-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Of course there is; it's science. science = controversy. What there is not, within Biology, is any controversy about whether the Theory of Evolution is correct. At this point it is the consensus, mainstream foundation of modern Biology, and if you want to overthrow it, you've got a lot of hard work ahead of you. Feel free to start any time. If you succeed, there's a Nobel prize in it for you.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
A way to look beyond the controversy is to look beyond the vectors:
God=creates the same as nature=selects. What do we really know, in the absolute sense, about these four terms? Not a whole heck of a lot. But evolutionary biology is constantly searching for a way to expand human understanding, while creationism seeks to limit human understanding. To me, one of these methodologies is clearly more "godlike." I'm a created evolutionist.
God=creates the same as nature=selects. What do we really know, in the absolute sense, about these four terms? Not a whole heck of a lot. But evolutionary biology is constantly searching for a way to expand human understanding, while creationism seeks to limit human understanding. To me, one of these methodologies is clearly more "godlike." I'm a created evolutionist.
newhope101
Active Member
I can see that many of you feel threatened. I am not speaking to the veracity of your evo science. I am addressing a creationists ability to define kind.
So many of you anti creationists get around here sprooking that creationists are unable to define kind. It is one of your pet condescending remarks.
I say that is rubbish. Quite a few creationists have offered their definition of kind. They are bullied here and on other similar threads by a majority of non creationists. Those of you that have an over developed sense of self importance are believing that because they do not like a definition for whatever reason they have a right to claim kind cannot be defined. This appears to be bordering on the delusional. The delusion being that some feel they are so important that they get to deem or adjudicate what is acceptable or not.
The dictionary meaning of define is to 1. State precisely the meaning of. 2.To describe the nature of.
Regardless of the rank a creationist equates their idea of kind to, they have described the nature of their idea of kind as a general guide for the purpose of discussion. It may bring up problems for Noahs ark and you can debate the available evidence, but a definition had been provided regardless of whether or not you like it. Many have bullied these posters, found exceptions or posed unanswerable questions and then claimed a definition has not been found on this basis.
What Hypocrisy is this? What level of religious bigotry is this? None of you are able to articulate a definition of species that does not have exceptions. Look to Wiki species to see the numerous definitions of species that have been put forward to define and cover the multitude of exceptions to the concept of what a species is and how one is differentiated from another. .How dare you maintain that creationists are not able to offer a definition of species? Indeed you have been offered many that are just as good as your species concept. Most certainly there are many unanswered questions in evolutionary science, also and only the uneducated are unaware of them. Arrogance and delusions of self importance have kidded you into believing your acceptance is required.
Creationists may also claim evolutionists are unable to define species? Perhaps some one would like to take on high genetic similarity for Paintedwolf. This is the vagary that suggests chimps get put in with Homo, (I like this as it shows the stupidity of your ranking system and your well credentialed researchers) You cant use inability to breed successfully because there are too many exceptions. By your standards, if an exception is found or required the definition is void and not acceptable. So by your own hypocritical standards evolutionists do not have any definition of species that works either. But you do have some vague species concept, and we all have to learn to put up with it regardless of the exceptions, inconsistencies and vagary.
Sorry guys and gals kind can and has been defined here by myself and other creationists. Self importance is not acknowledged. Your acceptance is definitely not required.
So many of you anti creationists get around here sprooking that creationists are unable to define kind. It is one of your pet condescending remarks.
I say that is rubbish. Quite a few creationists have offered their definition of kind. They are bullied here and on other similar threads by a majority of non creationists. Those of you that have an over developed sense of self importance are believing that because they do not like a definition for whatever reason they have a right to claim kind cannot be defined. This appears to be bordering on the delusional. The delusion being that some feel they are so important that they get to deem or adjudicate what is acceptable or not.
The dictionary meaning of define is to 1. State precisely the meaning of. 2.To describe the nature of.
