Define "Kind"

quote:

---

Care to take a stab at the question I posed at the end of question 208?

---

Sure. However, I'm going to respond to more than the final question.

quote:

---

What kind of pet do you have, schrafinator?

---

Two cats.

quote:

---

There can be no doubt that organisms change from generation to generation. It has been seen in the lab and in the natural world. However, there are limits to the changes that we have seen.

---

Directly seen, yes. Inference of currently observed evolutionary mechanisms, combined with all of the evidence from all of the other life sciences, however, very strongly indicates that huge changes have taken place in many organisms over the millena.

quote:

---

Populations of fruit flies can be isolated and change in different ways to the point where the two separate populations no longer interbreed. This is, as I understand it, the definition of speciation. However, they are still fruit flies.

---

True.

quote:

---

There is a limit to how much an organism can change.

---

Why?What mechanism or limit has been observed in ALL of the evidence for evolution, including historical and genetic evidence, that indicates this?

quote:

---

Nobody has demonstrated, either in a lab or in the natural world, that a dog can change into a cat. Now, I am fully aware that that is not how evolutionary theory says that these particular animals evolved, but I am offering that as an illustration of my point.

---

Since this example has nothing to do with how evolutionary mechanisms work, we may disregard it.

quote:

---

One kind of organism cannot change to another kind, even though differences can become significant enough to result in speciation.

---

What is a "kind"? I can't know if something is changing into a different "kind" if I don't know what a "kind" is. And you cannot claim that this has or hasn't happened if you do not define the word.

quote:

---

We cannot at this time fully define what is meant by "Kind," but it refers to the observed general tendency of daughter populations to resemble parent populations.

---

But how much do they have to resemble each other to be considered the same, or a different "kind"? If you cannot be specific about this, the term is meaningless and any claims based on using it are similarly meaningless.

quote:

---

We do not yet know exactly what the limits of this change are.

---

Well, either you are going to let the evidence lead you, and define your terms by what nature shows you (as science does), or you are going to limit yourself to what a 2000 year old non-science book mentions in a few lines and try to retrofit nature into it.

quote:

---

That is, as yet, an unsolved question. But many sciences begin with somewhat vague terms that attempt to describe an observed phenomenon, with the specifics of the term fleshed out more fully as the science develops.

---

That would be true if Creationists were actually using the Biblical word "kind" to describe organisms in an "attempt to describe an observed phenomenon". I would agree that this is what the writers of the Bible were doing, but that is not what Crestionists, and Faith, are doing.What Faith is doing is NOT observing nature at all. She REJECTS nature, she REJECTS observation, she REJECTS science if it contradicts her particular interpretation of a particular version of the Chrsitian Bible.She has begun NOT with observation, but with a vague, inprecise term and a vague description made by prescientific people several thousand years ago, and then attempts to shoehorn nature into them, 200 years of useful, productive science be damned.

quote:

---

Can you come up with a real world example where we have observed evolution, either in the natural world or a laboratory setting, where the change from the parent population to the daughter population is so dramatic that it is obvious at first glance that they two popluations are different animals?

---

What would qualify as "so dramatic" to you? To Faith? To a Biologist?I think we'd find the answers quite different.My point in this thread is to show that there is no scientifically useful definition of "kind", and unless and until there is, Creationists have no business using the term in scientific discussions.It is a purely theological term, despite it's being dressed up in a lab coat and being handed a beaker.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-02-2006 07:20 AM

Sure, if you spin it THAT way...The "vague imprecise term" is certainly that, I agree, and that is a big handicap for creationism, which we acknowledge. But its source is not "prescientific people" but God Himself. Whether you agree or not, it would behoove the opponents of creationism to acknowledge this much, that we are not acting irrationally when we do this, as God trumps it all. Your imposing YOUR interpretation of the source of our terminology as people rather than God is unfair argument.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 08:19 AM

Since there is no definition of "kind", do you agree that unless and until one is proposed such that it is possible to tell the difference between one "kind" from another, the term is meaningless and should not be used in scientific discussions, particularly involving claims that "kinds" are immutable?

