Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question about "kinds"
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 16 of 33 (559655)
05-10-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
05-10-2010 10:07 PM


Re: Just a clarification?
two animals could breed, they were the same kind/family/genus. If they cannot breed, then they are not the same kind/family/genus.
Which brings it back to species. Whether genus or family, members of different species cannot mate and form viable offspring, even those that can produce offspring such as ligons & tigons ( lion & tiger matings), the offspring are mules (sterile hybrids).

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 10:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 3:17 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 33 (559678)
05-11-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluescat48
05-10-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Just a clarification?
bluescat writes:
Which brings it back to species. Whether genus or family, members of different species cannot mate and form viable offspring, even those that can produce offspring such as ligons & tigons ( lion & tiger matings), the offspring are mules (sterile hybrids).
but wouldnt that be more about genetics then genus?
its like the end of the line as far as they can go due to the genes....they've still come from the one family
This is an important difference about the modern definition of 'species' and the ancient idea of a 'kind'
with the ancient definition, there could actually be many species within the one kind. ie, lion, tiger, jaguar, pantha, leopard, cheetah, lynx etc etc etc, If these could all be interbred to produce offspring, then they would all be classed as one 'kind'
And correct me if i'm wrong here, but wouldnt the modern definition say that each of these cats are actually an individual species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2010 11:02 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2010 9:02 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 33 (559679)
05-11-2010 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
05-10-2010 10:10 PM


Coragyps writes:
Leviticus 11 adds the above. I really don't think that there are multiple genera of kites and ravens, at least. That suggests that kind = species.
Oh, and hello, new person!!
Im not saying that God only produced one breeding pair from which all others came. Genesis says he made a 'variety' of different sea, land and flying animals.
So perhaps the raven, kite and vulture were among the variety of different bird kinds....likely there were many more. Also noah had more then one 'kind' of bird on the ark...he had a dove and a raven which indicates that they are of a different family/genus/kind
And me a new person??? i"m confused lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 05-10-2010 10:10 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Huntard, posted 05-11-2010 4:19 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2010 9:37 AM Peg has replied

  
aiki
Member (Idle past 4293 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-28-2010


Message 19 of 33 (559684)
05-11-2010 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
05-10-2010 10:10 PM


Leviticus 11 adds the above. I really don't think that there are multiple genera of kites and ravens, at least. That suggests that kind = species.
There are multiple genera of kites, or what we call kites today anyway, around the world. There are two subfamilies of 'kites' within the very large raptor family Accipitridae, each containing several genera, and these two subfamilies have little more in common with each other than forked or square-tipped tails. Both kite groups are more closely related to various other lineages within the family than they are with each other. This illustrates one of the pitfalls of assuming same English name = same or very similar species. However, based on distribution the Leviticus verse would probably have meant Black Kite (Milvus migrans).
All ravens are in the genus Corvus, but I think there are two contender species for the bible passage - Common and Brown-necked. The bible passage could well have lumped both together.
Edited by aiki, : added a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 05-10-2010 10:10 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 20 of 33 (559685)
05-11-2010 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
05-11-2010 3:27 AM


Peg writes:
And me a new person??? i"m confused lol.
I think he means Flatland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 3:27 AM Peg has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 33 (559707)
05-11-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
05-10-2010 8:48 PM


and become many ... species? /\edited/\
Hi Peg,
no it doest say....
So it is an interpretation of what it says, rather than a declaration of a well defined concept.
...it only says according to its kind (genus).
Hebrew word is leminoh', the greek word is genos and the Latin is genus.
...
being fruitful means to reproduce offspring.
And yet there are no organisms that have not been born from their own type\kind\sort\etc
... With that God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and become many..."
Become many what? Organisms? Species? If there is no restriction of what a breeding population can produce (speciation after speciation after speciation) and the only criteria being that they reproduce and become many, then there is no real conflict with the process of evolution.
Its believed to mean a family kind that can reproduce because in Gen 1:21 it says
I'm not interested in what "Its believed to mean" but what it says. What is the minimal meaning.
/\add edit ---
Message 13: the ancient language says they are both, but you should keep in mind that languages change over time and the scientific definition of today is not the same as what the hebrews had in mind.
I fully concur, and that is why I've asked if kind can be any sort or type etc grouping -- and god made all sorts of creatures\organisms etc ... that then went forth and multiplied and reproduced made many new sorts or types etc groupings of creatures\organisms etc ... all according to plan.
The simple definition of genus back then was that if two animals could breed, they were the same kind/family/genus. If they cannot breed, then they are not the same kind/family/genus.
And this is very similar to how we talk about descent from generation to generation in evolution. As noted by Iblis in Message 15:
Let me just plant the flag of reason again, while I'm thinking of it, and point out that the thing in science that best corresponds to the Biblical concept of "kinds" is the clade.
Clade - Wikipedia
Regardless of what changes they go through over time, all creatures reproduce after their clade. All birds are dinosaurs, no rodents are birds; sugar gliders are not bats, but whales are fish (as are we.)
Again, we have descent and organisms going forth and multiplying and becoming many.
--- end edit\/
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : edited with added material at end