Regardless of the rank a creationist equates their idea of kind to, they have described the nature of their idea of kind as a general guide for the purpose of discussion. It may bring up problems for Noahs ark and you can debate the available evidence, but a definition had been provided regardless of whether or not you like it. Many have bullied these posters, found exceptions or posed unanswerable questions and then claimed a definition has not been found on this basis.
What Hypocrisy is this? What level of religious bigotry is this? None of you are able to articulate a definition of species that does not have exceptions. Look to Wiki species to see the numerous definitions of species that have been put forward to define and cover the multitude of exceptions to the concept of what a species is and how one is differentiated from another. .How dare you maintain that creationists are not able to offer a definition of species? Indeed you have been offered many that are just as good as your species concept. Most certainly there are many unanswered questions in evolutionary science, also and only the uneducated are unaware of them. Arrogance and delusions of self importance have kidded you into believing your acceptance is required.
Creationists may also claim evolutionists are unable to define species? Perhaps some one would like to take on high genetic similarity for Paintedwolf. This is the vagary that suggests chimps get put in with Homo, (I like this as it shows the stupidity of your ranking system and your well credentialed researchers) You cant use inability to breed successfully because there are too many exceptions. By your standards, if an exception is found or required the definition is void and not acceptable. So by your own hypocritical standards evolutionists do not have any definition of species that works either. But you do have some vague species concept, and we all have to learn to put up with it regardless of the exceptions, inconsistencies and vagary.
Sorry guys and gals kind can and has been defined here by myself and other creationists. Self importance is not acknowledged. Your acceptance is definitely not required.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
(I want to see if you'll ignore me again)
They looked like perfectly reasonable questions to me. Why can't they be answered?
Evolution does not require a clear definition of species, and in fact, suggests there isn't one. Creationism falls apart at the seams without a specific, workable definition of kind.
newhope101
Active Member
Again many of you side wind to avoid the point. Do I really have to post info on the inconsistencies and unanswerable questions in evolutionary science as evidence for the uneducated? OK..but as I say I am not interested in debasing your evolutionary science. However I expect to have discussions with at least someone educated sufficiently that I do not have to waste time supporting the obvious that any semi educated evolutionist should already be well aware of. Here is just one tiny example of a plethora.
Wiki - Bovid - Taxonomy.
The bovid family is commonly subdivided into eight subfamilies. Recently, two additional subfamilies have been recognised. The eight traditional subfamilies can be divided into two clades, the Boodontia (with the Bovinae as sole members) and the Aegodontia (composed of all other subfamilies). Some authors do not agree with the high number of subfamilies, although they do recognise these two clades. However, these are treated as subfamilies instead: Bovinae (without change) and Antilopinae (with all of the Aegodontid subfamilies as tribes within it).
Among the eight to ten subfamilies presented here, only some groups have a well-established phylogeny. The Bovinae, for example, are monophyletic and basal; while the Caprinae, Hippotraginae, and Alcelaphinae cluster together[further explanation needed] consistently. The phylogenetic relationships of the other subfamilies are still unclear or unresolved
Cattle
Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between taurine cattle and zebu (including the sanga cattle breeds, Bos taurus africanus) but also between one or both of these and some other members of the genus Bos: yak (called a dzo or "yattle"[5]), banteng and gaur.
This is one example of inconsistency, well credentaled researchers disagreeing with each other, not having all the answers, and different species being able to breed succesfully.
As for Noahs arc... I pin my definition of species to the subfamily or family whichever is the lower rank in that taxa. Kinds were created. There may have been one breeding pair or an individual in asexual organisisms or God may have created a few or hundreds. They may have all been identical. They may have varied. You are welcome to work out how many creatures would have been on the arc with that definition.
The other grandiose assumption that evolutionsists make is that all creationists fit some predetermined stereotype. Not all creationists believe in a global flood. Some see the flood as a mega flood. Some creationists accept some copy error over the years as well as possible exaggeration, or interpretations made with personal agendas in mind. I believe in a megga flood as the explanation of the available evidence.
