Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[newhope101]

The problem with you all is that you are masters are tying yourselves in knots.

Apart from mankind no one knows for sure how many of any initial kind was made. For example God may have made one breeding pair of dogs or 5 or 1000. They may have been all the same or not.

You continue to argue points where your own researchers lack clarity.

 

[PolyHedral]

You haven't provided a sensible definition of "kind" yet, though.

Also, if the story of the Ark is also true, then pretty much any number is impossible. Too few, and the species dies. Too many, and the Ark is impossible to construct.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf....my definition points to family and subfamily, not tribes. If you were as clever as you would like to think you are you would not be having the difficulty you appear to be having. Wolf..you still have not explained "high genetic similarity" and I'm not interested in what you have to say untill you explain yourself because I think you are a university failure with self esteem issues & likely unemployed.

Polyhedral...now you are purporting yourself to be an expert on kinds are you? If you apply the fertilization concept it brings goats and sheep into the same kind. But they are in the same subfamily so they fit my definition as the same kind on both levels. I may not even need this value, however I do not trust your taxonomy so I'll leave it there. There are plenty of taxa where researchers say there are too many species or subfamilies, so this value brings into one kind these areas that are still in a bit of a mess.

Krok quote "They are not genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg. “family” or “sub-family”, The Pelicans are in the Family Pelecanidae and the Ibisis in the Family Threskiornithidae.
Krok you are arguing with yourself. It does not matter to me. If the result of genomic testing is that an ibis and a pelican are two kinds I have no problem with that. Why do you? When God made birds he may have created 1, 100, 1000 breeding pair varieties or more. No one has a crystal ball here and both evolutionists and creationists look to data for clarification.

As you can see below there is confusion with birds like everything else So whatever, do you get this...either way..it does not matter. I am happy for you to count pelican and ibis as 2 kinds, so long as they also do not meet my fertilization concept, that's fine. You appear to be arguing over nothing.

Will you get over the 1% thinggy. I have already stated numerous times that was ******** to get wolf to bite.

Wiki: Taxonomic issues with Ciconiiformes
Some official bodies have adopted the proposed Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy almost entirely, however a more common approach worldwide has been to retain the traditional groupings, and modify rather than replace them in the light of new evidence as it comes to hand. The family listing here follows this more conservative practice. Bird taxonomy has been in a state of flux for some years, and it is reasonable to expect that the large differences between different classification schemes will continue to gradually resolve themselves as more evidence becomes available.

SKWIM...from memory your species definition does not suit single celled organisms either.,,and it's good to see this taxon is as muddied as all the rest.
Wiki Eukaryote.....As of 2010[update], there appears to be a consensus that the six supergroup model does not reflect the phylogeny of the eukaryotes, although there is less agreement as to the model which should replace it. Molecular phylogenetic evidence suggests that the Chromalveolata split into two groups:

• A reduced chromalveolate clade made up of the Stramenopiles and the Alveolata, which groups together with the Rhizaria to form a clade dubbed the SAR supergroup.

• A clade which has been called Hacrobia made up of the Haptophyta and the Cryptophyta.[14][15][16]

The Hacrobia appear to be most closely related to the Archaeplastida (plants in the very broad sense), being a sister group in one analysis,


What some of you forget is that this is a forum not a scientific panel needing to like nor accept my definition for acceptance to the scientific communtiy. If you are going to debate this to the point where I need to produce a scientific paper then this thread is here as bait. and many of you are nothing more than old world vultures.

 

[newhope101]

You haven't provided a sensible definition of "kind" yet, though.

Also, if the story of the Ark is also true, then pretty much any number is impossible. Too few, and the species dies. Too many, and the Ark is impossible to construct.

Neither have all your thousands of researchers been able to provide a sensible defintion of species, genus, or family with any certaintly and to deny this highlights a lack of balanced education. So you are a hypocrite and I do not have the inclination to bother with a reply.

Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

This definition ascribes 'same kind' to any organisms that have maintained genetic similarity after undergoing adaptation changes within Kind, sufficiently that fertilization can still occur. Whether or not offspring is viable is irrelevant. Inability to mate is also irrelevant in describing 'same kind' if criteria 1 or 2 has been satisfied or if same kind is achieved after applying the CBC.

 

[PolyHedral]

Neither have all your thousands of researchers been able to provide a sensible defintion of species, genus, or family with any certaintly and to deny this highlights a lack of balanced education. So you are a hypocrite and I do not have the inclination to bother with a reply.

They don't need one. You do.

Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

Apply this multiple times, and suddenly everything is the same kind!

Polyhedral...now you are purporting yourself to be an expert on kinds are you? If you apply the fertilization concept it brings goats and sheep into the same kind. But they are in the same subfamily so they fit my definition as the same kind on both levels. I may not even need this value, however I do not trust your taxonomy so I'll leave it there. There are plenty of taxa where researchers say there are too many species or subfamilies, so this value brings into one kind these areas that are still in a bit of a mess.

What "species" actually means is irrelevant. If there are less than 500 or so breeding pairs of a given kind on the ark, they die out from lack of genetic diversity.

...Actually, have you any idea how to construct a ship that would sustain 1000 medium-to-large animals for 6 weeks, let alone 1000 of a single species/kind/family/whatever? That doesn't sound feasible to me.

 

[Gunfingers]

Does CBC include extinct organisms? Because if so, i bet we can link some very distant populations into a single kind.

On another note, how many times do we have to tell you that the lack of a standard definition of the different taxonomic ranks is a prediction of evolutionary theory. We expect it to be impossible to define kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus, and species, because we know that there are no hard lines between different organisms.
You, on the other hand, predict that there ARE hard lines between certain populations and base that prediction around a completely arbitrary taxonomic rank.

 

[newhope101]

Again many of you are making assumptions. Over there in America & other countries are you not taught at an early age not to assume? In the real world one can be made quite a fool of by doing so.

I'd say there are as many versions of creationism as there are evolutionary debates. You assume all creationists accept a global flood as opposed to a mega flood, you assume all creationists purport one breeding pair of kinds, you assume all creationists are biblical literalists and do not accept copy error nor exaggeration over the years, you assume 'kind' should be at genus level etc. This is really quite amazing given the time that some of you have been here on RF.

Gunfingers, neither can you. You have invented creatures to fill blanks in your taxonomy to make it all fit. Evolutionists satisfy this dilemma by purporting that these gaps will become clearer with time, more fossil finds and genomic testing. It is quite sad that some of you lack the intellectual capacity to apply this concept to others. It is really not worth my while being here if this is going to be the calibre of participation.

 

[Skwim]

SKWIM...from memory your species definition does not suit single celled organisms either.,,and it's good to see this taxon is as muddied as all the rest.

I gave no definition, but simply referenced that of Ernst Mayr. However, in post 13 Gunfingers did say,

"Species, by contrast, is one of many arbitrary lines we draw to help us classify organisms. There is no accepted definition of species because there a) doesn't need to be, as it is nothing more than a guideline and b) can't be, because organisms vary only by degrees."
​

To which I replied,

"Very true, although this doesn't mean that various definitions have not been proposed and adopted, at least provisionally."
​

What some of you forget is that this is a forum not a scientific panel needing to like nor accept my definition for acceptance to the scientific communtiy. If you are going to debate this to the point where I need to produce a scientific paper then this thread is here as bait. and many of you are nothing more than old world vultures.

And I suggest that you've been no less a part of the process than anyone else. Were it not for your continued pro-active participation here the tack the thread has taken would have never materialized. So let's not have any of this "you"---"which excludes me, newhope101"---excuse.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'd say there are as many versions of creationism as there are evolutionary debates. You assume all creationists accept a global flood as opposed to a mega flood, you assume all creationists purport one breeding pair of kinds, you assume all creationists are biblical literalists and do not accept copy error nor exaggeration over the years. This is really quite amazing given the time that some of you have been here on RF.

