"Kind"ly Creationism

Okay, here is a new thread on the Creationist definition of "kinds". My hope is that any YEC's out there can help with this, the definition as I have seen it is always slippery and changes to fit any presented evidence.Taxonomically I have seen the term fit to species (dog kind [including all breeds of dogs], human kind [modern man and some extinct variants]), family (horse kind [donkeys, horses, zebras], cat kind

(post continued)
It is truly a bullet-proof argument, provided that "kind" is never shackled with a consistant definition. I lieu of above, I propose the following defintiion for the YEC "kind"Kind (n): Any taxonomic category from species to kingdom for which there is available fossil, biochemical, embryonic, or morphological evidence of transition between members of the next lowest ranking taxonomic category.Please, any YEC's out there who have a better definition please reply. I have attempted on several occassions to pin down this definition to no avail. As I mentioned in another post, I have a correspondence with Kent Hovind that states that hermit crabs and Alaskan king crabs are a single kind, and that ALL mollusks represent a single kind (I sent him a detailed narrative of mollusk evolution based upon transitional fossils that derives modern scaphopods, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods from monoplacophoran ancestors with all of the transitions known). If the mollusks (a phylum) represent a kind, then it is clear that the Creator only needed to create about 33 kinds of animals. Adam was probably a lancelet or acorn worm of some type.[This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 03-22-2004]

My point is that (according to Hovind's definition) if "kind" can include members of an entire phylum, then the represented created "kind" for chordates (the phylum which includes vertebrates, lancelets, tunicates, conodonts, etc) could have been a lancelet or acorn worm (cepahlochordates and hemichordates, respectively).The central message is one of scale. To Hovind, all mollusks seem similar enough that the differences between major groups isn't important. This is why I roll on the floor when I hear him use statements like "I have taught science for 20 years". Which of course makes him an expert in all fields of science except geology, anthropology, cosmology, meterology, biology, and chemistry. To those of us who study invertebrates, the differences between different mollusk classes is AT LEAST the same as the difference between humans and acorn worms. Probably even more so, acorn worms and humans have a pretty similar embryonic development, organ systems, etc. while mollusks vary greatly in these respects between classes.

quote:

---

Yes, and I hinted that the change in electrons and not photons is what is at issue here. There is the very eminent possibility that bios can adapt to photon velocity interms of momementum however. All that I inquire is about THERMAL changes in electron flow. I could be wrong of course.

---

Brad,
Forgive my ignorance but I am not following your posts. Would it be possible to re-explain in a way even an organismal biologist could understand? Thanks!

Thanks Crash. I recognized the pop gen words, including Shifting Balance, and I recognized the particle physics terms. Putting it together seemed, well, incomprehensible and I wondered if it wasn't meant to be that way.

Now it is clear to me, the photons interract with the GATTC sequence of the amphibial segment-A47 to produce anti-quarks. This only if we modify the forward deflector shields to emmit a steady stream of anti-logitrons.Back to kinds. I agree that functionally the Xian definition of kind adheres to species and roughly to genus. But I would argue that the definition shifts in creatioist lingo. It's very simple when refering to mammals (although this fails too) but becomes impossible with invertebrates. Is a "worm" a kind? Is a "crab" a kind? My argument is that if you were to somehow restrain a creationist and force them to see a presentation on the evolution of birds from maniraptids, they would walk away saying "Birds and reptiles are a kind, you have only shown microevolution"

Thank you Danesha.This thread seems almost pointless as there seems to be no literalists here to defend their concept of "kind". In this void I might use this time to commend the users of this group for using the term "literalist" instead of "fundementalist". I am very guilty of this myself. I got my undergraduate degree at a Christian college and had the fortune of taking a class on Bible history from an absolute gem of a man, Dr. Neuman. In a discussion after class I used the term fundementalist and he took exception. He claimed that fundementalist movement of Christianity started in the 1920's and was a second reformation where Christians were to look at the message of Christ, not the dogma of the church. It was basically Presbyterians and Unitarians who called themselves fundementalists at this time. Then literalists started using the term to describe themselves, and including original fundementalists in their number as supporters.The point is, I need to make myself use the term "literalists" instead of "fundies" or "fundementalists".

Thank you NosyNed. BTW I love your picture, it looks so intense that one is able to pretend you are responding to THE message sent.I guess this issue is one that doesn't warrant comment. I am surprised, a lack of taxonomic background in YEC's? Don't they all have advanced degrees in science?Actually to be fair the issue has analog in science. The determination of species, let alone higher taxa, is definately wide open. The characterization of genetic information has helped but also confounded the issue. One example that comes to mind (this is anectdotal) is that the species complex of Plethodon salamanders in the eastern US have a greater genetic difference than to all of the extant orders of birds. This is not saying that members of the genus Plethodon need to be split into orders, just that we cannot use the same degree of differentiation between taxa. Or at least the same portions of the genome.I guess the main point is that science is also wrestling this concept of "kind." I think we are at the point of Chief Justice Potter Stewart with obscenity, I don't know how to define a species, but I know when I see it. What is important is that science is addressing these issues and redefine based on evidence.

Brad,
I am sorry, but your ramblings contribute nothing to this thread. The point I was trying to make was that "kind" as roughly defined by YEC's was vague and didn't agree with modern taxonomy.
I ask to please desist with your techno-bable, it is annoying and detracts from the topic (this is under the opinion that for some reason you actually believe your posts to be relevant, and not that you are posting meaningless crap in order to confuse and disorient).