|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think it might be a good idea to point out why a definition is needed, though you do hint at it.
One comeback I hear time and time again is "I'll define 'kind' if you define species and genus and order". I remember Hovind making this argument, just to give some perspective on how wrong it is. The reason we need to define "kind" is because definite statements are being made about it, and definite statements cannot be made about indefinite terms. Faith (the poster) has almost entirely stepped out of science for now, so she can use the term easily. When it gets put forward as a scientific argument against evolution, that's when a definition needs to be put forward. Scientists make definite claims about species, but they will define what they mean by species before they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When I said 'Faith (the poster)', I didn't meant the poster you were referring to, I was just clarifying that I meant the poster Faith, not the noun. Typically, I added a new layer of ambiguity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis. I agree. However, it is one thing to say "I believe that organisms will only reproduce after their kind" and another to thing entirely to say "Evolution is wrong because organisms only reproduce after their kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I just lost my post for some reason.
I'm not typing the whole thing out again so I'll sum up. Evolutionists accept that creatures reproduce after their kind. It leads to the famous nested hierarchy. The real issue is created kinds, baramin. However, this doesn't discount macroevolution since that could easily be the case if the created kinds are extraordinarily general (cow, dog, monkey, bird, serpent, fish, crab etc). It does obviously discount universal common descent. Just some random food for thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I would expect that the Kinds are as general as those you list. And I don't see how macroevolution applies there, since if there are built-in limits, those ARE the limits that define the boundary between micro and macroevolution. If you don't consider a snake (or a snake with legs) becoming something akin to a brachiosaurus macroevolution, or a cow becoming a whale, or a dog becoming a bear, or a primate becoming both a mouse lemur and a gorilla macroevolution...then so be it. However, most creationists would consider this macroevolution I'd have thought. The only other way is to define macroevolution as evolution that happens across 'kinds', but without defining 'kinds' the word macroevolution has no definition either, so we are still stuck as to whether or not some undefined thing happens or not. Most of the time I see macroevolution as simply being large scale evolution that cannot be directly observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When some little worm or insect has more genes than a human being, all is not quite as easily interpreted here as is being claimed. Its not about the number of genes, its the methods for encoding protiens. There are countless ways to encode for any given protien, but for some reason organsims fit into a nested hierarchy of ways in which these things are encoded which matches with cladistics/taxonomy. Insects and worms have gone through more evolution than humans (at a guess - their lifespan and reproductive cycle is massively quicker than humans so there have probably been a hell of a lot more generations of insects and worms), so them having more of something is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There are some good threads about this out there.
Message 133 Message 1 Are good places to talk about how the sequences are compared, its a pet subject of mine, so I'll be happy to discuss it. AbE: Also see my laymans introduction to sequence comparison, here which is based on the thread above. This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 08:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's important to remember, I think, that "species" is the latin word for "kind". So, as much as creationists like to pretend that species and kind are two different things, the word used in the Bible would very likely have been translated as both "species" and "kind". So it doesn't really seem possible to me to make the statement made above; in Latin Bibles, I imagine, Genesis does say that "species" got on the ark.
Fascinating. We can look it up easily:
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good... latin translation writes:
et ait germinet terra herbam virentem et facientem semen et lignum pomiferum faciens fructum iuxta genus... and
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind becomes
latin writes: de volucribus iuxta genus suum et de iumentis in genere suo et ex omni reptili terrae secundum genus
furthermore:
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. latin writes: et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas et iumenta et omne reptile terrae in genere suo et vidit Deus quod esset bonum Very interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
in Message 17 I made a post giving further clarification on the term 'kind' being discussed, ie: 'created kinds' or baramin.
140 posts later and its still one the main subtitles. I think its time for its retiral.
"For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle and so say all of us And so say all of us, and so say all of us For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle and so say all of us For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle which nobody can deny Which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny For he's a jolly good subtitle for he's a jolly good subtitle For he's a jolly good subtitle which nobody can deny" OK, that was entirely off topic. Let me think...aha! This "Kind" of thing is exactly the "Kind" of thing that sends the Moose "Kind" crazy (or is it an Admin "Kind"? We really need a definition). Like I learned in "Kind"ergarten, you've got to be cruel to be "Kind". Erm, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The way I see it, according to Creationists, the creation was arbitrary. God didn't say, 'hmm I need to make sure there is an objective method for defining the way I create these things, just so Adam's descendents don't get confused.
So here are some Kinds the way I see them: Grass FamilyHerbs ? Fruit trees (genesis 1:11-12) ? All angiosperms that are trees? That's massively broad Whales (genesis 1:21) Order Cetacea Cattle (genesis 1: 24) Genus Bos Fowls (Gen 6:20) Order Galliformes Vulture family Cathartidae/family Accipitridae Kite family Accipitridae Owl Order Strigiformes Nite Hawk genus Chordeiles Hawk order Falconiformes Cuckoo family Cuculidae stork family Ciconiidae Heron family Ardeidae Lapwing genus Vanellus bat (Lev 11:14-19) order Chiroptera locust family Acrididae/family Locustidae bald locust ? beetle order Coleoptera Grasshopper (Lev 11:22) family Locustidae/Acrididae Weasel genus Mustela Mouse family Muridae/Cricetidae Tortoise (lev 11:29) family Testudinidae Human species Homo Sapiens The classification system we use is flawed: God does not bow to our definitions. I contend that when God created Kinds he didn't do it so that we would have an easy time classifying them. We could give them names easily enough, but finding some way of putting them into some sort of 'Kinds' using objective criteria is doomed to failure. Using our system we can conclude that Kinds generally falls in the area of Order and Family though sometimes they are as specific as genus. Humans are a special case. One thing therefore can be said with a good amount of certainty. Evolution cannot occur at the level of kingdom, phylum, class or order.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024