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 8:48 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 22 of 33 (559714)
05-11-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
05-10-2010 10:07 PM


Re: Just a clarification?
Peg,
You diffuse your own argument here. At one point you say. . .
Hebrew word is leminoh', the greek word is genos and the Latin is genus.
then you retort . . .
but you should keep in mind that languages change over time and the scientific definition of today is not the same as what the hebrews had in mind.
By what measure do you claim that the definitions did not change for "kind" before the greek or latin? Before Linnaeus?
You say that the scientific definition is not the same as what the hebrews had in mind. Yet, you try to link the scientific definition with the hebrew word in Genesis. It doesn't work that way. In a proper exegetical study you need to be able to link the historical meaning of a word to its most recent counterpart. Just like I shouldn't go around yelling that I want to round up a "faggot" to burn. (for those unaware, faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks or cigarettes)
In other words, your claim that "kind" denotes organisms that could breed together and produce offspring would result in the definition of species, not genus or family. Not every species pair within a genus can interbreed, therefore they could not be determined as kinds by your definition. You can not claim that the hebrew "kind" means interbreeding pair and genus at the same time. Those two definitions are incompatible in english and latin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 05-10-2010 10:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 9:03 PM misha has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 23 of 33 (559722)
05-11-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
05-11-2010 3:17 AM


Re: Just a clarification?
with the ancient definition, there could actually be many species within the one kind. ie, lion, tiger, jaguar, pantha, leopard, cheetah, lynx etc etc etc, If these could all be interbred to produce offspring, then they would all be classed as one 'kind
The point is that they can't. Sterile hybrids can't mate so there could be no continuation of these.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 3:17 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 9:08 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (559727)
05-11-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
05-11-2010 3:27 AM


Leviticus
Im not saying that God only produced one breeding pair from which all others came. Genesis says he made a 'variety' of different sea, land and flying animals.
Even if he did, there still exists the problem of gathering all these creatures on the Ark due to geographical problem. Were Kodiak bears on board? Was the Platypus there? How about the Walrus?
So perhaps the raven, kite and vulture were among the variety of different bird kinds.
The point is that the Leviticus passage shows different 'kinds' of the same bird which can reproduce together. If that is the case, then the classification of "kinds" is even more obscure and couldn't mean what you say it means.
Leviticus is chock full of nonsense though, so you might be able to make your case there, as it also says you can't eat four-legged insects. Only problem is that there are no 4-legged insects.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 3:27 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 9:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 33 (559855)
05-11-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
05-11-2010 7:42 AM


