"Kind" and modern classification

[agnosticatheist]

ATTN creationists:

The word kind is used in the story of Noah's Ark. What is a "kind"?

Is it the same as the modern classification species? Genus? Family?

Are lions and tigers the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and wolves the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and crocodiles the same kind?

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]
quote
I don't know what scientists you are referring to. Scientists study abiogenesis and scientists study evolution. Those who study how life evolves are interested in events that happen after life is already established on Earth, so they are not studying abiogenesis.

The theories that are put out by evolutionists, by scientists, and many branches of science call themselves scientists. There does not appear to be any one all encompassing concept of Evolution or (pathogenesis) abiogenesis. Note: I said OR.

Maybe the ones that study abiogenesis leave the path clear to argue against evolution and vice versa. Thus we have the same isms and schisms as is in Christendom with 40,000 different theories.


quote
To be accurate, dogs are considered to have evolved from wolves. And believe me, the science of taxonomy did not evolve just to make the relationships between organisms "sound more scientific."

Then why don't the scientists agree to call dogs and wolves of the same "kind" and that any other dog kind is a species of the kind. Instead, scientists have many words the mean the same thing, take family for instance.


quote:
Sure they use the words "canine," bovine," etc., but not necessarily in describing the ranks---Kingdom, Phylum, Class, etc---of organisms. And just to be clear, the rank of subspecies follows the rank of species.

Be clearer, is subspecies just another species in the family, or kind.



quote

As I noted in the post above, it can be, but not necessarily so. Depending on the needs of the creationist he can equate "kind" to whatever rank helps him out.

Here we go again, you introduce another word , why, is it to make you sound more scientific....What does rank mean om your example? Species can only be derived form paring male and female of the same kind together or from paring two of the same species together in the same kind (Family) It is impossible to cross male and female with kinds that are not of the same kind (family).

Even some same species crosses can be obtained by because they are borderline in Kind, the stop there and are "mules". To me, a creationist, this tells me that the message is to say within the same kind when breeding.

more later, I am tired now.

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 6 by agnosticatheist]

Give me a good reason to answer yur questions, considering the end comments.

Umm maybe because we were having a discussion? Lol...

How did my end comments cause you to ask me for a reason?

I get the idea there is a problem here. So what is the problem?

[Miles]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]
quote
I don't know what scientists you are referring to. Scientists study abiogenesis and scientists study evolution. Those who study how life evolves are interested in events that happen after life is already established on Earth, so they are not studying abiogenesis.

The theories that are put out by evolutionists, by scientists, and many branches of science call themselves scientists. There does not appear to be any one all encompassing concept of Evolution or (pathogenesis) abiogenesis. Note: I said OR.

The theories of evolution only pertain to the hows, not the what. This because evolution is a well established fact within science. And there IS "one all encompassing concept of Evolution." HERE is a simple but excellent introduction to it.

Maybe the ones that study abiogenesis leave the path clear to argue against evolution and vice versa. Thus we have the same isms and schisms as is in Christendom with 40,000 different theories.

Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, is not as well confirmed as is evolution. And while abiogenesis essentially amounts to an evolutionary process, biological evolution, the transformation of one species from another, has nothing to do with abiogenesis. For evolution and evolutionists, it doesn't matter if life originated through abiogenesis or by the "hand of god."

To be accurate, dogs are considered to have evolved from wolves. And believe me, the science of taxonomy did not evolve just to make the relationships between organisms "sound more scientific."

Then why don't the scientists agree to call dogs and wolves of the same "kind" and that any other dog kind is a species of the kind. Instead, scientists have many words the mean the same thing, take family for instance.

They don't use the word "kind" because it is meaningless to them. It's a word creationists appropriated from the Bible in order to explain where all the millions of species we have came from. The animals Noah took on board the ark are referred to as "kinds," and it's from these few "kinds" that all the subsequent species evolved; according to creationists. That's right. There had to have been an enormous amount of evolution going on after the animals got off the boat. And, it's something almost all knowledgeable creationists agree on.

