We have often asked for some definition of what the creationist concept of "kind" involves. Doing a google on "biblical kind" I found the following information:
Creationists are often asked for a precise definition of the Biblical kinds, namely, which groups of organisms have descendend from a single organism present at the Creation. This question is not necessarily easy (or possible) to answer, but I now believe that an answer may be possible. Based on assumed evolutionary time scales and rates of mutation of mitochondrial DNA, which may not be correct, scientists estimate that the human race is about 200,000 years old. (Actually, the assumed rate of mutation is not directly observed, but is inferred based on assumed evolutionary time scales, and may be far from the true value. Many different rates of mutation are given by different biologists. From a literal reading of Scripture, we know that the true age of the human race is much less than 200,000 years. However, it is useful to speak in terms of time scales as assumed by scientists in order to obtain a usable criterion.) In a recent study, scientists conclude that wolves and dogs separated between 60,000 and more than 100,000 years ago, based on their mitochondrial DNA. Thus, one would place wolves and dogs in the same kind, because scientists estimate their separation at less than 200,000 years ago. So a general definition would be that if scientists estimate a separation of two organisms within the past 200,000 years, based on their mitochondrial DNA, then they are in the same Biblical kind. If scientists estimate a separation significantly earlier than this, under conventional evolutionary assumptions, then the two species are in different Biblical kinds. If the estimated separation date is slightly longer than 200,000 years, then the case is doubtful. Under creationist assumptions, one would expect the estimated separation time to be either about 200,000 years or less, or much larger than this. (Of course, from the Scripture, the true ages are much less.) This kind of investigation might also shed some light on the human-ape connection.
This of course means that all the current Equus genus species (horses, donkeys, zebras, ass, onager, etc) are of a different kind than Hyracotherium from which it evolved.
quote:It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth).
Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.
quote:Hyracotherium was a dog-sized perissodactyl ungulate that lived in the Northern Hemisphere, with species ranging throughout Asia, Europe, and North America during the Early to Mid Eocene, about 60 to 45 million years ago. [2]
The evolutionary stages of the Equidae family serve as a classical illustration of the zoological evolution, because it is possible to observe a step by step change in the shapes of the body, the build of the limbs, the structure of the teeth etc. In accordance with the changes in the environment, development continued from a five-toed mammal the size of a fox, to the present size of a horse.
At the "door-step" of this evolutionary line, it becomes very difficult to recognize the ancestors of horses from the ancestors of tapir and the rhinoceros. Both of them have obviously similar origins, and similarities in the structure of teeth, odd-toed limbs, obvious mobility of the upper lip and other similarities according to which they join the evolutionary line of odd-toed hoofed mammals, the Perissodactyls. The tapirs and rhinoceroses remained “faithful” to their original style of life and also kept their original forms suitable for life in the tropical forests, however the evolutionary line of horses led to life on dryer land in much harsher climatic conditions of the steppes.
The first predecessors of horses needed to walk on several spread-out toes to accommodate for living in the primeval forests, walking mostly on soft and moist ground.
quote:A horse's hoof is composed of the wall, sole and frog. The wall is simply that part of the hoof that is visible when the horse is standing. It covers the front and sides of the third phalanx, or coffin bone. The wall is made up of the toe (front), quarters (sides) and heel.
The digital cushion is a mass of flexible material that contributes to the formation of the heels (Figure 3). This structure is one of the primary shock absorbers of the foot.
When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump.
Changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, including the addition of a new feature not in the original "Hyracotherium Kind" over 45 million plus years -- a period vastly in excess of 200,000 years (and thus a different kind by the above definition).
Note that the differences between human and chimpanzee include changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, without the addition of any distinct feature similar to the Equus foot pump.
quote:SPECIES AND THE BIBLICAL "KIND": The Old Testament of the Bible employs the Hebrew word min 21 times to speak of the "kinds" of animals. In Genesis the created min were said to reproduce each after its own kind thus suggesting strict reproductive limits. It is not clear exactly where in our present system of classification we would draw the line for a min. All birds (the class Aves) are clearly not one min, because in the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy we find min applied respectively to the raven, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron. On the other hand, the species classification as used today is perhaps generally more limited than the Old Testament min. It would seem appropriate to include all dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and dingos as a single kind or min, for example, though this group includes several different species. In like manner, all true cattle of the genus Bos would represent one kind since they can interbreed. This would combine seven species of cattle: B. taurus (Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns), B. indicus (the zebu), B. grunniens (the yak and grunting ox), B. Gaurus (the gaur), B. frontalis (the gayal), B. banteng (the banteng) and B. sauveli (the kouprey) as all are known to hybridize. B. taurus and B. indicus, for example, have been crossed to produce the breed Santa Gertrudis, but is this a new species or an example of evolution in action? Even the African buffalo Syncerus caffer, the American bison (Bison bison) and the European bison (Bison bonasus) can be crossed with one another, and with true cattle, suggesting that all of these animals, though representing different genus and species, could be considered to be of the cattle kind or min. All varieties of horses, asses and zebras can cross breed and in like manner could be considered a horse kind.
