Creationists - what 'kind" are the following?

[Kelp]

Not really a YEC anymore but based on what I was always told, it's something like:

Shiitake mushroom.
White truffle.Bakers yeast.

Fungus kind

Lilac.
Apple tree.
Saguaro cactus.

Plant kind

Scarab beetle.
Tarantula.
Blue crab.

Arthropod kind

Little neck clam.
Humbolt squid.
Banana slug.

Mollusk kind

Dimetrodon.

Dinosaur (reptile?) kind.

Thylacine.

Mammal kind.

Confuciusornis.

Bird kind.

Tough why this would prevent say a Thylacine and a wolf or a squid and a clam from being interfertile, I have no idea. Maybe marsupial and placental (did I already say that once before? My memory is shot but I'm having deja vu) and cephalopods and bivalves being different kinds. Though, are octopi and squids interfertile? I don't think so.

ETA: Oh yes, now I remember the thread where I said that. I'll need to read up on those marsupial vs. placental differences again one of these days.

[USIncognito]

Kelp, without going in to detail because I want to see if any Creationist looks at your response and has a Eureka! moment or gets the point I'm trying to make, thanks for your response because it helps demonstrate what I'm getting at.

Odd how after two days the only two attempted responses are a TE parody and a TE attempting to channel a past self.

[rogue06]

No. There goes the desperate attempt to say biblical kinds are not the right standard for bilogical classification systems.
They are.
Since the fall and so death the whole world has had to adapt to survive. This shatters what things look like and so confuse original kinds.
The snake is case in point. it stayed within kind yet lost its legs and had more differences took over. some squeezers , some spitters, some egg layers, some live birthers and so on. Yet they are the same kind.
Case in point.
From this creationists can extrapolate how all life has at least this room to work with and probably a lot more and yet kind boundaries are maintained.
I insist marsupials and other orders wrongly segregated are the same creatures as placentals.
Just a wee bit of changes.
its up to evolution thumpers to demonstrate the boundaries and origins of life.
Not just guessing or trivial looks like this, looks like that.

So, just how are you know that snakes (which IIRC are an order or a suborder) are a kind and just why aren't these guys included:

Attachment 87766

Ken Ham of AnswersinGenesis (AiG) spoke of “reptile kind” last year even though reptiles represent an entire “class." But snakes are reptiles so shouldn't you be talking about "Reptile Kind" when you speak of snakes?

Finally, do you place beetles (which are represented by 350,000 species) as a distinct kind, that is "Beetle Kind"? Or are they members of the “Insect Kind,” or “Arthropod Kind”?

[Kelp]

You're welcome, USIn. Just to be precise, I'm not totally TE, just leaning that way.

Finally, do you place beetles (which are represented by 350,000 species) as a distinct kind, that is "Beetle Kind"? Or are they members of the “Insect Kind,” or “Arthropod Kind”?

Why would numbers matter?

[rogue06]

You're welcome, USIn. Just to be precise, I'm not totally TE, just leaning that way.

Why would numbers matter?

Just putting it into some sort of perspective. If beetles represent a kind then at the very least that covers 350,000 species. If one pair was aboard an Ark 4500 years ago, there musta been a heck of a lot of splitting into different species going on the moment they debarked. All this suggests that beetles should represent several kinds, meaning that kinds represents sub-species in this case.

But then Ken Ham can speak of Reptile Kind but reptiles represent an entire Class. And some YECs have have called plants (an entire Kingdom) a “kind” while others have declared that segmented worms (Annelida), which represent an entire Phylum*, are merely worm kind.

I take it back. I guess I'm not actually trying to put it perspective but rather make sense of it.




* Just to give you a hint at how asinine this is, humans, along with every other mammal as well as all reptiles, birds, amphibians or anything else with a spinal cord, are all members of the phyla Chordata. And IIRC, Jonathan Wells (author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? and a senior fellow at the Discover Institute) has also claimed in an interview that phyla might represent the original kinds.

[Kelp]

Just putting it into some sort of perspective. If beetles represent a kind then at the very least that covers 350,000 species. If one pair was aboard an Ark 4500 years ago, there musta been a heck of a lot of splitting into different species going on the moment they debarked. All this suggests that beetles should represent several kinds, meaning that kinds represents sub-species in this case.

But then Ken Ham can speak of Reptile Kind but reptiles represent an entire Class. And some YECs have have called plants (an entire Kingdom) a “kind” while others have declared that segmented worms (Annelida), which represent an entire Phylum*, are merely worm kind.

I take it back. I guess I'm not actually trying to put it perspective but rather make sense of it.




* Just to give you a hint at how asinine this is, humans, along with every other mammal as well as all reptiles, birds, amphibians or anything else with a spinal cord, are all members of the phyla Chordata. And IIRC, Jonathan Wells (author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? and a senior fellow at the Discover Institute) has also claimed in an interview that phyla might represent the original kinds.

But there are not a lot of differences between each species of beetle, are there? Speciation to the current number of beetles could have taken thousands of years I suppose.

As for the other stuff, that is pretty messed up, yeah.

[rogue06]

But there are not a lot of differences between each species of beetle, are there? Speciation to the current number of beetles could have taken thousands of years I suppose.

You tell me

[USIncognito]

But then Ken Ham can speak of Reptile Kind but reptiles represent an entire Class. And some YECs have have called plants (an entire Kingdom) a “kind” while others have declared that segmented worms (Annelida), which represent an entire Phylum*, are merely worm kind.

This paragraph is a pretty good summary of what I'm getting at.

Fungi and Plants are kingdoms.
Mollusks and Arthopods are phyla.
Birds and Mammals are classes.
Dimetrodon was a wild card I'll get to below.

If the whole premise of "kinds" is that there is a discernable line between groups that prevents interrelatedness or common descent, why is that line so fuzzy it can apply to any taxon from species to kingdom? If one of the underlying premsises is that "kinds" can interbreed, how then can it apply to, say ferns and conifers, scallops and squids, ostriches and hummingbirds, horsies and moo-cows? What is the explanitory power of "kind" when in order to reconcille the contradictory nature of these two premises Creationists either have to stick with species (which has problems in itself) or pick a taxon out of a hat and randomly apply it as a "kind"?

The difference between "kind" and evolutionary phylogenetics is that the latter not only gives a precise (or at least more precise) definition of what a particular being is, it also explains how they are interrelated.

Let's take the first 3.

Shiitake Mushroom, white truffle and bakers yeast are all fungi. One might be inclined to think that the shiitake and the truffle were more closely related, but actually it's the truffle and the bakers yeast who share a common ancestor at the phylum level, Ascomycota, while shiitake is in phylum Basidiomycota. Obviously a lot of evolution has led to these three species, but they're still related and we can show how.

Next the plants.

Lilacs (a genus) and apples are woody plants that produce flowers and saguaro is a cactus so the first two should be more closely related right? Actually the lilac's common ancestor with the latter two lived in the primordial days when plants hadn't started diversifying. Both apples and saguaro are Magnoliopsida (a class). Apples then decend through a line along with roses while the saguaro comes from the branch that comprises cacti.

Now for the creepy crawlies...

Scarab beetles (and I'm going with the dung beetle superfamily Scarabaeoidea here), tarantulas (family Theraphosidae) and blue crabs (species) are all Arthropods (phylum). Each belongs to a different class - Insects, Arachnids and Crustaceans.

...and the slimy squishies.

Little neck clams (which is a collquialism it turns out {species}), Humbolt squid (species) and banana slugs (genus) are all mollusks (phylum) that are decended, like the above group, through three different classes - Bivalves, Cephalopods and Gastropods.

Which brings us to the vertebrates.

Despite what those bags of small, brightly colored, plastic toy dinosaurs said on the label, Dimetrodon wasn't a dinosaur. It actually is a genus in the lineage from reptiles to mammals. Synapsids give rise to several other clades which eventually result in true mammals including the marsupials like the Thylacine. For Confuciusornis another similar descent (that can befuddle those only familiar with classical Linnean taxonomy) from reptiles through dinosaurs to therapods and then to birds.

Phylogenetic relationships discerned through common ancestry and evolution is, as opposed to the ambiguous "kinds" is specific, informative and explanitory.

[Kelp]

You tell me

I see what you mean. Still, I wonder if they aren't ultimately similar to dog breeds, widely different morphologies but same species.

Though I doubt somehow that natural selection would most likely produce the same kinds of diversity seen from the artificial selection of dogs, at least not in anything like a YEC timeframe.

I guess the question is then, why would a population of something resembling ladybugs or potato beetles need to evolve into hercules beetles or weevils in just a couple of thousand years, even with Robert's "fill up the empty earth" scenario (or whichever way the approximate order went)?

[Jorge]

Shiitake mushroom.
White truffle.
Bakers yeast.
Lilac.
Apple tree.
Saguaro cactus.
Scarab beetle.
Tarantula.
Blue crab.
Little neck clam.
Humbolt squid.
Banana slug.
Dimetrodon.
Thylacine.
Confuciusornis.

Most of these are common and well known beings. To what "kind" do each of them belong?

***********************************************************************************

In typical fashion, you and the rest of your anti-Biblical Creationist twits ask the
wrong question. In order to answer your loaded question, one would first have
to know what the ORIGINAL "kinds" were AS PER GOD's classification system.

That is all that needs to be said here (not that I'm expecting you people to 'get it').

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

***********************************************************************************

In typical fashion, you and the rest of your anti-Biblical Creationist twits ask the
wrong question. In order to answer your loaded question, one would first have
to know what the ORIGINAL "kinds" were AS PER GOD's classification system.

That is all that needs to be said here (not that I'm expecting you people to 'get it').

Jorge

So . . .

What were the "original kinds?"

If the "original kinds" cannot be known, on what grounds can one argue that the "kind" is a boundary to evolution? Does the concept of "kind" have any meaning if the "original kinds" are not just unknown but unknowable?

Further to this, what evolutionary boundaries have not been crossed? Wolves to dogs? Dinosaurs to birds? Fish to tetrapods? It would seem that, by clear and distinct lack of transitions, one could at least postulate what a "kind" consists of.

Creationists want to argue that adaptation can occur "within a kind" but that the "kind" exists as an insurmountable barrier to evolution. Without any sort of definition, however, that restriction becomes meaningless.

—Sam

[USIncognito]

***********************************************************************************

In typical fashion, you and the rest of your anti-Biblical Creationist twits ask the
wrong question. In order to answer your loaded question, one would first have
to know what the ORIGINAL "kinds" were AS PER GOD's classification system.

That is all that needs to be said here (not that I'm expecting you people to 'get it').

Jorge

O.k. We can add Jorge to the list of Creationists who can't answer a very simple question.

Look , this isn't rocket science and the actual answer is right there in your own evasive "response". Either there are discernable "kinds" or there are not. If there are, then the beings I listed should be able to be placed within them. If there are not, then the entire concept is a fraud no amount of handwaving or, well, inconclusive results by Todd Wodd won't change that fact. And here's the main reason I (and others) have been posting lists like this - Creationists claim that "kinds" and baramins" are easy to discern and understand, but they always stick to dogs and cats and other barnyard animals. But when confronted with any being that isn't a horsey or moo cow, they suddenly start handwaving and claiming that "kinds" are impossible to discern or understand.

Why is that Jorge? Why is that?

[ericmurphy]

Also - to reject a system of Kinds as faulty, you'd have to know what the correct system of Kinds is. Are you hiding something?


Magellan

No—we don't know whether the "system of kinds" is faulty, because no creationist can tell us what that system is. It's creationists who are "hiding something."

Here's the problem, Magellan: according to biblical literalists, the Noachian ark contained at least a pair (and in some cases seven pairs) of each "kind" of organism. Well, how many "kinds" were there?

If the number of "kinds" was small, then the amount of evolution required to get to the observed biodiversity from less than 5,000 years ago is immense; far larger than evolutionary theory predicts, and far larger than is compatible with observation.

If the number of "kinds" was large (i.e., if a "kind" equates to a species or a genus), then the ark would have to have been the size of Belgium.

The problem is, creationists won't be pinned down to any definition of what a "kind" is, for exactly this reason. They don't want to get caught between an ark and a hard place.

[ericmurphy]

You're welcome, USIn. Just to be precise, I'm not totally TE, just leaning that way.

Why would numbers matter?

They had to fit on the ark somehow.

[rogue06]

This paragraph is a pretty good summary of what I'm getting at.

Fungi and Plants are kingdoms.
Mollusks and Arthopods are phyla.
Birds and Mammals are classes.
Dimetrodon was a wild card I'll get to below.

If the whole premise of "kinds" is that there is a discernable line between groups that prevents interrelatedness or common descent, why is that line so fuzzy it can apply to any taxon from species to kingdom? If one of the underlying premsises is that "kinds" can interbreed, how then can it apply to, say ferns and conifers, scallops and squids, ostriches and hummingbirds, horsies and moo-cows? What is the explanitory power of "kind" when in order to reconcille the contradictory nature of these two premises Creationists either have to stick with species (which has problems in itself) or pick a taxon out of a hat and randomly apply it as a "kind"?

The difference between "kind" and evolutionary phylogenetics is that the latter not only gives a precise (or at least more precise) definition of what a particular being is, it also explains how they are interrelated.

Let's take the first 3.

Shiitake Mushroom, white truffle and bakers yeast are all fungi. One might be inclined to think that the shiitake and the truffle were more closely related, but actually it's the truffle and the bakers yeast who share a common ancestor at the phylum level, Ascomycota, while shiitake is in phylum Basidiomycota. Obviously a lot of evolution has led to these three species, but they're still related and we can show how.

Next the plants.

Lilacs (a genus) and apples are woody plants that produce flowers and saguaro is a cactus so the first two should be more closely related right? Actually the lilac's common ancestor with the latter two lived in the primordial days when plants hadn't started diversifying. Both apples and saguaro are Magnoliopsida (a class). Apples then decend through a line along with roses while the saguaro comes from the branch that comprises cacti.

Now for the creepy crawlies...

Scarab beetles (and I'm going with the dung beetle superfamily Scarabaeoidea here), tarantulas (family Theraphosidae) and blue crabs (species) are all Arthropods (phylum). Each belongs to a different class - Insects, Arachnids and Crustaceans.

...and the slimy squishies.

Little neck clams (which is a collquialism it turns out {species}), Humbolt squid (species) and banana slugs (genus) are all mollusks (phylum) that are decended, like the above group, through three different classes - Bivalves, Cephalopods and Gastropods.

Which brings us to the vertebrates.

Despite what those bags of small, brightly colored, plastic toy dinosaurs said on the label, Dimetrodon wasn't a dinosaur. It actually is a genus in the lineage from reptiles to mammals. Synapsids give rise to several other clades which eventually result in true mammals including the marsupials like the Thylacine. For Confuciusornis another similar descent (that can befuddle those only familiar with classical Linnean taxonomy) from reptiles through dinosaurs to therapods and then to birds.

Phylogenetic relationships discerned through common ancestry and evolution is, as opposed to the ambiguous "kinds" is specific, informative and explanitory.

:bowline:

:pearl:s