User Tag List

Page 1 of 34 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 501

Thread: Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

  1. #1
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081

    Smile Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

    I have seen certain posters on ToL desire discussion of "kinds" vs. species.

    So where did the idea of species come from? It's quite old but the modern conception of taxonomy and scientific names originated with Carolus Linnaeaus.



    Linneaus was a Christian, a creationist and a originally a "fixist" (meaning species could not change over time) though he eventually changed his position.

    So the idea of species came from a creationist viewpoint.

    Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?

    "Kinds" as described in baraminology are a modern creationist invention often posited as having a biological equivalent to family. The problem is there's absolutely no Biblical basis for such an idea and is instead an accommodation of the incontrovertible truth of evolution, that species change over time.

    Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?

    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  2. #2
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,806
    Thanks
    1,123
    Thanked 1,108 Times in 665 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    540674
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?
    Because "kind" is used in the Bible and "species" is not.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

    It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    6days (October 1st, 2019)

  4. #3
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Because "kind" is used in the Bible and "species" is not.
    Kind as actually used in the Bible IS species.

    Goats and sheep are regarded as different as are horses and donkeys in scripture. But the modern creationist definition of "kind", with its inclusion of evolution, would call horses and donkeys the same kind and sheep and goats another kind.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  5. #4
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    So hyperevolution of "kinds" is okay but actual gradual evolution over long periods of time is not.

    Ken Ham's Biblical evolution model, showing kinds at family level.



    This has no precedent in scripture.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  6. #5
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,306
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 157 Times in 128 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    41237


    Presumably the Neo-creationist orchard shows trees that are kinds.

    Of course the grass model and the orchard model are just the Darwinian tree model with denial of the bottom 7/8 of the diagram.

    Stuart

  7. #6
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    What's funny is the YECs claim Evolutionary Creationists compromise too much of the Bible when they themselves do even worse.

    They compromise both scripture and science when they make up stories about "kinds" being broad groups of animals which evolved after the flood. Such an idea is supported neither by scripture nor by science. It's the worst of both worlds.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  8. #7
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,126
    Thanks
    1,141
    Thanked 4,376 Times in 2,554 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1852754
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    Kind as actually used in the Bible IS species.
    Not even close.
    We can have many species of finches, but they are all the same kind.
    Gen. 1
    11These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.
    12Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.
    13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
    20Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.
    21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
    23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day
    24Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind
    25God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.
    31And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 29th, 2019)

  10. #8
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Not even close.
    We can have many species of finches, but they are all the same kind.
    Do you honestly think that the Biblical writers would have considered lions and leopards to be the same "kind"?

    Or goats and sheep, or horses and donkeys?

    They're all mentioned separately in scripture and given separate names. They are separate species even though they can sometimes produce hybrids (which are nearly always sterile).


    “Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, May you come with me from Lebanon. Journey down from the summit of Amana, From the summit of Senir and Hermon, From the dens of lions, From the mountains of leopards.




    “Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.




    So he removed on that day the striped and spotted male goats and all the speckled and spotted female goats, every one with white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the care of his sons.



    Where in scripture is there support for considering housecats as the same "kind" as lions? They cannot reproduce together at all. Don't you see Ken Ham's diagram? He calls all cats the same "kind". He calls foxes and wolves the same kind. They cannot reproduce together either.

    Reproducing together is part of the definition of species, as it is the definition of kind in scripture. This is how we know kind (as actually used in scripture) and species are the same thing. It's why Linnaeaus (a creationist) had no problem using the term. He worked about one hundred years before Darwin had his famous ideas so there's no evolutionary "contamination" of the species idea from the start.

    The YEC definition of "kind" comes from evolution, not scripture. They simply used the word "kind" just to make people think their ides come from scripture. They're putting together organisms that are clearly similar and even positing common ancestry to a point, but they no longer reproduce together, which as you posted is the main definition of kind in Genesis.

    Things that once reproduced after their kind but can no longer reproduce together is speciation, the most basic form of evolution by definition.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  11. #9
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    Now anyone following along might be wondering WHY would Ken Ham and other young earth creationists so willingly accept evolution and create this new category rather than accepting species?

    Put simply, it solved a problem for them. Namely this is the problem of how to fit all the species on the ark. If we are actually dealing with species, then there is not enough space on the ark to include them all, even if we only included land living animals. Say that only *families* of animals were needed and new species from the pairs evolved after the flood suddenly solves the space-on-the-ark problem.

    What "kinds" of the type Ken Ham proposes really are are an admission of the failure of YEC doctrine. They HAD to accept a little evolution to make it work.

    The funny thing is they can just go the whole way and become consistent and rational again by going with Evolutionary Creation.
    We have websites too . . . Biologos for example.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  12. #10
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196962
    If "kinds" are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families, that raises an interesting issue given other creationist arguments.

    Let's say there is a "cat kind", which means Noah took aboard the Ark two (or seven, depending on which of the two stories you read) representatives of the "cat kind", from which all of today's species of cats are descended. But remember, creationists also argue that mutation cannot increase the amount of "genetic information" in a genome, and that genomes have been degrading over time since The Fall.

