Hi LM.
servent2thecause has posted the following definition of "kind" in his OP in
this thread:
servent writes:
Furthermore, I would like to explain "KIND" -- as used in (5). This may be difficult for some to grasp (seeing how many people I've discussed this with don't even fathom the principles or terms OUTSIDE of western science) but since I am a Christian I am going to use the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 says "let them bring forth after their kind." Therefore, a creationist who reads into it enough will tell you that the Bible defines a "kind" as organisms that can bring forth (i.e. if two sexual-reproducing organisms together can bring forth then they are the same "kind." Likewise, if an asexual organism brings forth than any offspring it produces is the same "kind").
Since according to s2c us lowly, unqualified scientists and informed laypeople are "not allowed" to post in his/her thread, I thought to bring the discussion of this definition over to the thread you kindly opened for the topic. I doubt s/he will follow, but I've posted a link to this topic in the referenced thread via edit.
To me, there are serious problems with this definition when you look at the details. In the first place, it's extremely squishy (even moreso than the BSC). In many "kinds", the equivalent taxonomic category would be species, and in others genus or possibly even family. At the opposite extreme, by this definition every clonal organism is a separate "kind", since every clonal organism (especially unicellular) can theoretically "bring forth" a new lineage. The criteria appears to be similar at first glance to the BSC without the caveat of "in the wild". IOW, apparently the biblical "kind" would include any hybrid that could be induced artificially. This means that
Panthera tigris and
Panthera leo are the same kind, whereas
Pseudorca crassidens and
Tursiops truncatus which form occasional hybrids known as wolphins are also the same kind - putting kind at the family level (Delphinidae) but separating out all the other non-hybridizing species into another "kind" - and that the Canidae are split arbitrarily depending on type between species and genus such that wolves, red wolves, domestic dogs, coyotes (all the
Canis and
Canus species, are lumped into a single "kind", and are separate from foxes, dholes, other kinds of wolf, etc.
In other words, this is far from an "operational" definition. It is about as useless for understanding biodiversity as something developed by a four-year-old (doggy kind, shelly kind, bug kind, bird kind, etc). And creationists wonder why no one takes them seriously.
edited to correct quote attribution
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-23-2004]
™ Version 4.2