Here we essentially have "kind" defined by the ability to breed hybrids (even if they are all sterile), and we could even extend this to include all those genetic experiments where the "breeding" was done in a lab -- Lions/Tigers, Whales/Dolphins, Zebras/Donkeys, Camels/Llamas and Cattle/Buffalo -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above.
While it would be interesting to do some lab breeding of the birds listed above, we can also look at the amount of genetic differences involved in the breeding experiments already listed: whales and dolphins have greater genetic differences than humans and chimpanzees, and we also see the same kind of difference in chromosomes between horses and donkeys that we see between humans and chimps. This of course leads to problems for creationists that insist that chimpanzees are not part of the "human kind" ... do we need to do lab experiments to determine this?
We also know that sheep and goats were known to the ancient Hebrews (as were horses and donkeys), and they can produce hybrids as well:
quote:A sheep-goat hybrid is the hybrid offspring of a sheep and a goat. Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated together, they belong to different genera. Goats belong to the genus Capra and have 60 chromosomes, while sheep belong to the genus Ovis and have 54 chromosomes. This mismatch of chromosomes means any offspring of a sheep-goat pairing is generally stillborn.
This would mean that all sheep and goats would be the same "kind" ...
But there are problems here with how far we can go with this:
quote:Hybridomas are not true chimeras as described above because they do not result from the mixture of two cell types but result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory. Hybridomas have been very important tools in biomedical research for decades. In August 2003, researchers at the Shanghai Second Medical University in China reported that they had successfully fused human skin cells and dead rabbit eggs to create the first human chimeric embryos. In 2007, scientists at the University of Nevada's School of Medicine created a sheep that has 15% human cells and 85% animal cells. [5]
That would mean that humans and rabbits are of the same "kind" ... and sheep ... and we can go even further:
quote:A parahuman is a human-animal hybrid. Technically such hybrids already exist; for example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. This surgery effectively makes the recipient a human-animal chimera, though there is no visible effect. Scientists have also done extensive research into the combination of genes from different species, e.g. adding human (and other animal) genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silk proteins. Note that individual genes can be transplanted between species without the transplantation of whole cells.
This would extend the "kind" to include humans and bacteria -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above. There does not appear to be any reproductive barrier when such combinations are made. The logical conclusion is that "Life" is the biblical "kind".
Conclusion
Either new kinds have already evolved (first kind above) or all life is of one "kind" (second kind above).
The third problem with definitions of "biblical kind" arises from the statements that all modern species are derived from the ancestral "kind" stock through mutation and loss of information.
If we consider this to be fact, then we should be able to reconstruct the ancestral "kind" by selective breeding of the derived species. The result should be a viable robust animal capable of breeding with each derived species to produce viable offspring.
Thus we should be able to take a mule\hinny and breed it with a zeedonk, breed a zorse with a zony and then breed that offspring with the offspring of the mule\hinny and zeedonk mating ...
... except that these hybrids are generally sterile rather than the robust breeders that are predicted. The same thing happens with other interspecies hybrids. In no documented cases are we able to derive a robust breeding ancestral type from derived species.
The only logical conclusion is that the genetics of the original kind(s) have been lost, and that what we have left has evolved into new kinds.
quote:For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we: 1. Avoid the use of the term ”microevolution’. 2. Rethink our use of the whole concept of ”variation within kind’. 3. Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic. ...It is no wonder that evolutionists are keen to press us for an exact definition of the created kind, since only then does our claim of ”variation is only within the kind’ become non-tautologous and scientifically falsifiable.
