What "kind" are penguins?

Part of the ongoing problem that scientists are having with the terminology used by the ID/Creationists is this idea that animals were created in "kind".But I have yet to hear a really concrete definition of "kind".So, I propose that we look at a specific group of animals - the penguins - and figure out where they fit.Are penguins of the "kind" bird? If so, why? If not, why? Is "Penguin" a kind? If so, is "Turkey" a kind?What the thought process, if any, involved in Creationist classification?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Haven't we said often enough that there is no way to know what the original Kinds encompassed? All we have is a few vague Biblical references. We know anything that "speciated" since the Fall is not synonymous with Kind, but rather a member of a Kind, whether we can say what that Kind is or not, and that's about it.We'd be very happy if we could use the term Species instead of Kind, but it's currently being used for this other purpose.But go ahead and dither about penguins anyway. They're interesting creatures.

I find this response more than a little disingenuous, Faith.You seem to have very definite ideas about post-flood hyper-evolution and super-fast continental drift (neither of which are explicitly defined in the Bible), so why are you suddenly so reticent to discuss your defintion of "kinds"?The whole concept of "kind" is central to your creation hypothesis, so if you can't define it then how can you expect to construct a viable flood hypothesis?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

While we're on the topic of birds, what about doves and ravens? On the description of those kinds the Bible is rather specific, is it not? Can we say there is a "dove" kind and a "raven" kind?

I have a question about the animals of the pre-Flood world and by extension those on the ark.Were there only kinds until after the Flood or were there both original kinds and members of a kind before the flood and so potentially at least on the ark.In case I'm not explaining it very well (and I'm not sure I am ) let's take the example of the raven and the dove that we know were both on the ark.If there were only kinds pre-Flood then raven and dove must be different kinds. If, however, there were both kinds and members of kinds then maybe on the ark there were ravens and doves and the 'ancestral' bird kind (from which they had both evolved), and after the flood receded all the modern birds except raven and dove hyper-evolved from the ancestral bird kind pair (or is it seven?).Is there a standard YEC view on this? If not what's you view?Edited by MangyTiger, : Added '(from which they had both evolved)'.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

We get a little more guidance from Leviticus, Chapter 11: This passage certainly suggests that, at least by Moses's time, there were more than one Kind of hawk, of raven, of kite, and of heron. Also, Owl appears to be distinct from Little Owl or Great Owl, as are Eagle and Gier Eagle.Penguins aren't mentioned, but is it possible that they are a Fowl That Creeps, Going Upon All Four? (sounds like reading Winnie the Pooh, doesn't it?) I sure can't think of any other birds that could even get nominated for that Kind/those Kinds - kiwis and ostriches go strictly on All Twos to the best of my knowledge. Auks and puffins, maybe....

Let's completely set aside pre-flood/post-flood issues for this topic. Let's assume we are simply trying to classify animals as we see them today.How do we determine what is a "kind" by today determining?Are all birds a kind?
Are eagles, hawks and falcons a kind, and doves, pigeons and chickens a different kind?
Are all warm blooded animals a kind?
Are slugs and snails a kind? Or are snails and hermet crabs a kind (since they both live in snail shells)?What do creationists/IDrs actually mean when they say kind? I'm not even asking for a definition, though that would certainly make life easier. I just want some concrete examples of what would fit into a particular kind or wouldn't fit and why.Think about it this way. If we suddenly discovered under the ice in Antartica a whole new animal - how would we determine if this animal was related to other animals we know today?

