.... according to its kind

[Micaiah]

20Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Scripture clearly teaches that God created the plants and animals 'according to their kind'. What does this mean? Is this in any way compatible with evolution? Does it rule out evolution altogether? Is there any evidence that animals and plants have evolved from one kind to another?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'd like to see, once and for all, the term "kind" defined in a manner that actually separates different animals into distinct, recognizable groupings (and, of course, provide all the criteria for these distinctions). Until that's done, using the term "kind" is too ambiguous to have meaning in a debate.

 

[seebs]

No one has ever been able to provide a meaningful definition of "kind". There is substantial evidence showing gradual but massive changes in all life forms, over a long period of time.

It seems to me that the "according to its kind" thing is probably a linguistic curiousity that does not relate to any concept we could do much with in trying to understand the physical world.

 

[Jerry Smith]

With the help of Blueletterbible.org's on-line Strong's Concordance, I have looked at how this phrase "according to its kind" is used in the few places it appears in the old testament. My conclusion:

It could just as well be translated as "along with those like them".

Just a note: I didn't realize that Strong's was beholden to the creationist groups, but they did give a kind of funny explanation of "kind":

1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)
++++
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they
have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not
preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the
original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A
new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding
occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a
further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Of course, to the scientifically minded, this definition places all living organisms within the same "kind", so that "kind" could just be a synonym for "all of life".

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Scripture clearly teaches that God created the plants and animals 'according to their kind'. What does this mean?

In reality, you'd have to ask the Ancient Hebrews who composed Genesis what they meant. However, it appears that "kind" is synonymous with what we would roughly call "species." This is because in the story of Noah, he was ordered to gather up breeding pairs of each kind (at least of the unclean kinds), which is virtually synonymous with the basis behind the Biological Species Concept. "Kinds" represent what we biologists call "Folk Species." Both creation stories in Genesis, show that the ancient Hebrews believed that each species was created separately and specially. Creationists, when faced with the reality of evolution and the impossibility that Noah could have collected pairs of every species on the planet, now insist that "kind" actually refers to higher taxonomic groups. They say that Noah actually only carried breeding pairs representing each of these higher taxonomic groups, like "proto-canines" or "proto-monkeys," which later speciated into what we see today. Regardless of the biological impossibility of this, there is still no indication at all in Genesis for this. You can look for yourself, no mention at all in Genesis of speciation or anything remotely similar to it. (Once again self professed biblical "litteralists" deviate from the bible.)

In fact, you can look at the first nine chapters of Genesis and realize that aside form human hardships, the Ancient Hebrews invisioned a pre-flood world just like ours. Specifically, the creatures that existed before the flood are not different then the ones existing today (or rather known to the ancient hebrews.) Here are a couple of creatures specifically mentioned in the flood story: humans, cattle, ravens, doves, and olive trees. Now, if the creationist interpretation is right then they should not be reconizable to us or at least be very, very generic, but they're not.

Is this in any way compatible with evolution?

Special creation is not and was disproved over a hundred years ago.

Does it rule out evolution altogether? Is there any evidence that animals and plants have evolved from one kind to another?

Taking "kind" to be a biologically significant meaning like "classification," then, no. Creatures don't evolve out of their kind. Dogs don't evolve into cats. Cows don't evolve into horses. Descent with modification (evolution) doesn't cause creatures--used as a group noun refering to a population of individuals--to evolve out of their current type and into another one. They always evolve a new classification in addition to their ancestral one. In other words, dogs are still canines; cats are still felines; both are still carnivores. Likewise, humans are still hominins, hominids, primates, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes. See the Tree of Life for more information.

Now many creationists chose to define "kind" as "a group of organisms related by common ancestry (to an originally created set)." The trick of creationists is to show that more than one such "kind" exists on this planet.

Here is an interesting paper from over 20 years ago that addresses many of the main creationist claims about kinds. If it still sounds current, then it is because creationists haven't changed their tune, despite obvious problems with it.

 

[LightBearer]

I posted this in Topic "Noah and the flood, fact or fantasy" post #155. But then noticed that this Topic deals with the subject direct so I thought I'd post it here too.

The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that God created earth's living things "according to their kinds." (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created "kinds," which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring "according to their kind" in a fixed, orderly manner. Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term "species" has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word "kind." The basic meaning of "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds."

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds," there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created "kinds" would interfere with God's purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created "kinds," each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other "kinds."

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a "kind." This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline "kind." The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each "kind." But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these "kinds" can commingle genetically.

Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible's history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days. Ge 1:20-25.

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different "kinds," since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.

Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds." Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving "kinds" have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of God. Isa 55:8-11.

 

[Micaiah]

These responses have been thought provoking. Thanks.

Lightbearer - I can't add to your comprehensive post.

Rufus - You seem to have a better grasp of the issues than many Christians I've met. The following comment was spot on.

In reality, you'd have to ask the Ancient Hebrews who composed Genesis what they meant.

I had a look at Strong's concordance for the meaning of the word 'kind'. He gives species as an english equivalent.

The Hebrew word is 'min'. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I did note that there were three variations on 'min' in the concordance. Two of the words have a similar Hebrew form, with the first form showing a little ' in the middle of the word which is absent in the second.

I counted 30 references where this first Hebrew word is used. They are all used with reference to kinds of plants or animals.

There is also another Hebrew word for kind given the meaning of species, but that refers to different types of musical instruments. Just thought you'd be interested.


I'd like to hear someone with a good grasp of Hebrew comment on this one.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LightBearer
The Biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

If "kinds" are defined by fertilization barriers then scientists have observed the evolution of many new "kinds." Even a lax reading of a biology textbook would let you know that. My favorite example are the Mosquitoes in the London subway system. They have descended from the surface variety in the last hundred years, but can no longer breed with them. Therefore, they are a new kind since fertilization has ceased to occur.

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds,"

I see no mention at all in the Bible about variation or diveristy within a kind. What part of the "bible cration record" do you get that from?

there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period.

Well, such biological theories don't exist since "kinds" is not a scientific term.

The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed.

See above.

Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created "kinds," each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other "kinds."

Really? Then how come we can recognize that nature is structured hierarchicly.

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants.

So what? Humans still continue to be humans, hominins, hominids, primates, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes. Dogs still contine to be dogs, canines, carnavores, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes. Cats still continue to be cats, felines, carnavores, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes.

Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a "kind." This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the "kinds" in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life.

You do realize that sterility has been observed to develop between two populations descended from an ancestral population. (Just take the mosquito example again.) Thus if that is you test for determining barriers between kinds, then there is no way to avoid the evolution of new kinds.

For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created "kind."

Really? I've always wondered if such a study has been done. Where is you reference that human and chimp hybridization has been tested? I'd really like to read it.

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new "kind," in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same "kind," such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

You should check your citation be cause it is wrong. You also are bearing false witness about Darwin's writtings. Here is the entire paragraph, note how Darwin explains his observation via natural selection. Not only is it not a problem with evolution, but good evidence for it.

IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species (1st edition), Ch 9, pg 1.)

You can read more of his statement by clicking here.

Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth.

Well if you know how many of them there are then you should be able to answer the questions found at the bottom of my post.

Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic "kinds" emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their "kinds."

So "dove," "raven," and "olive" are basic kinds? What did they diversify into?

1. Do mammals constitute a kind? If not how many mammal kinds are there?
2. How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid.
3. Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
4. Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?
5. Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
6. If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind?
7. How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this?
8. Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty?

Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be unchangeable or fixed anymore. In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs. If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor. The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
If "kinds" are defined by fertilization barriers then scientists have observed the evolution of many new "kinds." Even a lax reading of a biology textbook would let you know that. My favorite example are the Mosquitoes in the London subway system. They have descended from the surface variety in the last hundred years, but can no longer breed with them. Therefore, they are a new kind since fertilization has ceased to occur.



I see no mention at all in the Bible about variation or diveristy within a kind. What part of the "bible cration record" do you get that from?



Well, such biological theories don't exist since "kinds" is not a scientific term.



See above.



Really? Then how come we can recognize that nature is structured hierarchicly.



So what? Humans still continue to be humans, hominins, hominids, primates, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes. Dogs still contine to be dogs, canines, carnavores, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes. Cats still continue to be cats, felines, carnavores, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, osteichthyes, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans, eukaryotes, and biotes.



You do realize that sterility has been observed to develop between two populations descended from an ancestral population. (Just take the mosquito example again.) Thus if that is you test for determining barriers between kinds, then there is no way to avoid the evolution of new kinds.



Really? I've always wondered if such a study has been done. Where is you reference that human and chimp hybridization has been tested? I'd really like to read it.



You should check your citation be cause it is wrong. You also are bearing false witness about Darwin's writtings. Here is the entire paragraph, note how Darwin explains his observation via natural selection. Not only is it not a problem with evolution, but good evidence for it.



(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species (1st edition), Ch 9, pg 1.)

You can read more of his statement by clicking here.



Well if you know how many of them there are then you should be able to answer the questions found at the bottom of my post.



