Creationists please define Kind

[PolyHedral]

I tell you what PW I can use my definition of kind just a well as you can apply your definition of species to these old fossils. As stated Dromaeosaurids appears to be a kind that went extinct.With more information I can also apply my kind concept similarly as you apply your species concept to these old bones.

Please use your 'species' definition to classify these old bones? Now we are just talking about definitions here.. Not a total framework of theories to explain the complexity if all life. Good luck to you PW, given that your researchers are confused and in debate. It is obviously not as clear cut as some would like to think it is.

Species are irrelevant. Please answer my question.

 

[newhope101]

Newhope, if there are two creatures, A and B, which are the same kind, and B is the same kind as some other creature C, is A necessarily the same kind as C?

Like I have stated previously to PW, this thread is about putting up a definition of kind. I have been asked to answer questions about chromosomes, fossils, humans and chimps interbreeding (which at least was relevant to the topic). At least this mystery is relevant.

To cut across the irrelevance perhaps I should request posters to apply the definition of species to the question and show me how my definition of kind is 'bad'.

Most of the refutes are based on my responding to questions that are irrelevant to putting up a definition of kind. For example what does the definition of species have to do with hybrid chromosome numbers or old fossils?

Yes your species definition does inform your question and is therefore relevant.

The answer to your question is 'YES". There are many examples of this occuring, as you are hopefully aware. Wiki "Cryptic Species Complex" speaks to some.

Let's look at sheep and goats. They are one kind. Why? According to my definition they can achieve fertization, criteria 2. Hence they are one kind. The idea is that if the fertilization criteria does not bring obviously inclusive species into same kind, then comparative genetic similarity will. That's the idea.

This is a little on the side but may apply to bovids..you can go look if you like and I'll speak to it.

Wiki: A sheep–goat chimera (sometimes called a geep in popular media) is a chimera produced by combining the embryos of a goat and a sheep; the resulting animal has cells of both sheep and goat origin. A sheep-goat chimera should not be confused with a sheep-goat hybrid, which can result when a goat mates with a sheep.

Sheep and goats are from the family Bovidae which has 10 subfamiles. These subfamilies more or less represent KINDS, but some will come together as a kind. Don't forget your own Toe suggests goats and sheep have a common ancestor. Therefore, your own science attests that this in-kind variation has occured. The fact that they have varied so much is irrelevant. They are one kind by whatever name you choose to call the kind. I may add, bovids are an excellent example of where your species definition does not work; not only are species at the species rank able to interbreed but also at the Genus rank and above able to successfully interbreed. So you really should be going easy on my definition of 'kind' considering 'species' is such a mess.

God created this kind that spread and adapted, gene drifted, mutations happened, gene regulation did its' thing. God may have created one breeding pair or many. They may have been identical or varied. The variations may be why there are fertility issues, same kind different varieties from the start. To a creationist your researchers are asking the wrong questions. They should be looking for how many shegoat kinds God created? Did He create one pair or many hundreds and how have they varied? There aren't many researchers funded to look into such questions, if any. Hence creationists must use what's out there that is generally scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry, not creation.

Researchers have named this kind sheep and goats, and classified them according to evolutionary assumptions and given them various other names.

So yes, A B & C are all the same Kind and I have no problems with that.

I am not on this thread to solve all the dilemmas of the world, just put up a definition of KIND.

Can repliers please apply the definition of 'Species' to their question, and how it works where my definition of 'Kind' doesn't, to determine relevance from desperation?

 

[painted wolf]

It seems your researchers are also confused. I'm just little old me coming up with a definition of kind that now has to solve all the riddles of fossil identification better than your own researchers can. It is a shame you do not hold your own science up to similar rigour, both as a science and in relation to your species concept .

You are trying to dodge the issue. Your definition can not account for fossil species.

