Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Nonsense. Same place the original flood myth comes from.

I disagree. The use ICANT adopts in the post you are replying to is almost certainly the way the biblical writers were using it. And it does mean something it means "kind of thing", and it's not an unreasonable or useless concept, we use it all the time: Ferrari's (the Ferrari kind), Poodles (the poodle kind), etc., etc. - normal usage of the word, in fact.What it isn't is biologically meaningful, or - in fact - a concept matching the criteria ICANT himself sets for it, yet alone the more refined (if equally bollocks) baramin concept. You'll note ICANT happily trots out dog and wolf are different kinds, clearly violating his own "no kind gives rise to another kind" criteria.

Hi PegI joined this discussion late, so apologies if this has already been covered somewhere in the discussion. I just wanted to respond to your following statement because it raises a point I always find curious. What do you mean by "birds" when you say "many bird species were created". Or, indeed, what do you mean when you talk about "primates" or "reptiles" or "fish" or "rodents" or "molluscs" or "mammals", etc? What do those group words mean if you don't think they signify a form of relationship? If you think that all species or "kinds" were created entirely independently, then presumably a penguin is not related in any way to an ostrich. So what does it mean to classify either of them as a "bird"? Is a penguin not more similar to a seal than it is to an ostrich or a robin?

Mitochandrial Eve is not the most recent, common female ancestor. Y-chromosone Adam's mother, by necessity, must be a more recent common female ancestor. Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, meaning that she is everyone's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's.... etc. There are plenty more female common ancestors who lived far more recently, but to get from each of these to every person living today, it would be necessary to trace at least one line through at least one man.Edited by caffeine, : Just noticed the quote tags were a mess

Yes, you're quite correct. My bad.

Hi Nuggin, Sure I believe thing evolve. I believe man has created over 500 different breeds of dogs from the dog kind.Over 70 breeds of swine from the swine kind.Over 90 breeds of cows from the cow kind.Over 300 breeds of horses from the horse kind.Nobody knows how many hundreds of breeds of chickens from the chicken kind.But we have never created a new kind of animal out of any of them.Just look at what we have done to the human race.When I was in High School the largest player we had on our team weighed 228 lbs, and was 6' tall. Now they weigh 3 to 4 hundred lbs with heights up to 6' 7" and run a 4.9 40 yard dash.Looks like they are evolving to me. I could be mistaken though.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

How would you know? You can't define kind.If I present you with a bird you can't tell me if it is or is not a member of the "chicken" kind because you have NO system of classification which defines what characteristics are required to be considered a chicken or a non-chicken. The _ONLY_ sensible thing I've ever seen you post.

So just to be clear on the concept, are all beetles of the beetle kind?There are currently more than 350,000 known species of beetles, and most estimates say that there are probably 5 to 8 million all told. In addition, those 350,000 species all belong to the order Coleoptera which is further divided into 4 suborders consisting of more than 284 families. Also, if all beetles belong to the beetle kind, are weavils then also of the beetle kind, since they also belong to the order Coleoptera?On the other hand, are human beings of the same kind as squirrel monkeys, since we are also in the same order, just like all beetles are in the same order? Or are squirrel monkeys of the same kind as capuchins, since they're both in the same family and are also both called monkeys?If you agree that every kind was present on the ark, just how many beetles and monkeys are you going to have to have on board? Help me out on this one?(My apologies to any qualified biologists here. I hope that I'm at least right in the general outline.)

There is a big problem with defining kinds this way, just by using their common names. Based on the common names of animals I was brought up with, there would be a rabbit kind and a hare kind. I had great difficulty explaining what a hare was to my Czech colleague however, as they don't have separate words for rabbit and hare. Is there a hare kind and a rabbit kind in Britain, but only a rabbit kind in Czech Republic?

What "kind" are these animals, ICANT? Mother Nature shows a sense of HumorAn Okapi: A pangolin: An armadillo Girdled lizard:

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Good point.Try this. A person was talking about nylon eating bacteria, when the common creo idea was stated but "It's still a bacterium." and that it was the bacteria kind. Bacteria is a domain and if that is a kind then eukaryota would be a kind (same level, domain) which would mean that a human, jellyfish, mushroom, pine tree & amoeba would all be the same kind since they are all eukaryotes.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi hooah, A Okapi, is a giraffe kind.A pangolin, is a anteater kind.An armadillo Girdled lizard, as the name implies is a lizard kind.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi caffeine, Why?There are many breeds of dogs.There are many breeds of wolves.There are several breeds of tigers.There are many breeds of Hare's.There is not a problem with a kind. The problem comes when someone tries to define a kind using what man has set up as the evolutionary tree of life.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ZenMonkey, Well the problem is you believe everything evolved from a single cell life form.So no, humans are of the mankind.Squirrel monkeys are of the monkey kind.Each was created fully functional and full grown. I was not there and no one kept a complete record of how many kinds were there. Only that every one of every kind that was supposed too showed up on boarding day and entered the Ark.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Can you show any concrete evidence that this is so?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008