For Creationists.

[Lemonvariable72]

Well, this has truly evolved (the kind of evolution I can believe in).

I was asked about "Kinds", the word and concept predates the culture of evolution by several hundred years.
Lately, the naturalists are confused by what it means.

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

Neither do they become one or the other over millions of years.
If you have a dog, you might be asked what KIND of dog you have?
Pretty simple isn't it.
The genetic code is what? Silly putty?

Ummn did you read the link I posted, because thats exactly what happened. One kind became a very different kind.

[Esquilax]

I was asked about "Kinds", the word and concept predates the culture of evolution by several hundred years.
Lately, the naturalists are confused by what it means.

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

Neither do they become one or the other over millions of years.
If you have a dog, you might be asked what KIND of dog you have?
Pretty simple isn't it.
The genetic code is what? Silly putty?

This is too vague. I've been told elsewhere that dogs are their own kind, but now you seem to be telling me that there are multiple kinds of dogs. But under that definition evolution is trivial to demonstrate, as all modern dogs descend initially from either gray wolves or an older, now extinct ancestor of the gray wolf. Something tells me that, now that this fact has been pointed out to you, kinds now mean something else entirely.

You also said that the notion of kinds predates evolution, but that's not really relevant to the issue; evolution does not and has not ever spoken on kinds. It speaks of species, and the evolution of new species from old is relatively easy to demonstrate; Gray Tree Frogs and Cope's Gray Tree Frogs being the most immediate, rapid example I can think of.

Whether the term kind came before or after evolution, the fact remains that it's not an applicable term. It was never present within the definition of evolution, and so you can't use it to say that evolution doesn't happen, any more than you can use some other random, unconnected term to argue against gravity. Kind isn't even a scientific classification, it's just some arcane, intuitive nothing of a word creationists cling to when there's nothing left for their side to argue. It certainly isn't an accurate description of the natural world, and even if it was you guys don't seem at all interested in making a case as for why we should adopt it over the current scientific classification at all.

You just seem to think we have to, because you said so.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

If we were five year olds discussing the various designations of our favorite flavors of ice cream....then you might have a point. Since we aren't, you don't.

[professor]

This is amazing.
There are varieties of dogs. A dog is a kind of animal.

When you see a critter run over in the road, what kind of animal is it?
If it is a squirrel, it is that KIND of animal.

We can't help it if your mentors concocted lingo to create a new cult.

Ever hear the word Humankind?
That would be us and not anything else.

Esq, what I am saying is the chicken came first.
'Way before the religion of Evolution.

Believe whatever you want, I have tried to put these (apparently) complicated thoughts down in a way a child could understand, since they didn't take the first time.

[Esquilax]

This is amazing.
There are varieties of dogs. A dog is a kind of animal.

So when you made reference to being asked what KIND of dog you have in your last post, you were being misleading? See, it was you who said that there were different KINDS of dogs earlier, in your quest to provide the absolute vaguest definition possible; don't then get snippy when you're taken at your word.

Besides, even if all dogs are in a KIND together, they all still evolved from wolves, so they went from the wolf KIND to the dog KIND.

When you see a critter run over in the road, what kind of animal is it?
If it is a squirrel, it is that KIND of animal.

Are there any other animals in the squirrel KIND, or is it just squirrels? If it's the latter, what should we use to determine which KIND each animal fits into? If it's the latter, why is KIND a synonym for species where squirrels are concerned, but not where dogs are concerned?

Who is making these distinctions, and where can we find a comprehensive resource that shows what all the KINDS are and what fits into them, and why?

We can't help it if your mentors concocted lingo to create a new cult.

But you can help it that the word you're trying to replace the (exhaustive, detailed, unambiguous) scientific classification system with is an evasive, obfuscatory block designed to be whatever you need it at any given time to deny evolution, rather than an actual term of any use.

Oh, and by the way? The scientific classification system predates evolution by a long way, starting with the works of Aristotle. It wasn't "concocted" to advance evolutionary theory, it existed long before and was refined numerous times before Darwin ever even his the scene. At least try and get the facts straight before you launch into another conspiracy theory, yeah?