I haven't been paying the closest attention to everyone else's posts, so i can't speak for them, but i don't recall ever saying anything about a flood. I'm simply trying to point out that any sort of immutable kind is completely unsupported by the existing evidence.

Gunfingers, neither can you.

Neither can i what? I've gone through my post, like, three times trying to figure out what that's in response to.

You have invented creatures to fill blanks in your taxonomy to make it all fit. Evolutionists satisfy this dilemma by purporting that these gaps will become clearer with time, more fossil finds and genomic testing. It is quite sad that some of you lack the intellectual capacity to apply this concept to others.

Every organism described taxonomically has been seen, at least in fossil form. It's true that we don't have a description of every organism that ever existed, but we don't need it, either.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf....my definition points to family and subfamily, not tribes. If you were as clever as you would like to think you are you would not be having the difficulty you appear to be having. Wolf..you still have not explained "high genetic similarity" and I'm not interested in what you have to say untill you explain yourself because I think you are a university failure with self esteem issues & likely unemployed.

So, you are changing your definition again?
Because you say quite clearly here:

Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

The taxonomic rank above Genus is Tribe.
Earlier you say the rank directly above Genus is the one that you go with (you thought it was subfamily and made a stink about families being to broad in cases you don't like)... but now you are changing your definition again.

Now it's no longer "the same taxonomic rank above genus"... it's just Family or subfamily as you see fit.

And you still say your definition doesn't need exceptions?

If anyone here is "lacking intellectual capacity" here it's you.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Does CBC include extinct organisms? Because if so, i bet we can link some very distant populations into a single kind.

On another note, how many times do we have to tell you that the lack of a standard definition of the different taxonomic ranks is a prediction of evolutionary theory. We expect it to be impossible to define kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus, and species, because we know that there are no hard lines between different organisms.
You, on the other hand, predict that there ARE hard lines between certain populations and base that prediction around a completely arbitrary taxonomic rank.

What I see in your classifications are actual organisms up until the level of family or subfamily. Now without looking it all up and being precise it is at this level taxons start referring to even toed ungulates or some sort of descriptor that uses morphological features to join together. For me, this is the defining line.

I undestand what you say about evolutionary speciation not having divides. However words like species, genus, family are concepts that explain what is seen.

Let's take bovids for example. It looks like being a bovid has something to do with toes and the way they walk. Then there are subfamilies. Under my definition of course these subs are different kinds. You believe a group of creatures started evolving this feature from another kind. I say these kinds were created individually and that is why they can mate. This is also why you have a lack of fossil evidence around this point. This is why they so fit together as a kind without the need for your Genus or species classifications.

A kind that may have been one breeding pair or many. I, not unlike you, need to look to research for clarity. However nearly all research is interpreted through evolutionary eyes. A hypothesis is called such for a reason. Data is data, of course. Hypothesis is interpretation of the data and usually includes words like maybe, likely, perhaps. However, I do distinguish facts from data that is formulated by the use of theoretical probabilities. I know enough about research to understand what this implies.

Now we know there are many bovid hybrids. So now this taxon of bovids (with many subfamilies and many many species), starts appearing to resemble your definition of species anyway but at the subfamily level. Here my fertilization concept, which is a term that simply describes what I see, applies and brings many of these together as kinds.

Wiki:
The biological subfamily Bovinae includes a diverse group of 10 genera of medium to large sized ungulates, including domestic cattle, the bison, African buffalo, the water buffalo, the yak, and the four-horned and spiral-horned antelopes. The evolutionary relationship between the members of the group is obscure, and their classification into loose tribes rather than formal sub-groups reflects this uncertainty. General characteristics include cloven hoofs and usually at least one of the sexes of a species having true horns.

