What is a "Kind"? (blessing)

[doppelgänger]

A kind is a form. An abstract symbol to represent in thought a category of things based on its perceived attributes. Every common noun is a kind, including "common noun."

[djrez4]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

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.

Oh, please, let me muddy the waters even more...

Another factor that greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent "kinds" of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth. There may have been as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

(someone interpreting John Woodmorappe)

If every "kind" was represented on the ark by two members, the modern differences between distinct species within a family, including the inability to interbreed, had to have developed within the past 4-5000 years. Scientists call that process speciation. YECs get confused.

Here's a quote from a favorite site of mine (can't post URLs yet):

[Ann Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed "leaky growth," in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, "So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?" at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

At least they're doing experiments?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

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.

I think the implicit definition of "kind" is quite specific: "the amount of biological variation and evolution that even the most ardent Creationist can't pretend isn't obvious to anyone who cares to investigate."

I concede that this means that the definition of "kind" changes over time, but at any particular instant, it's a rather narrow definition.

[painted wolf]

kind is a wishy-washy term ment to sow confusion. It can mean whatever the user wants it to for the situation.

wa:do

[Quoth The Raven]

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.

There are plenty of transitory fossils...there's one thread in particular somewhere in here about whale ancestors, which is a fairly comprehensive and largely unbroken lineage.
Why should there be a huge abundance of missing links when not everything that gets dead becomes a fossil? This seems to be a real sticking point for some people...death doesn't - nor has it ever - automatically mean fossilisation. Otherwise when they were trying to work out who the baby from the Titanic was, they'd have had more to exhume than a couple of teeth and an arm bone.

Originally Posted by 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

I don't think they think so...when I had my pet hare, my daughter's pet rabbit was obviously quite smitten with it. It was rather comical to watch him jump about trying to impress her.

[Mr. Peanut]

Originally Posted by Quoth The Raven

There are plenty of transitory fossils...there's one thread in particular somewhere in here about whale ancestors, which is a fairly comprehensive and largely unbroken lineage.
Why should there be a huge abundance of missing links when not everything that gets dead becomes a fossil? This seems to be a real sticking point for some people...death doesn't - nor has it ever - automatically mean fossilisation. Otherwise when they were trying to work out who the baby from the Titanic was, they'd have had more to exhume than a couple of teeth and an arm bone.

Supposed transitory fossils...I believe the fossils were a result of the Great Flood of Noah.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

Supposed transitory fossils...I believe the fossils were a result of the Great Flood of Noah.

And the fact that they all have different ages doesn't bother you?

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut

Supposed transitory fossils...I believe the fossils were a result of the Great Flood of Noah.

If that is the case then apparently there were a lot of different “kinds” that didn’t make the boat. Was Noah less diligent then we have been lead to believe?

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by camanintx

And the fact that they all have different ages doesn't bother you?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.