Problems of a different "Kind"

The Bible tells us that creatures reproduce after their own kind, and even without a firm definition of kind I think this is something we can all agree with. True, there are saltationist exceptions such as polyploidy in the plant kingdom, but these could still be interpreted as reproducing after their own kind.But the Bible also tells us that offspring are not identical to their parents. Offspring differ from their parents, and the offspring's offspring differ further still. While we all agree that creatures do reproduce after their own kind, there's no Biblical requirement that they reproduce after their own kind from a thousand generations ago, and they don't. They reproduce after the kind of the parents, just as the Bible says, but not after the kind of the ancient ancestors, concerning which the Bible is silent and offers no prohibition.--Percy

Hi IamJoseph,Are you aware you're replying to yourself? Again and again? While quoting from messages from other people, like me and Kuresu? Yes, precisely. Offspring are the same kind as their parents, just as the Bible says. But they are also individuals in their own right and not identical to their parents, just as you say. And the Biblical stricture is that offspring be the same kind as the parents, but it places no requirement that they be the same kind as ancient ancestors.In other words, since offspring are different from their parents, and since the offspring's offspring are even more different from the original parents, and so forth through time, considerable differences from the original parents will accumulate over the generations. And the Bible places no restriction on this process.--Percy

The link describes a genetic engineering experiment, not a saltationist event.--Percy

Hi IamJoseph,This thread is seeking a clear and relatively unambiguous definition of kind. This definition doesn't have to be perfect. Like the biological definitions of species, there will be corner cases that are difficult to classify.When lay evolutionists want to present the biological definition of species at a detailed level, at a level beyond just saying that it's a population of interbreeding organisms, they can go to any number of books and websites to find such definitions stated in a clear and relatively unambiguous way.When lay creationists want to present the creationist definition of kind, even just a simple one, they're on their own. No concerted creationist effort has ever been expended on this basic prerequisite of research, defining fundamental concepts like "kind". Because of this, there is no definition of kind that lay creationists can look up by reading creationist books and pamphlets, or by watching creationist videos, or by visiting creationist websites.So this thread is actually making several points. The obvious one is that lay creationists are ill prepared for creating a definition of kind. Another is that the Biblical concept of kind is fraught with problems.But the most significant point this thread makes is that even premier creation scientists like Morris and Gish and Austin and Wells and so forth haven't bothered to define kind. This is because creationism isn't a research effort, but a character assassination effort directed against evolution. With no research arrows in the quill yet nonetheless spurred on by creationist books, videos and websites, lay creationists march into battle unarmed. Threads like this are the result.--Percy