the board!)

---

quote:

---

I really don't want to go back over all this contentious stuff. Most of what you are bringing up I've answered many times over and I don't care to be subjected to the typical rudeness you obviously bring to the questions. As I said the fact that you can come up with an alternative explanation for certain phenomena does not in itself make your explanation correct. I don't like the tone of your question about the kinds and it's pretty muddled anyway so I will ignore it. I believe the fossils are not ancient and were all laid down in the Flood.

---

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that I was expected to have read all of your posts on the whole of EvC after only posting three of my own (of course you cannot infer how long I have been lurking by that, but lemme give you a hint - it's about 3 days) in order to be able to reply to a post of yours. However, from what I had read up until the time that I posted my reply didn't indicate to me that had indeed answered any questions or presented any evidence and upon skipping over to the spin-off thread I am still left with nothing, so you can feel free to say you do not want to go through the gauntlet again (and since you have I will shut up about this matter and take it up with someone else), but don't pretend that you have answered anyone's questions.As for my rudeness, it is pretty damn rude to call me rude just because I imply some incredulity and incorporate some sarcasm into my questions (and I think most here will agree that the levels of that in my post were mighty low at that). I did not call you any names or sling other insults at you, but instead I asked legitimate questions with some sarcasm thrown in for flavor. Maybe that was wrong of me, but I would hardly call it rude.

quote:

---

I see no reason to say anything else, and if you ask another rude question you can be sure I will ignore you.

---

Well, seeing as how you have already made your mind up about me after only one post, I can hardly say I care. I would rather debate with someone who can actually answer questions presented to them...otherwise it is not debate, just one person asking a whole lot of questions and getting nothing in return.Added in Edit: After reviewing forum guidelines and reminding myself of my highschool debate years I concede that I was out of line, but I did pose legitimate questions and your arbitrary dismissal, accusation of rudeness and the way you replied to my post was equally out of line. Thanks for your warm Christian welcome. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

Yes, I apologize for my impatient response. Welcome to EvC.