A kind is made up of one kind of critter not two kinds.
Sorry, that's not much of a definition. It is circular, and relies on undefined terms.
The "taxonomy" behind kinds is laid out in the creationist literature. Here is an excerpt from an article by Wayne Frair, Ph.D.
As Dr. Frair has a Ph.D. in Biochemical Taxonomy from the Rutgers University he should be able to set the record straight on this issue.
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMineís discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.
2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.
3. Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.
4. Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
5. Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.
6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.
7. Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organismís niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.
So what we have as the guidelines for the field of baraminology is adherence to scripture, and only then is attention paid to more scientific studies--but only as long as they don't conflict with scripture.
In other words, "kinds" (masquerading as science under the terms baraminology and "discontinuity systematics") is nothing but religion. Any attempts to make it into science are doomed to failure because it has to conform to scripture while science can go where the evidence leads, and science has been leading in other directions for centuries now.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Do you recognize that this is your opponents' position?
I don't have any opponents unless it is the fellow with the PHD that Coyote wrote about. He and I could get into a serious discussion of the Bible.
The posters here are not my opponents. They are a group that are convinced the Theory of Evolution is correct. Nothing I say or do can ever change their mind it is made up. They are like the fellow that told me concerning his religion. "I know what I believe and that settles it."
But yes I realize that no evolutionist here believes that one critter had to become another critter. But that we just started out as a single cell life form that by chance began to exist and then over quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillions of small changes the most complex piece of machinery began to exist, a human. There is no scientific verifiable evidence of such ever taking place. So it is just in the mind of the believer.
I happen to believe God created every creature that has ever existed, those that are extinct and those living today. He called those creatures kinds. He did not stop creating kinds of creatures until 6,000+ years ago.
Kind is not a scientific term and only means kind. So God created every kind of creature. If you can name it He created it. Now have fun with that one.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
I disagree. The only assumption cladistics makes is that organisms can be grouped by common ancestry. As long as this is true on some scale, clades can be used to group related animals. As such, any creationist, including ICANT, can apply cladistic methods to classify animals as kinds.
Cladistics in itself is only a system of classifying organisms. As such it can't be used to support any theory. However, the reason cladistics is so successful in describing all of life is that lifeforms naturally fall into a nested hierarchy with supergroups and subgroups. This natural arrangement of living things is, in my opinion, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favour of the ToE.
ICANT, I realize it might be hard for you to define a kind. To be fair, it's not always easy to define taxonomic groupings. Not even the term species is universally well defined. But among sexually reproducing species it is usually defined as animals that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.
Notice how I supplied a "definition" of species rather than an "example". If I had simply said "Cats are a species", I would have given an example, but we would not have known whether Naked Mole Rats constituted a species. Using my definition I can confirm that Naked Mole Rats do indeed constitute a species.
Now, will you at least consider offering a definition of "kind"?
Even if you persist in ignoring this request, your kinds are still clades. Even if only on the species level, each of your kinds will contain individuals who share a common ancestor. Once you have accepted the definition of clade as being inclusive of your "kinds", you need to understand that evolution will never remove an organism from its kind. So when you said:
Transmutation is when one thing ceases to be that thing and becomes a different thing.
you were very very wrong. When birds evolved from ancestral archosaurs there was never a point when they were neither archosaurs nor birds. Neither have they ever stopped being archosaurs.
This is a very simple concept, and furthermore, it doesn't prove evolution, nor is it evidence against your personal beliefs in YEC. You only have to understand how evolution works, and unlearn how it doesn't. Only then can you decide whether you want to continue rejecting it.
They are a group that are convinced the Theory of Evolution is correct. Nothing I say or do can ever change their mind it is made up. They are like the fellow that told me concerning his religion. "I know what I believe and that settles it."
I will reject evolution right away, the moment I'm faced with a superior theory. You seem to think you have one. If you can define it properly maybe you will convince me, but until you do so I'll stick with the theory that I understand.
I happen to believe God created every creature that has ever existed, those that are extinct and those living today. He called those creatures kinds. He did not stop creating kinds of creatures until 6,000+ years ago. ... There is no scientific verifiable evidence of such ever taking place. So it is just in the mind of the believer.
Meldinoor stated they would be the same kind as they had gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
He then asks anyone to tell him why he is wrong.
He admits he is wrong in Message 65 when he says:
"Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen."
So the only thing left to do is give a definition of Bible "kind".
OR to admit that your definition of macro-evolution is not the way it is used within the field of biology in general, or the the field of evolution in specific.
Look through the Berkeley site on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml and see if you can find the word "transmutation" there. Notice that there is a section there that specifically addresses macroevolution, and notice that they talk about the gradual transformation over time of populations through the mechanisms of evolution, mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Note that what they show in the discussion of macroevolution are the trees formed by common ancestry and cladistics.
To do what you are asking would take a different mechanism, one that does not exist, and one that is not necessary.
You want to lump a bunch of stuff into a pile and give it a name.
But that is what you are doing. If you call all bacteria a kind, you are lumping organisms that are more distantly related than a human & a starfish. You separate lion & tiger but put all mushrooms as the same kind. The problem is your use of common names to differentiate organisms. This is why the term "kind" is useless in scientific classification. At least a clad uses organisms that show some sense of relationship.
Edited by bluescat48, : typio
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since 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
ICANT, I realize it might be hard for you to define a kind.
I don't think it is hard to define. It is just hard for you to grasp the definition.
Race; generic class; as in mankind or humankind.
Disposed to do good to others.
This is the way the word was defined when it was used in the KJV of the Bible in 1611.
The one used in Genesis is a noun so it would mean there is:
A mankind, a horse kind, a zebra kind, a ass kind, a cow kind, a tiger kind, a lion kind etc.
When birds evolved from ancestral archosaurs there was never a point when they were neither archosaurs nor birds.
All the pictures I find of an archosaurs, looks like a bunch of birds that walk around in my yard every day eating the grubs out of my grass.
Now how you get from a bi-ped bird creature to a 4 leged crocodilians is kinda hard to figure out.
This is a very simple concept, and furthermore, it doesn't prove evolution, nor is it evidence against your personal beliefs in YEC.
I am not YEC.
You only have to understand how evolution works, and unlearn how it doesn't.
Why do I have to understand how we evolved from a single cell life form to mankind?
When it never happened.
The first thing I would have to have is evidence that the first life form began to exist and was produced by a non life form. Which is a scientific impossibility, which has been verified over the past 150 years.
If you don't know how something began to exist there is no way you can figure out how it got from there to here.
You may believe (have faith) that you know but that is a long way from scientific evidence.
If you have scientific, verifiable, reproducable evidence how mankind evolved from a non life form then present it.
Now you can trot out the old evolution does not address abiogenesis argument if you want to. Just don't expect me to accept that modification to the early theory. Darwin had an origin for the life he thought evolved.
Without life there is nothing to evolve.
Only then can you decide whether you want to continue rejecting it.
You want me to accept it.
Yet it is a fact non life can not produce life.
It is a fact that life produces life and is verified 264 times per minute by humans around the world.
If only life can produce life then the first life on earth had to be produced by a life form.
Therefore evolution from a non life form to mankind could never happened.
I'm sorry I just don't have enough faith to believe that it did.
Your faith is greater than mine.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."