I apologize for that joke. It wasn’t funny. I’ll go write more jokes.
EDIT: After I made the joke below I went back in time and apolgized for the joke before it happened.
EDIT AGAIN: This is the wrong forum for a time travel joke. That joke was meant for Hugh Ross.
I couldn’t decide whether to throw up a bat signal, repeat the shema until he showed up or ask God to send him. So I did nothing. But it looks like he’s on his way!
True dat. I love hearing him speak on astrophysics, but cringe when it comes to biology or Bible. (But, best of all, he’s one of the kindest, most humble men I’ve ever met.)
You rang? 
I’ve not been following this thread closely, but I will try to give some brief thoughts on how I (and many in my discipline) read “kinds” in the biblical text. (I wrote an article years ago on this, but have no link.) First, the translation of the word min (kind) and the phrase “according to its/their kind(s)” are open-ended. The term itself is quite non-descript. The phrase is awkward–possibly suggesting a technical/hierarchical sense of “a kind and its sub-kinds” or more generally “all kinds of.”
Second, the examples, just in Gen 1 (and 6-7), do not match linnaean taxonomy consistently. This is true in specifics (is a “kind” subspecies, species, genus, family, order)–even YECs (and OECs) recognize this; just look at all the options/internal disagreements they present. More problematic (for those willing to allow “kind” to shift along the taxonomic scale) is that creatures are grouped together that have no business being so in any scientific sense (unless we’re going with a full denial of taxonomy)–e.g., bats with birds, whales with fish (and where the heck are the amphibians?!).
Third, the taxonomic level of “kind” is quite different between Genesis (creation/ark) and the food laws (Lev 11; Deut 14), in which we see much smaller differentiations.
More could be said, but this is one of many reasons a strict concordist/scientific reading of the text is doomed IMO. Much better to read it phenomenologically and practically. Jack Collins’ (and Michael LeFebvre’s) idea of God as Divine Farmer makes a lot of sense. In this reading, God’s creation mimics known realities to a Hebrew farmer, who readily knows the distinctions between the animal kingdom–wild vs. domesticated, air vs. land vs. sea, etc. The point is that God made the world as we see it with order and purpose (it’s not really about how or when God did this). From a polemical angle, the creation of “kinds” also shows regularity (e.g., dogs with breed dogs) rather than some of the strange anomalies creatures (e.g., “If a woman gives birth to a dog with a crocodile head…”) depicted in some ANE omen texts.
@deuteroKJ what do you think of this article by a YBC/YEC?
I’ll look later, but I know Rahel (we had same mentor and do lunch together every year at annual meetings) and she’s a good scholar (as is her dad Richard Davidson, also at St. Andrews). She makes the same point I did about Gen vs. Lev/Deut. I think it’s possible reproduction is implied in Gen 1, not in the word “kind” itself, but in the context (but I could be wrong). Either way, acceptance of age of earth and/or evolution are driven by larger theological concerns.
Great stuff! Thanks!!
EDIT:
I hit the send button too soon! Sounds like you’re saying that the authors of Genesis wrote to their audience, not us. I like the “the Bible was written for us, but not to us”, thing that I’ve heard.
As @Dan_Eastwood said, “The people who wrote down the original words didn’t have the knowledge or concept to understand the kind of specificity needed for scientific hypotheses. You might end up with a prediction that is scientific but un-Biblical.”
Yes, I am abandoning the term “kinds” from here on out. If say that word again, you can flag me. I will just stick with the term “nested hierarchy” or something.
The definition of species is essentially the same one science uses except for one thing. After a speciation event, species don’t become separate species but just a different type of the same species.
This means that NOT every so-called species is specially created. To answer your “why” question, We would expect specially created species because the mechanism for it requires a directed mutations or additives-only mutations to produce such an effect.
