What is a "Kind"? (blessing)

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

All I know is everything reproduces after its own kind, humans make humans, rabbits-rabbits, apple trees make apples and seeds and more apple trees. This is seen every day and in the fossil record as well. There should be a huge abundance of missing links showing the slow changes of animals into what they are today, but they don't exist.

If everything reproduces after its own kind, then shouldn't the fossil record show the same animals existing not just 100 years or 1,000 years ago, but 1,000,000 or even 1,000,000,000 years ago?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

I assume you refer to a kind as from Genesis 1:

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And 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 God saw that it was good.

Simply put, grass, herbs and trees yield fruit "after their kind". Blue-grass yields blue-grass, ginseng yields ginseng, apple trees yield apples, and seeds which make more apple trees, which make more apples...Every sea creature and every fowl, and every land creature, etc., reproduce "after their kind". From blue whales come more blue whales, from pigeons come more pigeons, from cows, cows, black widows, black widows, etc.

Rather than repeating the obvious, can you define the word, "kind?"
As in, organisms do not evolve beyond their "kind." What is meant by the word, "kind," in that sentence?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

If the offspring can reproduce or closely related animals can, I would consider them within the same kind. What is it, the horse and mule can make a donkey, but the donkey cannot make more donkeys, or something like that...

So are you defining "kind" as "able to reproduce fertile offspring?"

[painted wolf]

Rabbits and Rabbits.... What about Hares and Pikas?
Are they different "kinds" than Rabbits?

Rabbit


Hare


Pika


Where is the line between one kind and another?

wa:do

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

A species is clearly defined in the biological literature, but what the heck is a "kind"?

You mean like when God created every species according to its “kind”? Or when Noah took every “kind” into the SS Ark?

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Blentyn chan Celi

You mean like when God created every species according to its “kind”? Or when Noah took every “kind” into the SS Ark?

Can you define either? Is there a difference?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Blentyn chan Celi

You mean like when God created every species according to its “kind”? Or when Noah took every “kind” into the SS Ark?

Yes, that's what the OP is referring to. Many YECs will assert that evolution is not possible because there is no variation beyond a "kind," but they never define what a kind is because they have a dilemma. Either:
(1) A kind is something like a species, in which case Noah had to fit a few million creatures on a wooden boat, or
(2) A kind ifssomething like a family, in which case in the last 6000 years the world has been experiencing a kind of hyper-evolution which science has not observed, and which YECs deny is possible.
So they tend to avoid defining this term, so they can move their goalposts around to suit their argument.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

So they tend to avoid defining this term, so they can move their goalposts around to suit their argument.

If all primates are one "kind" then they would have been represented by the 8 members of homo sapiens on the ark.

[Autodidact]

The one thing that YECs are always very clear about is that human beings are their own unique kind, this despite our huge genetic similarity to chimpanzees. Right there they have a problem, since there is only a species difference at most there. So they need an elastic definition from the get-go.