Kinds are not related

I have been thinking lately that "kinds" might not have been looked at enough by Creationists. I believe a re-read of Genesis shows that every "sort" (NKJV) of animal should be saved in the ark, to preserve the "species".I believe(for now I believe it) "kinds" are groups of animals of the same design-type, rather than relatedness. This would explain how we can not relate a wildly differing morphology within the same kind.it would be a bit like adoption. The Gentiles are adopted and grafted in. the families of the world would be related by design, rather than biology, although obviously you would have close genetics in the same kind.This doesn't rule out diverse variation within a kind, as I am not claiming that there are any mutations. I am claiming that lots of sorts of species were taken on the ark, but not as many as today, and that from those species you would get variation, and speciation.So then "defining" kinds, and which animal belongs where, would now be moot, because this whole thing about physical appearance can be 1. confusing. and 2. Not relevant.So when you say, "which kind would animal X be in?", you are infact thinking in an evolutionary manner. A vastly different creature might be of the same kind, or might not.Remember - you can't demand that I know all of the kinds because I was not there at the time. There is no cladogram, so to speak, because we are ignorant. Do not use our ignorance to try and prove something, as we are not liars - we cannot pretend to have information we do not have, we can only make conjectural remarks based on the facts.

Hi there.I don't know at all. I can say that however many fitted to the dimensions, as God isn't dumb afterall, but I suspect it will not be a satisfying answer to your question.

Hi mod.Don't be too cynical. Remember, I admitt ignorance of what the original kinds are. it is a bit of the fault of evolutionist and creationist. I have no ill will, but i do have to ponder the facts, and admitt that Genesis could mean a number of things by "kind" or "sort".I can give a solid definition, as being "the original seperate gene pools".But also, evolutionary thinking is very much prevailent but you would have to look at the facts according to the account in the bible.If a "kind" is defined by design, then "change within a kind" would not be relevant in the sense that it is only defined by design.Therefore variation would come from "sorts" of "kinds".I'm having trouble articulating what I mean. apologies.

I cannot not have any predictive power because the facts are posteriori which means that because "Creation" is complete, we do not expect to find new finds.But I can say what would follow, but I already have the facts, so it would be dishonest of me to state it.You see the problem? If I say; "I expect to see variation, caused by NS, but no new organisms."But we already see this, so I would not be in a scientifically perfect position. Nevertheless, the facts fit perfectly with the hypothetic.

But it is based on facts, as far as I know. I only know the facts, and to me it looks like you get variation, the rest is hypothetics, like cladograms??What can I do - lie? We are GENUINELY convinced that variation explains the facts, and even explains them parsimoniously. Why? Because we don't need mutations OR punctuated equilibrium, we only need natural selection acting on gene pools stock with information, whereas evolution requires a mechanism to add the information.Be honest - logically that's neat. I admitt that a theory of creation or bariminology, could not mention God or the bible, but does it really? I don't really need to if all I state is that the information was there.Afterall, you don't have to deal with origins because abiogenesis is a different theory - so why should I?

Hi WK, nice to hear from you.It would take a different perception of DNA. It is not just there for relatedness, if a designer chooses it as one unique means through which you get all life, rather than doing it to a lesser degree.Why would God, Him being clever, indeed the cleverest, make anything other than that which works? It is not efficient, when He can get everything He wants from one invention.I beg to differ with you, I say that this is a sign of brilliance to the extreme. One means by which you get many things. I also think that species would be related by kind, but not by genetics, therefore it would be similar to adoption. Does that strike you as theologically relevant at all?

Hi again Coragyps.There are logical reasons it would help the creationist cause, I have not expounded.It would throw out evolutionary thinking though. What would a "kind" be now? How is change within a kind now interpreted? If you show an ostrich and a robin and ask, "how can they be the same kind?", Well - now they can be the same kind quite easily, if we speculate that wings, and beaks are shared in design rather than genetics. That would mean that a robin could descend from a robin-type "kind" and an ostrich from an ostrich-type "kind" or "sort".I'm only re-reading Genesis, and asking myself if we as creationists, have given good enough answers. I don't think we have tried hard enough to explain variation within a kind.If variation stems from Kind X, then there are problems, because a robin and an ostrich require a hyper-evolution in 4000 odd years. But if we say both are kind X, but sort A and B, then you get a different family tree. But this is a new way of looking at it, I myself am speculating greatly as this is an idea which is forming.

Think of it biblically, even if only for the sake of argument.God, created kinds, and really they are all different genetically, but they could have been created differently. I think it says cattle and beats according to it's kind. Well - aren't they a kind already? So then what is this "every sort" of animal?If God asked me to take of every sort, I wouldn't take an eagle, and say, "well, a robin can fly, and an eagle, so I'll just take an eagle."I think it makes more sense to say that there were already some species at the beginning of time, and that these species were preserved, as it says in the New King James version.So now, variation is only relevant within a sort of kind, so we could explain major differences in the bird kind, because there would be no relatedness.I have drawn a picture of variation. I might post it. Variation, don't forget - is fact. Nobody should dispute variation, only how far variation can go.Thus far creationists have thought simplistically by saying you could take two dogs as the dog kind, male and female, and get all of the dogs we have now. But it may have been that some dogs could never breed with other dogs. Would that NOT explain some of those problems about vastly different species? I think it would because it would mean that you can get two vastly different species of the same kind.Surely one creationist must have thought of this idea before I?

I don't know Faith's arguments much. I am not here to claim omniscience or a great knowledge over anybody else.You have to accept that creationists aren't out to get you, we are people who GENUINELY are convinced that the bible is God's word.Some people can see this, and I have been fortunate in this thread, to debate with rational people who are clever enough to not see any of this at all as a personal war.I cannot state enough how much I do not mean to even offend anyone for their beliefs. If evolution is true, my apologies in advance, that would be something I would feel guilty about for a long, long, time, if there were an eternity.

The logical error, is to make a tree of hypothetics, then say that my theory should predict jumps in that tree.It's the same with the Geologic column, the 25 layers, or whatever it is, has to be assumed, because nowhere on earth are all the layers there, so you now say, "break my layer", when logically I have to firstly assume your layer is a layer.

Biologically incoherent? Expound.I say that DNA does not have to be a record of relatedness.

Ahaha. Assume evolution Mod?You haven't fully understood. Perhaps that's partly my own fault.When we say there are "barriers" you are free to say, "no barriers", but MY POINT is that it is now a vacuous statement, because all of the variation you see would now be answerable by original gene pools, and natural selection.These "barriers" to stop things evolving, in my idea, don't exist, because I am cleverer than that. What I say is, so what if there aren't barriers, as this does not mean evolution happened anymore that with barriers, because you still have to prove that mutations and NS gave every single organism on the planet, despite their OBVIOUS diversity in design.The "design" is what makes evolution theory harder to prove. Always people have tried to get around it, but here I am saying - "there is design", now the burden of proof is to disprove the truism in saying that "there is a different design of wing in a bird, than a bat". That is a barrier! "There is a different design in butterfly wings than bird wings." That is a barrier!Now to draw an imaginery tree of how all creatures are related, with most of that tree being imaginery, is far from proof, when I have powerful facts that confirm that organisms become the same organisms, as with the fossils of bacteria, that don't change, frogs that don't change, crocs, dragon flies, fish......infact just name any species and google it's fossil and you won't find it's ancestor, you'll find it's kind of animal.You make this "kind" thing into a major distraction IMO, because different designs are different kinds. It would be silly to not discern between a dog and a bird. I believe Coragyps' early post gives this claim some confirmation.It's silly to pretend there is no difference in designs. What is more silly is to draw a lineage, no matter how sophisticated, and merely assume it's truth. Are you being wilfully obtuse?There is no need for mutation now, whatsoever, if the design is already present in the Ark. Genesis says, "every bird OF EVERY SORT" was taken aboard the ark. Therefore why would I need mutations, when variation is PROVEN through NS leading to speciation, alone?You see, all of the information needed to get a variety of species, would be present already. Afterall, you are not your mother or your father nor your brother or sister. You get variety which leads to different species. Different shape, different colour different size. But now there would be no problem with saying, "ahh but where does this bird relate to a dove?" Answer; it doesn't, yet it is still a bird by design.So you might say, "how does this process of speciation stop?" But that is a misunderstanding! You are not adding information, you are removing it to get speciation. A species is not NEW information, it is UNIQUE information. The actual facts show that there are no mutations producing different designs, but only natural selection favouring certain traits. So it becomes a misunderstanding to define it according to your own theory, you have to define it according to the facts, that show bacteria becoming bacteria, frogs becoming frogs.. where are the fossils of all of the phylogeny of frogs and bacteria, of which is tangible proof of evolution? If the fossils are a history of time rather than a deluge, then there is just no logical leg to stand on if you don't find the transitionals. So I STICK TO THE TANGIBLE FACTS, and have no reason to believe a naturalist-story, however brilliantly sophisticated it is!You can't steal history from God. This is the science forum, but it's God's world. It's HIM who said according to their kind - not us.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