Some creationists see adaptations within kinds such as the dog kind that was created adapting into wolf and domestic dog etc. as OK. For me your species is the descriptor for variations within kind, generally.
Regardless, I have provided a definition of my idea of 'kind'. It does not matter if you do not like it. It does not matter if you can debate it and find flaws. As seen above, your science also has similar flaws. Most importantly there is no one important enough here or God like that gets to determine if a definition is acceptable or not. Creationists do not define themseves by your acceptance. Anti creationsist are never going to like any definition of kind. That's your end game.
The point is that creationists can define their concept of kind. Only egotists with an over developed sense of self importance and a great shot of arrogance will continue to claim that creationists are unable to define their concept of 'kind' and hypocritically demand a definition that holds more veracity than your own concept of species. Hence, your acceptance is not required.
Wiki - Bovid - Taxonomy.
The bovid family is commonly subdivided into eight subfamilies. Recently, two additional subfamilies have been recognised. The eight traditional subfamilies can be divided into two clades, the Boodontia (with the Bovinae as sole members) and the Aegodontia (composed of all other subfamilies). Some authors do not agree with the high number of subfamilies, although they do recognise these two clades. However, these are treated as subfamilies instead: Bovinae (without change) and Antilopinae (with all of the Aegodontid subfamilies as tribes within it).
Among the eight to ten subfamilies presented here, only some groups have a well-established phylogeny. The Bovinae, for example, are monophyletic and basal; while the Caprinae, Hippotraginae, and Alcelaphinae cluster together[further explanation needed] consistently. The phylogenetic relationships of the other subfamilies are still unclear or unresolved
Cattle
Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between taurine cattle and zebu (including the sanga cattle breeds, Bos taurus africanus) but also between one or both of these and some other members of the genus Bos: yak (called a dzo or "yattle"[5]), banteng and gaur.
This is one example of inconsistency, well credentaled researchers disagreeing with each other, not having all the answers, and different species being able to breed succesfully.
As for Noahs arc... I pin my definition of species to the subfamily or family whichever is the lower rank in that taxa. Kinds were created. There may have been one breeding pair or an individual in asexual organisisms or God may have created a few or hundreds. They may have all been identical. They may have varied. You are welcome to work out how many creatures would have been on the arc with that definition.
The other grandiose assumption that evolutionsists make is that all creationists fit some predetermined stereotype. Not all creationists believe in a global flood. Some see the flood as a mega flood. Some creationists accept some copy error over the years as well as possible exaggeration, or interpretations made with personal agendas in mind. I believe in a megga flood as the explanation of the available evidence.
Some creationists see adaptations within kinds such as the dog kind that was created adapting into wolf and domestic dog etc. as OK. For me your species is the descriptor for variations within kind, generally.
Regardless, I have provided a definition of my idea of 'kind'. It does not matter if you do not like it. It does not matter if you can debate it and find flaws. As seen above, your science also has similar flaws. Most importantly there is no one important enough here or God like that gets to determine if a definition is acceptable or not. Creationists do not define themseves by your acceptance. Anti creationsist are never going to like any definition of kind. That's your end game.
The point is that creationists can define their concept of kind. Only egotists with an over developed sense of self importance and a great shot of arrogance will continue to claim that creationists are unable to define their concept of 'kind' and hypocritically demand a definition that holds more veracity than your own concept of species. Hence, your acceptance is not required.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I'm gonna try to expand on this, NewHope, despite the fact that we've explained this to you before and you've ignored it every time.
Evolutionary theory predicts common ancestry. This means that every organism in the world is related. More to the point, it means that every organism in the world is related in the same way, but to different degrees. I am related to my sisters in the same way i am related to you and the same way i'm related to an earthworm. The amount i'm related to them is as follows: sister > you > earthworm.