Hi Nuggin - I hope you don't mind if us non-Biblical Literalists (BLs) put in our two cents worth as well as Faith and the other BLs. Ok, I would say the very first classification you have to make is whether the animal is an original kind or a member of a kind^[1].Of course this is a moot point if all the orignal kinds have gone extinct, but if they haven't then if you can't differentiate between orginal and member you're pretty much screwed in terms of trying to do any clasification.^[1]Definitions:

• Original kind is a pre-Fall (note Fall, not Flood) animal which has survived to the present day
• Member of a kind is an animal which has speciated or evolved from an original kind since the Fall

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Hi Faith.Could you take a look at my Message 9 and see if the definfitions I've used seem appropriate to use and if not suggest corrections (this is your are of expertise not mine, so I'm always open to correction ).In addition do you have any idea if there are any original kinds still alive today or is everything post-Fall speciated descendants?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

It's hard even to make a guess in most cases. I think of cats and dogs first of all, but some claim that not everything I would class as a dog is in fact a dog. Well, I don't know. Maybe far enough back it descended from the same ancestor all dogs did. Or maybe not. A kind is certainly the original ancestor of whatever group we're talking about, but what its characterists were is far from easy to guess. I've nevertheless made some guesses in relation to dogs and cats on other threads, mostly behavioral, and all I got for my effort was ridicule altnough I still think those characteristics are pretty definitive. I have no idea. I might be tempted to class all birds together myself, or clean and unclean birds anyway, but there may have been more original kinds than that. No. Think dogs and cats at least. As long as you realize all you can get from me is my own personal speculations, which mean absolutely nothing in the end, the answer is yes to slugs and snails, no to snails and hermit crabs. It's easier to attempt a definition than to give concrete examples in most cases. Again dogs and cats. I think ALL cats are one kind -- but I could be wrong, maybe there are two or three cat kinds; I would think all dogs are a kind, probably the wolf being the closest to the original kind. Same situation as with cats beyond that. By how much it resembled some group or other. If it resembles none very much, I'd think of it as a possible reprsentative of a kind that went extinct; or there might be living representatives of its kind that simply evolved in a direction that makes the connection very hard to recognize.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's true, and considering the impact of the Fall plus constant (micro)evolution it's very possible we don't have a single representative of an original Kind of anything, but only members, sometimes of widely divergent characteristics from each other. Yes, that's what I had in mind. Good definitions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to have answered your own questions in your later post. I would guess there were only variations or members of a kind even by the time of the flood myself, given the changes to be expected from the fall, and the usual processes of (micro)evolution, but there's no way to know. Probably the original generation were all dead by then, and those would be the only originals after all. As a matter of fact, offspring are never identical to the parent so of course all are merely members of the original kind, the original merely having the genetic capacity to produce all the different varieties, and some loss of that capacity to be expected I would think in the individuals of that kind with every subsequent generation. All this isn't exactly clear in my mind yet so I'm sure it's not all that clear in print either.As a YEC who takes the fossil record as a picture of pre-flood flora and fauna, just from that I'd have to say there had been a lot of evolving going on by the time of the flood just to look at what is represented there. Many varieties of many different Kinds. That would be so, but they are probably different kinds anyway because one is clean and the other unclean. I don't know if there is a standard YEC view.I think I just figured out that there can't be any original kinds anyway because evolution is automatic. The only way there would be original kinds is if some originals had survived all the way from Eden to the ark. No chance of that. Even Methuselah was dead so certainly the animal kingdom didn't make it.My view is that there is a lot of genetic capacity to evolve in many members of a kind as well as the original ancestor, certainly whatever members were on the ark, but I'm not sure about the genetics involved. Actually great genetic capacity in the original kinds IS the standard YEC view, but I may elaborate it in my own way, not sure. However it works, Noah's sons and their wives had all it took to propagate the entire human population since then, and all of us now living descend from them. So something similar I assume pertains to the animals on the ark as well. There must have been a decreased capacity compared to the original kinds of course, unless as you say some were included on the ark, which I think couldn't have occurred.

What is your explanation for blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes and hazel eyes? I imagine that you believe that Noah's children were descended from Noah and his wife, is that correct?AbE: forgot grey eyes.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Polyploidy or mutation that is not random but chemically predictable in some way I don't grasp yet.