Re: and become many ... species? /\edited/\
RAZD writes:
So it is an interpretation of what it says, rather than a declaration of a well defined concept.
Not really
The original word for 'kinds' has a meaning, so it is based on that meaning AND it is based on the fact that Genesis says the same 'kinds' could reproduce.
So our interpretation that these 'kinds' could have produced a great variety within its family (what we today call different species of cats for instance) is based on these two facts
RAZD writes:
And yet there are no organisms that have not been born from their own type\kind\sort\etc
keeping in mind the definition of the hebrew 'kind', no. A cat produces a cat, a dog produces a dog, a cow produces a cow
yes the 'variety' of them changes....but they are still the same 'kind' in the hebrew sense of the word.
RAZD writes:
Become many what? Organisms? Species? If there is no restriction of what a breeding population can produce (speciation after speciation after speciation) and the only criteria being that they reproduce and become many, then there is no real conflict with the process of evolution.
genesis uses the specific wording "According to their Kinds"
this means that there is not cross breeding between the different 'kinds'
We cant cross breed a cow with a horse for instance, there is a barrier between the two that cannot be crossed....this is in harmony with what Genesis says : become many 'according to their kinds'
But a horse can go from being a large horse to a small horse, from a black horse to a white horse....the kinds can produce a great variety among themselves....they can change their shapes/sizes/colours/abilities.... this is evolution yes. But they will always be a horse kind.
RAZD writes:
I'm not interested in what "Its believed to mean" but what it says. What is the minimal meaning.
as with the horse example above, each kind will always be the same kind, but the 'variety' of the kind can change.
Gen 1:21 'be fruitful and multiply according to their kind'
RAZD writes:
I fully concur, and that is why I've asked if kind can be any sort or type etc grouping -- and god made all sorts of creatures\organisms etc ... that then went forth and multiplied and reproduced made many new sorts or types etc groupings of creatures\organisms etc ... all according to plan.
yes a kind is every sort of creature God created, however, they could only mulitply with their own kind.
Imagine all the nations of the earth represent each 'kind' that God made. The chinese can reproduce only with other chinese, and the mexicans can only reproduce with other mexicans.
So it is with the genesis kinds. They could only reproduce with the animals within their kind. A tiger could not breed with a moose and a rabbit could not breed with a porcuipine.
RAZD writes:
And this is very similar to how we talk about descent from generation to generation in evolution. As noted by Iblis in Message 15:
Let me just plant the flag of reason again, while I'm thinking of it, and point out that the thing in science that best corresponds to the Biblical concept of "kinds" is the clade.
Clade - Wikipedia
Regardless of what changes they go through over time, all creatures reproduce after their clade. All birds are dinosaurs, no rodents are birds; sugar gliders are not bats, but whales are fish (as are we.)
Again, we have descent and organisms going forth and multiplying and becoming many.
i dont believe that dinosaurs and birds are related. One is cold blooded and one is warm blooded, one has feathers, one does not, birds have to incubate their eggs, dinosaurs did not, bird bones are thin and hollow, dinosaurs are not, they have completely different respritory systems... the differences are so wide that is more like science fiction to say that birds came from dinosaurs.
This is where creation and evolution split apart. The kinds did not interbreed, they did not diverge to become a new kind some stage down the track. A genesis kind will always be a genesis kind. It has the ability (thru genetics) of changing its shape and size ect....but it will always remain a part of the same family kind as God made it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2010 7:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2010 10:07 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 26 of 33 (559857)
05-11-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by misha
05-11-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Just a clarification?
misha writes:
By what measure do you claim that the definitions did not change for "kind" before the greek or latin? Before Linnaeus?
the greek & latin words are what was used in the translation of the bible from the old hebrew into the modern languages of the day. When i say the modern languages of the day, i dont mean OUR day....i mean at the time the hebrew was translated. The greek septuagint was translated around 2 BCE and the latin came a few hundred years later. So thats almost 2,000 years ago.
Modern science is really only a few hundred years old, so our modern definition has only arisen in very VERY recent times. Its fairly pointless to apply the modern definition to the definition from over 2,000 years ago. They are different. Understanding the difference helps to clear up the misunderstanding.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by misha, posted 05-11-2010 8:42 AM misha has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 33 (559859)
05-11-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bluescat48
05-11-2010 9:02 AM


Re: Just a clarification?
bluescat48 writes:
The point is that they can't. Sterile hybrids can't mate so there could be no continuation of these.
hybrids are not the issue.
The fact that the lion and tiger can breed and produce anything shows that they are the same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2010 9:02 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 33 (559862)
05-11-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Leviticus
Hyroglyphx writes:
The point is that the Leviticus passage shows different 'kinds' of the same bird which can reproduce together. If that is the case, then the classification of "kinds" is even more obscure and couldn't mean what you say it means.
thats exactly what the genesis definition means....animals of the same 'kind' could reproduce together.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Leviticus is chock full of nonsense though, so you might be able to make your case there, as it also says you can't eat four-legged insects. Only problem is that there are no 4-legged insects.
the bible writer used plenty of expressions that are not literal...like the 4 corners of the earth for instance. Moses could have been describing insects as crawling around on all fours the way other animals do....or he may have been refering to the locusts who have two leaper legs for jumping and four other legs they use when crawling... perhaps moses was describing that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2010 9:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 29 of 33 (559871)
05-11-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
05-11-2010 8:55 PM


