"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?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 30 by marakorpa]

I'm not here to hear someone say I win.

I'm here to make sure that unscientific anti-intellectuals stop using this forum as a podium to preach their ridiculous views without backing them up with evidence.

This is just another example of a Creationist refusing to engage the moment that data is involved.

You could have been different from all the others. And you might think that you're putting this across in a way that phases me... But it's so hopelessly indistinct that I'm not even surprised by it.

Perhaps, someday, consider why it is that you have such a dislike for statistics and evidence. You might find that introspection can be a powerful lens for shaping your future behaviors.

[marakorpa]

I can see where this debate falls apart. The two thoughts of the origin of life, or in fact evolution as described by the "Scientific" world are so far apart in explanation, for example: accepting creation does not expect numbers and scientific facts, as it comes from the time when ordinary people knew about the power of an Almighty God. These days the mases want movies, videos, actual sightings and other "Proof" for the unexplained, and yet, they can accept the By Chance syndrome as if those events are seen on David Attenbourough's TV shows, which are interesting but not always truthful.

Early in this forum, someone posted that there was no one interested enough in taking up the discussion. After many back and forth 'discussions' many back and forth insults, that original thought is now very clear. It is with this in mind that I now desist from the discussion and leave it to the experts to argue amongst themselves to determine which theory is correct in the evolution/origin of life game of chance.

There seems to be an assumption that his forum is designed entirely for the considerations of those that apply the word "Scientist" to their name and that no other doctrines must be entered into; however the heading says Science and Religion. There are many religions and there are many theories from scientists. It is only on this forum that I have seen origin of life, and evolution separated, and I look at the need for this with the utmost suspicion.

My beliefs allow nothing to BY CHANCE.

[Neatras]

accepting creation does not expect numbers and scientific facts, as it comes from the time when ordinary people knew about the power of an Almighty God.

But when the events described oppose statistics, evidence, and known physics, then the stories a bunch of scientifically illiterate people accepted in the past become suspect. In what way are we to distinguish true events in history from false, if not by using critical analysis?

And don't think I'm excusing you from the burden of backing up your assertions. You getting the last word in won't change the fact that you've declined to meet my challenges.

You've stepped around this often, however the fact is that you have not admitted that:
You are unwilling or unable to present evidence of your purported global flood. And that's where it all falls apart.

[Zzyzx]

.
Is everyone aware that 'kind', 'species', 'family', 'genus', 'kingdom' are all artificial classifications developed by humans in efforts to categorize (or simplify) consideration of living organisms?

While the latter four are terms from biological science, they are still just classification terminology and are not boundaries set by nature -- perhaps akin to boundary lines between nations or survey lines bounding real estate (or grid lines on a map). Those lines of demarcation are NOT found in nature.

There is no known way to determine what 'kind' may have meant to ancient writers (unless they clearly defined their use of the term). Lacking that ancient clear definition, all 'interpretations' are pure speculation.

[benchwarmer]

There seems to be an assumption that his forum is designed entirely for the considerations of those that apply the word "Scientist" to their name and that no other doctrines must be entered into;

Incorrect. Many of us (myself included) are more than happy to entertain any claims you wish to make as long as you provide evidence.

If you are simply going to make statements and expect others to swallow your claims with no question then you are in the wrong place. This isn't church where everyone just nods their head and says hallelujah. You have to provide some verifiable evidence to be taken seriously if you want to try and knock down the mountains of evidence that exist for the theory of evolution.

[Miles]

.
Is everyone aware that 'kind', 'species', 'family', 'genus', 'kingdom' are all artificial classifications developed by humans in efforts to categorize (or simplify) consideration of living organisms?

Good point.

There is no known way to determine what 'kind' may have meant to ancient writers (unless they clearly defined their use of the term). Lacking that ancient clear definition, all 'interpretations' are pure speculation.

Although according to Strong's Concordance "kind," as translated from the Hebrew מִין mîyn, in Genesis 6:20, means "a sort, i.e. species. And addressing the same word, the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon says "form, hence species, kind, sort,..."



.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 36 by Miles]

KIND

The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.� (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,� which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)� in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

The Biblical “kinds� seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds� is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species� has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.� The basic meaning of “species� is “a sort; kind; variety.� In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.�

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,� there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds� have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds� cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds� have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds� would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,� each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.�

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.� This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds� in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.�

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,� in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,� such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.� (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Whereas specific created “kinds� may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.� The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.� But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds� can commingle genetically.

Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges� between “kinds� are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds� without evolving into other “kinds.� The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds� during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.� (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,� since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.

Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds� emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their “kinds.� Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds� have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.

