Behavioural traits and created kinds

Their physiology would have to be part of their definition as the Kind. Why is that hard to grasp? I simply listed some behaviors that appear to be characteristic. I have no stake in confining the discussion to behavior.In fact I have no stake in this thread at all.OF COURSE A CAT WON'T ALWAYS HIDE.Sorry, I have no patience with this kind of discussion. It's Modulous' thread. I'm gone.

Hey , no need to get pissed. You're the one that stated that one difference in behavior between a cat and a dog is that the cat will hide, while the dog will bark. I simply pointed out that that is not true.But you're the one using "Kind" as a classification and many of us would, for once, like to see this nailed down. What is a kind? Perhaps behavioral characteristics can be used to define them...that is what this thread is partially about. I'm not saying that there are no unique behaviors...I simply asking if anyone knows of any.You listed a few and they were shown to not be unique. And what do you do in response? You get all pissy. Hey, it's not my fault (nor is it yours) that they don't fit. They just don't. Sometimes that happens. Maybe you should lighten up a bit and try to come up with others. It would be...dare I say...like you were attempting to do actual science. You know, come up with a hypothesis...test it...see what happens.

You showed NOTHING. You merely made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions without the slightest effort to understand what I was saying.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-03-2005 02:18 AM

If we take our hypothetical dog breed, and breed it to look like a rabbit, surely this would have some big effects on the psychology of the animal? Such huge changes, even with artifical selection is going to take a massive amount of time. Would a rabdog (or doggit?) still have the hunting instinct? What on earth would such a creature do when it catches its 'prey'? A fox would tear it to pieces, and even if the doggit survived catching its prey, what then? Monty Python jokes aside, rabbits aren't really built for killing.What would be handy is if anybody knows of any studies to do with evolution and instinct, and how instincts can shift. I've seen a few hints of this, but nothing conclusive.

Yes. Creationists have had years to come up with some 'kind' of definition for this concept, and their absolute failure on this point is probably the biggest argument that there is no valid definition and the term serves no valid purpose.when Faith said it wasn't specific behaviors but It was apparent that this would be defined as needed to make the evidence fit the vaguest possible concept. That is when I lost interest.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The Kinds are defined by the originals 6000 years ago, and by now too much has happened genetically to make it possible to identify them so easily except maybe in a few cases. Many branches of probably all of them have become extinct, and it is very possible for there to be wide genetic difference even within the same Kind as well. It should be theoretically possible to define it genetically, but as long as evolutionists are constantly classifying the evidence in terms of continuous cross-species evolution it will probably take a long time to get there. It would take a genetics laboratory full of brilliant creationists to begin to do the necessary work. Does this exist? It's a CLUSTER of SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS. For heaven's sake! The list came off the top of my head. ANYBODY could come up with the list who has spent any time at all around dogs or cats. As a cluster they identify the animal. So you can't answer it by saying that one or two of the behaviors can be shown in some other animal, and certainly not by showing mere similarity (A Designer accounts for all similarity) -- it has to be the same behaviors together. All or almost all of them as described have to be shown. And you can't answer it by pointing to a tailless or voiceless dog or cat etc. as the rest of the list will continue to identify its dogness or catness. I would think that anyone who has any familiarity with the animals in question would see the rightness of this.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-03-2005 01:15 PM

I'm sure psychology is affected as you say but instincts seem to me to be certainly modifiable but not eradicable. I think the only thing you could do is breed to see if you could eliminate them altogether.

So every species that was in existence at that moment 6000 years ago is a kind?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Um, there were none that preceded them, you know. They would have been very distinct Kinds then. We're talking creationism not evolutionism here.

but I can count back annual layers from a number of different sources -- all that correlate with each other on climate and other effects -- well past 6000 years ago. Heck in one tree I can count to 4,844 years ago. So at what point in the geological record do we find these established kinds.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Sure, but a creationist has to search for other explanations, you know, consider that probably these records were not always annual or something along those lines if they go back to before the Creation. 4844 years ago is before the Flood by most reckonings. So we have to consider that some trees survived it. The dove's bringing back an olive leaf suggests they did. Why should they be found in the geological record? The geo column records what was living at the time of the Flood, which already reflected great genetic variation from the Kinds given at the Fall {AbE: Correction, at the Creation. At the Fall there is reason to believe genetically some creatures took a turn toward fang and claw however, because of the entrance of death}. It took the massive Flood to make the fossilized record of what was living at the time, but what had preceded it was long since gone.{AbE: However, this is off topic and I shouldn't have responded.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-03-2005 03:47 PM

If you want to pursue this there is a topic at {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II."So we have to consider that some trees survived it."Why not some animals as well? The next thing we know we'll have koalas floating on trees instead of in the ark so they just end up in australia without needing some really bizarre means of transportation.Counter to their whole pattern of behavior, btw, just to bring it back to the topic. I believe this has been adequately covered by other threads.If we are serious about trying to determine {what\when} kinds were defined by existence then we need some real hard solid basis for it.Just saying that it happened "long, long ago" is not enough.We have {behavior} now become some fuzzy cluster of characteristics (that can be modified as needed to fit the concept) and we have a {mythological = not based on evidence} history that doesn't jibe with reality touted as some basis while it still does not address which species were extant at that {mythologial\magical} moment.I don't mean to be hard nosed, but I see no way to define "kind" other than as a fuzzy concept that doesn't answer any questions or provide any useful information.OrYou accept that all current species are descendant from kinds and work backwards from there. Using fossil evidence and genetics to show and confirm the relationships and the links.What you end up with is modern biology, because that is where they started, and that is where the evidence leads.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Look, I've said nothing illogical or inconsistent so stop acting like this is some kind of ad hoc thing I'm doing. It is not. The animals were all on the ark, plants were not mentioned and an olive leaf is a good indication that many plants survived full grown, besides of course all the seeds that would have begun new plant life. See above. Everything I've said is consistent with the Bible Get serious. So has every other topic at EvC. What's your point. That is not what I said. You have no interest in having a real discussion apparently. If that is the case I will be happy to end it.Smartass.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-03-2005 05:56 PM

Yes, but I thought the flood covered the earth and all else died that was not in the ark ... which is why I am surprised whenever a creationist makes some allowance for survival outside the box.And I thought the usual behavior of plants when covered by salty silty water for several hundred days was usually to die. Quickly.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

ALL LAND ANIMALS died, except those on the ark, and not even all the fish and other sea life would have died, just most of them. So we figure the water was not salty in those days, and in fact creationists do consider that the current level of saltiness of the oceans has been building up from continental deposits since then.If you would just have in mind that I'm not just blowing hot air but actually thinking about the requirements based on the Bible and that the whole project for a creationist is to reconcile what is known with the Bible, and stop ridiculing this straw man you've made up, what I'm saying is consistent and does make sense. The job is to think how things must have been if the Bible is true. Nothing says plants died, and obviously an olive tree was still living. The water wasn't all that deep either.