    So exactly how is a single breeding pair of cats able to give rise to the diversity of cats we see around us today....everything from tigers to house cats...without adding a single bit of "genetic information", and given the claim that the genomes have only been "degrading"?
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  13. #11
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,878
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,076 Times in 696 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    387833
    [QUOTE=6days;4459499]Not even close.
    We can have many species of finches, but they are all the same kind.

    So there is a "finch kind" part of the greater group of birds, birds being sort of a "super kind"?

  14. #12
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,806
    Thanks
    1,123
    Thanked 1,108 Times in 665 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    540674
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    If "kinds" are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families, that raises an interesting issue given other creationist arguments.

    Let's say there is a "cat kind", which means Noah took aboard the Ark two (or seven, depending on which of the two stories you read) representatives of the "cat kind", from which all of today's species of cats are descended. But remember, creationists also argue that mutation cannot increase the amount of "genetic information" in a genome, and that genomes have been degrading over time since The Fall.

    So exactly how is a single breeding pair of cats able to give rise to the diversity of cats we see around us today....everything from tigers to house cats...without adding a single bit of "genetic information", and given the claim that the genomes have only been "degrading"?
    The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today. By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.

    Examples: Small cats have lost the ability to be huge. Hairless cats have lost the ability to have hair.



    ___________________________________________

    Humor part:

    Here is a cat losing the ability to not look like Nicholas Cage.

    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

    It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 29th, 2019)

  16. #13
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today. By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.

    Examples: Small cats have lost the ability to be huge. Hairless cats have lost the ability to have hair.
    How would a generic "cat kind" have the ability to have enough genetic information to both produce a housecat and a lion, tiger, cheetah etc.?

    You'd need information for social structure, but also the ability to move very fast, for spots of different sizes, to both purr and roar at the same time (no cat today can do this).

    In other words you're appealing to magic/miracles and evolutionary processes that are impossible in the amount of time since the flood.

    What you've described is hyperevolution.

    A great explanation of the problem

    From the reference above is an illustration of genetic diversity in the dog family.



    Domestic dogs are all nearly the same despite having very different physical appearances. But the members of the dog family, are quite different from one another genetically.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  17. #14
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,126
    Thanks
    1,141
    Thanked 4,376 Times in 2,554 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1852754
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One

    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    We can have many species of finches, but they are all the same kind.
    Do you honestly think that the Biblical writers would have considered lions and leopards to be the same "kind"?
    All scripture is given by God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    Or goats and sheep, or horses and donkeys?
    They're all mentioned separately in scripture and given separate names. They are separate species even though they can sometimes produce hybrids (which are nearly always sterile).
    And that fits the Biblical creation model.

    Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!
    https://answersingenesis.org/hybrid-...olphins-oh-my/
    or,
    Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey!
    http://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    Where in scripture is there support for considering housecats as the same "kind" as lions? They cannot reproduce together at all.
    I didn't say that housecats are the same kind as lions. They are IF they both descended from an original created cat pair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    Don't you see Ken Ham's diagram? He calls all cats the same "kind".
    Maybe he is correct... I dunno. I imagine we can find several hundred phylogenic trees drawn by evolutionists that differ from each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    He calls foxes and wolves the same kind. They cannot reproduce together either
    Again... Not sure, but I suspect he might be correct on this one. Foxes very well may be part of an original dog kind, that has lost genetic info over the past several thousand years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    Reproducing together is part of the definition of species, as it is the definition of kind in scripture. This is how we know kind (as actually used in scripture) and species are the same thing.
    Evolutionists keep insisting the words mean the same, but they definitely don't.

    'Kind' is an original created plant, or tree, or animal, or bird, or.... etc.

    Species is a somewhat flexible or rubbery term, and sometimes things that are called different species still are able to breed together. There can be many species that result from diversity with the original created kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One
    It's why Linnaeaus (a creationist) had no problem using the term. He worked about one hundred years before Darwin had his famous ideas so there's no evolutionary "contamination" of the species idea from the start.
    There is no problem with classification systems or the word species. The problem arises when classification is done according to beliefs about the past, and not on observable science.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 29th, 2019)

  19. #15
    Over 2500 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 363 Times in 270 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    110081
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    And that fits the Biblical creation model.
    How's that?

    Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!
    https://answersingenesis.org/hybrid-...olphins-oh-my/
    or,
    Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey!
    http://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey
    It fits the evolutionary model even better since they each shared a recent common ancestor. It doesn't fit the biblical creation model at all, only the modern YEC version.

    Maybe he is correct... I dunno. I imagine we can find several hundred phylogenic trees drawn by evolutionists that differ from each other.
    Changing trees is understandable since there's a lot of branching involved in evolution. But if each creature was actually specially created individually, it should be really obvious which are related and which are not.

    Again... Not sure, but I suspect he might be correct on this one. Foxes very well may be part of an original dog kind, that has lost genetic info over the past several thousand years.
    You can't "lose info" to create two vastly different genomes.


    There is no problem with classification systems or the word species. The problem arises when classification is done according to beliefs about the past, and not on observable science.
    Why can't you get it through your head that species is a term invented by a creationist? There's no difference between a true biblical kind and species.

    Show me anywhere in scripture where there's species that change from a generic dog kind to foxes.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us