So "dove," "raven," and "olive" are basic kinds? What did they diversify into?

1. Do mammals constitute a kind? If not how many mammal kinds are there?
2. How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid.
3. Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
4. Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?
5. Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
6. If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind?
7. How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this?
8. Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty?

Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be unchangeable or fixed anymore. In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs. If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor. The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology.

You are clutching at straws and hopelessly at that.

By the way, my reference to Origen of Species is perfectly correct. "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)


Or 

On the Origin of Species
CHAPTER 10 Paragraph 1 
ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD

And I quote again.  "IN THE sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty".

 Here is the link for all to see that your accusation against me is false.  http://www.human-nature.com/darwin/origin/chap10.htm 


May I suggest you actually confirm for yourself what Darwin actually said or did not say before making accusations of misrepresentation.   

As you are not clear as to what Darwin taught or said, I can see why your theories have no real foundation.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LightBearer
You are clutching at straws and hopelessly at that.

Ohh hand waving. If you want to claim I am clutching at straws, how about demonstrating exactly where those straws are in my post. All that work I put into responding to you and that is the best you can do? How about you start by answering those eight questions I posted to you. If kinds really exist then you should be able to it.

By the way, my reference to Origen of Species is perfectly correct. "The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)

Yes the quote is in Darwin's book. But there is no 1902 edition nor is it in part 2. It begins either chapter IX or X depending on what edition you use.

Here is the link for all to see that your accusation against me is false.  http://www.human-nature.com/darwin/origin/chap10.htm 


And I quote again.  "IN THE sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty".

May I suggest you actually confirm for yourself what Darwin actually said or did not say before making accusations of misrepresentation

How about you read my post before you whine about accusations. If you do that, you will see that not only do I provide the correct reference to Darwin's statement, I also provide a link to the chapter, and quote the entire paragraph, showing exactly how you took Darwin's statement out of context and bore false witness on the intentions of that statement.

So you won't get confused here is my first statement about your use of Darwin's quote.

:Repost:
You should check your citation be cause it is wrong. You also are bearing false witness about Darwin's writtings. Here is the entire paragraph, note how Darwin explains his observation via natural selection. Not only is it not a problem with evolution, but good evidence for it.

IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species (1st edition), Ch 9, pg 1.)

You can read more of his statement by clicking here.
:End Repost:

I find it rather funny that you could consture that I was saying that Darwin never wrote that, considering the fact that I quoted from Origins and provided a link.

As you are not clear as to what Darwin taught or said, I can see why your theories have no real foundation.

That's funny coming from a quote-miner.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer
In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds."

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created "kinds," there is no support for theories maintaining that new "kinds" have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that "kinds" cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new "kinds" have been formed. ... Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." 

It's always very dangerous saying "there is no support" or "evidence is totally lacking".  It is very, very wrong here.

Now, the definition of species used by Lightbearer is close to the biological species concept.  He neglected to mention that those interfertile populations do not breed in the wild with other species.  Therefore they fit the Biblical defintion of "breeding only with their kind".  In fact, fossil bridges do exist.  For instance, bridges of transitional individuals and species exist connecting the amphibious 'kind' with the mammalian 'kind'. Transitional species exist connecting the dinosaur 'kind' with the bird 'kind'.

However, the really compelling evidence is the series of transitional individuals that connect across what creationists consider "kinds" -- families, orders, and classes. These are individual fossils that are intermediate between species and the individuals can be traced across species until they are a new 'kind' Some examples include:
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.  Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.  (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.  HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"  and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406 

Lightbearer specifically mentioned horses.  Unfortunately, this has one of the best transitional series of individuals tracing the evolution of a small, 5 toed, swamp-living 'kind' to the horses of today, going through several different 'kinds' along the way:
6.  PD Gingerich, Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals.  American J. of Science, 276: 407-424, 1980.  Transitional series between species of early horses linking "higher" taxa.  web site for horse evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/

He also mentioned that species didn't change once they appear.  Not so.

5.  PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.  Nature 330: 561-563, 1987.  Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years.  Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

In living species, one of my favorite papers is 1.  G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster  Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

In this study the authors put different populations of fruit flies on different diets and temperatures in the lab for 5 years.  At the end they had new species. Also, since one diet was bread and another meat, they now no longer had "fruit" flies but "bread" and "meat" flies.  When they looked at the genes at the end of 5 years, they found that the new kinds differed from each other and the original population (kept in the same environment) by over 3%.  Chimps and humans differ by less than 3% and all creationists consider them different "kinds".  Therefore, contrary to Lightbearer, there is evidence for the evolution of new "kinds".