For example, a recent by 3 computational evolutionary biologists evaluated the degree of gene-tree conflict for six clades spanning vertebrates and plants. They suggested that:
“… instances of high gene-tree conflict (discordance in phylogenetic signal across genes) in mammals, birds, and several major plant clades correspond to rate increases in morphological innovation. We suggest that gene-tree conflict and rapid phenotypic change across major clades of vascular plants, mammals, and birds are often the result of coincident population processes (e.g., changes in population size, rapid speciation, and incomplete lineage sorting). Closer examination of these coincident patterns will contribute to a stronger understanding of the microevolutionary dynamics underlying the emergence of phenotypic patterns typically only observable over deep time. Our findings indicate that patterns of gene-tree conflict, occurring episodically across the Tree of Life, offer clues toward understanding the population-level processes driving major evolutionary transitions.”
They concluded within their paper that closer examination of episodes of high gene-tree conflict “may yield improved connections between micro- and macroevolution and increase our understanding of the processes that shape the origin of major lineages across the Tree of Life.”
Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS
"In his paper, Rose points out that during the late Pleistocene epoch (150,000 to 12,000 years ago) reduced sea levels periodically exposed the “Gulf Oasis.” The Persian Gulf receded to such a degree as to bring above the surface a landmass as large as, or larger than, Great Britain. Rose explains that this landmass was well watered by four large rivers flowing at the time: the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Batin. Additionally, the region was watered by fresh water springs supplied by subterranean aquifers flowing beneath the Arabian subcontinent. Such an abundant and well-distributed supply of fresh water combined with the region’s warm weather would have supported a lush agricultural enterprise.
Rose argues that during the latter part of the last ice age a thriving civilization existed in what is now the Persian Gulf. As sea levels rose and as water rushed in through the Strait of Hormuz to fill up the Persian Gulf, people would have exited the Gulf Oasis and formed settlements along the rising shoreline. To build an iron-clad case for his theory, Rose calls for underwater exploration in the Persian Gulf to search for tools, human-built structures, and, best of all, fossil remains of humans. However, Rose also points out that the water’s rushing in to fill up the Persian Gulf and other neighboring regions could explain the many flood accounts and myths that emanate from that part of the globe. Such a flood event could have destroyed the very kind of evidence that Rose needs to solidify his case."
At least for sexually reproducing organisms, a species is a group of interbreeding organisms. After a speciation event you have two populations that no longer interbreed. In science, they are considered separate species. If you don’t consider these two separate species then you are not using the scientific definition.
So you are still lacking a definition for species. In your schema, how do we determine if two non-interbreeding populations belong to the same species? What criteria do you use to determine if two non-interbreeding populations belong to the same species? For now, let’s stick with living populations for simplicity’s sake.
Still no clue what you were trying to say originally, and I suspect you misunderstand what @Dan_Eastwood was saying.
So your definition of species is the same as the biological species concept except that it has nothing in common with that concept. What you mean by “species” is what other creationists mean by “kind” or “baramin” (technically, “holobaramin”). And you wonder why nobody understands you. Please, just use “kind” and forget about “species”. It makes much more sense that way.
That doesn’t follow. Directed mutations do not require special creation of kinds, even if it’s true that directed mutations are necessary.
But that isn’t an example of anything you said previously. It has nothing to do with special creation or directed mutation or anything else. What the heck?
You quoted that but you didn’t even respond to it. Your lack of attention is both insulting and infuriating.
When quoting, please indicate what you’re quoting as well as what point you’re trying to make. Notice that the four large rivers are flowing into the oasis rather than out of it, in contradiction to Genesis. Rose’s argument for an ancient civilization, you will note, is in the complete absence of any evidence. He doesn’t need the evidence just to build an iron-clad case but any case at all, which so far does not exist. Note also that there are flood myths all over the world, chiefly in regions that suffer frequent floods, and most nowhere near the Persian Gulf. Note also that the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and perhaps others I don’t know about, have also been offered as sites for Eden and sources of the flood myth. Some vague resemblance is sufficient for believers, but not for anyone else.
Please have some respect for me, if not for yourself.
