Creationists please define Kind

[newhope101]

As you will note, I only addressed your second point.

"A kind must meet at least one of the two criteria

2. Sexually reproducing organisms that are the same kind can genetically achieve fertilization, with or without, successful viable offspring."
​

There is only one species of dog: Canius lupus familiaris.

What is an "initial kind"?

Okay.

Looked for the info you requested but came up empty.

Yes, research assembled and giving the same comparisons (Single-nucleotide polymorphisms) is hard to find on all species or families etc.

What is initial kind? Good question

Wiki Canidae - Classification and relationship
The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed. Recent DNA analysis shows that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. (See phylogeny below). Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).[3]
Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1] Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

Without more specific research about the DNA comparisons it is hard to say. As you can see there is some disagreement by researchers that know more than me as to what should be where. If point 1 (99.9%) applies then they are all one kind, as are any that can achieve fertilization together.

There may be one ancestor or there may be more than one ancestor as God may have created one breeding pair or many. The Caninae is the only subfamily of Canidae to survive to today. From the info in Wiki, it appears that Vulpini and Canini are valid clades, so, I'd say the research will show there was either one or two initial variations/kinds created when it is all sorted. They would have looked similar to todays dog like creatures as one would expect and adapted, drifted etc into variations of the same kind, that you call species.

 

[McBell]

Wow.
Thems peoples back in Biblical times were seriously holding out when it came to revealing their process of determining the percent similarity, based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms.

I wonder how many of them would hear that and wonder what the hell she is talking about.

 

[newhope101]

mestemia, now you are getting off track. This thread requests a definition of kind and not what knowledge those of biblical times knew of todays science. I'd say the answer is fairly obvious to most.

However, indeed in biblical times they would have thought kinds were fairly obvious except for a few exceptions. They likely did not know back then what bacteria was either...but hey, the Isrealites had laws about washing hands before meals etc that may have assisted in controlling the spread of disease, regardless of not knowing why they were commanded to do so. I also don't think they were concerned about 'kinds' in biblical times either.

Now though, we have genetic testing. Now you can clarify your taxons and I can define kinds. Isn't that terrific?


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.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, research assembled and giving the same comparisons (Single-nucleotide polymorphisms) is hard to find on all species or families etc.

What is initial kind? Good question

Wiki Canidae - Classification and relationship
The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be in accordance with the actual relations; also the taxonomic classification of several canines is disputed. Recent DNA analysis shows that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. (See phylogeny below). Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).[3]
Currently, the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, and the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies.[1] Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

Without more specific research about the DNA comparisons it is hard to say. As you can see there is some disagreement by researchers that know more than me as to what should be where. If point 1 (99.9%) applies then they are all one kind, as are any that can achieve fertilization together.

There may be one ancestor or there may be more than one ancestor as God may have created one breeding pair or many. The Caninae is the only subfamily of Canidae to survive to today. From the info in Wiki, it appears that Vulpini and Canini are valid clades, so, I'd say the research will show there was either one or two initial variations/kinds created when it is all sorted. They would have looked similar to todays dog like creatures as one would expect and adapted, drifted etc into variations of the same kind, that you call species.

So why do the oldest definite fossil dogs look weaselish rather than doggy?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

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?

 

[scitsofreaky]

To be honest, it seems to me that newhope developed her definition of kind by looking at what we now know and trying to make a definition fit. There is no biblical support for her definition, and since "kind" is a biblical term, I would expect some biblical backing here. Also, it just seems too convenient, which isn't an argument against the definition, but it does bother me. Definition one just happens to fit the genetic similarity of humans; number two is untestable with humans because of the moral issues of mating with a chimp (it is now going to bug me for a while thinking about the what ifs). But my main objection is the lack of biblical reference.

Biblical kinds from Genesis 1:
[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

So there is Grass, herb, fruit trees, whales, aquatic life that moves, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things and beasts.

That's more like it! That is the sort of vagary I have come to expect, probably because that is the best bronze-age man could come up with. It does seem strange that "cattle" are different from "beasts."

mestemia, now you are getting off track. This thread requests a definition of kind and not what knowledge those of biblical times knew of todays science. I'd say the answer is fairly obvious to most.

However, indeed in biblical times they would have thought kinds were fairly obvious except for a few exceptions. They likely did not know back then what bacteria was either...but hey, the Isrealites had laws about washing hands before meals etc that may have assisted in controlling the spread of disease, regardless of not knowing why they were commanded to do so. I also don't think they were concerned about 'kinds' in biblical times either.