The Scriptures imply that this originally created information was not in the form of one ”super species’ from which all of today’s populations have split off by this ”thinning out’ process, but was created as a number of distinct gene pools. Each group of sexually reproducing organisms had at least two members. Thus, 1. Each original group began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation. 2. Each original group was presumably genetically and reproductively isolated from other such groups, yet was able to interbreed within its own group. Hence the original kinds would truly have earned the modern biological definition of ”species’.4
...What then do we say to an evolutionist who understandably presses us for a definition of a created kind or identification of same today? I suggest the following for consideration:
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
...Rather, the question is”which of today’s populations are related to each other by this form of common descent, and are thus of the same created kind? Notice that this is vastly removed from the evolutionist’s notion of common descent. As the creationist looks back in time along a line of descent, he sees an expansion of the gene pool. As the evolutionist does likewise, he sees a contraction.
Note that this is just exactly like the evolutionary concept of descent from common ancestor population -- the "expansion" or "contraction" issue is a red herring -- except that the creationist original pool could be smaller.
The issue of the original (not one but several) 'super species' for each "distinct gene pool" has been dealt with in Message 3.
This leaves us free to contemplate the issue of common ancestors:
quote:Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity, in the words of Luria et al. (1981).
This of course is the modern basis for the evolutionary tree of life: those common ancestor populations keep popping up in ever more ancient fossils.
quote:Humans are great apes; they are one of the species in the family Hominidae along with only a few other species: the two species of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus), the two species of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei) and the two species of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and P. abelii).
Apes in turn belong to the Primates order (>375 species). Data from both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA indicates that primates belong to the group of Euarchontoglires, together with Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Dermoptera, and Scandentia.[1] This is further supported by Alu-like SINEs which have been found only in members of the Euarchontoglires.[2]
The separation of humans from their closest relatives, the African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) has been studied for more than a century and the amount of scientific publications on that subject is huge. Four major questions have been addressed:
Which apes are our closest ancestors?
When did the separations occur?
What was the effective population size of the common ancestor before the split?
Are there traces of population structure (subpopulations) proceeding the speciation or partial admixture succeeding it?
The genomes of humans and chimpanzees differ by about 35 million single nucleotide substitutions. Additionally about 3% of the complete genomes differ by deletions, insertions and duplications.[5]
Roughly one half of the changes occurred in the humans lineage. Only a very tiny fraction of those fixed differences gave rise to the different phenotypes of humans and chimpanzees and finding those is a great challenge. The vast majority of the differences is certainty neutral.
By this analysis humans and chimps "have descended from the same ancestral gene pool" and thus are of the same "kind" by the above definition. And this extends back further to join with gorillas and then with orangutans, etcetera.
quote:On the basis of our current research at Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm we suggest that around 60 mammal pairs, 11 reptile pairs and 3 amphibian pairs gave rise to the vastly greater number of mammal, reptile and amphibian species living today.
quote:Kind Number 58 : Old World Monkeys Propliopithecidae - (No Translation) Propliopithecids Cercopithecidae - (Tail ape) Old World Monkeys 60 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene Hylobatidae - (Forest walker) Gibbons 7 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene Pongidae - (Forest man) Chimps, Orang-utangs, Gorillas 6 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene Oligopthecidae - (No Translation) Oligopithecids Proconsulidae - (No Translation) Proconsulids
quote:Noah's Ark is a spectacular hands-on zoo with huge indoor adventure playgrounds and the world's longest hedge maze, all on a genuine working farm! Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Clevedon Road, Wraxall, Bristol, BS48 1PG
Looks like it's over the pond, but they don't list "research" under facilities
Several ways. Stratigraphy is one way to date relative age of fossils (see Message 1 for some explanation), and this was used initially (the finds predate radiometric dating methods), and these relative dates have been confirmed by many different radiometric dates. In every case there is a progression in time from Hyracotherium to Equus.
Another way is morphological - to look at the slow change from one form to another, and arranging the fossils by these morphological relationships gives you the same progression from Hyracotherium to Equus.
Did you conclude that by the scientific method?
Yes. The skeletons were studied with attention to where the weight bearing surfaces were distributed on the bones, and this results in a foot with splayed toes and a pad like a dog's foot.
Hyracotherium doesn't look like a horse at all, maybe a deformed dwarf horse, or maybe not a horse at all. How many of these have they found?
Hundreds if not thousands. They are very common. There are also no equus fossils in the layers with the Hyracotherium fossils, or even remotely close in time or space, thus ruling out "deformed dwarf" horse. You'd be better thinking of a horse as a deformed giant Hyracotherium, as it has deformed (evolved) and grown (giant-sized) from one to the other.