Re: and become many ... species? /\edited/\
Hi Peg, thanks.
The original word for 'kinds' has a meaning, so it is based on that meaning AND it is based on the fact that Genesis says the same 'kinds' could reproduce.
So our interpretation that these 'kinds' could have produced a great variety within its family (what we today call different species of cats for instance) is based on these two facts
And yet, curiously, I still don't see how this distinguishes "kind" from "sort" or "type" or other words of similar intent to designate a group of organisms that reproduce among themselves. In biology we say that "evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation" and implicit in this is that the breeding population is a set of organisms of the same type/sort/kind/etc.
keeping in mind the definition of the hebrew 'kind', no. A cat produces a cat, a dog produces a dog, a cow produces a cow
yes the 'variety' of them changes....but they are still the same 'kind' in the hebrew sense of the word.
Again I refer you to cladistics. Evolution in general, and cladistics in particular say that all descendants of {X} will always be descendants of {X}. Yes there will be variation from generation to generation, but they are still descendants of {X}. They are still members of the same clade, in the scientific sense of the word.
genesis uses the specific wording "According to their Kinds"
this means that there is not cross breeding between the different 'kinds'
We cant cross breed a cow with a horse for instance, there is a barrier between the two that cannot be crossed....this is in harmony with what Genesis says : become many 'according to their kinds'
But a horse can go from being a large horse to a small horse, from a black horse to a white horse....the kinds can produce a great variety among themselves....they can change their shapes/sizes/colours/abilities.... this is evolution yes. But they will always be a horse kind.
Amazingly, once again, this is no different than what evolution, in general, and cladistics, in particular, state: species only breed within the population, not with organisms from other species populations. Descendants will always be members of the same clade as their parents. The clades can produce a great variety among themselves....they can change their shapes/sizes/colours/abilities.... this is evolution yes. But they will always be a member of the (horse/equid/mammal) clade.
as with the horse example above, each kind will always be the same kind, but the 'variety' of the kind can change.
Gen 1:21 'be fruitful and multiply according to their kind'
Again this is what evolution says as well. Each clade will always be the same clade, but the 'variety' of the clade can change, they will multiply according to their clade.
yes a kind is every sort of creature God created, however, they could only mulitply with their own kind.
Imagine all the nations of the earth represent each 'kind' that God made. The chinese can reproduce only with other chinese, and the mexicans can only reproduce with other mexicans.
So it is with the genesis kinds. They could only reproduce with the animals within their kind. A tiger could not breed with a moose and a rabbit could not breed with a porcuipine.
Incredibly, evolution says the same thing. We agree that a tiger could not breed with a moose and a rabbit could not breed with a porcupine. In evolution we say that these groups (moose, rabbit, tiger, porcupine, etc) are reproductively isolated organisms.
We also see that breeding populations can divide into two or more reproductively isolated populations that then continue to reproduce after their type/sort/kind/etc. within each daughter population, but no longer with members of the other daughter population. This is speciation, it has been observed, it is a biological fact, but both daughter populations are still members of the same clade as the parent population. They are fruitful, they have reproduced, they have become many.
i dont believe that dinosaurs and birds are related. ...
Sadly, for you, what you believe is irrelevant. Belief and opinions are not able to alter reality in any way.
One is cold blooded and one is warm blooded, one has feathers, one does not, birds have to incubate their eggs, dinosaurs did not, bird bones are thin and hollow, dinosaurs are not, they have completely different respritory systems... the differences are so wide that is more like science fiction to say that birds came from dinosaurs.
The evidence says otherwise. The evidence says that dinosaurs were warmblooded, that some had feathers and similar respiratory systems to birds, complete with hollow bones. Alligators have a similar system:
(google :alligator lungs: lucky pick):
http://news.discovery.com/...-lungs-dinosaurs-dominance.html
quote:
Alligators have a one-way path for breathing that is similar to birds', new research shows. The findings, published in the Jan. 15 Science, could explain how dinosaurs' ancestors rose to prominence.
But a structural similarity in the way birds' and alligators' bronchi branch through the lungs caught Farmer's attention.
"If you look at the alligator lung, it's not hard to see how small modifications in this design could potentially lead to an avian lung," she says.
The finding could mean that this mode of breathing is far older than scientists suspected and that it may have helped archosaurs, the common forebearers of birds, alligators and dinosaurs, rise to a dominant ecological niche millions of years ago.
The Science Journal article is here:
Just a moment...
Science 15 January 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5963, pp. 338 - 340
DOI: 10.1126/science.1180219
This is where creation and evolution split apart. The kinds did not interbreed, ...
And yet, intriguingly, evolution also says that different species do not interbreed, that they only breed within their kind\type\sort of species.
... they did not diverge to become a new kind some stage down the track.
Nor does evolution say that they become a new clade divorced from their parent clade at some stage down the track. They diverge into reproductively isolated daughter populations within the parent clades, but they are still (and always will be) members of the parent clades.
This same divergence into reproductively isolated daughter populations must also hold for creationists, as otherwise you don't have one kind (sort\type\group\etc) of cats, as you said:
So our interpretation that these 'kinds' could have produced a great variety within its family (what we today call different species of cats for instance) ...
A genesis kind will always be a genesis kind.
Indeed. A scientific clade will always be a scientific clade.
It has the ability (thru genetics) of changing its shape and size ect....but it will always remain a part of the same family kind as God made it.
It has the ability (thru genetics) of changing its shape and size etc ... but it will always remain a part of the same scientific clade as God made it.
Again, I don't see "kind" as any special designation of a group of animals or that cladistics in particular, and evolution in general, is a problem for this.
Species reproduce after their own kind\type\sort\etc and are fruitful and multiply and become many, including many new species that are still (and always will be) members of the same clade as their parent species.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 05-11-2010 8:55 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 05-12-2010 6:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 33 (559948)
05-12-2010 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
05-11-2010 10:07 PM