These bird like fossils I thnk belong to the family Dromaeosauridae. Your thousand of researchers "has concluded that there is not yet enough evidence to determine whether any dromaeosaurs could fly or glide, or whether they evolved from ancestors that could" and everything below family rank is equally debated.

I'm not asking what scientiists say... I'm asking how your definition of kind accounts for these creatures.

I could not identify the last fossil. Is it Tiktaalic? I hope so, as I have already shown elewhere that there were tetrapod footprints around when tiktaalic landed that belonged to an already roaming tetrapod. So do tell me what this fossil is if my definition depends on sorting out all your evo dilemmas for you just to have a definition of kind. These are serious signs of desperation, I think, which is good news for me.

No the last one is not Tiktaalic... Again, is this creature it's own kind or part of an existing kind?
How does your definition of kind account for animals you can't genetically test or attempt to interbreed?

Are they automatically their own kinds?

Archaeopteryx- Phylogenetic position

Modern paleontology has consistently placed Archaeopteryx as the most primitive bird. It is not thought to be a true ancestor of modern birds but, rather, a close relative of that ancestor (see Avialae and Aves).[72] Nonetheless, Archaeopteryx is so often used as a model of the true ancestral bird that it has seemed almost heretical to suggest otherwise. Several authors have done so.[70] Lowe (1935)[73] and Thulborn (1984)[74] questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx.[75] Barsbold (1983)[76] and Zweers and Van den Berge (1997)[77] noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.

Again, it doesnt' matter what evolutionary science says... what does your definition of kind say?
I'm not asking about what science says, I'm asking what you say.

So you are hoping that if I can't classify your old bones into a kind then my definition is bad. Well seeing as your researchers are guessing, I'll guess that the family Dromaeosauridae appears to be a kind that went extinct. That's about as robust an answer as your reseachers can supply. Now if you ever get some DNA then maybe I can be clearer, just like evos would be if they had DNA, which they haven't.

So, you simply go with what scientists say about fossils then?
You admit then that your definition of kind is useless for classifying fossils.

As you can see from the info above your researchers are unclear also. So are you trying to say that I have to categorise these old fossils better than your scientists just to have a definition of kind when your own researchers are unclear what they are and where they belong. GOOD ONE!.

I'm not asking about what scientists say... you are tying to move the goalposts and trying to deflect from the actual question.

What does your definition of kinds have to say about fossil species and how do you determine what kind a fossil belongs to?

I tell you what PW I can use my definition of kind just a well as you can apply your definition of species to these old fossils. As stated Dromaeosaurids appears to be a kind that went extinct.With more information I can also apply my kind concept similarly as you apply your species concept to these old bones.

Please use your 'species' definition to classify these old bones? Now we are just talking about definitions here.. Not a total framework of theories to explain the complexity if all life. Good luck to you PW, given that your researchers are confused and in debate. It is obviously not as clear cut as some would like to think it is.

You can not apply your definition of kind to these fossils at all... that is the point I'm trying to make. You are desperately trying to shift the focus from your definition, I presume to cover up this flaw.

I am keen to see how you apply your species definition (unable to successfully interbreed) to classify these old fossils. Me thinks you are trying to use unreasonable ploys to maintain your agenda here PW. Not nice, nor ethical, but rather desperate

.

You are confused about the definition of species (or are simply choosing to ignore aspects of it you don't like in this context)... it's not surprising but then neither is you insistence that I"m being unethical because I have asked you a question you can't or won't answer.

