Jump to content


Photo

Creationists, What Do You Define As A Kind?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
229 replies to this topic

#1 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 20 November 2009 - 04:12 PM

http://www.answersin...xity-of-species

This article suggests that a kind is roughly equivalent to the taxonomic definition of a Genus. Do you support that definition?

Also, do you support the hypothesis that two animals of each kind(see above definition) boarded a massive ark ~4,500 years ago, then later exited the ark to reproduce and that every animal population today is descended from these kinds?

#2 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 20 November 2009 - 05:54 PM

http://www.answersin...xity-of-species

This article suggests that a kind is roughly equivalent to the taxonomic definition of a  Genus. Do you support that definition?

Also, do you support the hypothesis that two animals of each kind(see above definition) boarded a massive ark ~4,500 years ago, then later exited the ark to reproduce and that every animal population today is descended from these kinds?

View Post

Yes.

#3 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 22 November 2009 - 05:23 PM

http://www.answersin...xity-of-species

This article suggests that a kind is roughly equivalent to the taxonomic definition of a  Genus. Do you support that definition?

Also, do you support the hypothesis that two animals of each kind(see above definition) boarded a massive ark ~4,500 years ago, then later exited the ark to reproduce and that every animal population today is descended from these kinds?

View Post



I think the problem many people desperately try to define animals by the physical. I think, however, that animals, like humans, were created, and distinguishable "in kind" by mind, not by matter. A dog is a dog, not because of what it looks like, but because its mind dictates that it's a dog. The essence of a dog is not to be found in the dog's body, but in what is responsible for the formation of the dog. We know genes cannot be responsible for this, as all mammals share the same basic set of genes, and what makes one mammal different from another is how it expresses itself through its genetic code.

http://www.scienceda...70509205719.htm

The research, by an international consortium led by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, revises our understanding of genetic evolution. Scientists previously thought that evolution slowly changed the genes that create specific proteins. As the proteins changed, so did the creatures that owned them.

The current research shows that opossum and human protein-coding genes have changed little since their ancestors parted ways, 180 million years ago. It has been the regulation of their genes - when they turn on and off - that has changed dramatically.

"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than it is with the genes themselves," said Broad Institute director Eric Lander. "Almost all of the new innovation ... is in the regulatory controls. In fact, marsupial mammals and placental mammals have largely the same set of protein-coding genes.


So since genes have been ruled out as any sort of causation for what distinguishes one mammal from another, something else -- whatever it is that "turns genes on and off" -- must be responsible. Science knows thoughts, sensations, emotions, and feelings turn genes on and off all the time......so it is reasonable to believe that the root of what creates these things (thoughts/feelings/emotions, sensations, etc) is what's responsible for making an animal what it is.

Therefore "kinds," like everything else about life, is unscientific. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but ultimately nobody really knows how mind/life/God works. "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible." (Col 1:16)

#4 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 November 2009 - 07:07 PM

"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than it is with the genes themselves," said Broad Institute director Eric Lander. "Almost all of the new innovation ... is in the regulatory controls. In fact, marsupial mammals and placental mammals have largely the same set of protein-coding genes.        [/i]

View Post

They have alot in common, but the part they don't have in common will come down to alot of nucleic acids. I mean if you say 98% of 3 billion, you are saying 60 million nucleic acids are different in sequence.

There is also the issue of a different number of chromosomes, so they are arranged differently.

There are switches, but there are also deletions, insertions, recombination, and mutations.

Science knows thoughts, sensations, emotions, and feelings turn genes on and off all the time......so it is reasonable to believe that the root of what creates these things (thoughts/feelings/emotions, sensations, etc) is what's responsible for making an animal what it is.

View Post

Do you have an abstract that says this? This is a new one for me.

Therefore "kinds," like everything else about life, is unscientific.  Sure, we can make educated guesses, but ultimately nobody really knows how mind/life/God works.   "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible."  (Col 1:16)

View Post

Actually for kinds, an experiment as to whether is if the two species can mate. It is not proof, but it is an indication that they were probably two hybrids of the original. If they can not mate, or if their offspring can not. It may be because they are not of the same baramin.

An example is the lion and tiger. They have obviously speciated but they have mated in captivity. They may be clades or hybrids of an original baramin which may even now be extinct. A horse and donkey will produce a sterile mule. It may be that this reaches a genetic mutation in the heterozygote. It may be a "boundary" in speciation in between the 2 original kinds. Or perhaps there is a limit in the branching within the descent of a single kind. Did that make sense?