Re: and become many ... species? /\edited/\
RAZD writes:
And yet, curiously, I still don't see how this distinguishes "kind" from "sort" or "type" or other words of similar intent to designate a group of organisms that reproduce among themselves.
the bible isnt a scientific book so its doesnt go into great detail and the only distinction that it does make is that some, lets say cats, were 'domestic cat kinds' and others 'wild cat kinds'.
from the first wildcat kinds, come all the variety of wildcat kinds and vice versa.
RAZD writes:
Again I refer you to cladistics. Evolution in general, and cladistics in particular say that all descendants of {X} will always be descendants of {X}. Yes there will be variation from generation to generation, but they are still descendants of {X}. They are still members of the same clade, in the scientific sense of the word.
how does this idea fit with Darwins theory of the origin of species?
RAZD writes:
Amazingly, once again, this is no different than what evolution, in general, and cladistics, in particular, state: species only breed within the population, not with organisms from other species populations. Descendants will always be members of the same clade as their parents. The clades can produce a great variety among themselves....they can change their shapes/sizes/colours/abilities.... this is evolution yes. But they will always be a member of the (horse/equid/mammal) clade.
earlier someone commented that birds are decendents of dinosaurs...how does this idea fit in with clades?
RAZD writes:
Again this is what evolution says as well. Each clade will always be the same clade, but the 'variety' of the clade can change, they will multiply according to their clade.
i completey agree. However, I think creationists have a problem with the evolutionary view that all the clades orginally decended from some other clade. Darwin said he did not view each species as a special creation but as decendents from just a few species.
I see you mention dinosaurs and birds, yet that kind of contradicts your explaination of the clades...this is what i dont understand. Scientists have learned that animals reproduce after their clades, and these clades produce variety (speciation?) and they can only breed with each other etc etc
but its still accepted that a clade will eventually become something completely different, such as a dinosaur to a bird
???
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2010 10:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 05-12-2010 7:25 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2010 8:22 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 33 by bluescat48, posted 05-12-2010 11:00 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024