Maybe you should explain this better. How could you reconstruct anything with the information that isn't there? And furthermore expect it to be robust? The whole argument seems circular.
Longhorn cattle were reconstructed by back breeding. It's very simple: the various bits of original DNA would be spread out in all the descendant species, with each one having different bits and pieces. The specific genes should be dominant, so just back breeding should recover the original. We see this when we interbreed two purebred varieties in all types of species (including horses). It is known as "hybrid vigor". We don't see this with mules and "ligers" and whatever - instead we see sterility 99% of the time and the few that are capable of breeding are not dominant in taking over the breeding stock.
It's not circular, it's making a prediction of what you should be able to do if the concept was a valid theory, and then testing that prediction.
Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent.
This doesn't address the material quoted (whether this results in new kinds or not), but if you want to discuss the age available for evolution to operate over then I suggest you look at Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) (although you may want to wait to settle down here first)
I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are.
It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer.
Creationists have had over 150 years since Darwin first published to come up with those answers. So far I would have to agree that "creationists have no clue" what makes a "kind."
Thanks dad, I appreciate the reply. I had no idea I was so stupid. This is gonna be fun.
There is a major difference between stupid and ignorant: the ignorant can learn. Learning is fun, I agree.
I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy.
You can disagree with the model of stratigraphy all you want to, but your disagreement won't alter reality or affect it one iota. I suggest you take this up in one of the flood geology threads (it has nothing to do with the definition of "kind" eh?). Maybe Was there a worldwide flood?
Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?
Short answer: No. Nor does your article do so (it doesn't even really address horse evolution at all).
Long answer: start a thread on this topic and we can discuss it.
Note that the whole forum is organized into different categories and within those categories are the individual topics, where each topic starts with the first post as a theme for that thread. Topics are limited to 300 posts, so comments not having to do with the topic theme are discouraged.
New members are encouraged to explore, search out and read existing threads rather than start broadcasting on whatever thread they happen to be on.
It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model.
I take this to mean that you have no definition of "kind" to offer. This is a rather sad state of affairs for creationists as it means they have no way to substantiate their position by testing that definition against the facts.
Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.
And that is why design cannot be concluded from the data. If you want to discuss this further there is the Intelligent Design with some appropriate threads (like Distinguishing "designs")
I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class. Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning ...
Nope. What we want to know is which layers of candle wax are older that have dripped from the candle onto the plate it sits on.
Now if you can invent a way for recent wax to be under old wax drippings, I'm all ears. Otherwise you can put this false analogy on the shelf and proceed to reality.
Basically, I disagree with this idea of uniformitarianism. There was a flood around 4400 years ago, and before that it was paradise. So, again I disagree until you can show me empirical evidence for billions of years.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face and the data will be totally unaffected by your personal opinion. The rock won't care.
Ignoring evidence that contradicts belief is not faith, it is delusion:
Now if you really want to talk about the age of the earth, then we can proceed to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) ... I suggest you read it before posting anything though ... so far no creationist has been able to touch the data and the correlations -- they generally give up and run away -- but you could be the first.
Except that so far all you are doing is bouncing from topic to topic expressing your denial of evidence rather than confronting it.
As in this topic is about a definition for "kind" as used by creationists, and you have not provided one.
I did give a definition to a kind. You refused to acknowledge it.
I have reviewed this entire thread and see no definition for "kind" that can be used. The closest you get to addressing the issue is this:
I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are.
It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame.
If you gave a definition on another thread, then please reference it.
From the above quote one can conclude that you would take the current tree of life back to 6000 years ago and that whatever was alive then was divided into kinds from which modern life has evolved.
Unfortunately this ignores 99.9% of all the life known to have existed (including non-avian dinosaurs), so there is a distinct problem with that usage in classifying all known life into "kinds" as most would be left out. Thus this too is not a usable definition.
Note: saying you did something you have not done is typical of self delusion.
Which one? 1b? 4a? 4b? They have different connotations that would affect their application. Looking at "type" (synonym) makes it even more confusing:
(Note in particular "type specimen" (1c) "a specimen or series of specimens on which a taxonomic species or subspecies is actually based" as this is referred to later.)
We need to be able to use the definition to sort "kind" from "not-kind" in an unambiguous and objective manner devoid of religious inference (as you so eloquently put it for defining evolution).
it is the fundamental construct of the variations we see today.
