I have started an article discussing the differences between Kinds and species. It is a rough draft at this point (meaning a couple charts - the full article will be based on this information). I would like to know what concepts or topics others would like to see added before I progress further. I want this to be a fairly complete article when it is finished. Thank you. http://www.baraminology.net/kinds-species/ 

Views: 175

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Todd, a quesiton I have is this, and observation.

1.  Is a species interchangeable with biblical kinds at all on your opinion. If not, does this infer that no known "species" as used in context to modern biology existed pre-flood? 

2.  What is great about taxonomy, is there is a drill down based on morphologic characteristics or other nuances that surely imply enough of  a nuance difference in a particular specie like for instance Horned lizards, that one can infer they are all not the same "Kind", just becasue they "are" a horned lizard.



3.  So do kinds have this kind of detailed scientific observation within its type?  

4.  Are their any known Biblical Kinds that exist today post Ark dispersion? 

5. Does Baraminology completely disregard morphology?  I asked that becuse in my conversations over the years more than once, I have been told that no one knows what any of the Biblical Kinds looked like pre-flood. Is this correct?  

Observation:
Todd I think what may be confusing to some outside the creationist loop, is all fossil evidences of living Species (not kinds) today all post flood?  So no fossil of a modern animal of which we have hundreds of thousands including for instance the Coastal Horned Lizard (P. coronatum above), and many other living fossils like anole lizards in amber, wall lizards, and geckos, all are found in fossil amber?  So no modern specie was alive previous to the flood?  If you could explain this to others how that works in context to chronology that might help them understand Biblical Kinds verses Species.  I ahve ben criticized that I don't get it or don't understand and that may well be true, but my 50 years of working specifically with reptiles I certainly understand taxonomic nomenclature and the drill down as I show up above in modern species?  As a creationist in the framework of biologic observation I am trying to understand the significance of morphology of KINds vs, the modern morphology of species which is totally observable and how that works with the dispersion vent and the kinds taken on the ark?  

6.  So would there have been a general lizard kind.. one pair on the Ark for all lizards post flood... or several different lizard kinds, like a monitor kind, a horned lizard kind, a collared lizard kind, an iguana kind? These kinds had an original distribution I assume, so do we creationists affirm that God brought all "kinds" from the whole globe to the Ark supernaturally? Or would local lizard kind(s) have been responsible for all post flood lizards?

So reading your chart please correct me if I am wrong, it looks as though if there was an elephant kind, responsible for all known species including fossils post flood, then one lizard kind would have been responsible for all lizards post flood?  

7. My last quesiton has to do with sequencing. Since DNA information contained in each species is specific to that one specimen what ever it is.

In other words when we sequence humans which is a specific God created Kind, there are variations post flood of humanity. What we know is these variations are sequenced as having variation but are fully human.  The reason is the genome clearly calls it out is fully human with slight variations which shows up in slight morphological differences. Is this true with lizards, do monitors, horned lizards, and various known Species have a common DNA that is the same for all with slight variations in that they all came form a common ancestor off the ark.

My understanding with DNA sequencing and lizards is that different species -- Monitor lizard, Horned lizard, Iguanas, Collared lizards have a specific DNA to that specific specie. 
Yes they are all lizards but they are not all the same as with humans there is variation but the same are human.  Each specie is specific to its own platform.  DNA natural history is specific, such as monitors are carnivores, Horned lizards are ant eaters, they live in soft dirt, they burry themselves and there specific DNA information is taylor made to each one and even in context to the platform each represents.

Have you been able to connect a genetic pathway for ARK Kinds to modern species? Do you observe the same genetic pathways that modern science implores?  Wouldn't an ark Kind and any genetic offspring of that union contain DNA of the parent Kind? I ahve no information base from my perspective that would show this, is there something you've discovered and not published yet, or?  You can see how this becomes difficult to an average reader, or one who is not a creationist. At a minimum I hope the quesiton I ahve asked will help you to present this to the saved and non-saved in a away that will be better understood.

Thanks.

Interesting, he promises "A question" and then gives over 800 words of opinion.

Lou Hamby said:

1.  Is a species interchangeable with biblical kinds at all on your opinion. If not, does this infer that no known "species" as used in context to modern biology existed pre-flood? 

SPECIES is certainly NOT interchangeable with the the biblical KINDS. However, there are inconsistencies with the SECULARIST TAXONOMIC system, that result in the possibility that in some cases a species might be a complete kind, but I'm not aware of any species that would be identified with a kind. All species that exist today are descendants of species that existed before the Flood - all of them are descended from a single pair of each kind that was on the Ark.

2.  What is great about taxonomy, is there is a drill down based on morphologic characteristics or other nuances that surely imply enough of  a nuance difference in a particular specie like for instance Horned lizards, that one can infer they are all not the same "Kind", just becasue they "are" a horned lizard.



Here again the poster INSISTS on using the biblical term "KIND" as some sort of morphological identifier. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES NOT REFER TO. "kind" does not refer to different "body-types" in the biblical usage. RATHER KIND always refers to a familial relationship in which any animals or variations (species) that are capable of reproducing together, or that are descended from the same ancestors - are indeed of the same KIND - regardless of morphological distinctions.

