Question about "kinds"

Hi Peg, Does genesis say what a kind is?Enjoy.

---

Hi Peg, So it is an interpretation of what it says, rather than a declaration of a well defined concept. And yet there are no organisms that have not been born from their own type\kind\sort\etc 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. I'm not interested in what "Its believed to mean" but what it says. What is the minimal meaning./\add edit --- 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. And this is very similar to how we talk about descent from generation to generation in evolution. As noted by Iblis in Message 15: 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

---

Hi Peg, thanks. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Sadly, for you, what you believe is irrelevant. Belief and opinions are not able to alter reality in any way. 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 And yet, intriguingly, evolution also says that different species do not interbreed, that they only breed within their kind\type\sort of species. 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: Indeed. A scientific clade will always be a scientific clade. 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.

---

Hi Peg, thanks. Agreed, however this strikes me as more of an argument for kind = sort = type = group, with no specific meaning other than saying there are different types of animals. Is this specific in the bible? Or are we talking interpretation again? Either way we still have clades of animals descendant from parent populations. Have you read Origin of Species? It is available on-line at
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&...
they have each edition on-line, so you can look at the differences.Darwin talked about descent of species from common ancestors, and this is what clades document. The theory is that new daughter species are the result of descent with modification from parent species due to natural selection occurring in different ecologies, and resulting in reproductive isolation. Again, this has been observed to occur: new species have been observed to develop in this manner. The idea of clades is that all descendants of a parent species are members of the same clade.

                         |
|
^ a
/ \
/   \
/     ^ b
c ^     / \
/ \   /   \
/   |  |    ^ d
e ^    |  |   / \
/ \   |  |  /   ^ f
/   \  |  |  |  / \ 

This is all one clade -- all lineages at the bottom are descendant from the parent population (a) at the top. It also has two clades that are sub-categories of the main clade, one to the right side and one to the left side: each lineage at the bottom right are descendant from the right branch (b) at the top, and each lineage at the bottom left are descendant from the left branch (c) at the top. You also have sub-clades (d), (e) and (f), and all of these clades form a nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors. That is what the evidence shows. And evolutionary biologists would have trouble with that view as well. The evolutionary view is that sub-category clades are descendant from a parent population that forms an overall parent clade that includes all the descendants from the parent populations. The process of forming branches by speciation and subsequent sub-category clades by further branching via descent and speciation, in an on-going process. Darwin hypothesized that all clades could be related by parent populations. The question is not what the theory says, but what the evidence shows: if the evidence shows nested hierarchies of descent from parent populations, then this conforms to the concept of descent from common ancestors, and the formation of clades, with sub-clades and parent clades. Clades can be classified from taking a specific parent population and then following the evidence to all the extinct and living descendant branches, but they can also be found by looking up to parent populations to see what previous species the specific population has descended from. See the diagram above again: clades are nested inside clades, with each clade being defined by a specific parent population, where subsequent descendants are members of that clade. Draw a horizontal line through the diagram at any level, and each of the populations at that line only breed with members of their breeding population. We see this today, where the current horizontal line is today. Again, this is a matter of what the evidence shows, and whether that evidence conforms to the concept of clades or contradicts it. When we talk about the future there is no indication of what will occur, no need for "completely different" change to occur, but also no impediment to contining change. When we talk about the past, the question is what the evidence actually shows. When I was in high school, birds were not considered\thought to be descendant from dinosaurs, but recent fossil evidence shows a clear pattern of descent from specific parent populations that were descended from dinosaurs.The problem you have is not what the theory of evolution says, rather it is what the evidence says.Enjoy.

---