Define "Kind"

quote:

---

No, it's merely a coincidence. The Fall affected them similarly concerning Vitamin C for some reason.

---

So, is it "merely a coincidence" that I share more genes with my parents than I do with my grandparents, and fewer still with my great grandparents, and so on, and so on?Is that a result of the fall too?It is clear that you have completely rejected the genetic basis for relatedness.

quote:

---

What other creatures have a broken vitamin C gene by the way?

---

Guinea Pigs.

Faith, you claimed that the only similarities between Apes and humans were "macro structures".We share a broken gene for producing Vitamin C with Chimps and Gorillas, our two closest relatives.Do you agree that it is a FACT that we share this gene?Do you agree that a similarity in a teeny, tiny, little portion of a strand of DNA is NOT a MACRO structure?That was the point.

The rest of the great apes and some of the monkeys have a vitamin C gene broken in the same place. Humans and great apes have urate oxidase genes broken in the same place. We (humans and the other great apes) all have a couple dozen or more genes for odor receptors broken in the same places. We all form an accessory olfactory bulb in our brains as embryos, and then resorb it, as we all have non-functional vomeronasal organs after we're born - though we start to form them as embryos.

Is there any way for you to 'quantify' the differences, and simularities. Is there a way to show these differences and simularities have to do with being a "kind"

But does the Bible even give any clues as to what a kind might be? It may not define "kind", but are there examples? What does the Bible say?According to the Flood story, animals were put on the Ark by "kinds" in groups of 2 and 7, right? The only specifically identified animals are the dove and the raven (as far as I recall these are the only ones). Therefore, by definition, these two birds would have to be representative "kinds" of the animals that would have made it onto the Ark.So if this is any indication, "kind" would appear to be somewhere about the genus level of classification. So if we go by the Bible example of a "kind" being a raven and a dove, it appears to be more specific than just "bird-kind" and similar groups.~clpMINI

Except for some writings that various different people interpret in various different ways, and often disagree if it is from god or not, God has been very silent on the issue of what a 'kind' is.Now, if God was our creator, and God gave us a brain, then, by golly by gosh, we should USE that brain.So, based on your observations of the real world, and comparing it to the scriptures, what definition of a Kind that you can use so that we can actually make sense out of the use of the word 'kind', instead of it being this ill defined word that just means about anything.

Yes, my groupings may be too all-inclusive, but just because raven and dove are named shouldn't have to mean they are separate kinds of birds. They may merely be members of the one bird Kind, as it isn't necessary to assume that the Kinds that went on the ark are identical to the Kinds created in Eden. There would have been variation and selection processes since Eden.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 04:38 PM

The Bible uses the word 'kind' in a very general way, much as we say, "What kind of dog is that?", etc.

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 cuckoo, 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....

---

The idea of "kind" as some reproductive barrier has no more Biblical basis than it does a scientific basis.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's true that the term is used in many different ways, but this doesn't exclude the possibility of a limit to the processes of speciation that would ultimately define what the original Kinds are. Nobody said anything about a "reproductive barrier" by the way. I think reproductive ability may cease between populations of the same Kind quite frequently.

As I said at the very beginning of this discussion this is the best that can be done with the concept at this time. There's no point in continuing to demand more specificity. It isn't available. The concept is vague in the Bible, and it will require science to define it -- eventually.

It might be useful to clarify then:You don't agree with the majority of creationist organizations as to what a kind might be or what went on the ark?

It's interesting but since I know we aren't apes there is going to be another explanation than descent.

I don't know. I may agree with some of them. I've read some of their discussions, only not very recently.

It appears that you are gradually getting further and further from them but then there seem to be more ideas about this than there are creationists so I suppose you might be in agreement with one somewhere.

How nice, a post from you that is actually pleasant, and amusing as well.