Kind vs. Species (Earth, evolution, creation, Biblical, God)

[JerryL]

There is also the idea that dividing species by their ability to reproduce themselves is muddied by asexually reproducing species.

That's not the only problem.

Take a fertile mule for example (rare but is has happened). Generally, it can reproduce with a donkey or a horse but not another mule. This would mean that mule is in the "horse/donky species" (though these are not considered a single species in fact, because theier offspring is not usally fertile) but could not with another mule (I believe there has yet to be a successful mule-mule paring.

Therefore mule=horse, mule=donkey, horse!=donkey, and Mule!=mule
A=B, A=C, B<>C, A<>A. It's logically impossible, and establishes that "species" isn't "real".

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by JerryL

That's not the only problem.

Take a fertile mule for example (rare but is has happened). Generally, it can reproduce with a donkey or a horse but not another mule. This would mean that mule is in the "horse/donky species" (though these are not considered a single species in fact, because theier offspring is not usally fertile) but could not with another mule (I believe there has yet to be a successful mule-mule paring.

Therefore mule=horse, mule=donkey, horse!=donkey, and Mule!=mule
A=B, A=C, B<>C, A<>A. It's logically impossible, and establishes that "species" isn't "real".

A mule can not reproduce with anything. It has no assigned species and no assigned genus. Source: QTpi, high school teacher of biology

Would you like to try a different example?

[Seyorni]

I think you might be overthinking this, Sandy; making a mountain out of a semantic molehill, so to speak.

The biblical translators and original writers weren't trying to make any fine biological distinctions. They didn't even know what biology was, much less had any concept of the current controversy raised by this question.

[JerryL]

Originally Posted by Pah

A mule can not reproduce with anything. It has no assigned species and no assigned genus. Source: QTpi, high school teacher of biology

Would you like to try a different example?

http://freespace.virgin.net/gwyneth.wright/fertile.html

"In 1990, Lorraine wrote:

"Since 1527 approximately 60 live births of foals to mules have been reported, in Europe, the USA, South America, North Africa and China."

One of the best documented earlier cases was Old Beck, investigated by Texas A&M (USA) in the 1920s.

In the 1980s, there were cases of a fertile mule and a fertile hinny in China and mules in the USA and Brazil who produced more than one foal!

More recently we have had reports of a fertile mule in Morocco and a fertile hinny in China. And in 1994, there were reports in the press about a mule in Albania having a miscarriage. "

So, as I said in my original post: fertility in mules, though uncommon, does occur. When it does, they are often only able to interbreed with a horse o donkey, not another mule.

Please reread the question now. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mule

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

I think you might be overthinking this, Sandy; making a mountain out of a semantic molehill, so to speak.

The biblical translators and original writers weren't trying to make any fine biological distinctions. They didn't even know what biology was, much less had any concept of the current controversy raised by this question.

Then again maybe not. The argument for evolution seem to base it "proof" on a few simple organisms that may have been transformed into a "new" species. That is then extrapolated to mean that over a long enough period of time man came from a simple celled organism.

This far fetched concept is then used to say that, in Genesis, God did not create every organism that exists today. Well, if it was never stated that way but that God only created "kinds" then there is no argument of comparison.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

What exactly are people's thoughts on the Biblical term of "kind" ie: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind....." and the scientific term "species."

Do they relate to the same thing? And why or why not?

I wonder if this would be an issue for one who knows Hebrew. I can't help but think that we are comparing apples to oranges, anytime we take an ancient creation myth and compare it to anything in modern science.

Is it possible if they don't that the whole evolution/creation debate is a straw dog?

The evolution/creation debate is an abuse of both the discipline of science and theology. Science can't speak to myths, and myths can't give scientific facts, unless of course science is your myth, but that would violate the definition of myth.

Just think how silly it would be if we were talking about any other creation myth.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

The biblical translators and original writers weren't trying to make any fine biological distinctions. They didn't even know what biology was, much less had any concept of the current controversy raised by this question.

-
That's a good point. However, I would not put it past some modern preachers to replace "kind" with "species" in an effort to purposefully deceive people...

In fact, I would buy you a beer (or similar pleasant drink) if I couldn't go into a Christian bookstore and locate a source in less than 15 minutes that propounds such nonsense - even less time online.

EDIT: Before even I could say Ambesol.

David Menton argues that min in Genesis can't refer to species because species is too specific for the biblical usage. Thus, in his opinion, which is wrong, it must refer to genus.

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 3,420,000 for kind in Genesis is species. (0.70 seconds)
Species, Speciation and the Genesis Kind by David Menton Short overview of species, speciation, and the Genesis kind.
www.gennet.org/facts/metro16.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

[Endless]

It is essential to look at the big picture - if the Bible is correct (and we must work on this assumption if we are discussing what the Bible means by 'kinds' then this means that the earth is around 7000yrs old. This then means that all the fossils had to have formed since the earth was created - the Bible teaches a Biblical flood, so it is safe to assume understanding the fossilation process that this would have resulted in fossils. So the majority are probably as a result of the flood according to the Bible. We then have the ark which stored animals of every 'kind'. Logical assumption is that whatever these kinds were they must have been able to give rise to every type of creature on the earth today. There are currently too many species on the earth to have been able to physically fit in the ark (dimensions given in the Bible). Therefore according to the Bible the kinds could not possibly mean species.

Is it therefore possible to define a kind? No it is not yet possible, nor likely ever will be. The only way a 'kind' could be defined would be at the genetic level. You would have to work backwards with an examination of the genes of creatures. You would have to examine whether natural selection, genetic drift, mutation etc, could have caused diversification within the years since the ark. From those kinds of studies you should be able to be able to get a good guess which animals came from the same kind. But simply arguing about species and what makes things the same kind at the physical level is a strawman, because although you can get animals into families as such there are always going to be graylines at the physcial aspect of it all.