Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Jose Fly]

Rubbery.....
Sometimes they might be. Pygmies are mostly reproductively isolated from us but not a separate species. Some of Darwin's finches are said to be a separate species but still can and do breed with each other.

So when you say "speciation", you mean "a rubbery event where populations may or may not become isolated"?

Gotta love creationism....:chuckle:

 

[Alate_One]

Not even close....

He is explaining the exact opposite of what you have been saying.... 'Kind' and 'species' arw 2 different things.*

This is purely an assertion. Nobody has shown how kind is defined in scripture that is any different from species.

The article says "Some commentators use the word species, which was developed in the mid 1500s and meant “sort” or “kind.” Linnaeus also tried sticking with this terminology. Since then the term species has been redefined in scientific terms over the years and no longer means “kind,” as represented in the Bible. Species still lacks a solid definition in today’s scientific culture

So you're answering me with some commentator's words?

The species definition is quite clear most of the time. It's easy to see that blue jays and Stellar's jays are different species even though they are clearly related.

In the same way, kinds are pretty clearly the same as species the majority of the time as in the list of birds in the previous post.

How about this from the same Chapter?

22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds

This acknowledges there are many kinds of crickets, different kinds of locust and different kinds of grasshopper.

If "kind" were actually more inclusive (family for example) these creatures wouldn't be listed separately.

The Acrididae family includes both swarming locusts and normal grasshoppers (among others).

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

 

[Greg Jennings]

I agree that Genesis 1 refutes common ancestry. Common design points to our common Designer.



Sorry, I'm not understanding your point.*

Are you saying these are all different kinds? Different species?

Yes. As it says the falcon after its kind, owls after their kind, and so on. Sorry for any confusion

 

[Greg Jennings]

If I was totally convinced that the surgeon was likely to do me more good than any other.

Our family drinks raw, unpasteurized milk from grass fed, organic cows. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom and formal education yet I am convinced, if done properly, it is safer and healthier than store-bought milk; regardless of the "experts" that say otherwise.

Many experts would say that organic products lacking hormones making them artificially enhanced are actually better. On the other hand nobody will tell you that your buddy who has a loose understanding of medicine will best a surgeon in surgery.

Have you ever had surgery before? If so did a licensed surgeon do it? If so why?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not even close....

He is explaining the exact opposite of what you have been saying.... 'Kind' and 'species' arw 2 different things.*

The article says "Some commentators use the word species, which was developed in the mid 1500s and meant “sort” or “kind.” Linnaeus also tried sticking with this terminology. Since then the term species has been redefined in scientific terms over the years and no longer means “kind,” as represented in the Bible. Species still lacks a solid definition in today’s scientific culture

6days just to clarify, I'm doing more or less exactly what Alate One said I was in his previous post to yours that I am responding to

 

[George Affleck]

The Bible isn't scientific evidence.

No. Not to an unbeliever such as yourself. But to the believer, when it touches on origins, and as authored by God, it has the final say.

Science must be the discovery of God's processes in concert with His revelation.

That which disagrees with His plain words is not science but fantasy. Evolutionary science is simply fantasy dressed in a lab coat; and, yes it is atheistic.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No. Not to an unbeliever such as yourself. But to the believer, when it touches on origins, and as authored by God, it has the final say.

Science must be the discovery of God's processes in concert with His revelation.

That which disagrees with His plain words is not science but fantasy. Evolutionary science is simply fantasy dressed in a lab coat; and, yes it is atheistic.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have two close friends who are evolutionary biologists and devout Christians who see God in their work every day. I think if you took the time to study the theory of evolution then you would probably come to the same conclusion

 

[Stripe]

Nobody has shown how kind is defined in scripture that is any different from species.

Actually, "kind" has been defined for you dozens of times. It took numerous efforts to get you to even begrudgingly admit that there is a definition. You spend all your energy trying to sideline the fact that there is a definition, so much so that you've no chance of appreciating its Biblical derivation, which has also been given to you.

The species definition is quite clear most of the time.

Which makes a definition useless.

A pretty picture doesn't make a malleable definition worthwhile.

This acknowledges there are many kinds of crickets, different kinds of locust and different kinds of grasshopper.

Nope. This is just you playing fast and loose with the text. It describes crickets and locusts as members of a kind, just as groups of living things are described as being members of kinds in Genesis.

There is nothing in the text that says there are multiple kinds of crickets.

It pays to read different versions and reference the Hebrew instead of looking for the version that best supports your agenda. :up:

 

[6days]

This is purely an assertion. Nobody has shown how kind is defined in scripture that is any different from species.

False.... I have explained. ..others have explained...God's Word explains..... and you apparently have looked at Web sites explaining.

So you're answering me with some commentator's words?