Phylogenetic inference methods would be one way and observations that a duck is still a duck after a speciation event.
This makes no sense on the level of English, let alone biology. It is not a speciation event if it does not result in a species. You may as well be stating “species don’t become separate species but just a different species of the same species.”
Your “Common Design Model” has progressively become more of a “Common Design Muddle”.
No. There are many, many different species of ducks.
The word “duck” does not refer to a species.
Did my dissertation on duck phylogeny, coincidentally. What @Meerkat_SK5 has there is a misunderstanding of cladistic classification, which may be summarized as “once a duck, always a duck”. Even if, like a merganser, it doesn’t look like a duck any more.
It is not a big deal. Let’s just drop this part.
Alright fine, we’ll do that instead. I was just trying to make sure we stay on the same page.
Let’s try this again. Under a common design model, a speciation event does not involve a creation of new species, but it is new kinds of the same species. Is that better or do you need me to make more changes?
Correct, I was referring to “species” here NOT kinds
It has everything to do with what I have been trying to argue in regards to whether common design is potentially useful or not because it involves the cause of the process of creating new species (not kinds). as the study suggests…
“Our findings indicate that patterns of gene-tree conflict, occurring episodically across the Tree of Life, offer clues toward understanding the population-level processes driving major evolutionary transitions”
Yes, it is now because of Noah’s flood, which means that Noah’s story needs to be supported in order for those predictions to be confirmed and valid.
No, there is definitely strong support for Noah’s story but we will have to revisit this another time since it is off-topic.
That makes no sense at all.
That makes even less sense. By definition, a speciation event involves the creation of a new species; that’s what “speciation” means. What does “new kinds of the same species” even mean? We had agreed previously that “kind” means a specially created entity, de novo, possibly ex nihilo, but certainly without ancestors. So there can be no kinds within a species. Note that after agreeing to forget about species, you keep on talking about them. Do you see the confusion you generate here? Now I have to ask what you mean by “speciation event”, since it appears to be quite different from what other people mean.
You will note that all this occurs in a context of common descent, which is what we’re arguing about. You can’t use that to support separate creation of kinds. And I have no idea what you think you mean by “the process of creating new species (not kinds)”, as you have hopelessly muddied both those terms.
Hey, you’re the one who brought it up. There is definitely zero support for Noah’s story, but I’m happy to leave that alone.
From this list I count 133 species of ducks. Are you saying that they are really one species of duck? We would also observe that it is still a bird, so are all birds still one species? We would also observe that it is still a tetrapod, just as humans are still tetrapods. So are we still in the same tetrapod species as ducks? Are we in the duck created kind because both the duck and us are both still tetrapods?
It seems that the only criteria you have is if you can call them by the same name before and after a speciation event.
Alright, let’s try this again. Under the common design model, species is defined as … the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism. Moreover, it is the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
Kinds is defined as a subcategory of species where two individuals of a species are no longer able to produce fertile offspring from the largest group of organisms after reproductive isolation.
The difference between “kinds” and “species” is that “kinds” have common ancestors and “species” do not.
No, I agreed to forget about “kinds” but then you said you were against me doing this. So I brought up topic of kinds.
Another complete failure. You fail to make any kind of sense. Your definition of species is fairly standard, but then you define kinds within species in a way that makes them separate species under the definition you gave for species. And you appear to say that species are separately created, which is the standard usage of “kind”.
Further, if you say that species are separately created and use the standard definition of species, then you are asserting that, for example, horses and donkeys are separately created entities. Are you willing to say that?
You are only embarrassing yourself here. Just stop.
That’s a confused list, and it doesn’t define a clade. It includes some birds called “geese”, and rightly so because “goose” isn’t a taxonomic term, and neither is “duck”. But it excludes other geese and swans, even though whistling ducks, which it counts, are less closely related to mallards than are the typical geese and swans. I would count the entire family Anatidae, around 150 species, give or take.
All this is moot because @Meerkat_SK5 has no idea what he means by “species” or “speciation event”.