If we use definition 1b, Kind = family, lineage:
First we need to establish if we are talking taxon level family:
Major Taxonomic Levels Kingdom Phylum Class Order
Family Genus Species
The taxon level of family has been suggested before and found inadequate by creationists, for instance humans and apes are in the same family, Hominidae.
If we are not talking about the taxon level, then we are talking lineage and grouping by descent (from a "type" specimen - see type above), and this essentially is what clades are:
In this usage each taxon level above can also be a clade with each level having a "type" specimen - the common ancestor - that would define that level of clade, thus this definition for "kind" would require knowing what the "type" specimen was of each different "kind" ... and this would entail a list of specimens. This too has run into problems with application by creationists as there is no agreement on what is on the list and what isn't. No two lists are similar.
If we use definition 4a, Kind = a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY
We end up with the clade type classification already discussed and which requires a list of "type specimens" to be used.
If we use definition 4b, Kind = a specific or recognized variety
We also end up with the clade type classification already discussed and which requires a list of "type specimens" to be used.
Thus to be able to use this definition we need a list of "type specimens" ... and the problem of the list is that it is subjective.
Creationist Kinds: Organisms that interbreed yet not limited to specific evolution.
"Organisms that interbreed" is fairly straightforward. Do you me by behavior, or do you allow can be artificially bred (as mules are)?
"...yet not limited to specific evolution" means nothing to me -- can you explain this further?
Do you mean that variation in descendants is not limited to genetic change?
I don't see why kinds would be limited to a specific gene pool. Perhaps even apes and humans could interbreed under the right circumstances.
One thought that has occurred to me is that the usage of kind is really the same as is given in the usual definition:
With this twist: dogs can be members of the "dog kind" AND members of the "canine kind" AND the "mammal kind" -- you can have nested hierarchies of each different kind. Each kind would still breed according to it's kind etc etc.
It is a generic term rather than a specific one. This doesn't solve the "problem" of which "kinds" were on the ark, but ... as you say:
The limits are unknown. The assumption arises through lack of what is said in Genesis and not what is said.
Re: Definitional layers ... and multiple level kinds?
One thing I see in creationist dogma is constraint given to the evolution process. I really think it would be awesome if we could breed cats and dogs.
Um, we do breed cats and dogs -- that's where "domestic" varieties all came from (and cow, horses, sheep etc etc), so I have to conclude that is not what you meant.
As far as constraint goes, I don't see it for anything evolving from what exists today: how would it be constrained? Evolution develops new alleles through mutation and copy errors, mutations spread through the populations by reproduction generation to generation.
Is there something that prevents certain mutations from occurring?
Specific evolution would be a creationist way of eluding to variation within the original kinds.
All evolution is from parent populations to descendant populations. The only quibble is what the hypothetical original populations were composed of.
Conclusion, I really don't see a problem with linnean classification system. Speciation has its limits.
Speciation is just enough difference that population do not interbreed. Once speciation has occurred however each daughter population is free to evolve on it's own path and diverge further. This is where additional change comes from - continued evolution within each now independent daughter population.
Sure, it is extremely generic but that could be through semantics rather than objective reality. I must point out that a Creator could very well have a different class system than the science specific one. The beauty of the kinds is in the simplistic nature of relating complex information. Not to say that God couldn't have known what he was specifically making. Also, the kinds in genesis seem to be somewhat related to their environment. I believe someone else said something about this.
But the usage within genesis is consistent with a generic terminology for any group of organisms based on their similarities yes?
Re: Definitional layers ... and multiple level kinds?
It is possible that there were original kinds which have evolved into what we see now. Also, what I would like to bring up is the possibility that macro evolution doesn't contradict a creation view. One could look at a chihuahua and a wolf and pretty much conclude macro evolution. The age of the earth or the age of existence would be the only barrier to the allowance of evolution.
A kind infers barriers. common descent infers no barriers.
Then one needs to look at the evidence and see if it shows any barriers. The evidence is two-fold:
1) the fossil record - relationship by geological time and space and by anatomical homologies and morphology
2) the genetic record - relationship by similarities in non-functional DNA and functional DNA and their degree of change from DNA of other species
If both of these show a tree of life extending back in time, with common ancestors at branching points, and both of them show the same structure and the same common ancestors, and neither of them suddenly stop at some point ... what would your conclusions be?
My impression is that this is a very uninformed view of the diversity of life, and that exposure to more types and varieties will cause sever modification.
™ Version 4.2