Yes...the same commentator and same article you misrepresented.

The species definition is quite clear most of the time. It's easy to see that blue jays and Stellar's jays are different species even though they are clearly related.

You must be joking because I know you are smarter than that. The 2 similar blue birds are not considered separate species on appearance..... mating birds are often more dis-similar than that.
Speaking of ..... is it also "easy to see" that your poodle is the same species as a greyhound?

Re. The 2 birds..... they may be called different species but may be the same kind.*

 

[George Affleck]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Why should it affect you what I believe? That's just a hollow sentiment! I have a right to be sorry for you because I am convinced your unbelief will result in your eternal death. In fact, I am prepared to play the role of a "fool" in your eyes and do anything I can to talk you off your fence. If I could, I would reach up and knock you off with a baseball bat!

But you have no cause, in the slightest, to be sorry for me.
Let me explain.

You believe that 'being' is validated only by knowledge. You have knowledge of yourself, therefore you are. You can have no knowledge of God, therefore there can be no validation of His 'being'.

The problem is that God is 'knowable'. John 5:25KJV His relationship to us is all about revelation which the agnostic categorically denies; because to do otherwise would result in the death of a primary presupposition which, it is supposed, creates a unique but imagined loophole. You are a non-confessing, closet atheist and you have rejected the idea of God as revealed in Jesus Christ as surely as any by turning your back on His words and denying Him.

As a believer in 'survival of the fittest', your worldview does not allow for sorrow outside of yourself. You are not allowed to borrow this or any other cloaks or virtues that belong to the God of the Bible unless you acknowledge that He is their creator and owner.

If you don't believe in Him, don't imitate Him.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why should it affect you what I believe?

So are you of the view that 'Christians' who believe in Jesus and also in evolution are destined to go to Hell?

Also I'd like for you to answer my question about your personal surgery history posed on the last page

 

[6days]

Also I'd like for you to answer my question about your personal surgery history posed on the last page

Anybody (almost ) can give an intelligent opinion on any topic. But few have years of training as a surgeon. Your analogy was faulty. If opinions were only valid based on education, we might have a upside down world.

 

[6days]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have two close friends who are evolutionary biologists and devout Christians who see God in their work every day. I think if you took the time to study the theory of evolution then you would probably come to the same conclusion

Being a Christian is confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of your life. ....it isn't about believing in God, because even demons believe in Him.
Your friends may be Christians, but if they believe in common ancestry....death and suffering before sin, they are somewhat confused on the gospel message.

Also re your comment about studying evolution, in order to believe it.... uh, There are others who called themselves Atheists who obtained doctorates in biology, genetics, geology then came to the realization that "evolution is impossible". That in quote marks is from geneticist John Sanford.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rubbery.....
Sometimes they might be.

So the speciation that you claim is part of the "Biblical model" does include speciation to the point of reproductive isolation.

Isn't that the sort of speciation that Stripe says never, ever happens?

 

[6days]

So the speciation that you claim is part of the "Biblical model" does include speciation to the point of reproductive isolation.

Isn't that the sort of speciation that Stripe says never, ever happens?

Why don't you ask Stripe?
I suspect he will tell you that mutations and adaptation can isolate a population.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Being a Christian is confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of your life. ....it isn't about believing in God, because even demons believe in Him.
Your friends may be Christians, but if they believe in common ancestry....death and suffering before sin, they are somewhat confused on the gospel message.

Also re your comment about studying evolution, in order to believe it.... uh, There are others who called themselves Atheists who obtained doctorates in biology, genetics, geology then came to the realization that "evolution is impossible". That in quote marks is from geneticist John Sanford.

If you want to throw out a former atheist who thinks evolution is impossible then you can't ignore the millions of Christians involved in science that accept evolution as a fact.

Just so I understand what exactly you are saying about death, am I right in assuming that you believe there literally was no death before Adam's and Eve's sin?

 

[6days]

Just so I understand what exactly you are saying about death, am I right in assuming that you believe there literally was no death before Adam's and Eve's sin?

No death to 'nepesh'...living beings. (Perhaps all vertebrates)

 

[Jose Fly]

Why don't you ask Stripe?
I suspect he will tell you that mutations and adaptation can isolate a population.

Ok then.

Stripe, do you agree that speciation, i.e., a population becoming reproductively isolated from it's parent population, occurs and is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No death to 'nepesh'...living beings. (Perhaps all vertebrates)

So.....crocodiles ate plants before sin? With those sharp teeth designed for ripping and tearing chunks of meat out of their animal prey? Or are plants also nepesh? They are alive too you know

 

[6days]

Ok then.

Stripe, do you agree that speciation, i.e., a population becoming reproductively isolated from it's parent population, occurs and is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

You won't get agreement if you include rubbery words such as speciation.