The Joker Wrote:I always interpret things from the Creationist perspective, so I don't primarily use the evolutionary scale. Kinds also known as Baraminology(from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”). Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)!
If a kind is defined by what can interbreed and what can't, you're basically saying organisms that can't interbreed, can't interbreed. That doesn't seem to be more useful than species and genus and family. If two species can interbreed and the offspring are sterile, are they the same kind? Like horses and donkeys or lions and tigers? If so, I think genus may be the scientific equivalent. The roaring cats are one genus, and at least some of them can interbreed; and they cannot interbreed with other genera of the cat family.
The Joker Wrote:Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Y'know, that 'kind begets kind' thing doesn't contradict evolution. Our offspring are always the same 'kind' as us. It would falsify evolution if they weren't. A dog never gives birth to a cat (except maybe with human help), evolution has no mechanism to make that possible. Variations over hundreds or thousands of generations, with the ones that make reproduction more successful conserved and the ones that make reproduction less successful selected against; and the product of ten thousand generations may not be the same species, genus, or 'kind' as it's ancient ancestors, but it will still be the same 'kind' as its parents.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
