Define "Kind"

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

There are some good threads about this out there. Message 133Message 1Are 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

Fascinating. We can look it up easily: and becomes furthermore: Very interesting.

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.

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 Family
Herbs ?
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.