Biblical Absurdities: Animal “Kinds” – Follow Up.

Yes they do! “Genus”, “family”, etc. Just because YOU don’t accept it, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been provided.

Antagonist

Source. Tell me where any prominent Creationist shows that the Bible defines what a kind is. The Bible does not do this.

Give me a source where a Creationist clearly defines what HE (or she) thinks a kind is. And I have looked.

I know you will never find any such evidence in the Bible. Unlike you, it seems, I have read the Bible and I know what it says and does not say about this.

Unlike you, I am not reading between the lines and inserting meaning that is not there.

Classifying things that look similar is the entire basis of taxonomy…

Antagonist

No. Not for scientific taxonomy. We do not classify things just because they “look” similar. It is done based on evolutionary and genetic relationships. Not “it looks similar”

Have you investigated how this is done? It seems not. Let me give you a brief education on this subject.

“Classifying things that look similar” is why people used to think whales are fish. They thought “If it looks and acts like this thing, we should classify it as one of those”.

But this is a very wrongheaded way to approach taxonomy. We would make very little progress towards rationally classifying anything in anything but the most obvious cases if we tried that.

In fact, we would think whales were fish, not mammals.

We would likely never identify that birds are dinosaurs, because hey, they do not look like dinosaurs

Then again, some birds do look a lot like some dinosaurs.

But hey, some dinosaurs look like birds! Maybe dinosaurs are birds!

Yeap, this microraptor looks like a bird to me. It is a paravian dinosaur

We would never figure out that beetles and sponges are both animals. Because they do not look like they should all be classified as the same thing, surely!

What about cuttlefish and the nautilus? Do they look similar enough for you to classify them as cephalopods? Well, they are, as can be proven, both cephalopods. But they do not look all that similar.

What about orca “whales”? They look like whales, right? So, should we classify them as whales? No, they are dolphins. Whoops, we would have been very wrong to classify them as whales just because they look like whales.

What about the facts bears and dogs are closely related? How are you going to figure that out using they “look similar”? They don’t look that similar.

Perhaps, they “look similar” is not how taxonomy works?

How does it work? How do we figure out that orca whales are dolphins and not what most people would call whales?

We look at the shared traits of animals and try to see what their ancestors might have been. Use these shared traits to try to identify the evolutionary relationships to other species and groups of animals and then classify them according to those relationships.

We also try to look at genetic relationships. For instance, do these organisms have genetic relationships with these other ones? Do these relationships indicate common ancestry or that the organisms belong to closely related groups?

For instance, if we look at the cuttlefish, we can see that they share many physical attributes with the nautilus. These defining traits include the presence of “arms” (loosely speaking, tentacles), the same basic body plan (feet, mantle and head), blue blood, relatively large brains and so forth.

Based on sharing these traits, the nautilus and the cuttlefish, despite looking quite different, are classified as cephalopods.

They also have common ancestors’ earlier molluscs, as well as genetic similarities with those other molluscs. On this basis, they are also in the class mollusc!

(If this seems confusing, bear with me. Molluscs have shells, right? So do cephalopods, at least during some stage of embryonic development. The shell may be greatly reduced or absent in the adult.

Some have shells or the remnants of shells (the gladius), even if that remnant is inside the mantle (body) of the organism and is greatly reduced.)

Or take orca whales. They have teeth. Which is a trait of dolphins. As well as streamlined bodies and rounded heads that are characteristic of dolphins.

So, based on these shared traits, they are classified as dolphins.

But … but … they don’t look like dolphins! This is why “it looks like this” is not how taxonomy is performed.

Note, this is still not “they look similar”. This goes way beyond what they look like. These shared traits are often not easily visible or immediately obvious.

(Technically, orca whales belong to the family Delphinidae, which is a subset of the toothed whale suborder Odontoceti. So yes, dolphins are whales, but not what most people would call “whales”).

This is how it works, or at least a very simplified version. You can find out more using Google or this link.

I’m not saying the Bible defines it. I’m saying that any thinking person can understand what they meant and this argument is bordering on being pedantic.

Antagonist

No. How could they? The term is given no definition and is used in a nonsensical way.

How could any intelligent person figure out what is meant when no definition is given nor any indication what is meant?

We have seen how it uses the term kind. There is no way to know it means. You can imagine that it means family or genus, but nothing indicates this.

The fact that you can imagine what it might mean does not mean that there is any evidence to support your imaginings.

Read the article. It shows how the term “kind” is rationally useless. To intelligent people because it has no meaning or applicability. It is often not even clear which animals are a member of a given kind or not.

Matter of fact: Not even scientists agree on the exact definition of “species”. So by your OWN logic, this is an invalid concept…

Antagonist

By and large, there is an agreement about what a species is. Some scientists give different definitions. But they all give rational definitions.

But even if scientists were giving a bunch of irrational non-definitions, that is not a valid objection.

My argument is not “they cannot agree on what a kind means, therefore it is a bad term”. My argument is “They do not ever say what it means and they use it in a way that makes the word contradictory and useless”.

So, even if what you said was true, then so what? It does not invalidate my point. Nor have any bearing on the argument I made.

So, Antagonist, got anything else? Or are you ready to admit that no intelligent person should assume the Bible means that which you imagined it to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *