Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... are you trying for the title of strawman king?
I have NEVER claimed that.

Well I apologize then. In that case, would you be so kind as to give your definition of "kind" for me? I think you'll agree it's crucial for the understanding of your "biblical model of creation."


Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

 

[ok doser]

strawmen beget strawmen

after their own kind

 

[k10vvn]

The difference is that pandas ARE bears (unlike koalas), yet still cannot interbreed with other bear species. According to you and others here, species within any "kind" can diversify within that "kind" but they are always able to breed with each other.

Pandas are bears, yet unable to breed with other species within the bear "kind".

But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.

 

[Greg Jennings]

But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.

No I'm not a YEC. We agree on basically everything you are saying except that bear species do breed together. Brown/black hybrids are common where the two species' ranges overlap, and a few wild polar/brown hybrids have been killed in northern Canada

 

[6days]

Well I apologize then. In that case, would you be so kind as to give your definition of "kind" for me? I think you'll agree it's crucial for the understanding of your "biblical model of creation."

Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

Greg... you need to stop looking for silly arguments found on atheist websites. Bats are not described as part of the bird kind... but as part of 'flying things'.

Also... thanks for the apology.

Re definition.....Here is what I already said in this thread...
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41


(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... you need to stop looking for silly arguments found on atheist websites. Bats are not described as part of the bird kind... but as part of 'flying things'.

Also... thanks for the apology.

Re definition.....Here is what I already said in this thread...
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41


(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?

Using your "kinds" definition, are eels and fish the same "kind"? What about freshwater eels and moray eels? Are they the same "kind"?

 

[6days]

And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?

Greg..... as has been said... you might be better advized trying to clearly define rubbery evolutionary words such as species....rather than using silly and illogical arguments against something you don't want to understand.

 

[6days]

But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.

Welcome to TOL!

 

[Jose Fly]

(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

That's not the definition Stripe gave. He said "kind" is "All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population."

 

[Jose Fly]

Basically, to creationists "kind" is "whatever taxonomic line we think evolution can't cross".

 

[Stripe]

The definition of "kind" you gave is fine.

But you keep asking for a definition.

But it's not very useful when, asked how we should determine what organisms share a common ancestry, your answer is ":idunno:".

That's not how I answer that question.

Also, so far that's your definition for "kind". So when I'm conversing with you, I will go with that definition. But when I'm conversing with someone else I'm going to ask them what their definition of the term is. Given all the things you conflict with other creationists on, this approach is warranted.

Definitions are not personal; they are universal. Expecting everyone to have a personal definition is to invite nonsense.

Words have meaning. If you're not willing to use them sensibly, you have no right entering into a discussion.

No it never happens, or no you never said it doesn't happen?

Learn to read. :up: I said nothing about natural selection.

 

[Stripe]

That's not the definition Stripe gave. He said "kind" is "All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population."

Do the two definitions contradict each other? No.

Learn to think issues through instead of demanding that everything be packaged for you.

Basically, to creationists "kind" is "whatever taxonomic line we think evolution can't cross".

Nope.

You have been given the definition of kind many times. It has exactly no reliance on your evolutionary terminology.

 

[User Name]

Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

More fun facts: Birds are reptiles and are most closely related to crocodiles. Bats, by contrast, are placental mammals.

 

[User Name]

:drum:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg..... as has been said... you might be better advized trying to clearly define rubbery evolutionary words such as species....rather than using silly and illogical arguments against something you don't want to understand.

I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, but applies in nearly every case. That's usually the best you can hope for in science. There are always exceptions to every rule. For example: water is one of a very few substances that has greater volume as a solid than as a liquid. Exceptions to a rule that applies to the overwhelming majority of cases are not something science fears. There is a definition for species that applies to all but a handful of eukaryotic species known.
You can read here: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail. When asked to clarify any part of your definition, you predictably dodge any and all questions.

 

[Stripe]

Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

Ignorance exposed: There is no such thing as a "bird kind." No such group is mentioned in scripture. It does mention "owph" ahead of your verse, which can mean "flying things."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=NKJV

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ignorance exposed: There is no such thing as a "bird kind." No such group is mentioned in scripture. It does mention "owph" ahead of your verse, which can mean "flying things."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=NKJV

You're right that I erred and there is no "bird kind." I apologize for my mistake.

Stripe, do you say that species within any "kind" must be able to breed together?

 

[Stripe]

I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, but applies in nearly every case.

Go right ahead.

It is guaranteed that we will quickly be able to name many examples that break your definition of species. This is why evolutionists have at least 14 definitions for the term.

That's usually the best you can hope for in science.

Nope.

Definitions are by definition non-malleable. Generalizations are by definition not definitions.

Words have meaning for a reason.

There are always exceptions to every rule.

We are not talking about rules; we are talking about definitions.

Exceptions to a rule that applies to the overwhelming majority of cases are not something science fears.

But evolutionists do fear definitions, which is why they avoid them at all costs.

There is a definition for species that applies to all but a handful of eukaryotic species known.
You can read here: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.

So lions and tigers are the same species. Polar bears and grizzlies are the same species. All of the links in Darwin's "ring species" of finches — same species.

However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail. When asked to clarify any part of your definition, you predictably dodge any and all questions.

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

 

[Stripe]

You're right that I erred and there is no "bird kind." I apologize for my mistake.

:up:

Stripe, do you say that species within any "kind" must be able to breed together?

No, of course not. Mostly because I would never use the word "species." It is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific discussion.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Go right ahead.

It is guaranteed that we will quickly be able to name many examples that break your definite of species. This is why evolutionists have at least 14 definitions for the term.

See the link.

Nope.

Definitions are by definition non-malleable. Generalizations are by definition not definitions.

Words have meaning for a reason.

We are not talking about rules; we are talking about definitions.

Either scientists don't agree with you about the fluidity of definitions, or they don't consider the species definition to be a true "definition." They've been at this a while longer than you bud. I think I'm going to side with the experts here

But evolutionists do fear definitions, which is why they avoid them at all costs.

Uh huh. They're shakin in their boots no doubt :rotfl:

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.

So lions and tigers are the same species. Polar bears and grizzlies are the same species. All of the links in Darwin's "ring species" of finches — same species.

If you read further you might see the specifics of it