Problems of a different "Kind"

In the thread How can Biologists believe in the ToE? IamJoseph has presented what appears to be a preliminary definition of kind in message 177.Though this is far from complete. Just to hazard an off the cuff estimate, hes likely covered a mere 1% of the 'species' that are alive in the world today. Its hard to guess if he fits with the first definition supplied in message one of this thread, or if it better fits with the second. Perhaps IamJoseph is suggesting a third alternative definition for kind?I think it would be necessary to flesh out what exactly is meant by this proposal and how it would possibly change due to the readily apparent contradictory and absent life forms not specified by his definition.For example:Absent life forms:
Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, and Insects.Contradictory life forms:

• Ground Root Based (Vegetation) - There are many plant species that do not live "on the ground", parasitic vines and water based plants are exceptions to this definition.
  ​
• Water Based (Fish): The first problem with this definition is that fish are vertebrates, so without further clarification its hard to tell if fish are separate from all other vertebrates in the water. Invertebrates must also be a consideration before water based kind could be accepted. Water based insects, bacteria, and plants are also an unknown; certainly they cannot all be called 'fish'.
  ​
• Air Borne (Fowl): Again further clarification is needed. Fowl that are unable to fly make this classification impossible. Mammals and insects are also known to fly, reptiles in the fossil record once flew. How does one classify the gliders - land based or air based?
  ​
• Speech Endowed - Though obviously a human classification this also presents problems. What divides the communication of the various methods used in nature from humans? When various species of bird mimic human communication does this ability qualify them as human?

Though an interesting start for a differing classification system it still presents some problems. As one digs into the fossil record these issues become more and more apparent. Its possible that he is suggesting a form of the first definition, but as it stands his definition requires a bizarre form of hyper-evolution. It has been suggested above in this thread by Highestevolvedwhiteguy some form of 'barrier' is inferred by kind, IamJoseph appears to present the exact opposite.

Can we cut out the assertions and just keep with the kinds? I suppose I could riddle my posts with the same such blather and we can both share a headache.GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMSSo from the five original groups (kinds) we must add unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind. The virus and fungi still present a problem.Ground Based (Vegetation) - If there is no contradictions then it should be clear, but of course its not. Does this group include plants that are not ground based or have roots? Is photosynthesis a criterea, I am quite unclear about what exactly is a plant? Is a Sea Tulip, Pyura spinifera a plant?Water Bases (Fish) Ok, so simply being born in water is what makes this grouping important. Does this also include amphibians (land based), plants (ground based), animals (ground based), and mammals (ground based)?Air Born (Fowl)- Comprehensive?! To you perhaps. I would like to know if this includes flying mammals with wings, flying insects with wings, and reptiles with wings. If having wings is the only criterea, do you know that there are several water based kinds that have wings? This gets more confusing as it goes along.Speech Endowed Define speech. No I am not being obtuse. Other animals communicate. Insist what you will, I prefer to have some evidence. Does your definition of kind hold up to the evidence? Thus far it simply begs more questions, surely you are aware of swimming mammals, flying insects, and such? Do you really think your system begins to explain the variety of life we find on this planet? I see no such thing. That quote from the bible does not even use the word kind. I cannot see how this is a valid form of classification from the quote you have provided, nor from the divisions you have presented so far. To deny that there are contradictions appears, so far, to simply be denial. Yet different between what scientists call species. If you saw a 400 year old dead chicken and a 400 year old dead whale - how would you know if they are from the air/water/ground kind? I am having trouble using your method even if the are alive. and more than two thousand years later, I am confused. Could you be more specific so I can understand how all these living creatures are to be classified? Edited by Vacate, : photosynthesis and sea squirts