But it is biblical, I quoted the NKJV bible!>>??It's not obscure, it is infact clarity. The bible shows how you get a big variety of birds, where you might think you "need" an evolution, or that a vast variety shows an evolution. It doesn't, it just shows different ancestors.Think about it. Let's say there was 7 majorly different bird species taken on the Ark. Now if you let those species, with all of those different pieces of information for shape and colour, go out and "ABOUND" on the earth and "multiply" (quoting NKJV), then from one sort alone you would get a whole host of different species, even different from one another, as natural selection would have acted in their various environments, on certain genes.Some birds would have an advantage in smaller stature, others might prevail with longer beaks, and shapes and so forth.A good example is the crocodile. You get those crocs with very short narrow snouts, because they live off fish, but with the bigger Australiam ones like the saltwater abomination, you get a much more ferocious example. But where do I "need" a croc from? Mutations? No! As we would already have crocs! (what about fossil crocs? I predict big ones, small ones, but crocs all the same. My proof is google, have at it!)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's a fallacy of composition.It does not logically follow that because one kind "human", share genes, that all creatures share genes.You are applying a fact in the smaller scale, with the "whole".I could say, because your genes are pretty much the same as mine, on a comparison of species level, that you MUST be my brother. But it does not follow.You have simply conflated the none-importance of "closeness". Our close genes only matter because we are both human. They don't matter because they are similar or almost the same.The difference with different kinds of animals, is that they are not the "same" animal.You ---- me ----- human
frog-----ant ------ ?So it follows that you MUST tautologically, have similar genes, by the fact of us being human, whereas a frog and ant must not.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Modulous, your knowledge isn't enough. You have said things in this post which prove you have not understood what I mean. I feel at this stage, you are not thinking enough, as I have given a fair amount of clear information.You state that the evolutionary model is ok aswell pertaining to cladistics. The difference logically is that in my cladogram I would not assign a genetic relatedness, AND I do not "suppose" transitional species that do not exist.That's a vast difference logically, and yes, even if you can't see it. Because logically there is a difference between starting to make a cake with all of the ingredients, and just starting with one ingredient, and throwing the rest in. Logically, if I start with 100% information, and re-combine that information, I can end up with many, many different cakes - especially if I remove information.As for mutations, there is no mutation that has produced any "new" kind of design that wasn't already there. If there is, as you state, please show this new limb, or gut, or whatever. Yet you can't. All you can do is say that a speciation provides something new, even though the facts show that you come up with something unique, not new. You misunderstand, but I am not reiterating in the understanding that people's perceptions of what I am saying are false, therefore, why entertain them? You have to do some thinking about what I have said. It's the same with Genesis. "Explains" being the operative word. And it remains a "claim", of a theory I am not logically bound to.Your problem is that evolution is hypothetics that assume a great deal, rather than proving a great deal. Logically, to prove mutations and natural selection are responsible, you have to provide an example in the present, of a mutation which produces, in part or in full, a new design in nature.That, however disagreeable to you, is a very, very, very small request made by logic itself.You know that logic permitt science. It does not permitt that elaborate impressive theories rule it out through popular consensus. The seven species is an example. Even with seven species, the diversity you would get is vast, with natural selection. Ironically, that is not a creationist claim, infact it is an evolutionary fact.You are not seemingly able to comprehend how combinations of information can change, especially if you remove information. It does take some thought but any example of natural selection begins with information.This is why a frog will "become" a frog, because you have the genetics for a frog, already. Therefore why do I need mutations for variation of bird, for example.You might say; "this doesn't explain much" -- my answer is that I cannot change history in order to satisfy a certain way of thinking you possess.To get a variety of frog, I firstly need frogs with all of the information to get that variety.If I have a bowl of different coloured balls, then to make a row of blue balls, I need there to be blue balls. If there are no blue balls I need a mutation. But the point is that at the Ark, our "original point of time" so to speak, you would have all of those colours. It would be ludicrous to assume that God did not know how to make the correct dimensions for the Ark if we have already assumed he is God, agree?So if I want hundreds of birds, small differences in species would be explainable easily, and parsimoniously. Big changes would mean a different lineage from a different sort, or kind.But as I have said, variation is proven, I only need mutations to get something "new", but I have the information apriori.As for your example of assuming diversity from one common ancestor, without mutations, logically it does not work, because you start out with zero designs.That is the difference.As for trying to persuade you of something, this topic was at best a speculation. I cannot change you intellectually, where attitude is the problem.Bye for now. I tried a calmer post.