Perhaps rather than trying to attack me you will attempt to answer the question? :sleep:

How does your definition of kind account for fossil species?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

You are trying to dodge the issue. Your definition can not account for fossil species.
If I am dodging the issue, then you should be able to apply your species definition to the fossils you presented. You have not. Despite you're not being able to meet the standard you have put before me I have answered your question based on the evidence and lack of. Again I repeat they all belonged to a kind, ie Dromaeosauridae, that went extinct. This agrees with your data that the Infraorder, Deinonychosauria and the superfamily and the family Dromarosauridae are all extinct. My definition presumes they can interbreed or are genetically similar as per definition. I posted information that illustrated the confusion your researchers are having in classifications and still you demand more clarity from me than your own researchers can provide and that is what I call desperation if not hypocrisy. I am not providing a hypothesis for the whole of creation like Toe. I am providing a definition of 'kind'.
I'm not asking what scientiists say... I'm asking how your definition of kind accounts for these creatures.
They are likely able to interbreed and if not are genetically similar, which is as good an assumption as your researchers have come up with to date.
No the last one is not Tiktaalic... Again, is this creature it's own kind or part of an existing kind? Are we playing games? Can you have the courtesy to name what these fossils are meant to be. I believe they all belong to the family Dromarosauridae and are extinct.
How does your definition of kind account for animals you can't genetically test or attempt to interbreed?
How does your definition of species inform the subject? It doesn't. Why? Because you cannot test anything. You must guess and theorize and these fossils you posted are no different. This is a whole other field and other thread. You are fishing for some full set of hypothesis and clarification on the workings of creation, as some smoke screen for your inability to refute otherwise.

Again tell me how species informs your old fossils. It doesn't. Rather it takes a number of fields to come together and put up a theory which is much more than any definition of species can address.
Are they automatically their own kinds? I am not providing a evolutionary model, just a definition of kind. A definition of kinds or species is not in itself a ranking system. It takes alot more than a definition to classify old fossils with any certaintly, in case you have not worked that out for yourself.

Again, it doesnt' matter what evolutionary science says... what does your definition of kind say?
I'm not asking about what science says, I'm asking what you say.
A kind must meet one of the two criteria
1. A kind is a group of organisms that share 99.9% similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.
2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring.

Your species definition is still valid isn't it, regardless of your inability to apply it to old fossils that neither give up genetic similarity or interfertility that also speak to your concept of species.

So, you simply go with what scientists say about fossils then? You do!
You admit then that your definition of kind is useless for classifying fossils.
This has nothing to do with my definition. My definition works well and can classify living species with less vagueness than yours does.
I'm not asking about what scientists say... you are tying to move the goalposts and trying to deflect from the actual question.
Yes you are, otherwise you would stop plugging the old scrape the bottom of the barrel approach in your refutes.
What does your definition of kinds have to say about fossil species and how do you determine what kind a fossil belongs to?
Because a definition of kind is not meant to. For the thousandth time can you see that your definition of species has nothing to do in itself with the clsssification of your fossils, or do you simply refuse to make the connection. Hence and obviously to any simpleton a definition of kind will likewise not provide a classification system within itself. You have demonstrated absolute desperation by your obviouslyunreasonable rhetoric. You would not resort to such straw grabbing if you could obviously refute me easily otherwise. This pleases me.


You can not apply your definition of kind to these fossils at all... that is the point I'm trying to make. You are desperately trying to shift the focus from your definition, I presume to cover up this flaw.
No, a definition of kind does not require that I answer every question you pose about any tolpic. If that were the case your Toe would be out the window already. You are requesting an evolutionary hypothesis not a definition of kind. It is you hiding behind a smoke screen.
You are confused about the definition of species (or are simply choosing to ignore aspects of it you don't like in this context)... it's not surprising but then neither is you insistence that I"m being unethical because I have asked you a question you can't or won't answer.
No you are going to persist in requesting answers to questions your own researchers do not have clarity around. There are many unanswered questions in your own theory. Do not pretend that finding some question that I am unable to answer means anymore than it does for your toe, nothing. If this were a scientific panel and the definition of kind was a part of some hypothesis of creation in relation to the fossil evidence, then I would understand these requests for all sorts of answers to all sorts of things. However, not for a definition of kind for forum discussions
Perhaps rather than trying to attack me you will attempt to answer the question? :sleep:
I have had as good a go as your researchers. If you prefer to keep your credibility in tact then you will stop being so desperate and confusing the defintion of kind with a request for creative hypthesis and evaluation of the fossil evidence. They are very different.

