Define "Kind"

No, no they don't want that! There is a trap in this whole thing. Kind can not be so general as to include chimps and humans in one kind. (ID'ers mostly, I think, do that but that is a different question as ID'ers are (mostly, I think ) really in effectively TOTAL agreement with ALL the understood natural history of life on earth.)It appears, to the cynical, that various proponents of the idea of "kinds" are actually trying very hard to not define the word. As soon as it is possible to determine what "kind" is in a very clear, operational way then one of two things happens:1) Kinds are "ungeneral" enough (below the family level) that we can see examples of them arising and "macro evolution" is proved.2) Kinds are general enough that it requires inferences from historical evidence to determine that they arise. Macroevolution is not "proven". But, oh dear, chimps are humans are the same "kind". The only way out of this is to then just arbitrarily define humans and chimps as different kinds with a wholly and very obviously ad-hoc "fix" which then destroys the "science" that they are claiming to be putting forward.The remaining choice is to continue to claim that "kinds" are inviolate but never,even when pressed to, define them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-21-2006 11:06 AM

I might not that I said Chimps and not "monkeys" and there is a big difference but that is a nitpick right now.That is the problem. If you want to make the above statement then you have to make the definition of kind very "ungeneral" and we then see it arising or have very good evidence for the boundary being crossed. Specifically we see the arising of humans from not-so-humans.It appears that the only way out of this connundrum is to NOT have a "good" -- that is a general, "operational definition" (google that ) of "kind". Your are proving the point with your above comment.There is not and never will be a useful defition of "kind". It is equivalent to the whole "ID" thing being raised to just hide creationism. It is one of a number of attempts to appear to be scientific and therefore hope to wedge into science classes. It is not an actual, honest attempt to be really scientific in any way.

Since this is all based on genetics your distinction between other primates and humans goes away. The "kind" must be based on that too and so chimps and humans become one kind.

But other than superficial appearance you know nothing at all about bears, racoons, humans or other apes so there is no way for you to arrive at any well-founded conclusion.It would be, however, interesting for you to list the similarities you find on both sides.

What? Do you have something to support this?

But this whole site and discussion exists because there are those who claim to be (Institute for Creation Research, e.g.) scientists examining these issues.They are the ones who should have, by now, made some progress on this subject. I gave you the reasons (mine anyway ) why they are not making any progress on the topic at all.Other than giving up on denying speciation and moving kinds up a couple of taxonomic levels they don't seem to be managing to accomplish anything after decades. A reasonable conclusion is that there will be no progress.

It might be useful to clarify then:You don't agree with the majority of creationist organizations as to what a kind might be or what went on the ark?

It appears that you are gradually getting further and further from them but then there seem to be more ideas about this than there are creationists so I suppose you might be in agreement with one somewhere.

That is not the reason they avoid it. They used to deny speciation. The evidence backed most of them into a corner so they moved off that term onto something undefined.

There is no problem understanding what the Biblical writers meant by "kind". It is clear both from the examples they give and what we can infer about their knowledge based on what they would have observed."Kind" is precisely the biological species concept. They observed that different kinds do not interbreed and that a kind breeds true. That is what casual observation shows.However, it is not correct over the longer term. They were wrong.