"Kind"ly Creationism

Okay, here is a new thread on the Creationist definition of "kinds". My hope is that any YEC's out there can help with this, the definition as I have seen it is always slippery and changes to fit any presented evidence.Taxonomically I have seen the term fit to species (dog kind [including all breeds of dogs], human kind [modern man and some extinct variants]), family (horse kind [donkeys, horses, zebras], cat kind

(post continued)
It is truly a bullet-proof argument, provided that "kind" is never shackled with a consistant definition. I lieu of above, I propose the following defintiion for the YEC "kind"Kind (n): Any taxonomic category from species to kingdom for which there is available fossil, biochemical, embryonic, or morphological evidence of transition between members of the next lowest ranking taxonomic category.Please, any YEC's out there who have a better definition please reply. I have attempted on several occassions to pin down this definition to no avail. As I mentioned in another post, I have a correspondence with Kent Hovind that states that hermit crabs and Alaskan king crabs are a single kind, and that ALL mollusks represent a single kind (I sent him a detailed narrative of mollusk evolution based upon transitional fossils that derives modern scaphopods, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods from monoplacophoran ancestors with all of the transitions known). If the mollusks (a phylum) represent a kind, then it is clear that the Creator only needed to create about 33 kinds of animals. Adam was probably a lancelet or acorn worm of some type.[This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 03-22-2004]

Thread moved here from the Human Origins forum.

What are you talking about Adam being a lancelet, acorn worm?
A little blunt, but can you explain?

---

The earth is flat.

Any Scientific theory changes with new evidence. Of course the Bible is different, but when one is unclear on the specifics, usually narrowing it down is nearly impossible.

---

The earth is flat.

My point is that (according to Hovind's definition) if "kind" can include members of an entire phylum, then the represented created "kind" for chordates (the phylum which includes vertebrates, lancelets, tunicates, conodonts, etc) could have been a lancelet or acorn worm (cepahlochordates and hemichordates, respectively).The central message is one of scale. To Hovind, all mollusks seem similar enough that the differences between major groups isn't important. This is why I roll on the floor when I hear him use statements like "I have taught science for 20 years". Which of course makes him an expert in all fields of science except geology, anthropology, cosmology, meterology, biology, and chemistry. To those of us who study invertebrates, the differences between different mollusk classes is AT LEAST the same as the difference between humans and acorn worms. Probably even more so, acorn worms and humans have a pretty similar embryonic development, organ systems, etc. while mollusks vary greatly in these respects between classes.

I am unclear on what Hovind was aiming at.

---

The earth is flat.

As are all the rest of us, nearly all the time.

k

---

The earth is flat.

Dear Lithodid-Man,I use kind with both fossil and recent organisms. I just attract a short attention in that only fossil species are defined with uncertainty (impossible to test the interbreeding). This is inconsistent for genus because of the following explanation.Kind (genus) is the taxonomic division immediately above species. I mean that you have a kind (genus) when you are able to demonstrate an evolutionary trajectory through time scale underling and supported by fossil records. I insist on the fact that the time between two fossil records must be at least superior of 2,5 million years for a fish.
In fossil fish taxonomy, we have a few Goody-two-shoes completely ignorant of this concept. They still create genus each time they found something different. Before rejoining this forum, I was not aware about the Creatos though (nothing here like that). I suspect the concerned Goody2S to be cryptic Creationists.Denesha