Hybrid antelope
A wide variety of antelope hybrids have been recorded in zoos, game parks, and wildlife ranches. This is due to either a lack of more appropriate mates in enclosures shared with other species or a misidentification of species. The ease of hybridization shows how closely related some antelope species are. With few exceptions, most hybrid antelope occur only in captivity.
Most hybrids occur between species within the same genus. All reported examples occur within the same sub-family. As with most mammal hybrids, the less closely related the parents, the more likely that the offspring will be sterile

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf Quote: The taxonomic rank above Genus is Tribe.
Earlier you say the rank directly above Genus is the one that you go with (you thought it was subfamily and made a stink about families being to broad in cases you don't like)... but now you are changing your definition again.



As you see I specifically put family or subfamily in to avoid confusion to the average person of average intellect. Many taxon do not have tribes. You are just splitting hairs in desperation.

Go away please, and let these others that have some idea about what it is to stay focused and not split hairs have a shot for a change!.

 

[Skwim]

As you see I specifically put family or subfamily in to avoid confusion to the average person of average intellect. Many taxon do not have tribes. You are just splitting hairs in desperation.

Ah, I don't think "taxon" means what you think it does.

 

[newhope101]

Skwim...now you're resorting to hair splitting after doing so well. I am sure you know what I mean. Again ..when you cannot debate in focus you resort back to trying to befuddle the definition. It is the family or sub family if there is one that is the kind. If you are unable to understand that...I do not have time to reply to this calibre of intellectual incapacity. It is a waste of everyones time.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf Quote: The taxonomic rank above Genus is Tribe.
Earlier you say the rank directly above Genus is the one that you go with (you thought it was subfamily and made a stink about families being to broad in cases you don't like)... but now you are changing your definition again.



As you see I specifically put family or subfamily in to avoid confusion to the average person of average intellect. Many taxon do not have tribes. You are just splitting hairs in desperation.

Go away please, and let these others that have some idea about what it is to stay focused and not split hairs have a shot for a change!.

Many groups do not have subfamilies.... thus you should give up subfamilies as "splitting hairs".

Not that you are in any position to tell others about desperation... you have been desperately trying to justify your position and ignore critique from the start. Mostly via whinging about the very taxonomic levels you profess to hold so immutable.

Why is one taxonomic level that is not found in all lineages fine (subfamily) while another is not (tribe)... clearly your definition states that the taxonomic rank above Genus is the one that defines "kind"... yet you refuse to abide by your own given definition. The hypocracy is, while not surprising, very illustrative of the creationist position.

Either you are too thick to admit this inconsistency (much like your 80% problem) or you are hoping that everyone will not notice it.

wa:do

ps. I'll go away when you get a clue.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim...now you're resorting to hair splitting after doing so well. I am sure you know what I mean. Again ..when you cannot debate in focus you resort back to trying to befuddle the definition.

Okay, after rereading what you said, I do see what you were getting at. I've just never seen a rank ascribed to a taxon before.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf quote: Many groups do not have subfamilies.... thus you should give up subfamilies as "splitting hairs".

Not that you are in any position to tell others about desperation... you have been desperately trying to justify your position and ignore critique from the start. Mostly via whinging about the very taxonomic levels you profess to hold so immutable.

Why is one taxonomic level that is not found in all lineages fine (subfamily) while another is not (tribe)... clearly your definition states that the taxonomic rank above Genus is the one that defines "kind"... yet you refuse to abide by your own given definition. The hypocracy is, while not surprising, very illustrative of the creationist position.

Either you are too thick to admit this inconsistency (much like your 80% problem) or you are hoping that everyone will not notice it.


Ok PaintedWolf...seeing as only you are having such a problem how about I reword my definition, after all I'm sure Darwin took more than 5 minutes to get to his idea of species. This will make it easier for you to apply. You put yourself up as the most educated here yet you are the only one having such a problem....One does not need to be in my line of work to begin profiling you for who you really are.

