Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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".
Originally posted by Micaiah
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?
In reality, you'd have to ask the Ancient Hebrews who composed Genesis what they meant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whereas specific created "kinds" may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth.
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."
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?
- Do mammals constitute a kind? If not how many mammal kinds are there?
- 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.
- Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
- Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?
- Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
Originally posted by LightBearer
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)
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
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.
As you are not clear as to what Darwin taught or said, I can see why your theories have no real foundation.
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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?