Because of the very graded level of relation it is impossible to make the taxonomic ranks Linnaeus invented jive with evolution. To try to make phylogenetics accessible to laypersons biologists create simple "working" definitions of species. That's why Wolfy gave you "high degree of genetic similarity"*. Other working definitions include "interfertility" and "kinda look similar". This is why there is no real, functional definition of species in modern biology.
By contrast creationists make predictions based on "kind". They expect nature to show certain behavior based on the idea. In order to confirm or deny these predictions a precise definition of "kind" is required. Your definition is imprecise. It's based in linnaean taxonomy, which doesn't really model reality very well, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
*And why would you ask us to define that when SHE defined it as less than 2% genetic difference
outhouse
Atheistically
why doesnt science as a whole share you view??? is it because it has no merit??
there is no evidence because it never happened.
Your wrong I believe here, we know creationist cannot define there myth, thus there are as many branches limited only to one's imaigination based on gray areas that are not yet defined by science.
first it was a flat earth and the sun revolved around the young earth.
then it was finaly solved that the earth revolves around the sun and of coarse the christian church wanted to murder galileo for it because it went against your chosen words.
round earth comes into play somehwere around here
then it was old earth once the young earth failed.
No global flood, it has been a proven fact now epic fail here. in my opinion.
Evolution has now been solid a long time with no debate at all in the scientific community
AND FINALLY
the most important, creation and id cannot be taught in public schools every again.
and theres a reason why we dont pawn myths off to our children, there not valid.
there is no evidence because it never happened.
Your wrong I believe here, we know creationist cannot define there myth, thus there are as many branches limited only to one's imaigination based on gray areas that are not yet defined by science.
first it was a flat earth and the sun revolved around the young earth.
then it was finaly solved that the earth revolves around the sun and of coarse the christian church wanted to murder galileo for it because it went against your chosen words.
round earth comes into play somehwere around here
then it was old earth once the young earth failed.
No global flood, it has been a proven fact now epic fail here. in my opinion.
Evolution has now been solid a long time with no debate at all in the scientific community
AND FINALLY
the most important, creation and id cannot be taught in public schools every again.
and theres a reason why we dont pawn myths off to our children, there not valid.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Newhope, you realize that not every subfamily of bovid has been genetically examined. Most of the uncertanty comes from relying on old classification systems (pre-cladistics) and lack of money for trained taxonomists to revise the data.
Most species haven't been reassesed since they were first described... in the 1800's. There just isn't time, money or manpower to get through it all with any speed.
Also, species is not a fixed concept... species evolve and because of this there will be places where the old pre-evolutionary idea of what a species is break down. I know we've covered this before... it's what makes a species different than a "kind".
"Kinds" can not change, species are always changing.
My issue with "kinds" isn't that they are undefined...there are plenty of different definitions...
The problem is what keeps kinds from changing? What stops one kind from becoming another kind?
Why is genetic science right about families and subfamilies but nothing above that? If a family has a subfamily, why is then wrong about the family?
wa:do
Most species haven't been reassesed since they were first described... in the 1800's. There just isn't time, money or manpower to get through it all with any speed.
Also, species is not a fixed concept... species evolve and because of this there will be places where the old pre-evolutionary idea of what a species is break down. I know we've covered this before... it's what makes a species different than a "kind".
"Kinds" can not change, species are always changing.
My issue with "kinds" isn't that they are undefined...there are plenty of different definitions...
The problem is what keeps kinds from changing? What stops one kind from becoming another kind?
Why is genetic science right about families and subfamilies but nothing above that? If a family has a subfamily, why is then wrong about the family?
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
You are stereotyping creationists a little. Many do allow for some adaptive change within kind such as wolf to dog and I believe we have covered this previously before also.
