Define "Kind"

I am curious what you would consider an "intuitive" boundary then?Could you maybe expand this idea a bit? I am assuming, though it is your own idea, that this could help clarify or determine what you consider a 'kind' to be.Ideas: Diet (such as between Pandas and Bears)
Ecology (such as between otters and sea-lions or minks)
Behavior (such as between wolves and badgers)
morphology (such as between snake and iguana)
Genetic analysis (such as between chimps and humans)If you could provide us with some sense of how you determine 'kinds' even in your own view, it would help to narrow the debate.

Genetic analysis has shown bears to be related to wolves (dogs) with the bears closest relative being the Sea-lions and walruses.Genetic analysis has also shown Humans to share roughly 98.5% of our genes with Chimpanzees. Yet you continue to reject science. If the bible doesn't define 'kinds' and you reject science's answer then where does that leave you or anyone else? How can you so surreptitiously abdicate for the role of science on one hand and blatantly argue for the bibles supremecy on the other?I know you feel that the bible is supreme in all things and above science, but how can you not see the contradiction you're proposing above? If the bible doesn't hold the answer then there can not be any honest search for answers if we reject anything that appears to contradict the bible. Are you interested in an honest search or just pretending?The study of the genome practically screams out our relatedness to the apes. In fact, we share more in common (genetically) with the chimps than some birds species do within their own species.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-21-2006 02:17 PM

Thanks for the catch Ned and I apologize for misspeaking.The bird species I was referring to was the red-eyed vireos and white-eyed vireos. Two closely related species whose genetic difference of about (2.9%) is roughly twice as high as that between chimps and humans (about 1.6%).I shouldn't have went of just memory but I hope it still shows how closely we are related to chimps.

Humans and chimps hemoglobin (the oxygen carrying protein) is identical in all 287 units.How would the fall leave us similar in that regard? Why wouldn't this degeneration make us more unlike genetically?(Feel free to not respond to this post as it isn't about 'kinds' but I'd appreciate it if you would think about it.)But would you mind taking a gander at my previous reply to you. It is pertinent to the question of 'kinds' and just asks for your input (when you have time.) Msg 57

I was kinda hoping that you would have had an epiphany about why Fliesonly posted that little tidbit. While I will try not to put words into his mouth, I believe he was making the point about your continued assertion that eventually "science" will discover the truth behind what constitutes a kind while discounting what it has found(replace the analogy of fliesonly with science instead of the weather).In other words, why would all these different fields of biological science tend to agree with the relatedness of organisms to each other if they didn't have multiple lines of evidence? As you stated before, the answer is not in the bible, and perhaps science holds the key.You profess that God discounts the idea that science can determine genetic relatedness yet the bible has no answer. Then you turn around and say science holds the key to answering the question.Maybe, perhaps, dontchathink it might be possible that science is God's way of telling us the answer?

Hello Faith,Just reposting this in case you missed it. I didn't want to pile up on you and thought this might be a good place to start since you had mentioned some intuitive boundary for kinds.I am curious what you would consider an "intuitive" boundary then?
Could you maybe expand this idea a bit? I am assuming, though it is your own idea, that this could help clarify or determine what you consider a 'kind' to be.Ideas: Diet (such as between Pandas and Bears)
Ecology (such as between otters and sea-lions or minks)
Behavior (such as between wolves and badgers)
morphology (such as between snake and iguana)
Genetic analysis (such as between chimps and humans)If you could provide us with some sense of how you determine 'kinds' even in your own view, it would help to narrow the debate.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear about what I was asking. When I made the list I tried to make it clear I was looking for a distinction between them. IE. I was wondering if you saw Pandas and Bears as being seperate kinds because of diet. Or snakes and iguanas as being seperate/distinct kinds because of morphology.I understand you didn't want to get too indepth into distinctions, I was just wondering how you might have seperated them, as a brain exercise.

No problemo. And just in case you feel like pursueing the idea at a later date, the list didn't and doesn't have to include the animals I listed. They were just examples to think about. The main focus I was trying to achieve was looking at say: Diet, Ecology, Morphology, Genetics, etc. as ways of seperating 'kinds'.I was hoping it could have been an interesting brain excersize. Just looking at taking 'baby steps'.By the way (and only if you have time and feel the desire), when you have a chance read a bit about new world vultures and old world vultures. New World Vultures have recently been reclassified from genetic studies to be in the same order as Storks, while Old World Vultures are in the order Falconiformes with eagles, hawks, falcons. Anywho, something to think about when classifying kinds?This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-23-2006 01:35 PM

Hi again Faith,I thought I'd have another go at figuring out how we might be able to classify kinds. You mention... Is there anything in the 'kinds' catagory that would be more inclusive for groups of animals such subgroup's of 'bird-kind' or 'mammal-kind'? What animals would be included in those kinds? Would a mammal be outside of 'mammal-kind' if it layed eggs or lacked nipples? I imagine that we can have such a classification such as dogness, but what defines dogness? Skeletal morphology? Genetics? Behavior? Diet? Reproductive strategies?Feel free to answer me as you can. I understand you have a whole gaggle of people vying for your attention.Added to edit: I'm not looking to be combative just looking at collaborating on a definition of 'kind', if possible as a brain exersize.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-25-2006 08:31 PM

I was wondering if there might be a 'kinds' catagory, such as in cladistic classifications? Such as a mammal kind? or a primate kind? or a bird kind?And if there might be such a classification for those kind, what would you look for in creating it? You mentioned behavior several times, but I would think you would want to use more than just this one trait. Why should we let a lack of knowledge stop us now?