#5 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 22 November 2009 - 08:35 PM

This article suggests that a kind is roughly equivalent to the taxonomic definition of a  Genus. Do you support that definition?

Also, do you support the hypothesis that two animals of each kind(see above definition) boarded a massive ark ~4,500 years ago, then later exited the ark to reproduce and that every animal population today is descended from these kinds?

View Post

Canidae or Family is where I would link kind. I have only made this decision moments ago. There are many diverging arguments on what goes where in taxonomy. Seems Genus is too far down the line to be what "kind" relates to in the Genesis.

But, let us get on to why you ask?

#6 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 23 November 2009 - 07:03 AM

  Seems Genus is too far down the line to be what "kind" relates to in the Genesis.


View Post

Why? The closer you get to Genus level, the easier it is for micro evolution to have happened within a few 1000 years.

#7 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 November 2009 - 09:26 AM

Species is the Latin word for " kind " case closed. This should be the end of the thread.

Species = kind, Kind = Species. There is no getting around this.

We define different Species through the breeding process. This is how Biologist figure out the different species, and is how we should seperate them.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:17 AM

do you support the hypothesis that two animals of each kind(see above definition) boarded a massive ark ~4,500 years ago, then later exited the ark to reproduce and that every animal population today is descended from these kinds?

View Post


Yes, except for aquatic life, who were not affected so much by the flood. Except, of course, for those animals that perished near the tops of mountains (or on mountains) due to the receding waters.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:21 AM

Why?  The closer you get to Genus level, the easier it is for micro evolution to have happened within a few 1000 years.

View Post


It doesn't matter Otto, micro evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind. And we all adapt to outside (and inside) influences every day. And therefore has no “observable” evidences for macro-evolution.
So, let us get on to why is it asked?

#10 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 23 November 2009 - 11:34 AM

Why?  The closer you get to Genus level, the easier it is for micro evolution to have happened within a few 1000 years.

View Post

No. I may be incorrect, but I think it is widely accepted that micro-evolution does happen often within a millenia.

My reason for choosing Family is that it most closely relates to what I believe is identified as kind in Genesis. Kind seems to be relaying an idea of very simple divisions.

Gen 1:21 God created the great monsters of the sea and all living animals, those that teem in the waters, according to their kind, and every winged bird, according to its kind. God saw that it was good.

This verse and others imply that the ocean animals, land animals, and flying animals are divided into kinds. There are other similar verses which offer no more clarification. Therefore, my opinion is that kind is related to family, canadae.

#11 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:01 PM

Yes, except for aquatic life, who were not affected so much by the flood. Except, of course, for those animals that perished near the tops of mountains (or on mountains) due to the receding waters.

View Post

Really, was The Flood water fresh or salty?

#12 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:43 PM

Really, was The Flood water fresh or salty?

View Post

Salty. Only option.

There is no indication prior to the flood that there were fresh or salt water fish. I am working on memory but I seem to recall that the ocean is currently increasing in saltiness. I'll have to check on the rate but I wonder if the pre-flood ocean might have been fresh water? Obvioulsy it was less salty then today, allowing the possibility that fish required no great differentiation to exist in salty or fresh waters.


Prior to the flood, there appears to be only one land mass. There appear to have been rivers. There were probably fish swimming into those rivers. During the ~2000 between Eden and flood those fish would have had plenty of time for microevolution to allow them to survive in both environments and lead to the first entirely fresh water fish.

Even allowing for current saltiness to be the norm pre-flood is no problem. The fish of the (only) ocean were trapped when the flood receeded. The bodies of water were as salty as the ocean. These salty bodies would lose salt over time. Micro-evolution easily allows them to adapt to the gradual change.

#13 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 23 November 2009 - 02:39 PM

Salty.  Only option. 

There is no indication prior to the flood that there were fresh or salt water fish.  I am working on memory but I seem to recall that the ocean is currently increasing in saltiness.  I'll have to check on the rate but I wonder if the pre-flood ocean might have been fresh water?  Obvioulsy it was less salty then today, allowing the possibility that fish required no great differentiation to exist in salty or fresh waters. 
Prior to the flood, there appears to be only one land mass.  There appear to have been rivers.  There were probably fish swimming into those rivers.  During the ~2000 between Eden and flood those fish would have had plenty of time for microevolution to allow them to survive in both environments and lead to the first entirely fresh water fish.