Hi LM.servent2thecause has posted the following definition of "kind" in his OP in this thread: Since according to s2c us lowly, unqualified scientists and informed laypeople are "not allowed" to post in his/her thread, I thought to bring the discussion of this definition over to the thread you kindly opened for the topic. I doubt s/he will follow, but I've posted a link to this topic in the referenced thread via edit.To me, there are serious problems with this definition when you look at the details. In the first place, it's extremely squishy (even moreso than the BSC). In many "kinds", the equivalent taxonomic category would be species, and in others genus or possibly even family. At the opposite extreme, by this definition every clonal organism is a separate "kind", since every clonal organism (especially unicellular) can theoretically "bring forth" a new lineage. The criteria appears to be similar at first glance to the BSC without the caveat of "in the wild". IOW, apparently the biblical "kind" would include any hybrid that could be induced artificially. This means that Panthera tigris and Panthera leo are the same kind, whereas Pseudorca crassidens and Tursiops truncatus which form occasional hybrids known as wolphins are also the same kind - putting kind at the family level (Delphinidae) but separating out all the other non-hybridizing species into another "kind" - and that the Canidae are split arbitrarily depending on type between species and genus such that wolves, red wolves, domestic dogs, coyotes (all the Canis and Canus species, are lumped into a single "kind", and are separate from foxes, dholes, other kinds of wolf, etc.In other words, this is far from an "operational" definition. It is about as useless for understanding biodiversity as something developed by a four-year-old (doggy kind, shelly kind, bug kind, bird kind, etc). And creationists wonder why no one takes them seriously.edited to correct quote attribution[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-23-2004]

Within the creationist "kind" argument, it seems that the number of kinds can not increase. If the definition of kind rests on interbreeding, then the definition of a new kind would be organisms that could at one time interbreed but are no longer able to.This has been observed. One good example is the polychaete worm Nereis acuminata. A breeding group was split between two laboratories, and they were kept isolated for 27 years. When the two groups were brought back together they produced 0 offspring. By using the qualification of interbreeding, wouldn't this qualify as a new kind? It would appear so. This would qualify as macroevolution.source:http://www2.eou.edu/~jrinehar/bio102/specevnt.htm

That's a tough question. It REALLY depends on, "All this, of course, would not be possible if the complete logical cogency of Von Neumann's argument as to the impossibility of concealed mechanisms is granted."p37 Bridgman SINGLE FRAMES OF REFERENCE. I have been able to marginalize the answer to page 49(if red)of A sophistprimer where Bridgman wrote, "As long as it is assumed that the propagation of light is characterized ONLY by its two-way velocity in any direction, it would appear that an experimental clock of isotropy is necessary for EVERY direction. For one can imagine a medium constituted of infinitely fine threads raditating in every direction, each thread having its own characteristic velocity of propagation. Such a medium would permit discontinuous variations for every direction would appear to be necessary. Hence it ouwl logically apper ((((BSM BARAMINICALLY)))) that, in order to verify the physical correctness of relativity theory, the velocity of light should be checked in every ((POLYBARAMIN))) direction. Practically, we doubtless will be satisfied with a single triangle, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.so can the randomization make an increase? I doubt it. but I also dont thinkt that I am satisfied as the equivocation shows.

Brad,I am not really sure how light has anything to do with speciation and the formation of new kinds. I took the following assumptions from the creationist camp:1. God created the kinds, all species are derived from these kinds.2. No other kinds have ever been made.3. Organisms are not able to evolve outside of their kind, only adapt within their kind.4. Kinds are defined by an interbreeding group.I have shown, witht the above worm, that interbreeding is a discontinous process. In the worms, although previously one interbreeding population, are now not able to produce viable offspring. This is, by definition, a new kind. This does away with assumptions 2 and 3 above. If crossing the kind barrier is macroevolution, then this is an example of macroevolution, evolution above the level of kind and species.It has been asserted by myself and others that the kind designation is nothing other than an arbitrary assignment of organisms to fit an already assumed hierarchy. What evidence says that common ancestory stops at a certain point? None. Kinds is something taken from the Bible and forced on to the data.

In my experience the term "kind" has migrated to the "genus" or "family" level from "species" due to the abundance of evidence such as you present.This also allows {horse \ donkey \ zebra} and their sterile interbred offspring.The fossil evidence of {reptile to mammal} transitions is provided by the Therapsids:
http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htmNote in particular the intermediate form with two jaw hinges.enjoy.

---