Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[genuineoriginal]

Of course. But you have yet to explain exactly what language cues lie in Genesis that don't lie in the passage about "four corners" that makes one clearly literal and the other clearly not.

Exodus 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.​

The plain meaning of six days and the seventh day is the same as the literal meaning of six days and the seventh day.
The language cues in Genesis are repetitions of "the evening and the morning" making up each day.

Isaiah 11:12 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.​

The meaning of the four corners of the earth is explained in the verses that follow it.
Those verses speak about the dispersed being gathered from the west, the east, the north (Assyria), and the south (Egypt).
So the plain meaning of the four corners of the earth is the same as saying north, south, east, and west.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you agree that populations adapt and diverge to the point where they become reproductively isolated from each other, and that the process is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

Here is how I look at it.

God created many different kinds of beasts, and a lot of them are genetically similar enough to reproduce with each other, like the tiger and the lion or the horse and the donkey.

The lion and the tiger did not diverge from a common ancestor, but did avoid reproducing with each other due to a reproductive xenophobia that God built into each kind.

This reproductive xenophobia is manifested in humans as the uncanny valley effect which appears to be the root cause of racism.

There can be genetic drift and genetic variation within a kind but there cannot be enough genetic drift and genetic variation to create a new kind.

Cross-breeding different kinds can be forced under human guidance, but almost never happens in the wild due to the reproductive xenophobia that keeps different kinds from choosing to mate with each other.

 

[Jose Fly]

Other than being totally bizarre, I'm not sure how that actually answers the question I asked.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Other than being totally bizarre, I'm not sure how that actually answers the question I asked.

What does you being totally bizarre have to do with the question you asked?

:idunno:

Your question presupposes a common ancestor that diverged into multiple species through isolation and inbreeding where genetic drift and genetic variation form the characteristics of the isolated population.

My answer is that your presuppositions are fundamentally flawed since they come from the belief in the Evolution of Species instead of the belief in Creation.

That is why I showed what my presuppositions are, but other Creationists may have different answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your question presupposes a common ancestor that diverged into multiple species through isolation and inbreeding where genetic drift and genetic variation form the characteristics of the isolated population.

My question is based on 6days' claim that "rapid speciation" is part of the "Biblical model of creation", and included in "rapid speciation" is divergence from the parent population to the point of reproductive isolation.

That is why I showed what my presuppositions are, but other Creationists may have different answers.

We'll see.

 

[genuineoriginal]

My question is based on 6days' claim that "rapid speciation" is part of the "Biblical model of creation", and included in "rapid speciation" is divergence from the parent population to the point of reproductive isolation.

I checked the posts you reference, and it appears that you read your assumptions into them.

What 6days was explaining is that members of the same kind can have different appearances due to the different ways the same genetic code is activated by the environmental factors of the area they are living in. This produces divergence within a kind to the point that evolutionists start claiming they found a new species.

Some of the examples of divergence within a kind are reproductively isolated from each other, such as the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. Other examples of divergence are not reproductively isolated, like Darwin's finches, which can interbreed very easily.

 

[Alate_One]

I checked the posts you reference, and it appears that you read your assumptions into them.

What 6days was explaining is that members of the same kind can have different appearances due to the different ways the same genetic code is activated by the environmental factors of the area they are living in. This produces divergence within a kind to the point that evolutionists start claiming they found a new species.

Some of the examples of divergence within a kind are reproductively isolated from each other, such as the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. Other examples of divergence are not reproductively isolated, like Darwin's finches, which can interbreed very easily.

Chihuahua and great Danes aren't truly reproductively isolated. Their offspring are fully fertile.

What are truly isolated but are said to be the same "kind" are wolves dogs and foxes.

All members of the cat family- lions, housecats, cougars, cheetahs Etc.

Many combinations of the above can't interbreed at all. Yet 6days and others would call them the same kind. Genetically speaking, there is a vast gulf between them.

 

[6days]

Chihuahua and great Danes aren't truly reproductively isolated.

Imagine if we didn't know that, and that they existed only in the fossil record. Can you imagine the stories evolutionists would create?

What are truly isolated but are said to be the same "kind" are wolves dogs and foxes.

Quite possibly

All members of the cat family- lions, housecats, cougars, cheetahs Etc.

Not so certain of this.

