Creationists: What is the definition of "kind" with regard to macroevolution?

Question

I've seen creationists say macroevolution is false because one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind." However, it's hard to know exactly what this means because I don't know exactly what they mean by "kind."

I was wondering what exactly the definition of kind is.

What I'm looking for is an operational definition. I want a definition precise enough so that I can take two organisms and apply the definition to determine whether or not they're the same kind.

For example, the definition of species is "capable of producing fertile offspring." I can use that definition to determine if any two organisms are the same species (I simply breed them and test if the offspring are fertile.)

So what is the operational definition of "kind"?

TheSlayor: I really don't think Creationists want to adopt the definition of "species" as the definition of "kind."

Speciation has been widely observed, and if different species are different kinds, then macroevolution has been widely observed.

Answer 1

"Jones (1972b), largely using Scriptural evidence (e.g., the animal lists in Leviticus), demonstrated that the created kind is approximately equivalent to the subfamily or family, at least in the case of birds and mammals. Recently, Scherer (1993) has arrived at the same conclusion, but on the basis of scientific evidence. This evidence includes numerous documented cases of interbreeding between individuals of different species and genera, as well as interbreeding with a third species or genus in situations where two species or genera do not themselves interbreed. Thus, Scherer's definition of the kind is very similar, if not identical, to Templeton's (1991a, pg. 20) aforementioned term 'syngameon'."

Answer 2

"Kind" isn't even scientific. I don't think creationists passed their grade 3 biology classes.

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

What?! No kind!?!?


"Thus, it makes it very difficult for one kind to "evolve" into another kind, because as soon as one organism "evolves" enough to become a separate species, then it is the only one of its kind and cannot continue to procreate (i.e., no others of its kind with which to mate). Therefore, there couldn't be a second generation."

Populations evolve, not single organisms. Grade 8 biology.
Come on people!

""Not epicurous'? must not be able to make the leap in thought to realize that just because the Bible defines and animal famliy as a 'kind' is irrelevant to science."

Where's the scripture that says that? Please show me!
Otherwise, you're just speculating which isn't very scientific, don't you think?

Answer 3

You are asking the wrong group that question. Macro-evolution is the theory advocated by evolutionists (at least those who are aware enough of what they believe to appreciate the difference between micro and macro evolutionary theory). I'd suggest asking that question of the people who advocate that position.

But I think your practical example is a probably the best operational one to apply. Can two organisms create fertile offspring? Then one species/kind.

Thus, it makes it very difficult for one kind to "evolve" into another kind, because as soon as one organism "evolves" enough to become a separate species, then it is the only one of its kind and cannot continue to procreate (i.e., no others of its kind with which to mate). Therefore, there couldn't be a second generation.

And because you are investigating evolutionary theory, perhaps to consider the law of irriducible complexity as it applies to discrete organs (e.g., the eyeball/optic nerve). Without any of its as-is parts, it wouldn't function. Thus, wouldn't evolve. Yet this complicated organ just randomly appeared in a single generation? Strikes me as improbable on a very high order.

Good luck with your continued questioning. You are on the right path.

Answer 4

A dog is one 'kind'.
A cat is another 'kind'.
7,000 years of recorded human history, and intelligent and deliberate breeding interference, have shown nothing to suggest otherwise.
"Not epicurous'? must not be able to make the leap in thought to realize that just because the Bible defines and animal famliy as a 'kind' is irrelevant to science.
If he can not understand that one 'kind' of animal differs from another 'kind', then perhaps science is not his best pursuit for his level of comprehension.

Answer 5

While there are many varieties in the rodent family, they are all one 'kind'.