Sure they use the words "canine," bovine," etc., but not necessarily in describing the ranks---Kingdom, Phylum, Class, etc---of organisms. And just to be clear, the rank of subspecies follows the rank of species.

Be clearer, is subspecies just another species in the family, or kind.

If a species is made up of two or more populations of organisms that exhibit significantly different characteristics, each may then be classified as a subspecies. It should be noted that when this happens to a species, all members are classified as a subspecies. This mean that if an animal like the aardvark, Orycteropodidae afer, (the first term here, Orycteropodidae, indicates the genus it belongs to, and afer its species group) was to break off into two very different populations, and scientist wanted to create a subspecies classifications to better denote this, both forms would receive a subspecies designation: Orycteropodidae afer subA and Orycteropodidae afer subB. The subA and subB being the subspecies names. Subspecies classification can also arise through reclassification. Until relatively recently the domestic dog was classified as Canis familiaris, a member of the wolf genus Canis. However, after reviewing and comparing its defining characteristics to that of the wolf, Canis lupus, it was reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris.

As I noted in the post above, it can be, but not necessarily so. Depending on the needs of the creationist he can equate "kind" to whatever rank helps him out.

Here we go again, you introduce another word , why, is it to make you sound more scientific....What does rank mean om your example?

Take a look at the taxonomic scheme of the cardinal---half way down the page of THIS web site. Each of the eight levels, (Domain -> species) is a rank. Here we see that the Order rank of the cardinal is called Passeriformes. For the lion, its Order rank is called Carnivora, which is also the Order rank for cats, bears, wolves, and other meat eaters.

Species can only be derived form paring male and female of the same kind together or from paring of the same species together in the same kind (Family) It is impossible to cross male and female with kinds that are not of the same kind (family).

If I read you correctly, you seem to be on the right track. Organisms from different families and, barring the rare exception (usually plants), genera (singular, genus) such species cannot reproduce fertile offspring.

Even some same species crosses can be obtained by because they are borderline in Kind, the stop there and are "mules". To me, a creationist, this tells me that the message is to say within the same kind when breeding.

Well, mules are always infertile crosses between a horse and an ass; both belonging to the same genus (Equus) but of different species. Horses: E. caballus and asses E. asinus. There are no mother or father mules. That said, there are successful crosses between different species. In the latter part of the 19th century wolves, Canis lupus and coyotes Canis latrans, freely mated with each other in northern Minnesota and and the lower margins of Canada. The result is that there is now a huge number of these wolf/coyote hybrids now roaming across the upper north. Even spreading eastward into the New England states.


.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 12 by agnosticatheist]


Your last line of your quote is negative to me, and not in my line of thinking. I believe that you would only create an argument to suit your forum name.

I doubt that you can say anything that wont be an argument now.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 13 by Miles]

Your mention of aardvark brought to mind the aardwolf...It seems that this animal has confounded the classifiers and sorters, as it is a species of Hyena, but with completely different behavioural patterns. Apparently ( I don't need to get into this side of the discussion as I believe that all animals. insects, birds, plants and etc came from the same two of a family or kind according to their kind.

Scientists can come up with all the Latin words, the words that mean the same thing but sound professional and life will stay the same, one Kind from one family line but many species from that family or kind is possible.

It seems to some that species change because of environmental aspects, or even breeding within a species (consider all the dog and cat breeds or species alone) is not possible in a short period of time...I give this one example: A Hereford cow crossing with a Zebu bull, and the same Zebu bull crossing with the offspring in the second year and a different Zebu bull in the third year will produce a drought-master which looks very different to either of the first or subsequent paring partners.

http://www.droughtmaster.com.au

No matter what big or small Latin words you use, all kinds will only produce according to its Kind.

