• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is a "Kind"?

camanintx

Well-Known Member
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

Intentionally Blank
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

Intentionally Blank
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

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

Rabbit
info-Volcano-rabbit.jpg


Hare
fws_jackrabbit.jpg


Pika
pika%203.jpg


Where is the line between one kind and another?

wa:do
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
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.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
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.
 

Francine

Well-Known Member
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.

Well, when they figure out what the equivalence of "kind" is on this chart, I'm sure they can publish their decision in Nature to let us all know.

230px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo.svg.png
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
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

Swollen Member
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

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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. ;)
 

Quoth The Raven

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

Rabbit
info-Volcano-rabbit.jpg


Hare
fws_jackrabbit.jpg


Pika
pika%203.jpg


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

Active Member
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.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
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

Half Arsed Muse
Supposed transitory fossils...I believe the fossils were a result of the Great Flood of Noah.
Ok, so you're asking why there aren't any transitory fossils, when you get given transitory fossils you say,'Oh, but they're not transitory fossils, they're a result of Noah's flood.' So in essence you're asking for the provision of something you don't believe in, and will steadfastly refuse to believe in, even if they're served up to you on a plate? Way to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'Lalala'.
It was a very wise man who said that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
Top