I'll try to explain why not family in all cases, with a little evidence. See this below From Wiki Bovids:
The largest bovid, the gaur, weighs well over a ton and stands 2.2 metres high at the shoulder; the smallest, the royal antelope, weighs about 3 kg and stands no taller than a large domestic cat. Some are thick-set and muscular; others are lightly built, with small frames and long legs. Many species congregate into large groups with complex social structures, but others are mostly solitary. Within their extensive range, they occupy a wide variety of habitat types, from desert to tundra and from thick tropical forest to high mountains.
The gaur (pronounced /ˈɡaʊər/) (Bos gaurus, previously Bibos gauris) is a large, dark-coated forest animal of South Asia and Southeast Asia. The largest populations are found today in India. The gaur belongs to the Bovinae subfamily, which also includes bison, domestic cattle, yak and water buffalo. The gaur is the largest species of wild cattle, bigger than the African buffalo, the extinct aurochs (the ancestor of domestic cattle), wild water buffalo or bison. It is also called seladang or, in the context of safari tourism, Indian bison. The domesticated form of the gaur is called gayal or mithun.
Gaur are said to look like water buffalo at the front and domestic cattle at the back. They are the heaviest and most powerful of all wild cattle,
The gaur is alive today and is still called a gaur. It is the ancestor where a split off supposedly occured along time ago at family rank and yet the goar has remained similar enough to still be called a goar today and not another species. It is also included in subfamily and is a species alive now. The same can be said of the other examples cited in wiki at bovid/Family rank, like buffallos, sheep, bison etc.
Bovinae Subfamily and family and species are all made of organisims/ancestors that at the time were a species of some sort. Without looking at every single taxa, it appears that generally many species/organism that are purported to be an ancestor at the family level are also represented in the subfamily rank and continues to exist today as a species. Eotragus is an exception, an ancient relative that stands at the Genus level according to Wiki.
The 10 subfamilies in Bovid contain similar creatures that appear to be adaptations of a created kind. For example, the bovid subfamily Aepycerotunae, speak to Impala and 2 subspecies of Impala.
In the past, taxonomists have put impalas in the same tribe as gazelles, kobs and hartebeests. However, it was found that the impala was so different from any of these tribes that it was put in its own tribe, Aepycerotini. This tribe has now been elevated to full subfamily status.
So as a liberal creationist I can accept that a gazelle type creature was created as a kind. There may have been one pair or hundreds. They may have been identical or varied. An early bovid, Eotragus, 20-18 million years ago is related to the modern Nilgai and four horned antelope. I think a kind was created that encompasses these creatures and any that can mate, however unsuccessfully are also variations of the same kind. The various adaptations within kind are akin to your concept of the similar species within a kind or family/subfamily, whichever the lowest rank.
This is an example of why I think the lower taxon, if there is one, better describes a kind, given we all have to use the current taxonic system. To be able to find some exception really does not invalidate a definition as in the case of species. You have a species concept and exceptions do not invalidate it as a concept. Likely as with both evolutionists and creationists more data and research will hopefully better clarify the status quo in time for all.
newhope101
Active Member
I think I’ll just wind up for now and say some creationists are bible literalists. Some are bible liberalists. I understand my general thoughts are broad. I have no problem with any creationists definition of ‘kind’. I accept that it is very possible that someone else’s definition, or a mix, ends up being the truth. I hope we find out someday.
Not unlike evolutionary scientists, and lay persons, I do not have all the answers, nor do I pretend to.
However, there are a few here that put up that they are educated and appear to know less than me or choose to ignore at best. Simply reading a text book or adhering to one researchers work does not illustrate an educated mind. I do not seek credibility in that way. In light of the species debates, I think those that suggest they are educated need to uphold their credibility by accepting a few grey areas around a definition does not amount to inability to provide a definition. .
