Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hey K, I have another question about kinds of animals which depending on how you view a kind as described in scripture may open up a new and interesting dialogue.
So when God made the animals according to their kind, what is the definition of kind and what examples would you consider a kinds of animals?
I've never really thought on it before.
But, as luck would have it I read an RTB article
which presents some Scripture for "kind".
Going by that, I suppose it is akin to species, even as broad as genus. Other interesting stuff is said there.
I no longer really follow RTB that closely, but if you're considering other things to do with PC then obviously that'd be a good source to explore questions.
Of course always happy to share my own opinion. Do keep in mind, as much as they have their science, their mission is clearly Christian.
It was actually RTB that made me take seriously ERVs. They didn't try to smooth it over at the time. Left is as an open question. I respect that.
Also, I'm sure you've seen it before... but they have a creation timeline
And overall picture of what we generally know from science with the days as they see in creation.
I was wondering, if "Kind" refers to species and possibly genus, how do you feel about ring species?
For example http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
You know, it is quite difficult to categorise species.
Do we go by how they look visually?
Should we determine species by whether they can reproduce?
Or in our modern day should we look at the DNA which contains information about a life form?
Personally, I think DNA is a very good method.
Rather than determining a species by its cover, you get to read the actual biological information.
Seems to me less superficial and less prone to subjective opinion.
For example, consider butterflies. Many had been lumped together visually as the same species.
But, when looking at the DNA they were quite different. Thus, many considered the same species were now split into multiple species.
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-species ... 03861.html
Likewise, consider the spiders at your same site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
The spiders there look quite visually different, but can interbreed so are considered the same species.
"Ring species" may present a problem for speciation -- in that there is actual disagreement about whether they all be considered the same species or as separate species.
Does the fact A can breed with B but not C, while A and C can breed but not B and C mean they all be considered the same species?
I think it is here we're actually seeing all sorts of flavors to life, and the confusion is coming because we're trying to create constructs and boxes around everything.
Seems to be human nature. Makes us feel comfortable have boxes to categorise things into.
Though it does have benefit in being able to communicate about such things.
Gives us a language to use and understand.
On that same spider link
, it is important to keep in mind their reminder: "There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!
If science can't settle upon how "ring species" and how species should be defined (not to mention how we should define species), then I'm not sure "kinds" could be settled either.
A thought that came to me here, is God may have mixed a bit of A with B that was incompatible with C, and mixed enough of B with C that made C incompatible with A.
Like a painter mixes their paints to great creative effect, maybe that is suggestive of God just mixing our biology together.
Just providing a different take to it all, and it helps to understand why we can run into much difficulty categorising life.
I see no reason why ring species couldn't be classified under "kind"?
Genesis actually seems quite clear about the "kinds" it intended on each day.
For example, seed bearing plants after their kind on day 3; winged birds after its kind on day 5; cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field (i.e., meat eaters
) after their kind on day 6.
Obviously its not given an exact run down, that's not the purpose of Genesis.
However, there is enough detail to understand what is intended by "kind" I suppose.
D220 wrote:My question is if these Gecko's can change to a point where they are no longer the same species but yet the same genus, isn't it possible that Homo Sapians in the genus of Homo could also do the same, or would you say that Homo Sapians are exempt from the natural laws of nature?
I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
You'll need to unpack it into separate questions.
Homo sapiens are not exempt from the natural laws of nature.
Why would they be? What do you mean by this?
D220 wrote:If we also extend that thought from genus to family then why couldn't Hominidae and Homo Sapians have a common ancestor? If we can accept speciation in the genus, then why not the family, it is not a huge leap of logic is it?
What I said earlier about God taking an existing life, and then adding to and working with that to bring about something new I came to the conclusion would be "common ancestry."
Only God is the one doing the mixing and bringing about a new life form that also has genetically new information and the like.
There is no reason why God couldn't have done the same with us modern humans.
In fact, psuedogenes and HERVs would highly suggest that such is the case.