Ever hear the word Humankind?
That would be us and not anything else.

Why? Who made that distinction, and why should I care?

Esq, what I am saying is the chicken came first.
'Way before the religion of Evolution.

So what if it came first? If it came first and is irrelevant to what evolution describes, then it's still irrelevant. Your argument seriously is that evolution can't be true because only the thing that evolution describes actually happens, but this other thing that evolution doesn't describe has never happened. It's a total non-sequitur, and you seem utterly uninterested in doing more than demanding that we follow your strange, vague definitions because you want us to.

Believe whatever you want, I have tried to put these (apparently) complicated thoughts down in a way a child could understand, since they didn't take the first time.

You're being intentionally evasive because if you actually defined what a KIND is, and what goes into determining where an animal falls into them, the word would lose its power because we'd easily be able to find examples that confounds your definition. Because you haven't actually thought about what KIND means or does, have you? You don't actually know why the lines are drawn the way they are, because there aren't any lines at all, just whatever you need at the moment.

You try to insult us by saying you're explaining this so a child could understand, but what you don't seem to understand is that you're answering a completely different question in the hopes we'll just get off your back and leave you alone.

"Hey Prof, what's the definition of a KIND? How do you determine what's in one KIND and what's in another?"

"Dogs are a KIND."

"Yes, but... how is that determined? What's the definition of the term?"

"Why aren't you getting this? Squirrels are a KIND!"

"Okay, that's an example of a KIND. But what does the word actually mean, so that I can make those determinations myself as needs be?"

"What are you, children?! Humans are a KIND!"

Does that sound like a reasonable discussion to you? I didn't ask you for examples of KINDS. I asked you what the definition of the term is, and how it can be practically used. Presenting me with lists of different KINDS without any indication of what makes them that KIND and not another doesn't provide any information at all.

It's like if you asked me what soup is and I proceeded to list off a bunch of soup flavors at you. Would you know what soup is, if I just told you that mushroom soup and chicken soup exist?

[Exian]

This is amazing.
There are varieties of dogs. A dog is a kind of animal.

When you see a critter run over in the road, what kind of animal is it?
If it is a squirrel, it is that KIND of animal.

I guess you're right in a colloquial sense, just not in any sense relevant to the theory(non-colloquial) of evolution. This is why we say its irrelevant when you bring it up in a conversation about evolution. If, heaven forbid, I'm ever at your BBQ (kidding, I'm sure that would be delightful), we can talk "kind" all day, but, just like you wouldn't mention the orbit of Venus in a conversation about evolution, you shouldn't use terms with no use to the subject matter.

We can't help it if your mentors concocted lingo to create a new cult.

Ever hear the word Humankind?
That would be us and not anything else.

Ever hear the word Homo?

Believe whatever you want, I have tried to put these (apparently) complicated thoughts down in a way a child could understand, since they didn't take the first time.

You succeeded in explaining a concept vague enough for a child to grasp. The concept of "kind" just has no place in the theory of evolution, taxonomy, and phylogeny.

[KUSA]

[Esquilax]

I notice Professor kudos-ed your post, KUSA. I wonder if it just made him laugh, or if he actually thinks it's a good point?

[Lemonvariable72]

I notice Professor kudos-ed your post, KUSA. I wonder if it just made him laugh, or if he actually thinks it's a good point?

Crazy as he is, he does have a good sense of humor.

[Chas]

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature.

Of course we can, by replicating the conditions in nature.

You are always digging at me for proof now it's your turn.
So, you're saying that before science got involved with gene manipulation, there was another intelligence involved in gene manipulation.

Where did he say that?

There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different, there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

GC

Yes, there is on both counts. The fossil record and DNA demonstrate this.
And have you never heard of mutation?

---

Well, this has truly evolved (the kind of evolution I can believe in).

I was asked about "Kinds", the word and concept predates the culture of evolution by several hundred years.
Lately, the naturalists are confused by what it means.

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

Neither do they become one or the other over millions of years.
If you have a dog, you might be asked what KIND of dog you have?
Pretty simple isn't it.
The genetic code is what? Silly putty?

Please shut the fuck up until you've learned some science.