Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Alate_One]

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?

 

[George Affleck]

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.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Stuu]

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

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[6days]

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

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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"?

 

[Jonahdog]

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"?

 

[George Affleck]

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.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[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.

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-animals/zonkeys-ligers-and-wolphins-oh-my/
or,
Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey!
http://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Alate_One]

And that fits the Biblical creation model.

How's that?

Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!
https://answersingenesis.org/hybrid-animals/zonkeys-ligers-and-wolphins-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.

 

[Stuu]

And that fits the Biblical creation model.

Science makes an hypothesis then tries to disprove it.

Have you ever tried to disprove the 'biblical creation model'?

If not, then you can't claim to be doing science.

You are doing dogma, though.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today.

How does that work? If these cats had all the genetic information for tigers, why didn't they look like tigers? But they also had all the genetic information for house cats, so why didn't they look like them too?

It's almost like you're just making this up. :chuckle:

By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.

Stripe says natural selection isn't real. Is he wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

Science makes an hypothesis then tries to disprove it.

Have you ever tried to disprove the 'biblical creation model'?

If not, then you can't claim to be doing science.

You are doing dogma, though.

Stuart

Remember, 6days agrees that creationism is merely a belief, not science.

 

[George Affleck]

The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today.

How does that work? If these cats had all the genetic information for tigers, why didn't they look like tigers? But they also had all the genetic information for house cats, so why didn't they look like them too? It's almost like you're just making this up. :chuckle:

If you have a son and he looks something like you, why don't you look exactly like him instead of looking like yourself? Do you think all genetic traits are expressed completely in each organism?

It's almost like you can't think for yourself.

By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.

Stripe says natural selection isn't real. Is he wrong?

Speak to Stripe. Sounds like you misunderstood or your definition of natural involves millions of years; in which case I would agree with him.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you have a son and he looks something like you, why don't you look exactly like him instead of looking like yourself?

Because half of his genome comes from his mom. It's called recombination.

Do you think all genetic traits are expressed completely in each organism?

Does this mean your argument is that the original breeding pair of "the cat kind" had all the genetic information for every trait in every population of every species of cat that came after? If so, I assume those sequences went unexpressed until needed, correct?

That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.

Plus, all this took place during a time when you also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.

It's almost like you can't think for yourself.

It's almost like you have no sense of irony.

Speak to Stripe.

I have. He's quite adamant and clear that he believes natural selection does not occur....at all.

Sounds like you misunderstood or your definition of natural involves millions of years; in which case I would agree with him.

Whether or not natural selection occurs has nothing to do with timescales. It's simply differential survival and reproductive success relative to fitness.