3.  So do kinds have this kind of detailed scientific observation within its type? 

Whoops, here he does it again, using the word kind in the generic sense - in the same sentence in which he uses the word kind in what he thinks is the biblical sense. BUT STILL HE is thinking of kind as a sort of variation of animals in morphology.

4.  Are their any known BiblicalKinds that exist today post Ark dispersion? 

YES, ALL BIBLICAL KINDS are present in the world today in as part of the post Ark dispersion. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE NEW KIND today that did not already exist before the Flood. All kinds today are the same kinds as those created in the Creation Week - however their morphology has been altered BY GENETICS, and by more effective adaptation of newborns with different traits to new environmental conditions.

5. Does Baraminology completely disregard morphology?  I asked that becuse in my conversations over the years more than once, I have been told that no one knows what any of the Biblical Kinds looked like pre-flood. Is this correct?

The biblical "KINDS" are not identified by morphology, but by the capacity to reproduce together. AND anyone who would say that "no one knows what any of the biblical kinds looked like pre-flood" is uninformed. The fossils show what pre-flood animals looked like. AND they also looked a good bit like their descendents. BUT what we are also saying is that we cannot determine with certainty what animals of the same kind looked like BEFORE THE FLOOD based on the forms that they take NOW.



Observation:
Todd I think what may be confusing to some outside the creationist loop, is all fossil evidences of living Species (not kinds) today all post flood?

HUH? Baraminology is primarily for those who want to adhere to the biblical usages of terms.

 So no fossil of a modern animal of which we have hundreds of thousands including for instance the Coastal Horned Lizard (P. coronatum above), and many other living fossils like anole lizards in amber, wall lizards, and geckos, all are found in fossil amber?  So no modern specie was alive previous to the flood?  

No creationist believes that the modern species are not represented by the now dead kinds that lived previous to the Flood. WE ALL BELIEVE that ALL SPECIES are NOT NEW KINDS, but that they are variations and the descendants of animals that lived before the Flood.

Since this was specifically directed to Todd I will wait for Todd's response Jim. since this is his work.  

As usual, he is not interested in answers, only in making it a personal thing. Unwilling to admit that he is only repeating lies.

1) Is a species interchangeable with Kinds? Usually no. The Created Kinds level seems to associate most closely with the Family Level, sometimes with Genus and superfamily, and rarely with species or order levels.

1a) Did species exist before the flood? Yes, species (variations within a Kind) did exist before the flood.

3) Do Kinds have detailed scientific observation within its type? There is a general morphology that can be associated with everything in a Kind (generally a common shape). There is a more specific morphology that can distinguish species within a kind (usually surface characteristics like size and color).

4) Are there Kinds that exist today? Yes. Probably in the low thousands for plants and animals. For example, there are about 196 Kinds of birds which contain the roughly 10,000 current bird species.

5) Does Baraminology disregard morphology? No ... quite the contrary. Most of the taxonomic classification we have is based on morphology.

5a) What did the Kinds look like pre-flood? What they looked like we only have hints at through the fossil record and by the living examples from the Kinds that still exist today.

6) How many lizard Kinds are there? Under evolutionary taxonomy, there are 27 families of lizards contained in 5 infraorders. I am not familiar enough with lizard hybridization to state which option is better 27 or 5 or quite possibly a number in between. My default assumption is the family level - so 27 Kinds of lizards might have been on the ark.

7) Do species have a common DNA based on the Ark Kind parents with only slight variations between them? Yes.

Todd thanks for your answers!!!  Some o f this really good esepcially Morphology glad to hear that, as I think that is very important as well. 

in #5 we are not sure what specific kinds may have looked like, we ahve a hint becuse of offspring but not necessarily a specific body plan?


While there are lizard hybridizations (horned lizards and collared lizards as examples), they would still fall under what ever family level they are ascribed to.  So a short horned horned lizard that is hybrid is still a short horned horned lizard as well as a collared lizard say and eastern my be mixed but is still an eastern. My "assumption" is hybrids will vary with the locations where two of the similar species cross over into each others distribution zone and produce a hybrid.  Now there are some other hybrids like the flat tail HL and the desert HL that produced a subspecies called Goode's horned lizard, so its not from the same species but two different ones of the "same Kind" that can mate and have offspring. This is less common I think. But I get what your implying here.

I need to ask a quesiton about variation.  You say there is variation, I do to and it is observable in nature now...This is a biologic axiom that we observe.  I'll go back to the collared lizards.  If you went to the images under collared lizard you would see a plethora of coloration variations and other slight variations in makeup of these collared lizards.  But what you would not see is a new species?

In other words all these variations are still eastern collared lizards?  So my quesiton about variation and Kinds... Does one collared lizard kind(pair) produce all other species of collared lizard that are known post ARK? 

Interesting article on Variation WITHIN Kinds, distinct from variation BETWEEN kinds:

http://www.examiner.com/article/variation-within-dinosaur-and-other...

Creationists to a man (or Woman) do not accept that there are any new KINDS, forming, developing, arising, or being created since the creation week.

All kinds that now exist are descended of others of the same kind, their ancestors that came into being in the Creation week.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service