Finding inconsistencies and grey areas reflects the lack of research and clarity therein on all sides of the argument. Being able to define kind does not prove creation. Being unable to clarify species does not disprove evolution. A definition offers a starting point to other debates over evidence etc. I do not feel it is my right to say your definition of kind is wrong, if it is different to mine. Rather I would have to accept it as the starting point and start challenging you around the evidence etc. In the end I do not care which creationist version, (new earth or otherwise) of anything hits the nail on the head so long as mankind was created and one of us is right. Likewise when we debate evolutionists we must accept their definitions of species and genus as a basis to debate further. How annoying and egotistical it would be to say that we refuse to debate because there is no consistent definition of species…sideling is what that is.
I took umbrage to the suggestion that a definition needs to be “accepted”, like as if this was a scientific panel or something. Secondly the insinuation that no creationist is able to define “kind“ is simply not true.
In that way I maintain creationists are able to define ‘kind’ and no ones ‘acceptance’ is required.
If you, David M, have offered a definition of kind that any evolutionist 'accepts' I'd be interested in seeing it.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
By your definition, humans and chimps are the same "kind," correct? If not, why not? Since sorry guys and gals "kind" can and has been defined by yourself, and I'm accepting it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
newhope:
This has been explained to you at least 100 times, and you have ignored it 100 times. The fact that "species" is difficult to define is a prediction, and therefore confirmation, of ToE. So any argument that "species" is difficult to define undercuts your position, not supports it.
This has been explained to you at least 100 times, and you have ignored it 100 times. The fact that "species" is difficult to define is a prediction, and therefore confirmation, of ToE. So any argument that "species" is difficult to define undercuts your position, not supports it.
David M
Well-Known Member
Kind = Species.
All living things give birth (by whatever means) to things that look very much like them, "after their own kind" is nothing more than simple observation of this fact and indicates that people realised that, for example, cows do not give birth to sheep and vice versa. This does not mean that over many generations a new species cannot evolve.
All kinds (i.e. species) are related by common ancestry.
The issue that this definition makes the global flood and the actions of Noah impossible from a literalist sense is no problem for me as its a myth, and there has not been a global flood while any member of the genus Homo has existed.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
This does nothing to address my points... I said nothing about kinds being unable to adapt/speciate.
Here I'll repeat it again so you can refresh yourself:
"My issue with "kinds" isn't that they are undefined...there are plenty of different definitions...
The problem is what keeps kinds from changing? What stops one kind from becoming another kind?
Why is genetic science right about families and subfamilies but nothing above that? If a family has a subfamily, why is then wrong about the family?"
These aren't "grey areas" but are integral to your definition... Kinds can not be related by common ancestry according to you.
Saying kinds can't change based on faith in a literal Genesis is one thing... saying they can't change and it's science is another.
I have no issues with creationists that are honest about being such based on faith.
wa:do
Danmac
Well-Known Member
You can trace a species back to a parent kind, but you cannot trace a parent kind to a different kind.
newhope101
Active Member
Paintedwolf...OK..What stops one kind becoming another kind? I suppose the best I can do is use the dictionary meaning which says that 1. a kind is a class or group with characteristics in common. 2. Essential nature or character, the difference is one of kind rather than degree. So I expect that a kind remains the same kind under that definition.
So a dog creature, a wolf creature, share characteristics in common. I understand there are/were 3 subfamilies but it appears one has been reclassified. Only Caninae lineages survive today.
Wiki: Hesperocyoninae was named by Martin (1989). The members of this subfamily were reassigned to the family Canidae (with no subfamily) by Xiaoming Wang in 1999.[1]
Hesperocyoninae are basal canids that gave rise to the other canid groups, including the Borophaginae and Caninae according to Wang and Tedford.
So a dog creature, a wolf creature, share characteristics in common. I understand there are/were 3 subfamilies but it appears one has been reclassified. Only Caninae lineages survive today.
Wiki: Hesperocyoninae was named by Martin (1989). The members of this subfamily were reassigned to the family Canidae (with no subfamily) by Xiaoming Wang in 1999.[1]
Hesperocyoninae are basal canids that gave rise to the other canid groups, including the Borophaginae and Caninae according to Wang and Tedford.