A Question About the "Cat Kind"

[Terrywoodenpic]

The above question is rather more suportable than the creationist theory of kinds.

 

[Kapalika]

"Kinds" is just a creationist buzz word that means nothing.

From twelve minutes to 15:37 addresses kinds, bringing up how it's used in the bible and ring species, overall a very good video. I made it so when you click the video that it should start at the 12 minute mark.

[

 

[dust1n]

No creationists at all?

 

[Milton Platt]

From my observations, of watching documentaries on large cats and having house cats, I would say they very much are all related. Even with house cats, there are those who are more bulky, stalky, and more powerful that look more like lions, and some cats that are smaller, lankier, and more agile, such as a puma or leopard. They even move around, stalk, and hunt in similar manners. And they are all members of the Felidea family.

You missed the joke. "Kind" is creationist double-talk and not a valid scientific classification.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No creationists at all?

Apparently, there are far more humorless evolutionists than creationists.

 

[Etritonakin]

Are all members of felinae family all part of the cat kind?

Can someone explain to me how the cat kind works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrid

Isn't that pretty much how the cat kind works -and all the other kinds -after their kind?

If this is sarcasm about the "creation story", the young earth aspect is not actually biblical -and is quite ridiculous -but it should also be noted that knowledge of the age of the earth and of evolution are fairly recent things.

The "creation story" is actually only the first verse of Genesis -the rest that follows the first verses is a renewal -a re-creation -after the earth became ruined for some reason. That is what it literally says (and is supported by other scriptures), but not what people thought it said.

What is described could be likened to our saving species somehow, and recreating them after some sort of extinction event -except that the bible says little about what happened between the initial completion of the earth and the renewal of Genesis.

It does not give specific details about physical life which may have preceded those life forms described in Genesis -and is more focused on angelic activity -even on earth -before Adam -but what is written definitely allows for what is evident in the fossil record, etc. (even humanoids)

 

[Nietzsche]

Then probably with this notion is that kinds can include diversity enough to the point that species can no longer reproduce, then this could apply equally to all life. As in, if one traces their descent back to "one original cat species" then how can one know determine if this is the original cat species, or just an offshoot of yet another original cat species? How do we know that there is a single species which all Felidae originate from, instead of there being a single species in which all Feliforms are from?

House cats may not be able to reproduce with:

Y'know, you say that, but I would argue that all house-cats seem to remember being one-ton killing machines with a serial-killer's "special knife box" for a face. They certainly act like it, anyway.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bats are birds, true story.

All this while, I thought they were just flying Ptetrodactyl Ratdogs.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Y'know, you say that, but I would argue that all house-cats seem to remember being one-ton killing machines with a serial-killer's "special knife box" for a face. They certainly act like it, anyway.

Yep, that exactly how all the cats I've known in my life have been. "You know, yooman, if we were the same size, I'd have you for lunch!"

 

[dust1n]

Y'know, you say that, but I would argue that all house-cats seem to remember being one-ton killing machines with a serial-killer's "special knife box" for a face. They certainly act like it, anyway.

Cats around me get acclimated to a new reality real quick; namely, get your gross feet off my bed. I'd be nostalgic for a time in which I could do something about it too.

 

[Skwim]

From the Answers in Genesis website

"Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules [SEE NOTE BELOW] (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others."

source
​

In other words, "Depending on our needs "kind" can be whatever we need it to mean."

What's interesting about the creationist diagram above showing the original cat kind (ORIGINAL CREATED KIND), if this and its mate were the only two cat kind taken aboard the ark,
their progeny would have had to evolve into all of the current 37- 41 species of cats now roaming the world in one hell of a hurry.

Edited to add: Moreover, hybrids such as mules, as mentioned above, cannot reproduce. There are no mother and father mules producing baby mules.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are all members of felinae family all part of the cat kind?

Can someone explain to me how the cat kind works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrid

My guess would be that they fall under "beasts of the earth."

 

[dust1n]

My guess would be that they fall under "beasts of the earth."

So, what, one-kind? Like all terrestrial animals?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, what, one-kind? Like all terrestrial animals?

It would seem that Biblical kinds are very generic.

 

[dust1n]

It would seem that Biblical kinds are very generic.

Right, and it would also seem that they lack very much veracity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Right, and it would also seem that they lack very much veracity.

I don't know, my cat seems like a beast of the earth.

 

[dust1n]

I don't know, my cat seems like a beast of the earth.

The notion that the cat has only descendants that can be traced back to terrestrial animals, or that even all animals only have ancestry with animals, is sorely unsupported by physical evidence.

 

[dust1n]

From the Answers in Genesis website

"Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others."

source
​

In other words, "Depending on our needs "kind" can be whatever need it to mean."

What's interesting about the creationist diagram above showing the original cat kind (ORIGINAL CREATED KIND), if this and its mate were the only two cat kind taken aboard the ark
their progeny would have had to evolve into all of 37- 41 species of cats now roaming the world in one damn hurry.

But it still doesn't address my concern. If a Puma, Leopard, and Tiger are all of the same kind, why can a Puma sometimes mate with a Leopard, but never with a Tiger, but a Tiger can also mate with Leopard, but never a Puma.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The notion that the cat has only descendants that can be traced back to terrestrial animals, or that even all animals only have ancestry with animals, is sorely unsupported by physical evidence.

My cat still seems like a beast though. There is evidence for that.

 

[dust1n]

My cat still seems like a beast though. There is evidence for that.

But that there exists such a thing "beasts of the earth" in which no living things have evolved over the boundary of what is considered a beast of the earth, doesn't really have any evidence....

I'm not sure if you are actually trying to assert anything about biology...?