Hi CRR,
The definition of
kind *does* have to have a solid definition. It can be as complicated and messy as the definition of
species, or it can be as simple as you like, or it can be anywhere in between, but it must have a clear and unambiguous definition. Without such a definition these claims from your
Message 28 and
Message 35 can't be discussed:
CRR in Message 28 writes:
However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another.
CRR in Message 35 writes:
Who claims that one kind can evolve into another? Evolutionists, that's who!
You
*do* offer a definition:
The definition I favour is "those animals/plants that could interbreed immediately following creation". There has been much speciation and differentiation since then and it is often difficult to precisely define boundaries between kinds.
Here's a list of the issues I see with your definition. Some have already been noted:
- Your definition makes specific reference to creation, which isn't a concept with any scientific foundation. The underlying assumption in all the science threads is that discussion will have a scientific foundation. If you believe you can establish a scientific foundation for creation then you should propose another thread where you do that, then return to this one.
- Your definition is specific to sexual species. Do you want to extend the definition to include asexual species like bacteria?
- Your definition includes speciation within kinds, which means you accept that an original interbreeding population of a single kind could gradually become two or more populations that cannot interbreed with one another. This seems to make kind superfluous and accept evolution's view of speciation.
- Your definition is vague. For example, your definition doesn't exclude mammal as a kind, but an original mammal kind could have gradually become many, many different mammal species within the mammal kind and that would still fit within your definition. But it is unlikely that you agree that kind applies to such a high level of classification as mammal.
Others will break your definition down differently, and that's fine, I see no reason to fix on a single analysis. But I do think it necessary that
kind be given a more precise definition and a more direct connection to the world that, as a purportedly scientific concept, it is required to have.
Please, no replies to this message.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |