On "Kinds" vs Species

[Dustnite]

I get why creationists try to define things differently, it's required in order to be willfully ignorant of the theory of evolution. I'm questioning why anyone would think that using the word "kind" while referring to what evolution actually does is persuasive at all.

I saw this argument online recently and it reminded me of one of our member's feeble attempts at understanding evolution:

Pyre Spirit

"If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys."

If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

mike edwards

monkeys to man is Another kind, Europeans to Americans are the same kind (species) next..........

Pyre Spirit

Define "kind"


mike edwards

What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man- made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand.


Pyre Spirit

"The concept is fairly easy to understand."

Then why can't you explain it?

You still haven't explained what it is. You've said that "a quick measure of kind is things that can breed together."

But that's still not a definition of what kind is.

Now we can have a thread debunking "kinds" yet again or abel can come on here and try to correct this definition, but it struck me that a wall of text was needed to explain what a "kind" is and still didn't make any fucking sense. I've seen some on here be absolute sticklers to definitions used and others who say definitions are not necessary to explain evolution, etc.

In my opinion, you cannot even have a fruitful conversation unless you can agree on definitions of what you are talking about. I would also add that most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive so it is also important to agree with how another person is defining their terms.

Does anyone have a better method in getting past this obvious hurdle for people like abel, creationists or should we always just hammer it home?

 

[SpecialFrog]

I've never seen a creationist able to define kind except by example. I think most kind of know they can't but they just follow what William Jennings Bryan said and say, "I don't think about the things I don't think about."

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have mused on this problem before and the main point is that the species problem is not equal to the kinds problem.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It really does not matter to me whether you call them " kinds" or "species" .I'm not really concerned with getting into off topics that are not important.My point is whether you want to call them "kinds" or "species" the only thing we really see and observe with life is either reproduction or adaptation.Getting hung up on "kinds" or " species" is not important at all.The only thing we need is evidence that demonstrates life evolves or not and I say you don't. So it still makes no difference to me whether you call them "kinds" or " species".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Can we have some new chew toys please? This one's fucked.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Dustnite said:

Now we can have a thread debunking "kinds" yet again or abel can come on here and try to correct this definition, but it struck me that a wall of text was needed to explain what a "kind" is and still didn't make any fucking sense. I've seen some on here be absolute sticklers to definitions used and others who say definitions are not necessary to explain evolution, etc.

In my opinion, you cannot even have a fruitful conversation unless you can agree on definitions of what you are talking about. I would also add that most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive so it is also important to agree with how another person is defining their terms.

Does anyone have a better method in getting past this obvious hurdle for people like abel, creationists or should we always just hammer it home?

You are going to look at it from a non-biblical way and so you won't use the word "kind" instead you're going to go by what science claims is a "species" based on the theory of evolution.So why really get hung up on this? Not everybody believes life evolves and so determining what a "species" is based on the theory of evolution creates an impossible barrier.I want to break down this barrier and discuss what is important.

 

[Dustnite]

I think we're beating a dead horse trying by trying to dissect someone's gish gallop instead of attacking the original problem of a creationist's ignorance of the facts.

Why bother discussing evidence with someone that doesn't even have a consistent standard for evidence. What's the point in talking with someone that doesn't even agree on the language you are using.

Talking to someone like Abel is a waste of time. I know the forums have been dead lately but come on guys...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Talking to someone like Abel is a waste of time. I know the forums have been dead lately but come on guys...

I could not have said that better myself.

 

[tuxbox]

Be nice everyone. hehe

 

[Visaki]

It really does not matter to me whether you call them " kinds" or "species" .I'm not really concerned with getting into off topics that are not important.My point is whether you want to call them "kinds" or "species" the only thing we really see and observe with life is either reproduction or adaptation.Getting hung up on "kinds" or " species" is not important at all.The only thing we need is evidence that demonstrates life evolves or not and I say you don't. So it still makes no difference to me whether you call them "kinds" or " species".

Apart from the thing that you have defined "kind" in such a way that it can mean anything from species to kingdom and thus is totally useless as a term, are you now claiming that if life reproduces it can't adapt? Because that's totally boinkers.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I've posted before, Senter showed that "kinds" - even according to creationists' definition - doesn't work.

It really does not matter to me whether you call them " kinds" or "species" .I'm not really concerned with getting into off topics that are not important.My point is whether you want to call them "kinds" or "species" the only thing we really see and observe with life is either reproduction or adaptation.Getting hung up on "kinds" or " species" is not important at all.The only thing we need is evidence that demonstrates life evolves or not and I say you don't. So it still makes no difference to me whether you call them "kinds" or " species".

You've mentioned this before, and I agree with Visaki.

Reproduction, on its own without adaptation, is essentially parthenogenesis (for all intents and purposes, cloning): however, there is always a copying error and/or mutation.

Adaptation, on its own without reproduction, only occurs where either the adaptation is maladaptive - resulting in the life-form's death before it can breed - and/or, where the life-form doesn't get to breed during its life, thus failing to pass on its adaptation.

Adaptation and reproduction is the normal state of affairs - to claim otherwise is literally stupid.

There is no "barrier" to chemistry, as I keep telling you, therefore, there's nothing to stop one "kind/species" from becoming a new "kind/species".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[IBSpify]

It really does not matter to me whether you call them " kinds" or "species" .I'm not really concerned with getting into off topics that are not important.My point is whether you want to call them "kinds" or "species" the only thing we really see and observe with life is either reproduction or adaptation.Getting hung up on "kinds" or " species" is not important at all.The only thing we need is evidence that demonstrates life evolves or not and I say you don't. So it still makes no difference to me whether you call them "kinds" or " species".

actually it does mater because the creationists typically claim kinds and species are not the same thing, because we have witnessed speciation, which if they were the same thing would mean we have witnessed one kind becoming another kind.

The reason you can never pin a creationist down to a definition of kind is because if they defined the term then it could and would be shown to not be a barrier to evolution, so they continue to keep the term vague.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It really does not matter to me whether you call them " kinds" or "species" .I'm not really concerned with getting into off topics that are not important.My point is whether you want to call them "kinds" or "species" the only thing we really see and observe with life is either reproduction or adaptation.Getting hung up on "kinds" or " species" is not important at all.The only thing we need is evidence that demonstrates life evolves or not and I say you don't. So it still makes no difference to me whether you call them "kinds" or " species".

actually it does mater because the creationists typically claim kinds and species are not the same thing, because we have witnessed speciation, which if they were the same thing would mean we have witnessed one kind becoming another kind.

The reason you can never pin a creationist down to a definition of kind is because if they defined the term then it could and would be shown to not be a barrier to evolution, so they continue to keep the term vague.

See my post above where Senter has shown that even creationists' own definition fails to prevent "kinds" breeding other "kinds".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[malicious_bloke]

Kind is a term of convenience, nothing more.

Creationists will define it in one way so that it's *almost* synonymous with species then in the next breath turn round and lump two organisms from completely different phyla together so "kind" leaps upwards to become synonymous with Domain...cyanobacteria and e-coli are *still bacteria*, folks.

Rigour and accuracy are godless commie words.