I do not have anxiety nor fear, just to let you know. I would just prefer not to have both our posts containing bald assertions with little or no substance. The questions are simple really and inserting claims of '100% scientific' and 'non-metaphoric' and 'paranoid' opposition are simply assertions without evidence. This whole paragraph is a perfect example. Nowhere in my post do I ask if the bible is perfectly written or contains 'superflous' words. From what you quoted of my post I simply made the observation that you have added unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind - if I am incorrect to add these two categories feel free to let me know. I still have not recieved an answer regarding fungi. So you claim that Plant or Vegetation means anything that clings to the earth? All else is not a plant, correct? I would hate to misunderstand your position as its so easily covered in the single stroke of words. (as you suggest) Where are they catered to? Are you suggesting that I must read the entire bible to acertain what your categories for biology are? You suggested that mammals are Ground Based, I however cannot understand this based on the existance mammals in water. Does the fact that they "ascend periodically" mean that they better fit within the Ground Based kind? This is probably an important issue with the definition. You have asserted Darwins mistake in faulty assumptions, it would be unfair to make me assume the criterea for these categories without clarity. Got it. Everything with a wing is one kind, correct? Take your time, this ones probably important also. But if a parrot mimics a human in saying "I want food" and it does want food - is that then speech? I don't particularily disagree with you on your final kind (Speech Endowed). Frankly I just do not understand why you feel it to be neglected by science, all definitions of human I can find include this. As such I am lead to believe that your definition of speech is different than science. I am simply trying to figure out this difference. Perhaps you misunderstand my position. A flying mammal is not generally considered a 'fowl', a non-flying 'fowl' is not generally considered air borne. Animals arent often called plants, plants arent often called fish. Surely you must understand that while tearing down the method used by biologists to categorize life some questions will arrise. I am asking simple questions regarding your method and have been quite clear about what I see as contradictions. If they are not contradictions I should not be expected to understand your position ahead of time. So looking at bones is a valid method of identification of kinds. I was under the assumption this was not a valid method. Thanks for the correction. Can you explain why a virus is like a bacteria? I am particularily interested to know why you think a virus has a cell, and why you feel it is even alive. I am not trying to trap you by claiming a virus is not 'alive', I dont think of them as rock but surely they do not fit with bacteria?------------------------------
All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy
Think I'll lose my mind
if I don't find something to pacifyCan you help me, occupy my brain?Ozzy Ozbourne: ParanoidEdited by Vacate, : No reason given.

Ok, it looks as if you have a pretty firm set of kinds.

• Ground Root Based (Vegetation/Plant): "Those which cling in the earth", this does not include those that dont cling in the earth.
• Water Based (Fish): Anything thats born in the water that does not occationally rise to the surface for air (ie: "ascend periodically")
• Air Borne (fowl): Anything that has wings, the ability to fly is not a strict requirement.
• Land Based (animals/mammals): Anything that lives on the earth or rises from water to breathe. This does not include plants in the earth, things with wings, unseen creatures or land based insects.
• Unseen Micro Creatures: Bacteria and virus.
• Subteranean Insects: Any insect that does not have wings or is born in the water and continues its life there.
• Speech Endowed (humans): Humans

Issues I have at this time include:

• Male ants have wings, female ants do not (generally speaking), ants then appear to be both of the Subteranean Insects Kind and the Air Borne Kind
• A moth is born of the Subteranean Insect Kind but later becomes of the Air Borne Kind. I won't attempt to list all the things that do this, clarity on the moth issue would likely clear up all the others.
• Atlantic flyingfish, Cheilopogon melanurus can cross the line between air and water kind at will.
• Water Based plants are just begging for clarification, I have trouble understanding them to be fish.
• Single celled organisms, should they be lumped into the Unseen Micro Creatures based on size? Or should they be split into the water based and land based groups?
• Amphibians: many species are land based but some are water based. Are you suggesting some sort of evolution that lead to a remarkably similar convergance?

Biblical issues: In message 59 you stated: This lead me to believe that insects are the only creatures that fit into the Subteranean Insects category. Its now quite obvious that a visual identification is difficult. Are these also insects or is the category broader than expected? How do we identify the animals listed here, from the bible, as compared to other Land Based kinds?I have a lot more questions, but I want to make sure the list is accurate.

