"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?

[Miles]

[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.

I might care what you've "written," but because your blatant plagiarism here is inexcusable, to say nothing of being in violation of copyright laws, [Copyright © 2016 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania] what you have to say is of absolutely no interest.

.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 26 by Rufus21]
I will finally agree with you. You should give up on this poor, uneducated, cowardly, unintelligent. wont listen, bad bad creationist.

Self described.

I am not going to pour through all that stuff yu have gone to the trouble of loading, as evolution is such that there would be equal amounts that contradict what you write, from other scientists. (I know...Give me the math...."

No there are so few "other scientists" that they are not even noise in the system. Most of your "other scientists" are not actually scientists but failed wanabes acting out because they could not cut it as "non-other scientists."

AS we use entirely different text books we will never agree nor is it my intention to accept the BY CHANCE syndrome that is as incongruous as what you reckon creation is, thee is little to no chance that you will convince of any one of the many theories of man that explains what you are trying to ram down my throat.

I do not use textbooks, I use primary sources and direct observation. You do not use textbooks either, you use biblical tracts rewritten by "other scientists," one of the few jobs that such quacks can find.

If you need a "you win", and it looks like you do very much by your continued bombardment on someone that you also say could not take it in, here you go

YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!

We are not in need of a "win," per se, we are tying to provide you with some clear thinking that runs strongly counter to your bronze age beliefs.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 33 by Neatras]

Give me "Real Evidence" of by chance events that must have taken place leading up to your single cell. I want proven instances where you have conclusive proof and math that will support anything you say. Don't beat around the bush, don't try to avoid the question, do not tell me that I need to have your knowledge when your knowledge is now in question, I want actual proof, not theories, not guess work...Com'on yo' all, yo' can do it sure nuff!!!!


Well! Just by chance you can't.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 42 by H.sapiens]


Thank you for your kind and well excreted nastiness, it suits you.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 41 by Miles]

Oh! Dearie me, what have I done now?

I am very aware of the copyright laws and the plagiarism that is rampant in these forums. I am also well aware of what the WTBTS consider copyright and that which it considers not so. I copy and pasted the entire subject matter so, my Dear Clarence Darrow, plagiarism is not a consideration, I made no claim that the article was of my iteration and, the article is not listed as having existing copyright, this is how the WTBTS gets some intelligence into folk like you that appear to have a propensity for putting their mouth into top gear and their mind in neutral.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 33 by Neatras]
Well! Just by chance you can't.

Cute, you've once again declined to actually present evidence for your side. This reminds me of a thread I made where the win was given to Creationists, but they declined to do anything but bash evolutionary theory. If your ideas are so poor in their conception that you can only step up and talk with the big boys by chewing out everyone else, then I'm sorry, but your position is garbage to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, I know what you're doing. I also know that you're doing it in a hopelessly obvious way. Since you are incapable of providing evidence for your side, you're derailing. This red herring will accomplish nothing, because it won't justify your failed argument of a global flood. Want to prove me wrong? Then provide the evidence.

But if you're so fixated on telling me what I can and can't do, well, I'll just have to correct one glaring miscalculation you've made.

I have made no claims about the origin of life.

Yeah, you read that right. I haven't made a single claim. This entire debate between you and I has exclusively been about your bogus Noah's ark fairy tale.

Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean I have to accept an objectively wrong answer, like the absolute mess of an argument you've presented. So you're barking up the wrong tree, marakorpa. And with that, you've revealed your entire hand. No more tricks, no more detours. Just you, parroting the quotes of long-since debunked Creationists who don't understand why they aren't taken seriously by anyone with an education.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 33 by Neatras]

Give me "Real Evidence" of by chance events that must have taken place leading up to your single cell.

As soon as you supply evidence for your claim of pink unicorns living on the moon I'm sure Neatras will supply evidence of the claim he didn't make.

[marco]

[Replying to post 42 by H.sapiens]


Thank you for your kind and well excreted nastiness, it suits you.

You must know by now that this is completely unacceptable.

Moderator Final Warning

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Miles]

[Replying to post 41 by Miles]

Oh! Dearie me, what have I done now?

I am very aware of the copyright laws and the plagiarism that is rampant in these forums.

If you're well aware of copyright laws then all I can conclude is that you don't care that you violate them. And is your defense really the fact that because other people plagiarize you can too? Really?

I am also well aware of what the WTBTS consider copyright and that which it considers not so.

Then it should be clear of what its intentions are when it placed a copyright notice, the one I copy pasted in my reply, on the bottom of the article you plagiarized.

I copy and pasted the entire subject matter so, my Dear Clarence Darrow, plagiarism is not a consideration,

Obviously you're totally ignorant of copyright law, and are foolishly trying to bluster your way out of your breech of proper posting procedure

I made no claim that the article was of my iteration and,

One doesn't have to overtly claim a piece of copied material is his to violate copyright law. All that's necessary is to fail to properly attribute materiel to the copyright holder, giving the impression it's your own.

the article is not listed as having existing copyright,

Sure it is. Take another look. Moreover, copyright automatically accrues to any piece of original material the moment it is created. It IS NOT necessary to post a copyright notification to insure copyright protection. The reason publishers do so is because of people like yourself who are unaware of this fact and believe they can blithely plagiarize material. However, sometimes even this isn't enough. Some people, again like yourself, don't even recognize a copyright notification when it's there.

Thing is, marakorpa, you are not only deviously self-serving in your post, but you broke the law. Pure and simple. And on other web forums you would have been kicked out for it. I've seen it happen.


.

[agnosticatheist]

marakorpa, in case you missed post #40, im going to repost in this post what I posted in post #40.

[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?