If you weren't such a shmook you'd have suggested I change my wording to make my meaning clearer by now, instead of being such a pain and waste of space delighting in nit picking. Now let me guess...your tactic now will be that you will appear too stupid to realise that I have reworded my definition and start sideling again. You are so desperate.

You really cannot stand anyone else having a go...can you???

Kind - Multicelled Organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Classified as a 'subfamily' or 'family', whichever is the lower rank of the two.

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf quote: Bovids, caviids, cricetids, murids, spalacids, Sciuridae, leporids.... just to name a few mammal families that don't fit your definition.

I believe I've given you such lists before... but you continue to ignore them and then claim that "no one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply".

Absolutely and I reponded. As I remember I illustrated how indeed my definition does apply and you were misleading the forum in relation to Bovids, as you know they have subfamilies, which is the taxon above genus. My definition identifies the subfamilies or families and in the case of bovids there are subfamilies, pantholopinae. alcelaphinae. peleinae etc. These are KINDS.

Cavidae also has subfamilies, caiivinae, dolichotinae, hydrochoerinae

Leporidae is a family and is a kind.

Sciuridae has subfamilies, ratufinae, sciurillinae etc

Spalacidae has subfamilies also, spalacinae, myospalacinae , rhizomyinae

Muridae has subfamilies, deomyinae, gerbillinae etc

Cricetae is a super mess when you look to Wiki. It has subspecies also. However
" Alternatively, all subfamilies except the Penelopinae could be lumped into the Cracinae. As the initial radiation of cracids is not well resolved at present (see below), the system used here seems more appropriate. It is also quite probable that entirely extinct subfamilies exist as the fossil record is utterly incomplete.

Many of the above examples have debates similar to Cricetae. However, as I have stated previously, we all have to make do with this mess as best we can.

Indeed all the above examples fit within my definition of kind. My pholgenic definition was given to draw you out of the ground to offer a challenge as per usual tactics, which you did.


Kind - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

Again you lie....Above as all can see, I have responded to your examples....Below, in you recent post, you again say I have not responded. You are the one gobsmacked and unable to put forward a continuing focused challege. Rather you continue to lie buy sqarking 'I do not respond' and sideline in desperation. This is obvious despite your excuses Wolf.

This RF is the level of ethical standing that PaintedWolf is prepared to sink to in order to save face here.

So for PaintedWolfs slow on the uptake brain I will repost, so anyone else with a fully functioning brain can identify for themselves the change in wording rather than meaning...because I am sure Paintedwolf will not GET IT!


Kind - Multicelled Organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Classified as a 'subfamily' or 'family', whichever is the lower rank of the two.


Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not geneticallly compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

This definition ascribes 'same kind' to any organisms that have maintained genetic similarity after undergoing adaptation changes within Kind, sufficiently that fertilization can still occur. Whether or not offspring is viable is irrelevant. Inability to mate is also irrelevant in describing 'same kind' if criteria 1 or 2 has been satisfied or if same kind is achieved after applying the CBC.

 

[newhope101]

Okay, after rereading what you said, I do see what you were getting at. I've just never seen a rank ascribed to a taxon before.

Thanks Skwim...I am not a biologist, my definition wording was a little unclear, so I appreciate those of you that can stay focused and not side line. I tried to make it sound all scientific. I should have kept to plain language. I have reworded my definition to make it clearer.

Even though I have clarified my idea of kind this is not any sort of biblical validation, obviously. It is just an idea of what a kind is as opposed to a species etc.

Other creationists will have different views to mine, and now it is up to them to put forward their definition of kind. So unless you want further clarification from me, I'll back off now, and let someone else have a go.

 

[painted wolf]

LOL... you've had more than five minutes newhope.

I'm sorry you don't like people pointing out flaws in your genius... but life and science are tough. :beach:

wa:do