1. 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"?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Sunstone, Dec 27, 2007.

  1. camanintx

    camanintx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +137
    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?
     
  2. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    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?
     
  3. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    So are you defining "kind" as "able to reproduce fertile offspring?"
     
  4. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    Rabbits and Rabbits.... What about Hares and Pikas?
    Are they different "kinds" than Rabbits?

    Rabbit
    [​IMG]

    Hare
    [​IMG]

    Pika
    [​IMG]

    Where is the line between one kind and another?

    wa:do
     
  5. Blentyn chan Celi

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +8
    You mean like when God created every species according to its “kind”? Or when Noah took every “kind” into the SS Ark?
     
  6. fantome profane

    fantome profane Have you read the Whistleblower complaint?
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,890
    Ratings:
    +6,186
    Can you define either? Is there a difference?
     
  7. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    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.
     
  8. Francine

    Francine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,343
    Ratings:
    +213
    If all primates are one "kind" then they would have been represented by the 8 members of homo sapiens on the ark.
     
  9. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    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.
     
  10. Francine

    Francine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,343
    Ratings:
    +213
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,857
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    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."
     
  12. djrez4

    djrez4 Swollen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    75
    Ratings:
    +12
    Oh, please, let me muddy the waters even more...

    (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):
    At least they're doing experiments?
     
  13. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    56,076
    Ratings:
    +14,494
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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. ;)
     
  14. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    kind is a wishy-washy term ment to sow confusion. It can mean whatever the user wants it to for the situation.

    wa:do
     
  15. Quoth The Raven

    Quoth The Raven Half Arsed Muse

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,047
    Ratings:
    +734
    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.
    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.
     
  16. Mr. Peanut

    Mr. Peanut Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Messages:
    402
    Ratings:
    +36
    Supposed transitory fossils...I believe the fossils were a result of the Great Flood of Noah.
     
  17. camanintx

    camanintx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +137
    And the fact that they all have different ages doesn't bother you?
     
  18. fantome profane

    fantome profane Have you read the Whistleblower complaint?
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,890
    Ratings:
    +6,186
    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?
     
  19. Quoth The Raven

    Quoth The Raven Half Arsed Muse

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,047
    Ratings:
    +734
    Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.;)
     
  20. Quoth The Raven

    Quoth The Raven Half Arsed Muse

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,047
    Ratings:
    +734
    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.
     
Loading...