Now though, we have genetic testing. Now you can clarify your taxons and I can define kinds. Isn't that terrific?

First, I do have to grant that the OP is a bit vague, but whenever "kind" is brought up in this context, i.e. a literal interpretation of the Bible, it seems to me to imply that we are looking for a biblical definition of the word. There is no reason to think your definition is the idea behind the idea "kind" in the Bible. So unless you are claiming divine inspiration (which is a whole different bee's nest), it seems reasonable to me to just dismiss you definitions out of hand.
BTW- you are cherry picking what science you want and ignoring the rest. Genetic testing has basically proven all life evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[DeistPrimate]

A kind must meet at least 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.

A kind will adapt eg the phenotypical variations in humans and Canids.

I'm not sure what % of genome is shared between donkeys and horses but their differences in chromosome number is the same as between humans and chimps, my guess would be they share close to the same % of genes and wouldn't achieve your 99.9% qualification though they are not only fertile but produce living offspring with a chromosome number in between the two parent species.

If donkeys and horses are of one Kind then surely chimps and humans are as well. If they aren't because they share < 99.9% of their genomes by some measure then how is it they can produce a hybrid? What if chimps and humans can produce a hybrid?

I'm not sure where you're getting that 99.9% homology qualification in any event.

 

[David M]

Well...
I was able to locate the article that the Wiki page refers to:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
​

Problem is that it is in techno speak.

Thats the one, and the number 24 only appearsin that paper as a link to the footnotes. So exactly where does this claim of a 24% difference come from?

 

[newhope101]

scitzofreaky..the request is to define kind. The bible mentions many kinds that were created. My definition would certainly maintain biblical kinds as kinds. What are you on about? If you can do better then you have a shot.

No... my definition clearly separates chimps from humans as they cannot reach fertilization and the are only 99% similar in MtDNA. So humans being created individually agrees with the bible, in case you did not pick that up. Yes horses and donkeys are the same kind according to my definition and there is nothing in the bible that says they shouldn't be. You appear to be grabbing at straws.

Here we go again with an uneducated poster clogging up threads with requests for info that any half educated person should have already come across. First there was LouisDantas requesting info about the 6% & 30% he had never heard of. Now I've got you who has never heard of the 99%. Looks like I am going to spend the majority of my time educating those that come to debate with nothing much more than attitudes and egos.

I'll repeat again..different comparison rates will be achieved depending on what your counting. I have specified the method I have chosen to use. I have already posted some info related to this on this thread. Please have the courtesy to go read the thread, it's not that long, rather than my replies being repost after repost of the same information for hoplessly uneducated debaters.

Wiki- Chimpanzee: Evolutionary relationship

Further information: History of hominoid taxonomy

The taxonomic relationships of Hominoidea


The genus Pan is considered to be part of the subfamily Homininae to which humans also belong. These two species are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans, sharing a common ancestor with humans six million years ago.[3] Research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees,[4] although research since has modified that finding to about 94%[5] commonality, with some of the difference occurring in non-coding DNA. It has been proposed that troglodytes and paniscus belong with sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. One of the arguments for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Biblical kinds from Genesis 1:
[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

So there is Grass, herb, fruit trees, whales, aquatic life that moves, winged fowl, cattle, creeping things and beasts.

That's more like it! That is the sort of vagary I have come to expect, probably because that is the best bronze-age man could come up with. It does seem strange that "cattle" are different from "beasts."

Let's see. We are talking about a Biblical concept. What the Bible has to say about it was given. Now you want more? I'll notify God.

 

[painted wolf]

scitzofreaky..the request is to define kind. The bible mentions many kinds that were created. My definition would certainly maintain biblical kinds as kinds. What are you on about? If you can do better then you have a shot.

No... my definition clearly separates chimps from humans as they cannot reach fertilization and the are only 99% similar in MtDNA. So humans being created individually agrees with the bible, in case you did not pick that up. Yes horses and donkeys are the same kind according to my definition and there is nothing in the bible that says they shouldn't be. You appear to be grabbing at straws.

This is why I'm curious as to why you bother with the 99% genetic similarity at all.... Horses and Donkeys as well as Wolves and Coyotes are far more dissimilar than 99% making the genetic component useless to your definition.

