What a long word salad to try and hand wave the fact that there's no definition of "kind" away. The following sentence shows that the term "kind", along with all other sciency-sounding terms used in the pseudoscience of creationism is always pseudoscience.
quote: "kinds", on the other hand, suggest that biological diversity had a much more complex starting point;….
The empirical evidence indicate the opposite.
We've got empirical evidence that the first cellular life forms (as we know it) were prokaryotic cells. We've got them in the form of fossils in the lowest and oldest rocks containing cellular fossils, indicating that the most complex form of life existed as prokaryotic unicellular organisms at that stage. No evidence of more complex life then.
What empirical evidence do you have that "biological diversity had a more complex starting point"? Just a whole variety of holy books and wishful thinking?
quote: A passionate advocate of evolutionary theory, Gould wrote prolifically on the subject, trying to communicate his understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology to a wide audience.
quote:...devoted considerable time to fighting against creationism (and the related constructs Creation science and Intelligent design). Most notably, Gould provided expert testimony against the equal-time creationism law in McLean v. Arkansas.
For me the solution is simple. I would place creatures of obvious phenotypic similarity into the same Kind ...
But there are lots of obvious phenotypic similarities. Mammals, for example, all have obvious phenotypic similarities, that's what makes us group them together as mammals. At what point would you like to start ignoring the similarities (and, apart from being a creationist, why)?
This would allow for the diversity created by simple speciation, without requiring the problematic increase in genetic complexity which, as we all know, has never been observed or documented.
Polymer-metabolising microbes not withstanding, of course.
If you wish to be wrong about this, start a new thread or revive an old one where it's on topic.
For decades creationists have been using the word "kind," “type,” or “group” for their envisioned categories of genetically unrelated organisms, including all those formed by the Creator during the Creation Week.
I agree with many other people that "family" is the taxonomic level that best approximates "kind".
That's a huge problem for flood believers. Let's look at a simple case, the Equidae: there are 37 recognized genera, all but one are extinct. The genus Equus includes 22 recognized species of which 7 are extant.
The Felidae include 43 genera, of which 15 are extant. In those 15 genera there are 41 species.
The canidae includes around 290 species. These overlap extinct species in extant genera. There are 13 extant genera with 36 extant species.
So, are all of the extinct species pre-flood? Where did they all come from? Were they all created kinds? Or did they hyper-evolve from created kinds in the few years between the creation and the flood? Which were the "kinds" that Noah took aboard the ark and how did the extant species evolve at such hyper-evolutionary rates from a single pair in only a few years? I'm an evolutionary biologist and the thought of evolution at such rates makes my head spin.
I'm an evolutionary biologist and the thought of evolution at such rates makes my head spin.
You think that's bad? Creationist John Woodmorappe writes:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
So creationists think the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. This change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.