Kinds are not related

I have been thinking lately that "kinds" might not have been looked at enough by Creationists. I believe a re-read of Genesis shows that every "sort" (NKJV) of animal should be saved in the ark, to preserve the "species".I believe(for now I believe it) "kinds" are groups of animals of the same design-type, rather than relatedness. This would explain how we can not relate a wildly differing morphology within the same kind.it would be a bit like adoption. The Gentiles are adopted and grafted in. the families of the world would be related by design, rather than biology, although obviously you would have close genetics in the same kind.This doesn't rule out diverse variation within a kind, as I am not claiming that there are any mutations. I am claiming that lots of sorts of species were taken on the ark, but not as many as today, and that from those species you would get variation, and speciation.So then "defining" kinds, and which animal belongs where, would now be moot, because this whole thing about physical appearance can be 1. confusing. and 2. Not relevant.So when you say, "which kind would animal X be in?", you are infact thinking in an evolutionary manner. A vastly different creature might be of the same kind, or might not.Remember - you can't demand that I know all of the kinds because I was not there at the time. There is no cladogram, so to speak, because we are ignorant. Do not use our ignorance to try and prove something, as we are not liars - we cannot pretend to have information we do not have, we can only make conjectural remarks based on the facts.

Thread copied here from the Kinds are not related thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

First question comes to mind which did not jump out at me:1: how many animals TOTAL do you suppose were on the Ark?Provided what your answer is will determine my next line of questions.

I think that the concept of "kind" has already been rendered meaningless without the need for any further obfuscation on your part.

I'm happy to run with that. But when I point to evidence of a population evolving you don't get to say 'but they are of the same kind'.You see, creationists often try to preserve their beliefs by conceding evolution when it is plainly obvious to even an untrained person, and maintaining that it is evolution 'within a kind'. So evolutionists quite rightly, want to have a concrete definition of a kind so they can try to demonstrate evolution across those borders so as to convince creationists of their position. They also want to test whether the example they just showed constitutes 'within a kind' or not - since taking your opponents word for it is not generally regarded as a successful debating strategy (it is not exactly a good method of persuasion after all).However, creationists are very unwilling to do this - possibly because it removes their ability to shift goalposts later on. Yet they are confident that an observed evolutionary event is definitely 'within a kind'. They don't see the problem with this.So - if you want to say that kinds are now unknowable - you don't get to hide behind them when an example of evolution is shown. If you are happy with that, I'm happy with that - getting creationists to drop the bad faith argument that is 'kinds' has been a long standing objective and it's nice to see somebody conceding it.

I guess half a concession is better than none.Nice to hear you say it's all a guess, now we just need to get you to realize that in reality it isn't based on any facts.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Why? Given that ... If 'kinds' are based on design type rather than relatedness why should they have close genetics at all?So basically no one can know what kind any animal belongs to or if any 2 animals are of the same kind. Sounds totally useless to me, keep up the good work.TTFN,WK

That sounds pretty good, as long as you let me put "design-type" in scare quotes. All animals do, indeed, seem to be of the Eukaryote Kind, and even more specifically of the Opisthokont Kind. You and I included, Mike. But how does that help the creationist cause?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Okay, lets start at the basics. This is a science forum. The fundamental requirement of science is that it is able to accurately make predictions(evolution accurately predicted and continues to predict intermediate species, a way for genes to be passed on and changed, vestigial organs, the geographic spread of species across the world, and that organisms will react to changes in their environment), what predictions does your idea of kinds make? How have these predictions borne out in reality?Edit: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent provides a good place for comparison. If you want your idea to be taken seriously, make some predictions with it(before you research what is happening preferably, you want to use this theory as your sole guide for predictions, as Darwin did when he predicted DNA). Some of your predictions might be wrong, but it will allow you to enhance your theory for additional accuracy to account for these failures.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

Did not! (/off-topic snark)

But Darwin did predict (the discovery of) radioactivity!Yes, this is off-topic, but why not get off this incredibly stupid topic? This reminds me of Faith, another creationist who used to post here regularly and insisted that raccoons and bears were of the same "kind" because they were equally cute.

Okay, I probably should have clarified more. He predicted a mechanism would exist in living beings which would pass on traits from one generation to another while allowing room for change.

Hi there.I don't know at all. I can say that however many fitted to the dimensions, as God isn't dumb afterall, but I suspect it will not be a satisfying answer to your question.

Hi mod.Don't be too cynical. Remember, I admitt ignorance of what the original kinds are. it is a bit of the fault of evolutionist and creationist. I have no ill will, but i do have to ponder the facts, and admitt that Genesis could mean a number of things by "kind" or "sort".I can give a solid definition, as being "the original seperate gene pools".But also, evolutionary thinking is very much prevailent but you would have to look at the facts according to the account in the bible.If a "kind" is defined by design, then "change within a kind" would not be relevant in the sense that it is only defined by design.Therefore variation would come from "sorts" of "kinds".I'm having trouble articulating what I mean. apologies.

I cannot not have any predictive power because the facts are posteriori which means that because "Creation" is complete, we do not expect to find new finds.But I can say what would follow, but I already have the facts, so it would be dishonest of me to state it.You see the problem? If I say; "I expect to see variation, caused by NS, but no new organisms."But we already see this, so I would not be in a scientifically perfect position. Nevertheless, the facts fit perfectly with the hypothetic.