Even allowing for current saltiness to be the norm pre-flood is no problem.  The fish of the (only) ocean were trapped when the flood receeded.  The bodies of water were as salty as the ocean.  These salty bodies would lose salt over time.  Micro-evolution easily allows them to adapt to the gradual change.

View Post

There were certainly fish, right? Genesis 1:20-23, 5th day of creation. Do you have any idea the difficulty fresh water fish have in salt water and vice versa?

Apparently you have great confidence in the quick action of micro-evolution. May I suggest that is a good experiment for creation scientists. Take some fresh water fish and put them in salt water, see how long it takes for them to micro-evolve.

#14 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:07 PM

There were certainly fish, right?  Genesis 1:20-23, 5th day of creation.

My post states quite clearly that there were fish.

Do you have any idea the difficulty fresh water fish have in salt water and vice versa?

Do you realize there are fish that live in both environments today?

Apparently you have great confidence in the quick action of micro-evolution.  May I suggest that is a good experiment for creation scientists.  Take some fresh water fish and put them in salt water, see how long it takes for them to micro-evolve.

View Post

Did I at any point attempt to say micro-evolution is a process quick enough to allow for instantaneous metamorphasis?

You should spend your words with more care.

#15 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:08 PM

Apparently you have great confidence in the quick action of micro-evolution.  May I suggest that is a good experiment for creation scientists.  Take some fresh water fish and put them in salt water, see how long it takes for them to micro-evolve.

View Post

The other interesting thing is if it worked, would the freshwater species be able to procreate with the salt water? If not, would it be considered to have macro-evolved? Somehow, i'm guessing not.

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:14 PM

Really, was The Flood water fresh or salty?

View Post


I would wonder, Otto, if you were there and could enlighten us? Otherwise, your assumptions are no better than mine :huh:

#17 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:20 PM

The other interesting thing is if it worked, would the freshwater species be able to procreate with the salt water? If not, would it be considered to have macro-evolved? Somehow, i'm guessing not.

View Post

Hello Anghellik9,

I'll join that line of discussion elsewhere. Speciation, Macro and Micro do need some established boundries. I don't think there is 100% agreement in the related fields of science. New thread Anghellik9? Let me know.

I am interested in seeing where QED is headed.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:25 PM

There were certainly fish, right?  Genesis 1:20-23, 5th day of creation.  Do you have any idea the difficulty fresh water fish have in salt water and vice versa?

View Post


Again, you are making assumptions Otto. I would also wonder what the salinity level of the ocean would be if this world were indeed billions of years old. But that's another question for another day.

Anyway, can you tell me the salinity level of the oceans during the flood? Or are you only guessing (sort of like asking you the salinity level of the oceans of the Earth were billions of years old).

Apparently you have great confidence in the quick action of micro-evolution.  May I suggest that is a good experiment for creation scientists.  Take some fresh water fish and put them in salt water, see how long it takes for them to micro-evolve.

View Post


Macro-evolution (or, more correctly adaptation) can work relatively quickly. It was cool and raining when I left the house this morning. I adapted (or evolved if you will) and put on a jacket. It worked quit well! I survived!!! Experiment successful :huh: I micro-evolved!!! :lol:

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:28 PM

There were certainly fish, right?  Genesis 1:20-23, 5th day of creation.  Do you have any idea the difficulty fresh water fish have in salt water and vice versa?

Apparently you have great confidence in the quick action of micro-evolution.  May I suggest that is a good experiment for creation scientists.  Take some fresh water fish and put them in salt water, see how long it takes for them to micro-evolve.

View Post

You know what, I have to correct a bit. Salty may not be the only option. I stated so becuase it seems obvious. It is possible that the ocean was not salty when the Earth was created. Settle down Otto13, I am not about to claim it was so. But I'll bet you can twist what I write into something I don't believe. I just don't have any reason to state as fact it was either fresh or salty or any mix of the two.

I am going to have to look up the salt today vs. salt increase. We are off topic. Where are you QED? I think you have an interesting discussion in your head.

#20 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:43 PM

I am going to have to look up the salt today vs. salt increase.  We are off topic.   Where are you QED?  I think you have an interesting discussion in your head.

View Post

Three tests and a term paper have most of my mental cycles tied up. In addition to that, my response is very long(it could get >1000 words). I will be able to respond to this Wednesday. In the meantime, keep chatting and encourage others to respond but please limit this discussion to the rapid speciation of 'kinds' in a post flood world. Also, feel free to post links to articles.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users