Many combinations of the above can't interbreed at all. Yet 6days and others would call them the same kind. Genetically speaking, there is a vast gulf between them.

If they can interbreed, they definitely are the same kind, as with many members of the 'canis' family.

 

[alwight]

Those verses speak about the dispersed being gathered from the west, the east, the north (Assyria), and the south (Egypt).
So the plain meaning of the four corners of the earth is the same as saying north, south, east, and west.

So there are no literal corners and the Bible can indeed be figurative, unless fundamentalists say otherwise.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What are truly isolated but are said to be the same "kind" are wolves dogs and foxes.

All members of the cat family- lions, housecats, cougars, cheetahs Etc.

Many combinations of the above can't interbreed at all. Yet 6days and others would call them the same kind.

I wouldn't call them the same kind now, though at one time I probably would have due to the confusion created by the classifications used by evolutionists.

I used to think that animals could be classified as the same kind if they could be mated together to produce a viable offspring (like a liger).

After further consideration, I realized that these crossbreeds were produced by humans and are not something found in the wild. In the wild, animals breed with their own kind.

 

[Alate_One]

I wouldn't call them the same kind now, though at one time I probably would have due to the confusion created by the classifications used by evolutionists.

I used to think that animals could be classified as the same kind if they could be mated together to produce a viable offspring (like a liger).

After further consideration, I realized that these crossbreeds were produced by humans and are not something found in the wild. In the wild, animals breed with their own kind.

So your definition of kind is basically the same as species, then. That's what I said in the OP.

 

[Alate_One]

So there are no literal corners and the Bible can indeed be figurative, unless fundamentalists say otherwise.

And this has been shown to be true over and over. Passages of the Bible can have multiple interpretations (and ancient people were fine with that) Interpretations can shift over time, sun standing still was once literal, now it's considered figurative or perspective based.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So there are no literal corners and the Bible can indeed be figurative, unless fundamentalists say otherwise.

Since you seem to want more precision, here it is:
The Hebrew word translated as "corners" in Isaiah 11:12 is כָּנָף kanaph.
In English the word means wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt.
The translators of the Latin Vulgate used the word plagis, which has the meaning of quarters.
The translators of the King James version used the word corners.

Either way, the actual text (Hebrew) does not actually say corners, so there is no way to claim that the "corners" of the earth must be understood as literal corners.

However, in Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for day is used over and over and clarified with the mention of evening and morning to show that it means the same thing as we think of when we say day.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So your definition of kind is basically the same as species, then. That's what I said in the OP.

Not quite.

 

[Stripe]

So your definition of kind is basically the same as species, then. That's what I said in the OP.

When will you learn? The definition of kind has been given to you many times. Quit trying to invent new ones. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Passages of the Bible can have multiple interpretations.

Irrelevant. There is only one plain meaning.

Ancient people were fine with that.

Making things up is not convincing.

Interpretations can shift over time, sun standing still was once literal, now it's considered figurative or perspective based.

Irrelevant. The Bible does not teach geocentrism, regardless of how you might want to believe it does.

The Bible does teach "six days," which you are desperate to deny.

 

[alwight]

Since you seem to want more precision, here it is:
The Hebrew word translated as "corners" in Isaiah 11:12 is כָּנָף kanaph.
In English the word means wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt.
The translators of the Latin Vulgate used the word plagis, which has the meaning of quarters.
The translators of the King James version used the word corners.

Either way, the actual text (Hebrew) does not actually say corners, so there is no way to claim that the "corners" of the earth must be understood as literal corners.

However, in Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for day is used over and over and clarified with the mention of evening and morning to show that it means the same thing as we think of when we say day.

William Tyndale is thought to have been the main contributor to the KJV, and he, like William Shakespeare, enriched the English language with the style of their time.
I would imagine that earlier translations of the Bible would have also benefited greatly from the writer's own style and interpretations that can't easily be compared to the idioms of today.
I suggest that nobody can reasonably or rationally conclude that they somehow can know of any detailed literal truth from any version of the Bible.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I suggest that nobody can reasonably or rationally conclude that they somehow can know of any detailed literal truth from any version of the Bible.

Then you must be a complete moron.
:chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

Do you believe that populations diverge to the point of reproductive isolation, and that the process is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

 

[Jose Fly]

As far as interpreting the Bible, what is the plain reading of Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus up to an "exceedingly high" mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms of the world"?