How does your definition of kind account for fossil species? A definition of kind does not have to account for all the fossil species or provide a theory of creation, it just has to define kind, like the species concept gives some idea of what a species is, but does not inform what your fossils are. It takes much more than a definition to sort that out..

wa:do

It is a shame you have to clutter the thread with unreasonable requests. If you are going to poke around until I say 'I do not know', and use that as some sort of support for my definition not being adequate, then you are wasting your time. Your toe and species concept is also full of holes, questions and contradictions.

See this below. It demonstrates that your researchers are vague to say the most

Wiki Bird - Dinosaurs and the origin of birds

The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, Aves, are the closest relatives of the deinonychosaurs, which include dromaeosaurids and troodontids. Together, these three form a group called Paraves. The basal dromaeosaur Microraptor has features which may have enabled it to glide or fly. The most basal deinonychosaurs are very small. This evidence raises the possibility that the ancestor of all paravians may have been arboreal, may have been able to glide, or both.[13][14]


.....and that's just some of the vagueness...


That's how clear you are about your fossils with all your researchers, definitions, models and multi disciplinary fields to contribute. Do not demand a higher standard from me and use that against me. That is unethical game playing. Either my definition works Ok for the purpose of discussion (not a scientific paper), or it doesn't. You should not have to scrape the bottom of the archeological record to refute me.


A definition of kind does not have to account for all the fossil species or provide an irrefutable theory of creation,.... it just has to define kind.

 

[Autodidact]

The previous research I posted demonstrates that humans and chimps cannot achieve fertilization, although some other non human primates can.

No, it doesn't. To find out whether humans and chimps could breed, it would be necessary to try, which, to my knowledge, has not been done.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote DeistPrimate:You didn't answer Autodidact's question, newhope, and you've not addressed how I pointed out the chromosome number differences between horses and donkeys are the same as those between humans and chimps. So if a horse and donkey could produce a mule what's stopping a human and chimp from producing a humanzee?
Yes..I have answered autodidacts question.

Actually no, I've asked several question you have overlooked. Would you like me to repost?

 

[painted wolf]

It is a shame you have to clutter the thread with unreasonable requests. If you are going to poke around until I say 'I do not know', and use that as some sort of support for my definition not being adequate, then you are wasting your time. Your toe and species concept is also full of holes, questions and contradictions.

Again, this isn't about "my toe"... it's about your definition of kinds.

A definition of kind does not have to account for all the fossil species or provide an irrefutable theory of creation,.... it just has to define kind.

So, the definition of kind does not have to account for all species... just the ones you choose to account for?
How can it provide an irrefutable theory of creation or define kind if t can't account for fossil species?

Are fossil species not valid? I'm not asking you to classify all the fossil species... your definition can't account for a single one. It can't even account for recently extinct species like the Tasmanian Tiger.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact..please forgive my frustration, but I have posted this at least twice already. As unethical as it seems human non human primate experiments have been conducted and no fertilization occured. Furthermore, reseachers under the presumption of ancestry have concluded that the human line and chimps have been unable to breed for some time.

How many many many times do I have to post this? How many times do you have to see it to comprehend it? Do you think someone in Wiki or your researchers or the dozens of testimonies to same, are lying or keeping the truth from us all? Do you think your current researchers are wrong or lying in saying we no longer can breed with chimps? Honestly it is really frustrating to have to restablish points over and over and over again.

Unless you have evidence, not what some bloke thought, to the contrary, then you have to accept that for the moment, according to previous unethical experiments and current theories relating to current genomic knowledge by your leading researchers that.... humans and chimps CANNOT INTERBREED.

A definition of gene, a definition of species, a definition of RNA, a definition of cell does not have to answer every question from within its meaning. They all may add to the whole, but in themselves are only definitions for a very small part of the whole picture.