Of course I don't agree. I think when you are engaged in a debate between creationism and evolutionism you have to accept whatever terms and limitations most accurately define the conflict. You can't impose your own preconceptions on the creationist, defining the creationist position as "meaningless," or you make a sham of the whole thing.The concept of "kind" is in fact vague and undefined and to this point undefinable. Its source is the Bible, meaning God. That's where the creationist starts. You want to insist we start somewhere else. That's stacking the deck against us.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 08:42 AM

Does the term "kind" have meaning?Yes or no?

quote:

---

The concept of "kind" is in fact vague and undefined and to this point undefinable.

---

So explain to me, then, why this vague, undefined and undefineable term should be used to make claims in scientific debate?

quote:

---

Its source is the Bible, meaning God. That's where the creationist starts. You want to insist we start somewhere else. That's stacking the deck against us.

---

No, it is simply requiring you to play by the rules of science if you want to participate in scientific discussions.If you refuse to define your terms in such a way as to be scientifically meaningful, explain to me why they should be given any weight in scientific discussions?

You don't have to give anything any weight whatever. But if you care about having a discussion with creationists then you have to accept a few things from our side. If you just want to win the debate, that's easy, just define our concerns out of the picture.

The deck is certainly stacked against the Biblical Creationist and rightly so. But it is the Biblical Creationist that did the stacking. It is THEIR failure, not reality or science.All of the evidence has shown that the Biblical Creationist is simply wrong. They have not defined Kind because it is based on a conclusion that cannot be supported by anything other than an act of wilfull ignorance.The Biblical Creationist says that humans are a Kind because that is how they are descibed in the Bible. But reality says that humans are one of the primates, yet another of the apes. Almost everyone, including Christian Creationists gave up the idea of humans as a KIND when the evidence became overwhelming that humans were primates, apes. The holdouts are simple those who choose to deny the overwhelming body of evidence.The Biblical Creationists have had many thousands of years to present a workable definition of KIND. They have never been able to do so. That is why the deck is stacked against them. They have failed. Failed utterly. Failed because they are Wrong!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is not science that defined your concerns out of the picture, but GOD. GOD created the world we live in,not science. It is GOD that defined man as one of the primates, another ape.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is no problem understanding what the Biblical writers meant by "kind". It is clear both from the examples they give and what we can infer about their knowledge based on what they would have observed."Kind" is precisely the biological species concept. They observed that different kinds do not interbreed and that a kind breeds true. That is what casual observation shows.However, it is not correct over the longer term. They were wrong.

quote:

---

You don't have to give anything any weight whatever.

---

But this is exactly what you are expecting, Faith.You want science to give serious attention to Creationists' claims regarding "kinds", yet you refuse to play by the rules of science.It is as if you were insisting on playing official rules baseball, but wanted to allow aluminum bats, a ball as big as a beachball, and a tee to put the ball on for each batter on your team.Sorry, if you want all of those things, you aren't playing by th "official rules" anymore, and you can't be annoyed when nobody takes your game as seriously as those who do.

quote:

---

But if you care about having a discussion with creationists then you have to accept a few things from our side.

---

Why should an undefined, vague, non-science term be included in a non-science discussion?And excuse me, I think it's Creationists who are demanding to be included in scientific discussions, not the other way around.

quote:

---

If you just want to win the debate, that's easy, just define our concerns out of the picture.

---

If you want to be taken seriously in science, you have to play by the rules.If you want to lose before you've begun, then refuse to define your terms and ignore nature.

Actually, if you are going to claim that it is the word of god directly, you are wrong, it is not 'kind' but

Can you give us a definition and usage analysis for the word ?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Depends on the person doing the translation.The modern JPS translation is 'variety' or 'varieties'The point is that Faith was saying that 'Kind' it the word that god used. However, the original was not in English, and therefore 'Kind'
is merely a translation.I don't believe that the words chosen were dictacted to man word for word for ward either. Faith implys that. Faith also implys that it was dictated in ENglish with her phrasology. I am merely pointing out that her assumptions about the word 'kind' being god given is incorrect.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-02-2006 01:54 PM

I fully understand the point you were making to Faith, and also appreciate the signficance of it. I was simply curious about the meaning of the word you provided. Thanks.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

I don't believe that the words chosen were dictacted to man word for word for ward either. Faith implys that. Faith also implys that it was dictated in ENglish with her phrasology. I am merely pointing out that her assumptions about the word 'kind' being god given is incorrect.

---

What?The King James Version of the Bible was not spoken by God directly to the Jews in English?BLASPHEMER!!