Problems of a different "Kind"

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

You have been asked to stick to the correct topic more than once. I'm not asking now. You will have a posting break if you can't manage that.You will also be much more careful about being respectful to other posters. You'll get a longer posting break if you even hint at disrespect.

Vashgun, you seem to be having trouble posting on topic. We all get carried away and do that now and then but you seem to be particularly careless about it. Stay on topic or get short posting suspensions.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

The topic of this thread is the definition of "kind". While the grouping of specific species may be an example of what kinds are what we don't want to go down a side path which will lose sight of what the topic is supposed to be.Your concerns about human evolution could be taken to a new thread if you are interested. You will be asked to give your reasons (not ICRs) for rejecting it. You will be asked to give reasons discussing ALL the evidence not just the gross homologous traits. The ICR article you linked to will be of limited support for you if you actually try to deal with this issue but we would be happy to have you bring it all up in a new thread.Meanwhile, we need a definition of kind. There is a term called "operational definition". For many things this is the only useful definition. (Operational definition - Wikipedia)What this means in the discussion here is that instead of giving many many examples of "kinds" and then having others not able to tell if a specific pair of species are the same kind or not without asking you we need an operational definition so that anyone can apply the rules and determine if a sheep and goat are the same kind or not.For a (silly example), this might be an operational definition of kind.
Kind is determined by counting the "normal" (needs another definition) of legs a species has. If two animals have the same number of legs they are the same kind.That may be a silly example but it is unambiguous. Anyone here can use it and all arrive at the same answer. E.g., sheep and goats are the same kind.Or, using the Bible, a kind might be:
Kind is any group of animals which normally interbreed and produce viable offspring.
(which is, it seems to me about what the Bible is saying but then they aren't giving an operational definition, just lists of examples)or, using the Bible again but focusing on a specific example:
Kind is any group of animals which get around by the same meansThus everything which swims is the fish kind and everything that flies is a bird kind. This also seems to be in the minds of the Biblical authors.It is just such an unambiguous definition that is needed before we can have a clue what is being talked about when "kind" is used. Without that definition there is nothing to discuss.