Yes: if "kind" has a technical, biological meaning, I agree. But
my previous posts have suggested that the word is not a technical
one at all! I'm not sure I'm the person to whom you should have
directed your post!
Let us start with a created ancestral population. During the
course of earth history, it experiences various speciation
events. Each descendant species shows:
(a) offspring which look like their parents. This is the
suggested "language of appearance" meaning of the phrase "after
their kind".
(b) hybridisation behaviour which demonstrates common
developmental pathways and allows linkage to be identified within
the "family" of genetically-related species.
GM: "Here are the chromosome numbers for the members of this [the
canidae family] kind..."
GM: "These chromosome numbers are all over the place. If these
animals, which have traditionally been designated a single kind
based on their gross anatomy, really are a single kind, then much
evolution has taken place."
I agree that the data presented is very interesting. You can see
similar sets of data reported in the book I mentioned (Typen des
Lebens). Using this "Basic Type" approach, it can be inferred
that changes in chromosome number are not at all unusual in
speciation events. How this actually happened is not so clear -
but I can see a research programme unfolding here which is
significantly different from a neoDarwinian one.
You say "much evolution has taken place" - which is OK as long
as you are prepared to distinguish this sort of evolution from
that which is supposed to bridge the gaps between Phyla, Classes,
Orders and Families. It is fair to say that the changes are more
than seem to be allowed "traditionally" - by which I assume you
mean either the leaders of 20th Century Young Earth Creationism
or the perceptions of what 19th Century non-creationists thought
creationists ought to believe.
GM: "Because of this, when one says that animals reproduce
according to their kind, one must be very careful to define what
he means. But one thing is certain, the orthodox meaning of
reproduce according to its kind is not fulfilled within the
kinds."
Exactly. Which is why I have tried to elaborate the "language
of appearance" interpretation of the phrase. [I am conscious
that Glen has questioned whether the phrase has anything to do
with reproduction - which I hope to respond to next week).
I would like to pick up on the word "orthodox". To what is Glen
referring? The views of Morris and YEC popularisers? The
"early" Linnaeus? or "mature" Linnaeus? "Orthodox" has
such weighty overtones! - in this area, I don't think there is an
orthodox view. Certainly, the idea that "kinds" = "species" is
refuted by your post. Whether it refutes the idea that "kinds" has a
technical meaning is something I will leave to any who hold that
view. But if you hold, like me, to the "language of appearance"
interpretation of the phrase, your post does not suggest that a
revision is needed.
GM: "In what kind of sense did God create a kind with different
chromosomal numbers?"
I can't answer this question - how do we know this is what God
did? At the moment, I see the chromosomal differences as
emerging with time - linked to speciation within the ancestral
population.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***