Yes if I have missed questions, please repost. I am a little busy and expecting a few refugees from the Queensland floods, which have been devastating. I apologise for missing any appropriate questions that relate to my definition. I don't apologise for the fact that a definition of kind is not meant to resolve all creational or evolutionary conundrums.

Wiki Humanzee,In the 1920s the SovietbiologistIlya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.[citation needed] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving non human ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[citation needed] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.
In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[6] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzeesdiverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[7]

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist.

 

[David M]

In the 1920s we could not even manage a single pregnency from human/human IVF, why should the failure of human/chimp IVF mean anything.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact..please forgive my frustration, but I have posted this at least twice already. As unethical as it seems human non human primate experiments have been conducted and no fertilization occured.

Don't you think our skills have improved in the last 90 years?

Furthermore, reseachers under the presumption of ancestry have concluded that the human line and chimps have been unable to breed for some time.

No, not unable in your definition, just that they don't.

 

[painted wolf]

In the 1920s we could not even manage a single pregnency from human/human IVF, why should the failure of human/chimp IVF mean anything.

This was also done in the same Soviet Russia that thought if you just kept planting wheat in the winter it would learn to grow.

Infact this era of soviet science shows how dangerous denial of evolution and sound science can be. Millions of people starved as they tried to disprove the "bourgeois/fascist science" false.

IMHO it's no small irony that modern creationists and Soviet Lysenkoism use a lot of the same language against evolution.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'll say it again...
I don't think Newhope understands that "Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

 

[newhope101]

This was also done in the same Soviet Russia that thought if you just kept planting wheat in the winter it would learn to grow.

Infact this era of soviet science shows how dangerous denial of evolution and sound science can be. Millions of people starved as they tried to disprove the "bourgeois/fascist science" false.

IMHO it's no small irony that modern creationists and Soviet Lysenkoism use a lot of the same language against evolution.

wa:do

Great we are not talking about politics. Your researchers currently say that humans cannot breed with chimps NOW and you had better accept your own researchers or cough up more than just a wish list of evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Here are some of my unanswered questions from early in the thread:

If you take two creatures whose genome has not been mapped, and for which no one has ever tried to breed, how do you know if they're the same or a different kind?

Does the first method track pretty much with species?
And the second method is just slightly larger than species, correct?

Do any other creationists use your definition?

Does your hypothesis include <10,000 year old earth, global flood, ark, etc?

btw, what's the basis for your definition? How did you come up with it?

Hypothetically, if humans and chimps could interbreed, would they then be the same kind?

newhope: Your definition is very similar to species, do you agree? And your position is that all the kinds were created a long time ago, and no new kinds arise by evolution is that correct?

So the tapir and rhinos now come into theor own kind under my defition.
On what basis?

The basis is that kinds were created and did not evolve from other kinds

. ON what basis do you know these groups are separate kinds? Have you tested them against your definition?

 

[newhope101]

I'll say it again...
I don't think Newhope understands that "Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

You are all making me dizzy with sidelines and nonsense.

 

[newhope101]

quote=painted wolf;2319586]Again, this isn't about "my toe"... it's about your definition of kinds.
It is understanding the application of a definition including the framework to which is does not apply. The twist is well hidden. But you will have to do better than that. Are you unable to trasfer the similarity? Your definition od species has nothing to do with the fossils you posted. Why? Because you are unable to apply the concept of species to a fossil that has no DNA.
You have often spoken to this
Wiki species: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually (asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.
So, the definition of kind does not have to account for all species... just the ones you choose to account for?
My definition of kind will account for all species that can supply adequate information, similar to your species definition. Unlike Toe I have not guesstimated a theoretical model. Fortunately the thread is about a definition of kind. NOT provide PW with a hypothesis of some sort and strain any irrelevant point to distraction.
How can it provide an irrefutable theory of creation or define kind if t can't account for fossil species?
PW a definition of anything does not have to categorise old bones. If Kind is applicable to old fossils then so should the definition of species be. It isn't. Why do you not understand? If it is then explain how the biological definition of species helps clarify your bones. You need DNA. You don't have any. You use other methods and well you know it. You are looking plenty desperate,,on and on and on and on and on.

