What "kind" are penguins?

So there was one kind of "kind" before the flood and a different kind of "kind" after the flood?If there was hyper-evolution after the flood - due to DNA being over-stuffed with "genetic potential" - wouldn't there have been even more dramatic hyper-evolution before the flood?

---

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

I figure there were many varieties of a kind before the flood already. Didn't I say that? isn't that what the geological column shows, interpreted from a YEC point of view as laid down in the flood -- many varieties of a kind? The different "kind of kind" after the flood wouldn't just be one variety or kind of a kind but the usual evolving varieties.I don't believe in "hyper" evolution. I think it is generally overlooked in the evolution paradigm how much change occurs from generation to generation in the normal run of things for many kinds. Except that, yes, when you get down to highly specialized types, of which we have many in our time, that is, species hardwired in particular niches and so on, you do lose so much genetic potential that change slows down a lot. There may have been some of those on the ark too. I have no idea. How could anyone know?

You had said: so your answer, while interesting really doesn't address the question. If we are going to get into mutation and selection as the cause of the variations we now see, then it is obvious that the originals did not have the genes needed and variation is the result of evolution.I happen to think that is a great explanation, however the time line YECs propose is way too short to account for all the variation seen without invocing super-mega-hyper-macroevolution.so again, what is the model for kind?How can we answer the question in the OP about Penguins? What characteristics would let us place Penguins into some kind?

• they breathe air.
• they walk on two legs.
• they have feathers.
• they have scales.
• they lay eggs.
• they are carnivorous.
• they swim.
• they mate in bonded pairs.
• they share duties during hatching.
• they show protective behaviors.
• they can't fly.
• they do not build nests.
• they cannot run.
• they live in social colonies.
• they exhibit herd behavior.

So which characteristics could be used to classify Penguins as a kind?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I don't believe in "hyper" evolution. I think it is generally overlooked in the evolution paradigm how much change occurs from generation to generation in the normal run of things for many kinds.

---

If it's many kinds then I guess you can provide 3 or 4 examples?

The problem is that the Bible uses the same word - "kind" - at the creation, at the flood and after the flood, in Leviticus. There is no indication of the "varieties of kinds" that you speak of. I'm going with the simple *ahem* literal interpretation that the word "kind" means the same thing in all three places.So it seems to me that the "kinds" in Leviticus should be the same as the "kinds" in Genesis. One "kind" should not be able to become two or more "kinds". Simply put, the idea of rapid "microevolution" doesn't fit the usage of the word "kind" in the Bible.The question remains: Are penguins a "kind" today, or were they a "kind" during the flood or were they a "kind" at creation?

---

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

I would be happy to let you use "species". Yippee, everybody is happy! But don't try and tell me that they have evolved into new species in the space of 4,000 years. But then you have to get two of each of all of the animal species (and 7 of the clean ones) into the Ark. Oh dear. Wow, talk about avoiding the question. It would seem to me that the "Kinds" explanation put forth by the YECs is fundamental to their argument. So which bird "Kind" did penguins come from?

There is no way to know at this point what the original kinds were.If I have to guess what a penguin is, I have no trouble saying it's a bird. Its peculiarities don't to my mind keep it from being a bird. How many kinds of birds were/are there? Who knows?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The guy that wrote Leviticus 11:13-20, quoted up there in message 7, knew quite a few. And neither do a bat's peculiarities keep it from being a bird, I presume? Or the peculiarities of "All fowls that creep, going upon all four?"

If you don't know what the original kinds were how do you know how many there were and if the Ark could have held tham all? How many bird kinds were there? More than one? We know there were doves, so if there was only one bird kind, that means the penguin evolved from a dove in 4,000 years. Sounds pretty hyperevolutionary to me. Penguins are somewhat notorious for a high incidence of gayness. Do you suppose there was a gay gene in the original penguin kind or did that evolve since the Flood?
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/...ntwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

Penguins have feathers and beaks and claw feet and make a sound more like a bird than anything else. Bats have nothing in common with birds by my assessment. I think my assessment is quite rational and your question silly, but I also said nobody has a way of knowing.The problem is that the Bible uses the term "kind" in more than one sense. This is why we can't define the original kinds.

Okay, then how do we know if an animal is an original animal or a not?Let's say we're teaching this in a biology class - I'm giving a test. How do students sort it out?

It seems like neither you nor I have a solid understanding of what people mean by "kind".If all the Creationists/IDrs are merely guessing at animal classification, why are they even asking to be considered for education?It seems to me that if a group wants it possition considered seriously, they should maybe develop the idea to the point where their own supporters understand the system.I mean, if I was pushing a new type of math but couldn't sort out even and odd numbers, should people still "teach the contraversy"?

Ahh, but why?I agree that penguins are birds. I don't think that's in debate. What I'm trying to suss out is the thought process that leads to that conclusion.Here's an example of the thought process that leads AWAY from that conclusion --Birds fly, penguins do not fly - they swim under the water.
Birds nest in trees, penguins live where there are no tress.
Birds have feathers, penguins appear to have fur.
Seals have fur.
Seals swim under the water.
Seals eat fish.
Penguins are seals.Not saying that that argument is valid or even well thought out. And further, I don't agree with it. However, you can look at it and see what I am thinking and why.So, what makes a penguin a bird?

I see I didn't read down far enough. Okay, good. Basically what you're saying is "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck - it's a duck."So, the "bird" kind would include things with--
-feathers
-beaks
-claw'd feet
-bird soundsNow, we can't really use "bird sounds" to classify birds, for a number of reasons - the first being that you can't use a word in it's own definition. (ie. "Chocolate is anything which tastes like chocolate" is not an effective way to define chocolate.)Now, I think we can assume that beaks, claws and feathers have to work together, since turtles have both beaks and claws, but not feathers. and Badgers have claws but neither beaks nor feathers.Seems like "feathers" is the only uniquely bird characteristic.So would you say, all feathered animals are birds? Or do we want to stick with all feathers+beaks+claws = birds.Additionally, good job pointing out the bats are not birds, thus ruling out the obviously flawed argument "birds fly", since clearly many things fly which are not birds.I think we are making good progress here

And I agree. But Leviticus specifically names bats as an unclean "bird" or "fowl." So I'm not the one with the "silly" here. Moses, maybe, but not me.