>
>So, here is observational evidence that crosses between species
>and crosses between genera are possible. What does this mean for
>our understanding of the phrase "after its kind"? Is Glenn right
>to say that these are examples of plants reproducing NOT after
>their kind?
>
>I am going to suggest two lines of thought:
>(a) that the Bible is not "wrong" because of evidences of intra-
>specific and intra-generic crosses. There are two reasons for
>this.
>(i) The word "kind" (non-technical) should not be equated with
>"species" (technical);
I agree that the Bible is not wrong. But my encyclopedia notes:
"Hybrid, offspring of parents that differ in genetically determined
traits. The parents may be of different species, genera, or (rarely)
families." Encyclopedia Britannica 1982 Vol. V, p. 233.
So the issue goes beyond merely the issue of what is a species. It goes
all the way to what is a family.
>(ii) Reproduction after its kind IS our experience of living
>things, and in an a-scientific worldview (which I maintain
>characterises the Bible) attention to such complexities should
>not be expected.
While I can grant the validity of this view, this view in my opinion
undermines the usefulness of using Genesis 1 to say that evolution is
impossible or unbiblical.
>(b) that a variety of interpretations of the phrase "after their
>kind" are, in principle, possible. Thus, TEs can, in principle,
>argue that although the general experience of humanity is that
>things reproduce so that the offspring are like their parents,
>there is no fundamental reason why the phenotype should not vary
>with time. PCs and YECs can argue that, since miraculous
>creative power is necessary to bring organisms into existence,
>there will be fundamental "blocks" to variation - the gulfs which
>separate the different created designs cannot be bridged. (Note:
>although I have said that a variety of interpretations are
>possible, I think the range of possibilities can be narrowed by
>identifying other inputs to assist problem resolution.)
I disagree here with your implicit assumption that the Bible says that
animals reproduce after their kind. I simply can't find that statement in
the Bible. Genesis 1:25 says "And God made the beasts of the earth after
their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on
the ground after its kind;..." NAB
The revised standard uses 'according' instead of 'after'.
The phrase here is meant in a sense of "made VARIOUS beasts of the earth".
This verse simply says nothing about the reproductive capacities of the
beasts.
Can you please point out one verse where it says that animals are
incapable of reproducing anything other than their own kind--where the
subject of the sentence is animal(beast or what ever) and the object of
the sentence is animal modified by according to their kind. The verb of
this sentence must be reproduce. Thus it must say something like
ANIMALS REPRODUCE ANIMALS AFTER THEIR KIND.
I can't find anywhere in the Bible where this is stated. Are we adding to
the Bible?
>I want to draw attention to the research of some German
>creationists, who have taken the scientific questions about
>whether there is a "gulf" between created designs very seriously.
>They are seeking to define "Basic Types" which are related
>genetically but which are quite unrelated genetically to other
>Basic Types. They have used hybridisation data (similar to that
>cited by Glenn) to construct interbreeding matrices. Other
>evidences are employed as appropriate. The results are very
>interesting. Basic Types are NOT at the species level, not even
>at the genus level. They are at the Family or sub-Family level.
>Thus, groups we naturally associate together (such as the Dog
>Family or the Horse Family) are meaningful biological groups.
>This research has been published in book format (mostly in the
>German language): _Typen des Lebens_, Scherer, S. (Ed.), 1993,
>Pascal-Verlag, Berlin.
>
Let me ask something. I don't read German so this is beyond my abilities.
How do the authors treat the canids (dog, jackals etc) or the Equids
(horses)? This is an important question as far as I am concerned. Are
the canidae one kind or not? Are the equidae one kind or not?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm