"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]

"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."
source

So, depending on one's needs for convenience, a "kind" can be equivalent to an organism now ranked on the level of an Order, Family, Genus, or species. Ya got yer pick.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

A Kind is one that is of a specific family. The scientists do not use canine, feline,bovine, equine, porcine and etc they use a taxonomic group that has sub species after subspecies so that it w ill fit on the Tree of Lief

Kind is family. the ridiculous comment that only two footed animals were allowed on the ark makes mock of that persons intelligence.

I do not know if it is the same as the modern version of family.

Are lions and tigers the same kind.....Yes, they are feline, and if you should get a cross from them they remain cats. I haven't looked it up but I would guess that a cross of this type would be from human intervention

Wolves, in one statement from the net, are dogs or canine, however to make it sound more scientific, have a look at how evolutionists sort it out.

Domestic dogs and wolves are part of a large taxonomic family called Canidae, which also includes coyotes, foxes and jackals, according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Members of this family are called canids. Domestic dogs are a subspecies called Canis lupus familiaris

But not canine as has been the case for many years.

They would not cross with lions and tigers Feline

The same story for lions and crocs.

[Miles]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

A Kind is one that is of a specific family. The scientists do not use canine, feline,bovine, equine, porcine and etc they use a taxonomic group that has sub species after subspecies so that it w ill fit on the Tree of Lief

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.

Kind is family.

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.

I do not know if it is the same as the modern version of family.

There is only one relevant version of family, the one in the taxonomical hierarchy of ranks.

Are lions and tigers the same kind.....Yes, they are feline, and if you should get a cross from them they remain cats.

If you mean that they both belong to the same family, as you imply above, yes they do. They belong to the family Felidae. But more than that, they also belong to the same genus Panthera. The lion classified as Panthera leo and the tiger as Panthera tigris.

Wolves, in one statement from the net, are dogs or canine, however to make it sound more scientific, have a look at how evolutionists sort it out.

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."


.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]

You are closer to the facts than I have seen so far, and, II might add, you have not called me stupid, unintelligent, uneducated and other things that I get caned for, which is a change.

IS evolution and the origin of life the same pursuit? It is in this forum that I have, for the first time, come up against it as two different lines of thought.

Scientists who expound the theory of evolution seem to do so as the origin of life, and yet on this forum the only one that tried to explain the difference said the origin of life was "Nature". IS that it, is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?

This creationist does not offer disguises for KIND, I have a clear picture of what Kind means as far as different life forms are, and I can identify them easily without coming up with the scientific rigmarole of trying to get each kind into different kinds to explain evolution.

The fact remains with KIND: Kinds cannot cross breed, species of kinds can and do, naturally, and not forced by experimentation by humans.

Some have used spurious fossil records to show a transition from one kind to another. This is impossible and in fact if it is true thee is not a flood of these "finds" to explain all transitional activity to get the diversity of animals and plants on earth today.

The University of California Museum of Paleontology gives an account of the Cambrian Explosion but only describes small low ability animals that are still seen in the waters of our oceans today.

Other dominant Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts were trilobites (like the one pictured above), archaeocyathids (relatives of sponges that were restricted to the Lower Cambrian), and problematic conical fossils known as hyolithids (like the one pictured above, right). Many Early Cambrian invertebrates are known only from "small shelly fossils" — tiny plates, scales, spines, tubes, and so on. Many of these were probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

Note the hopeful guess at the bottom of this scientific comment...Probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]

You are closer to the facts than I have seen so far, and, II might add, you have not called me stupid, unintelligent, uneducated and other things that I get caned for, which is a change.

IS evolution and the origin of life the same pursuit? It is in this forum that I have, for the first time, come up against it as two different lines of thought.

Scientists who expound the theory of evolution seem to do so as the origin of life, and yet on this forum the only one that tried to explain the difference said the origin of life was "Nature". IS that it, is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?

This creationist does not offer disguises for KIND, I have a clear picture of what Kind means as far as different life forms are, and I can identify them easily without coming up with the scientific rigmarole of trying to get each kind into different kinds to explain evolution.

The fact remains with KIND: Kinds cannot cross breed, species of kinds can and do, naturally, and not forced by experimentation by humans.

Some have used spurious fossil records to show a transition from one kind to another. This is impossible and in fact if it is true thee is not a flood of these "finds" to explain all transitional activity to get the diversity of animals and plants on earth today.

The University of California Museum of Paleontology gives an account of the Cambrian Explosion but only describes small low ability animals that are still seen in the waters of our oceans today.

Other dominant Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts were trilobites (like the one pictured above), archaeocyathids (relatives of sponges that were restricted to the Lower Cambrian), and problematic conical fossils known as hyolithids (like the one pictured above, right). Many Early Cambrian invertebrates are known only from "small shelly fossils" — tiny plates, scales, spines, tubes, and so on. Many of these were probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

Note the hopeful guess at the bottom of this scientific comment...Probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

So all 41 cat species and their various subspecies emerged, in the last 6,000-10,000 years, from one common ancestor "kind" that was on the ark?

Can any species of cat breed with any other species of cat and produce fertile offspring?

A final question: Are polar bears and grizzly bears the same species?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]

You are closer to the facts than I have seen so far, and, II might add, you have not called me stupid, unintelligent, uneducated and other things that I get caned for, which is a change.

IS evolution and the origin of life the same pursuit? It is in this forum that I have, for the first time, come up against it as two different lines of thought.

Scientists who expound the theory of evolution seem to do so as the origin of life, and yet on this forum the only one that tried to explain the difference said the origin of life was "Nature". IS that it, is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?

This creationist does not offer disguises for KIND, I have a clear picture of what Kind means as far as different life forms are, and I can identify them easily without coming up with the scientific rigmarole of trying to get each kind into different kinds to explain evolution.

The fact remains with KIND: Kinds cannot cross breed, species of kinds can and do, naturally, and not forced by experimentation by humans.

Some have used spurious fossil records to show a transition from one kind to another. This is impossible and in fact if it is true thee is not a flood of these "finds" to explain all transitional activity to get the diversity of animals and plants on earth today.

The University of California Museum of Paleontology gives an account of the Cambrian Explosion but only describes small low ability animals that are still seen in the waters of our oceans today.

Other dominant Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts were trilobites (like the one pictured above), archaeocyathids (relatives of sponges that were restricted to the Lower Cambrian), and problematic conical fossils known as hyolithids (like the one pictured above, right). Many Early Cambrian invertebrates are known only from "small shelly fossils" — tiny plates, scales, spines, tubes, and so on. Many of these were probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

Note the hopeful guess at the bottom of this scientific comment...Probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals.

"IS evolution and the origin of life the same pursuit?"

No. Evolution describes the ancestry of living and fossilized organisms.

Abiogenesis is a collection of hypotheses on the natural origins of life.

"Scientists who expound the theory of evolution seem to do so as the origin of life, and yet on this forum the only one that tried to explain the difference said the origin of life was "Nature". IS that it, is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?"

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.

As for the "...is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?" I don't understand the question. Nature is where life comes from, so what exactly are you asking?

"This creationist does not offer disguises for KIND, I have a clear picture of what Kind means as far as different life forms are, and I can identify them easily without coming up with the scientific rigmarole of trying to get each kind into different kinds to explain evolution."

If you have a clear picture of what a kind is, it should be easy to explain. Instead it always appears to be an attempt to contort established taxonomic classifications.

"The fact remains with KIND: Kinds cannot cross breed, species of kinds can and do, naturally, and not forced by experimentation by humans."

If that is your definition of kind, then you are using the biological species concept and a "kind" is a species. Which means that there is no "feline kind" because there are many species of cat and based on the definition you just gave, each cat species is a different "kind."

"Some have used spurious fossil records to show a transition from one kind to another. "

Paleontologists use the fossil record to show the history of life and how different species are related to one another based on morphology.

"This is impossible and in fact if it is true thee is not a flood of these "finds" to explain all transitional activity to get the diversity of animals and plants on earth today."

That is because this is not how we use the fossil record. We show the relationships of living organisms based on comparative anatomy and morphology. Every fossil we find is a "transitional" fossil, as long as it does not represent a lineage that went extinct at that species. So, the fossil Tiktaalik for instance is a transitional form between the lobe-finned fish Eusthenopteron and the terrestrial vertebrates. We know this to be the case because of the shared morphologies of the fossil groups as well as of living terrestrial vertebrates.

"The University of California Museum of Paleontology gives an account of the Cambrian Explosion but only describes small low ability animals that are still seen in the waters of our oceans today."

What is a "small low ability animal?"

Also, none of the species from the Cambrian are extant. The Cambrian saw the rise of all modern animal phyla, so representatives of all of these phyla are still around but not the same species (which you equate with "kind" based on your definition).

"Note the hopeful guess at the bottom of this scientific comment...Probably pieces of the skeletons of larger animals."

It would be wise to actually study up on why the small shelly fauna is briefly described this way. Listing off all of the hypotheses for the small shelly faunas and the evidence for them would be much longer than could fill a short article or a museum placard.

Some of the small shelly faunas may have been related to brachiopods. Some were probably molluscs. And some have an unknown taxonomic affinity because they belong to a group that doesn't have any modern representatives (or any representatives outside of the Cambrian fossil record).

[Miles]

[Replying to post 4 by Miles]

Although TheBeardedDude gave you excellent answers, I'm going to briefly through in my 2 cents.

IS evolution and the origin of life the same pursuit? It is in this forum that I have, for the first time, come up against it as two different lines of thought.

I can only conclude that your reading has been quite narrow because even most creationists recognize the difference between the two, although they dearly love to attach the origin of life to evolution, pretending it's a necessary component. It is not.

Scientists who expound the theory of evolution seem to do so as the origin of life,

It's difficult to believe you've actually read any scientific literature on the subject, even literature that targets the layman, because they don't suggest any such thing.

and yet on this forum the only one that tried to explain the difference said the origin of life was "Nature". IS that it, is that all there is to the origin of life, nature?

As far as science is concerned, "nature" as you put it, is the only thing they can investigate. God and any other form of spirituality just doesn't lend themselves to scientific investigation, which is why you don't see science addressing them.

This creationist does not offer disguises for KIND, I have a clear picture of what Kind means as far as different life forms are, and I can identify them easily without coming up with the scientific rigmarole of trying to get each kind into different kinds to explain evolution.

As my quote from Answers in Genesis shows, creationists can pretty much do whatever they want with the term "kind." "A kind is equivalent to organisms classified at the level of order, OR the level of family, OR the level of genus, OR the level of species."

The fact remains with KIND: Kinds cannot cross breed, species of kinds can and do, naturally, and not forced by experimentation by humans.

Okay. You don't agree that a kind can be equivalent to a species. It's a creationist word so they (you in this case) get to define it however you want. But just be aware that because other creationists have just as much liberty in defining the word as you do, that there's a high chance of misunderstanding. This is why science and other fields of study stick to commonly agreed upon definitions.

Some have used spurious fossil records to show a transition from one kind to another.

Who "some"? And what spurious fossil records are you talking about? My suspicion here is that you're just repeating the unconfirmed comments of others. No crime, but it can lead to a whole lot of misunderstanding.


.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 6 by agnosticatheist]

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

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Moderator Comment

Although no one is required to answer questions, those who are unable or unwilling to do so may remain silent and NOT post notice in threads. Doing so is considered a non-contributing one-line post.

If you are having difficulty adjusting to debating in this Forum, kindly review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.