Define "Kind"

In another thread, it was proposed that evolution outside of "kinds" was not observed, and was predicted to be impossible within the Creationist model.I asked for a definition of "kind", as it is not a scientific term, and one was not forthcoming from the claimant.As it was somewhat off-topic, I thought I'd start yet another topic on this subject, this one rather narrowly focussed.I would like to know the definition of "kind".I would also like to know the consistent system by which I can identify what "kind" an organism is.I suppose this should go in "Biological Evolution"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 08:20 AM

I actually had randman in mind as the poster, but any and all are welcome to offer a definition.

quote:

---

So would I, Schraf, so would creationists in general. All anyone has at the moment is the hypothesis that such a classification exists, but how to define and identify it for sure is not yet known.

---

If there is not in existence a definition of "kind", nor any method in place for differentiating the "kinds" from each other, then it is a useless term and should not be used at all.At least, it should not be used in any sort of scientific discussion regarding the origin of species, biology, or the like.Would you agree?

quote:

---

It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.

---

Of course, but without a definition, there is no basis for using the word at all.It is so vague as to be meaningless, and therefore useless in science.It's not scientist's fault that your side can't get it's act together.If you are hindered, it's by your own doing.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 09:33 AM

Modulous writes:

quote:

---

Yes, well, that's the point at issue. I would expect that the Kinds are as general as those you list. And I don't see how macroevolution applies there, since if there are built-in limits, those ARE the limits that define the boundary between micro and macroevolution.

---

But what do you do with humans, which appear to very much belong in the "primate" kind?Most Creationists do not believe that humans are primates and share a common ancestor with other primates.

quote:

---

If I overlooked the grouping of humans with monkeys, please allow me to correct that. Humans are definitely one and only one Kind unto themselves.

---

But this contradicts all known genetic evidence utterly.This means that within the Creationist model shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected.

quote:

---

Of course not, and intuitively I don't see all that much similarity either, the way I do between bears and raccoons.

---

Well, I certainly do see a great similarity between pimates and humans.However, the most powerful evidence that humans are primates is genetic.That's why the discovery of DNA and it's role in heredity was such a enormous confirmation of the ToE 60 or so years ago.

quote:

---

I do have to think that the genome will yield a clue to the Kinds eventually, but the similarities so touted by evos between apes and men are no more than what one would expect from basic design similarities of the basic physical structure,

---

Actually, it's much more than "basic physical structure", Faith.Humans and apes share a broken gene for producing vitamin C, and that is about as far from "basic physical structure" one can genetically get.

quote:

---

while the differences between apes and humans in body and behavior are incredibly striking.

---

Our behavior is not that different.Chimps and a few other apes have the intelligence and similar behavior to a 6 year old human, and can be taught hundreds of sign language words.And I still don't get how you think that apes and humans are "strikingly" different in appearence.Why were blacks called "jungle monkeys" if people didn't think they looked "strikingly" like primates?

quote:

---

A raccoon ACTS LIKE a bear

---

Raccons are quite a lot smarter than bears, IIRC. And aren't raccoons noctournal, whereas bears move about in the daytime?

quote:

---

and has the basic BODY BUILD of a bear.

---

Except the paws of the two are totally different, and raccoons have long tails and bears do not.

quote:

---

The similarities between apes and humans are mostly structural,

---

Actually, that is not true, as I gave an example above.Why do we do human medical research, including aids research, on chimps and other primates, if we were not incredibly similar to them in many, many ways?Do you deny that genes determine the nature of ALL of the structure of an organism's body?

quote:

---

while they neither look like nor act like humans beyond the most strained analogies.

---

They have language, Faith, and they teach tool use and culture to their offspring. We can teach them a little of our language.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 01:14 PM

Humans and apes share a broken gene for vitamin c production.Do you agree that this is more than "basic structural similarity"?We use chimps and other primates to do human medical research, including aids research. It is very expensive, so if it did not result in fruitful results, it wouldn't be done.Do you agree that this indicates a great similarity in many systems between humans and other primates?

Do you agree, Faith, that within the Creationist model, shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected?

quote:

---

There is absolutely no evidence for descent even if there are great similarities, as design can account for it all just as well.

​

This just confirms my suspiciousness of the kind of genetic analysis that is being done. There just must be something very wrong with how it is being interpreted. What is being shown to be in common simply cannot be the most salient features that define the creature, but the analogous stuff, the design factor stuff, stuff mammals all have in common, say, not the definitive stuff.

---

Humans and apes share a broken gene for vitamin c production.
Do you agree that this is more than "basic structural similarity"?We use chimps and other primates to do human medical research, including aids research. It is very expensive, so if it did not result in fruitful results, it wouldn't be done.Do you agree that this indicates a great similarity in many systems between humans and other primates?Do you agree, Faith, that within the Creationist model, shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected?

quote:

---

There is no evidence for descent in any of this. All it shows is similar design of the macro structures.

---

Do you consider the broken vitamin C gene that humans and apes share to be a "macro structure"?If so, why?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 04:00 PM

quote:

---

After all, Darwinism completely eliminated the Bible as a source of anything of any scientific interest.

---

Actually, Copernicus and Galileo started that ball rolling long before Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye.

Are you going to address my direct questions or not?

quote:

---

No, it's merely a coincidence. The Fall affected them similarly concerning Vitamin C for some reason.

---

So, is it "merely a coincidence" that I share more genes with my parents than I do with my grandparents, and fewer still with my great grandparents, and so on, and so on?Is that a result of the fall too?It is clear that you have completely rejected the genetic basis for relatedness.

quote:

---

What other creatures have a broken vitamin C gene by the way?

---

Guinea Pigs.