[Neatras]

And so you skirt past all of my challenges, thinking that somehow you can avoid the burden of proof. You are still expected to answer. Not answering demonstrates that you are lacking in credibility. Anyone who observes this debate thread can see the differences between us in our debate ethic. Please take this into account.

[Replying to post 36 by Miles]


The Biblical “kinds� seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds� is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

So then what about ring species? This hampers your argument, because cross-fertilization between ring species implies they are both distinct and similar kinds at the same time, a state which you have gone to great lengths to define as impossible.

How do you answer this?

In recent years, the term “species� has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.� The basic meaning of “species� is “a sort; kind; variety.� In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.�

Y'know, this is the closest thing to coherent you've been thus far. You're showing progress by actually trying to use scientific terms. Taxonomy based on distinct characteristics and shared ability to produce offspring is indeed how the monikers are used in nomenclature for living organisms.

“The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.� (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Fantastic quote mine. Here's the rest of it:

n the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

You do NOT, I repeat, NOT get to misrepresent people by misquoting them. You have crossed a serious line, marakorpa, and your inability to recognize your own intellectual dishonesty is duly noted.

Fossil “bridges� between “kinds� are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds� without evolving into other “kinds.� The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds� during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

Oh, so we're discussing transitional forms now, huh? So where were Maiacetus inuus, Indohyus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dorduons on the ark? The ones that all tell the tale of a steady progression of mammalian animals to modern dolphins? Or am I supposed to sweep all this under the rug as some kind of hoax? The fossils don't lie, marakorpa, and trying to declare that they support your narrative without actually gathering any support is nothing more than coopting real science for your biased and unscientific agenda. Another point against you, I'm afraid.

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.� (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,� since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.

Ah yes, preserving all animals for a year in sub-optimal climate conditions, while providing for all of their dietary needs and standard animal maintenance. I assume Noah worked at a zoo prior to this. You've still not addressed any of my previous challenges, and now you're faced with even more the longer this goes on. I should compile a list of all the failures you've committed in this debate, but then again, you already said you were bowing out of the discussion. I guess you really do just want the last word. But you don't get to make these claims without providing real evidence, not just making grandiose claims. The other challenges I've made are as strong as ever, and made stronger by your unwillingness to address them.

Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds� emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their “kinds.� Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds� have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.

So... Instead of addressing my challenges, you soldier on, completely ignoring the need for evidence.

You fail.

[Zzyzx]

.

The Biblical “kinds� seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds� is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

Okay, fertilization basically ceases to occur at species level. That is one of the criteria used to differentiate species from one another.

About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 180459.htm

Therefore, apparently at least five million species of land animal representatives aboard the ark (ten million individuals) -- from diverse habitats arctic to tropical, arid to humid, herbivores to carnivores -- all fed and cared for by a crew of eight people for months.

If that sounds convincing, there is some oceanfront land for sale in New Mexico (the previously offered Arizona oceanfront has been sold).

[agnosticatheist]

[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.

Two cat species? Did you mean a male and female of the "cat kind" that all the 41 cat species alive today emerged from?

It's not about a cool or uncool answer. It's about whether the answer makes sense or not, and is scientifically feasible or not.

You do realize that the 41 cat species alive today emerging from the one "cat kind" on the ark would require EVOLUTION, right?

I know the answer to the bear question, or at least I know the answer to the bear question using my definition of species, which actually differs from the mainstream, as it uses a hard, measurable barrier to determine classification rather than classifying animals according to morphology and behavior (my issue with using morphology and behavior to determine classification is that whatever classification they use is arbitrary). The best way though to classify beyond species and overall is to use DNA. You start at the earliest lifeform and work forward from there. Everything that emerged from an organism is considered one of the organisms it emerged from, and yet also has it's own unique classification.

Let's say a new species emerges from tigers. It would be considered a tiger, but it would also have it's own species name. We'll call it Pantigera. Now let's say over time, two groups of Pantigeras end up reproductively isolated from the rest of the Pantigera population. Each population eventually develops into a new species (each is incapable of breeding with Pantigera and the other species that emerged from Pantigera). Those two new species are considered tigers, because they can trace their ancestry back to the tiger.

Now, the way it's usually done is all the organisms in a group have a classification name that is different from the species name of the organism that all the organisms in the group are descended from. Reptiles emerged from an organism a long time ago, but that organism is not known as the "Reptile." However, monophyletically, all the organisms that descended from that organism, including dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, are classified as reptiles. I've just called all the organisms in my Tiger example tigers because as of yet tigers haven't had any new species branch off of them, and so there is no group name for them like there is for the group of organisms known as "Reptiles."

A note to my "evolutionist" brethren: Feel free to correct any errors I made here.

When you said my title, were you referring to my username or my signature that's below my posts?