Do you agree that anything scientific should have the ability to stand up to scrutiny? If it cannot stand up to questioning should we {A:} Change the definition of science so that it no longer has to stand up to scrutiny or {B:} Leave science as it is and make alternate theories stand up to questioning? You don't have to share the view of others here, but to consider something to be scientific I think it should make basic sense. It should also stand up to questioning. If you have not responded unscientifically then further questioning is obviously in order as I, in my limited comprehension abilities, find many of your concepts to be completely foreign to my understanding of biology.Perhaps you feel that your method of kinds is scientific then you should be confident in your groupings and be able to explain them. As it stands currently I am sure you are able to understand my confusion. I have come to understand biology in terms that are totally at odds with your methods.Do you or do you not understand the problems from my point of view with many of the organisms you place within certain groups? Are you confident that these groups best explain the biblical interpretation of biology? Have you considered Noah's ark and the complications that are inevitably going to arrise while trying to explain the flood while denying evolution? (I hate to give away the game, but it should be blindingly obvious)Based on this last post insects are now related (in kind) to moles, snails, weasels, mice, tortoises, ferrets, chamelions, and lizards. If you don't have an issue with this - please explain why. Subteranian is the only criterea for this group?What about snakes, worms, bears, bats, bacteria, and fungi? (still unresolved)

I completely agree, hence the need for science to be conducted in such a way that others can test it and come to the same conclusions. (or refute by coming up with differing conclusions) If proof is available however, science should override an idea. As I have said before, I agree. What else could science study? I disagree. Both ideas are unscientific. You are talking about 'before' and as you just said above - that is not science. Science deals with the 'after' as its the only thing that leaves evidence. But the evidence does in fact suggest that complexity has resulted from a no-creator hypothesis. This does not suggest that there cannot be a creator, but it does suggest that the method of creation is not understood. You may feel that this is "unsound", but you have not presented evidence to the contrary. Insistance is not evidence. You have not presented evidence to show that there is any form of distortion. All of this is true, to a degree. I will suggest an alternative example. I tell you I own a car, you however are interested in more that just generalized terms and ask me what type. At this point I inform you that car makers have been in error since the beginning of internal combustion, sub-group divisions are not important and Nissan Ultima is simply a faulty name applied to a misunderstanding of mining, plastic manufacture and metalurgy. Make and model are un-nessesary and a simple type description is more scientific (truck, car, motorcycle) are the correct means of organizing transportation via internal combustion engines.Did you learn anything about my car? Is a debate about the mining industry important when in an attempt to learn about my vehicle you simply want to know if its a four cylinder or six? What if you are interested in the automotive history and want to track my car back to the model-T? Does metalurgy really matter?Yes, Genesis is correct! Its a perfecty adequate means of generalizing nature. The problem is it is totally inadequate for a means to understand biology several thousand years after Genesis was written. You may feel that calling anything with a wing 'fowl' is sufficient, but for the purpose of understanding that a grasshopper is not the same as a penguin, Genesis falls short.Your complaint is that evolution is based on faulty ideas about the creation of the universe. This is the same as getting into a debate about mining when asking about Nissan products. Its not the same topic! You are trying to bring down evolution but using Big Bang as an explanation. The Theory of Evolution will remain just as my Nissan Ultima regardless of the conclusions made by physicists about a topic billions of years before. but does your premise explain that a snake, worm, bear, bacteria, cricket and mole are not the same thing? Remember that I am not the one who claims that everything stays within its kind. A logical question to ask yourself is what did the original kind look like if its ancestors are now snakes, worms, bears, bacteria, crickets and moles. How does this differ from ToE if you ignore your disagreements with Big Bang? I am not interested in generalizations - I want to learn about biology, a quick summary like "those things are ground kinds" conveys as much information as "I have a car".