Are fossil species not valid? I'm not asking you to classify all the fossil species... your definition can't account for a single one. It can't even account for recently extinct species like the Tasmanian Tiger.
How dare you make such an assumption? Thylacine is in a kind with a numbat. Too bad your researchers had it wrong until 2009.

Wiki:Several studies support the thylacine as being a basal member of the Dasyuromorphia and that the Tasmanian devil is its closest living relative. However, research published in Genome Research in January 2009 suggests that the numbat may be more basal than the devil and more closely related to the thylacine.[22]
PW again you try to misrepresent.and you know it. of course species are important but a definition is not going to classify anything without the information that it requires. I have said. I'll accept the family as a kind. What else do you think a definition of species or kind is going to achieve more than that, without genomic evidence. Do you expect me to come up with a whole heap of theories like your researchers have to explain it all... No PW, You are being purposely evasive and convoluted in the application of this line of refute.
wa:do[/quote]
&#12288;
&#12288;
You appear to be getting yourself all tied up in a knot. Are you asserting that you have DNA evidence for your old fossils? If not, then your definition of species is irrelevant, neither can you check fertility. You have bones, you assign taxons without DNA evidence.

You have missed the point badly. My definition can more than adequately explain kinds. It cannot invent DNA evidence or prescribe theories, just like most definitions of anything including species.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your researchers currently say that humans cannot breed with chimps NOW and you had better accept your own researchers or cough up more than just a wish list of evidence.

Source?

And remember, such words and phrases as "unlikely", "as of yet", "no known occurrences" do not translate into "cannot".

Geneticists will confirm that it is theoretically possible, but as of yet, no conclusive evidence exists one way or the other.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'll say it again...
I don't think Newhope understands that "Species", as a science term, is malleable to conform to new evidence.

Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

You are all making me dizzy with sidelines and nonsense.

Simple question.
Is "Kind", as a God given term in the Bible, adaptable to new evidence?

 

[tumbleweed41]

PS Newhope,

Would you like a tutorial on using the quote function?

 

[newhope101]

Here are some of my unanswered questions from early in the thread:

If you take two creatures whose genome has not been mapped, and for which no one has ever tried to breed, how do you know if they're the same or a different kind?
You really need to think a little here. Where you have gone and mapped without genomic evidence you have been wrong many times. I am not putting up a theory of creation just a definition of kind. The evidence you have fits and that is all that is necessary, the same as Toe.
Does the first method track pretty much with species?
And the second method is just slightly larger than species, correct?
What methods are you refering to. Are you challenging that there are different ways of representing similarity. Don't..it's a big mistake, they can count the whole genome, just mtdna, not count junk, not count repeats etc.
Do any other creationists use your definition?
I don't know
Does your hypothesis include <10,000 year old earth, global flood, ark, etc?
I am not putting forward a hypothesis just a definition of kind that does not require a hypothesis. If I wanted to debate hypothesis for creation I'll go onto another thread.
btw, what's the basis for your definition? How did you come up with it?
I was tired of evos saying it could not be done
Hypothetically, if humans and chimps could interbreed, would they then be the same kind? Yes

newhope: Your definition is very similar to species, do you agree? And your position is that all the kinds were created a long time ago, and no new kinds arise by evolution is that correct? It doesn't matter. The bible put first ife in the seas also but that did not stop researchers from using the idea

So the tapir and rhinos now come into theor own kind under my defition.
On what basis?MY DEFINITION.
. ON what basis do you know these groups are separate kinds? Have you tested them against your definition?

This is not a scientific panel. Don't get ahead of yourself here.