God Created [Spirituality & Religion]

@AbbySvenz Not to my knowledge... apparently it’s some sort of vague term used in their ‘holy’ book by people who didn’t even know where the Sun went at night

@AbbySvenz Kind.. Example all K 9s Like wolves dogs foxes are one kind..

@Adstar Yes, all dogs are wolves. Humans are apes, as are chimpanzees, bonobo, and gorillas. Go back far enough and you’ll find common ancestry between wolves and apes. In fact, you’ll find common ancestry between between every living organism and every other living organism, and common ancestry between every living organism and every organism that has ever lived.

Where does that leave ‘kinds’?

@Adstar If you’re looking for immutability, it’s going to be a long wait... ands a bumpy ride 😂

@AbbySvenz Species Definition
A species is a group of organisms that share a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile. Different species are separated from each other by reproductive barriers. These barriers can be geographical, such as a mountain range separating two populations, or genetic barriers that do not allow for reproduction between the two populations. Scientists have changed their definition of a species several times throughout history.

Species is one of the most specific classification that scientists use to describe animals. Scientists use a system of binomial nomenclature to describe animals without the confusion of common names. This system uses the genus as the first name, which is always capitalized, and the species name is the second name, always lower case. Thus, some animals like the Red fox, Vulpes vulpes, are both in the genus Vulpes and their species name is vulpes. Note the capitalization difference to distinguish between genus and species. Other foxes such as the swift fox, Vulpes velox, are also part of the Vulpes genus, but barriers exist that keep them from interbreeding with the Red foxes. In this way, they remain distinct species.
ified the elephant in the early 1700s, he

I’ve taken a biology class, I know what a species is. I asked about the creationist insistence of using —but never defining— the term “kind” @Carazaa

@AbbySvenz It is "Species!"

@Carazaa you’re saying that kind = species?

@bystander Yes. OfCourse it could be animal "Genus" or animal "family" maybe since there would have been less animals on the Ark and they would reproduce after the flood. I am not sure exactly what God meant by "kind" but it was 4, 359 years ago since all the family births since Adam is written by name when they were born. So we know for a fact animals reproduced fast.

@newjaninev2 I am not looking for immutability... Why do you even bring immutability up..

@Adstar creationist claim species are fixed... set and unchanging

@newjaninev2 I go on what the Bible says. I believe God created the Universe and i do not believe species are fixed and unchanging..

@Adstar So you accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

Well done.

@newjaninev2 I accept that the process of Adaptation changes all kinds of animals over time due to environemental change.. Or animal husbandy that humans engage in..

@Adstar So you accept change at the phenotypic level, but reject change at the genotypic level.

To me, that sounds like species immutability

@newjaninev2
A wolf given enough generations can end up becoming a chihuahua..

A bull shark given enough generations can become a whale shark..

A Zebra given enough generations can end up being a pony..

Whether it be by environmental change or human selective breeding intervention..

@Adstar When talking about the concept of species, the first problem that seems to pop up is Essentialism. This is a hangover from Plato, who thought that every triangle (for example) was but an imperfect shadow of some essential triangle that existed in some or other conceptual space.

Ernst Mayr pointed out that this same thinking seems to appear when people think about species… as if there’s some quintessential rabbit, against which it can be assessed whether or not any given organism is, or is not, a rabbit.

In fact, a species should never be seen as representing some gigantic and sudden leap from something to something else. There is no magical point in time where biological differences allow separate species classifications. If you don’t understand this, then you’ll be be unable to understand evolution.

Every organism is linked to every other organism, say rabbit to leopard, by a chain of intermediates, each so similar to the next that every link could in principle mate with its neighbours in the chain and produce fertile offspring.

You can’t violate immutability more comprehensively than that.

This is not some vague thought-experiment confined to the imagination. The genetic evidence shows us that there really is a series of intermediate animals connecting a rabbit to a leopard, every one of whom lived and breathed, every one of whom would have been placed in exactly the same species as its immediate neighbours on either side in the long, sliding continuum. Indeed, every one of the series was the child of its neighbour on one side and the parent of its neighbour on the other. Yet the whole series constitutes a continuous bridge from rabbit to leopard… although there never was a ‘rabbipard’. There are similar bridges from rabbit to wombat, from leopard to lobster, from every animal or plant to every other.

@newjaninev2 No - the evidence doesn't support any transitional animals between species. You're repeating a debunked concept.