Does your plant cross out of KIND come from man's intervention of 'grafting'. If so, the graft is the same (kind) as the host plant. It may be a plumb host with a Nashi Pear graft as is done here on the North Coast of NSW, in my country

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 12 by agnosticatheist]


Your last line of your quote is negative to me, and not in my line of thinking. I believe that you would only create an argument to suit your forum name.

I doubt that you can say anything that wont be an argument now.

Dude....This is a debate forum...Arguments are a component of debate.

I state my argument, you state your argument.

If you aren't looking to have genuine debate but instead are looking to preach, you are in the wrong forum. If you keep it up, you may be hearing from the mods, and it wont be due to me alerting them...

I will ask you again:

Did all 41 living cat species and their subspecies emerge from a "cat kind" that was on the ark?

Can any cat in the "cat kind" breed with any other cat in the "cat kind" to produce fertile offspring?

Are polar bears and grizzly bears the same species or separate species? Simple question. I don't see why the last question is a problem. You haven't even answered the question yet to see how I will respond to your answer. You don't know what my response will be. You seem to be assuming that I will respond in a certain way. That's not cool.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 16 by agnosticatheist]

I think marakorpa is trying to use you as a scapegoat; he'll do whatever he can to find aggressive or "mean" things in your posts, not because he takes issue with you personally, but because crying foul temporarily distracts from the non-arguments he presents.

The more we address the fact that he's stalling and refusing to actually answer our questions, I feel the further he'll be pressed to rely on that cowardly tactic. When someone spends their entire debate history using underhanded techniques to avoid the rigors of intellectual honesty, a change in the usual regime will be jarring, and I fully expect stubbornness.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 17 by Neatras]

My current stance is that when it becomes clear a poster is ignoring questions and rambling on about whatever with no evidence to back up any claims, I will simply disengage.

Everyone following along can quickly see that such posters are not interested in debate, but simply preaching their ideas. It really is probably more effective to simply let them 'talk to themselves' until they finally give up.

So as to not be completely off topic, back to the OP: Until a creationist can give us a definitive answer of what 'kind' means, it's simply pointless trying to use the word in a scientific discussion. There is an entire field devoted to classification i.e. taxonomy. For some reason, 'kind' is not used there.

Poorly defined words seem to be the hallmark of creationists. It lets them use the words in whatever way appears to further their argument. In this subforum especially, it's a red flag that smoke and mirrors are in progress.

[Miles]

[Replying to post 13 by Miles]

It seems to some that species change because of environmental aspects, or even breeding within a species (consider all the dog and cat breeds or species alone) is not possible in a short period of time...I give this one example: A Hereford cow crossing with a Zebu bull, and the same Zebu bull crossing with the offspring in the second year and a different Zebu bull in the third year will produce a drought-master which looks very different to either of the first or subsequent paring partners.

Evolution is a long term process. Species don't arise over night. It can easily take hundreds or thousands of years for a new species to emerge.

No matter what big or small Latin words you use, all kinds will only produce according to its Kind.

You seem to be taking exception to science's terminology, as if they shouldn't use Latin words or other words you don't understand. Why?

Does your plant cross out of KIND come from man's intervention of 'grafting'. If so, the graft is the same (kind) as the host plant. It may be a plumb host with a Nashi Pear graft as is done here on the North Coast of NSW, in my country

No. The successful cross breeding among plants of different genera is not done through grafting. Grafting is not cross breeding. As an example, crosses between radish (Raphanus sativus) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea) have been made that ultimately produce fertile offspring.


.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 16 by agnosticatheist]

From Wikipeader:

As with ligers the females are fertile whereas the males are sterile. They have the same vocalizations as liger, a sort of cross between lion and tiger. Ti-tigons speak tiger.Feb 11, 2015

Two cat species on the Ark produced all species of cat in the world. Many species of domestic cats, many species of wild cats.

That is my uncool answer. You can check on the bears yourself, how much should I bear?

Is your title your attitude, maybe that is why I am wary of your questions.