You really only have one criteria for kind... inter-fertility.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I'm not sure what % of genome is shared between donkeys and horses but their differences in chromosome number is the same as between humans and chimps, my guess would be they share close to the same % of genes and wouldn't achieve your 99.9% qualification though they are not only fertile but produce living offspring with a chromosome number in between the two parent species.
Guesses do not count. Eg I guess God created everything using some unknown physics therefore creation is right. I wish it was that simple. However yes it's Ok for a donkey and horse to be the same kind. You are applying my definition appropriately. God may have made one breeding pair of horse creatures or many. The fossil evidence and genomic comparisons may clarify if God created one or two variations of the horse kind or more.

Hyracotherium (pronounced /&#716;ha&#618;r&#601;ko&#650;&#712;&#952;&#618;&#601;ri&#601;m/, HYE-rak-oh-THEER-ee-um) ("Hyrax-like beast") (also known as Eohippus or The Dawn Horse) is an extinct genus of very small (about 60 cm in length) perissodactyl ungulates that lived in the woodlands of the Northern Hemisphere, with species ranging throughout Asia, Europe, and North America during the early Tertiary Period and the early to mid Eocene Epoch, about 55—45 million years ago[1] with the earliest fossil specimen found at the Tsagan Khushu Quarry 1 site, Mongolia averaging about 60 cm in length and weighing around 15—16 kg (36 lbs)[2] This small, dog-sized animal is the oldest known horse and was once considered to be the earliest known member of the Equidae [3] before the type species was reclassified as a palaeothere, of a perissodactyl family related to both horses and brontotheres.


"Horses and other equids are odd-toed ungulates of the order Perissodactyla, a group of mammals that was dominant during the Tertiary period. In the past, this order contained 14 families, but only three—Equidae (the horse and related species), the tapir, and the rhinoceros—have survived to the present day.[100"...

So the tapir and rhinos now come into theor own kind under my defition.

If donkeys and horses are of one Kind then surely chimps and humans are as well. If they aren't because they share < 99.9% of their genomes by some measure then how is it they can produce a hybrid? What if chimps and humans can produce a hybrid?
No..if a creationist tries to do anything at all it is to separate chimps from humans which I have achieved.Chimps-human sperm and ovum is incapable of fertilization. Researchers can put a human gene like FOXP2 into a mouse but it doesn't make the mouse a cross breed mouse-human. Grabbing at straws.
I'm not sure where you're getting that 99.9% homology qualification in any event.[/quote 99.9% is the standard variation within the human population.

Would you like me to spend the next few weeks educating you and a few others to a level that we can actually get on with some discussions?

 

[Autodidact]

No... my definition clearly separates chimps from humans as they cannot reach fertilization

How do you know?

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: some reason you're ignoring my polite, reasonable, pertinent questions?

 

[Autodidact]

So the tapir and rhinos now come into theor own kind under my defition.

On what basis?

Would you like me to spend the next few weeks educating you and a few others to a level that we can actually get on with some discussions?

I'd just like you to respond to my questions.

 

[newhope101]

This is why I'm curious as to why you bother with the 99% genetic similarity at all.... Horses and Donkeys as well as Wolves and Coyotes are far more dissimilar than 99% making the genetic component useless to your definition. I did not use 99%. I used 99.9%, otherwise chimps would be in the same KIND as humans according to my definition. It does not matter that horses and donkeys are genetically dissimilar because point 2 brings them in. Coyotes and wolves are genetically capable of fertilization together so with point 2, they are the same kind.

You really only have one criteria for kind... inter-fertility. No, I have genetic similarity and interfertility. I have already stated that if I see sufficient research that suggests that all interfertile species are at the comparison rate of 99.9% or close, then criteria 2 is unnecessary. It may end up being the case that I only need to adjust by a few points to cover interfertile species. However it may not as well. A donkey and horse may come in at 99.4% similar to each other or much less. Although I have read their MTDNA is very similar. If under 99.9% were the case then a donkey would fall out of the same kind as a horse as per my definition on point 1. So point 2 picks them up. Maybe I can loose point 1, given that all humans can interbreed. Much the same as your definition of species primarily suggests that two different species should not be able to interbreed at all, but they do. Hence you have a plethora of species definitions to take up the slack. I, fortunately, only appear to need two criteria instead of many.

There was alot of hype about chimps and humans being so similar. What is the mtdna comparison between a chimp and gorilla, if chimp/human is 99%? I suppose I'll try to look it up.

wa:do

Paintedwolf I can understand those with a very poor education of any sort having difficulty with comprehension, but not you. Did you see my point 2? What does that say? That's right, so donkeys and mules are the same kind. From what I have seen it may even be possible to achieve the 99.9% and not have interfertility, for all I know. So, I'll leave my definition how it is for now.

