Talk:Created kind
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
Evowiki defines "kind"
Two individuals are of the same kind if, and only if, they share a common ancestor. This definition of 'kind' is not unreasonable; it even provides an implicit methodology for determining which 'kind' a creature belongs to -- just figure out which critters do or do not share ancestors in common with the creature you're interested in. Sadly, Creationists will never use this definition, for their dogma demands that humans have an origin completely separate and distinct from any and every other life form on Earth, and the evidence at hand clearly indicates that the species homo sapiens shares ancestors in common with a number of other species. Creationists refer to the vague (undefined) version of 'kind' as cited in Genesis 1.''
It is unreasonable until a accurate method of determining common ancestor is developed. According to evolution, all living things share a common ancestor, and therefore are one kind. PrometheusX303 21:31, 28 December 2005 (GMT)
I disagree. That is a reasonable definition of the created kind. Our ability to identify them, should not effect our definition of them. The original definition on the page was incorrect. It said "the original forms of life as they were created by God." It is arguable that no organism today exists in the form as they were originally created. They have in fact changed so much we cant use morphological characteristics to identify the kinds. We cant use reproductive incompatibility to exclude them either. I have changed the short and sweet definition to " Created kinds are organisms that share a common ancestry." --Chris Ashcraft 22:02, 28 December 2005 (GMT)
"Kinds" is still a vague concept for me. According to Genesis, animals on the ark are representatives of their kind, therefore their decendents are of that kind. I agree that, due to adaptation and speciation few, if any, organisms exist as the original kind. In retrospect, I also agree with the "short and sweet" definition. I think I was comparing created kinds with evolutionary ancestors. PrometheusX303 23:06, 28 December 2005 (GMT)
Question
Therefore, it is believed to be assumable that any organism alive today, which has obvious ancestors in the fossil record, is a created kind.
Wouldn't the opposite be true? If an organism has obvious ancestors then the DNA of the organism living today must have been selected from the original ancestors. Or am I wrong?
-- RichardT