Can horses and donkeys achieve fertilization together? Hinny and mules answer that question. Therefore it appears that for anyone able to comprehend both point 1 and 2 of my definition, the horse and the donkey are one kind regardless of their DNA comparisons. If their comparisons come in at 99.9%, then they will meet my definition on both criteria, but this is not necessary. That is why my definition stipulates a kind must meet ONE of the 2 criteria, to be counted as the same kind.

My definition of kind really is easy to follow and apply. All I need is more research to clarify comparisons then I can do any necessary fine tuning. My definition appears to have at least the robustness of your species definition and should suffice for creationist discussions with me. It may not be an award winner but then neither is your definition of species, really.

Wiki: Gorillas are the largest of the primates. They are ground-dwelling and predominantly herbivorous. They inhabit the forests of central Africa. Gorillas are divided into two species and (still under debate as of 2008) either four or five subspecies. The DNA of gorillas is highly similar to that of a human, between 95 and 99% depending on what is counted,[3] and they are the next closest living relatives to humans after the two chimpanzee species.

So as you see above even a gorilla can have a 99% comparison with humans depending on what's counted. How close is a chimp to a gorilla? Are they genetically compatable enough to produce fertilization? The answers will show if they are the same kind according to my definition. One would expect if different species can mate they would be close to the 99.9%, but I don't think this is necessarily the case.

I'd like to see any comparative genomics that use the same methodology for a number of species, particulary if it is set out in a table. That may be helpful.

 

[newhope101]

How do you know?

Because chimps and humans are incapable of achieving fertilization. AND they are not 99.9% similar according to Mtdna...as my definition outlines.

This is not the place to speak to what in your evidence as opposed to theory provides any solid evidence for ancestry of humans to any other kind.

This is about a definition for the concept of kind that non creationists do not accept as a term anyway, unless you call 'kinds' species. Then of course you have all the connections you can make to blow a species comparison of kind out the window. So obviously, no evolutionist is going to happily accept any other definition of kind. One does not have to be clever to work that out.

I'm not after an award. However to say that no creationist can define kind is erranous. Definitions may run into problems as your species concept does. However, comparitively, that should not result in the claim of no definition of kind. Indeed the concept of species has many concerns and is still readily accepted by the scientific establishment. So I think my definition should suffice for the purposes of a forum and at least one idea of what the concept of kind refers to.

 

[newhope101]

On what basis?

I'd just like you to respond to my questions.

Is this going to be another version of HOW HOW HOW is it?

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

In relation to tapirs and rhinos as requested....

Wiki Perissodactyla:
The odd-toed ungulates are browsing and grazing mammals such as horses, tapirs and rhinoceroses whose hooves each feature an odd number of toes. The middle toe on each hoof is also usually larger than its neighbours. Together, odd-toed ungulates form the order Perissodactyla (perissos abundant/excessive + daktulos toes).

The members of the order fall into two suborders:

• Hippomorpha are odd-toed ungulates that are, today, fast runners with long legs and have only one toe. The only extant family of this suborder is Equidae (whose sole surviving genus is Equus), comprising the horse, zebra, donkey, onager, and allied species. The extinct, rhinoceros-like brontotheres are also included in this suborder. Both families probably descended from palaeotheres.
• Ceratomorpha have several functional toes; they are heavier than and move more slowly than the Hippomorpha. This suborder has two extant families: Tapiridae (tapirs) and Rhinocerotidae (rhinoceroses). The extinct chalicotheres may belong to this suborder as well.

So evolutionists have clumped all odd toes ungulates together because of their toes, although there is a stack of research that supports morphological features arising independently ie knuclewalking & flat faced morphology, eyes.

Still using this system, as flawed as I believe it to be, shows what your researchers think has gone on in an evolutionary sense. If you can present more MtDNA comparisons I am happy to speak to them. Aforehand I'll say if the tapir and rhino can produce fertilization OR are 99.9% similar then they are one kind. If they meet neither criteria, then they are different kinds. Simple!

 

[Autodidact]

Because chimps and humans are incapable of achieving fertilization. .

How do you know?

 

[Autodidact]

Is this going to be another version of HOW HOW HOW is it?

Depends whether you answer the questions or not.

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?