>Abstract: this really belongs in the "After their kind" thread! A
>few responses to questions and points on the Genesis Kinds.
>Glenn Morton wrote on 25th July:
>"I have waited three days to see if anyone was going to respond
>to Nickolas Matzke's post. One of the most frustrating things
>in the C/E debate on both sides is that when someone comes up
>with a really good argument, the response by the other side is
>silence... "
>
>Sorry to be so slow Glenn! But there are so many issues to
>respond to! I often start with the best of intentions of
>responding - but then events overtake me and the issue gets
>shelved.
>
>GM: "If Dog-kind can have chromosome numbers from 36 to 78 and
>Horse-kind can have chromosome numbers over a similar range, then
>why can Human-kind not have a similar range of chromosome
>numbers. (Apes 48 humans 46)."
>
>Are we able to answer such "Why?" questions? Maybe, considering
>only biological principles, there is no reason why there should
>not be speciation events in humankind. But Humans are not just
>biological entities. Perhaps that is why different races, but
>not different species, are observed today. Perhaps it was right
>to classify Neanderthal man as a sub-species of Homo sapiens, not
>a separate species in its own right. Maybe the same should be
>true for other species in the hominid line. I'm speculating
>because I see no clear answers here.
>
I don't want to put words in your mouth (so correct me if I'm wrong), but it
sounds like you are telling me that if we consider "only biological principles"
(perhaps "only scientific evidence" is implied?) you draw the conclusion that
it is at least physically POSSIBLE for modern day humans to have evolved from
earlier hominid species without REQUIRING direct supernatural action.
If we both agree on this, then we move on to the next question: whether or not
direct supernatural action was involved in the evolution of humans. This is a
lot stickier, since distinguishing between, say, a created human and an evolved
one is pretty hard from a few fossilized bones; even harder is figuring out
whether direct supernatural action or random action is responsible for any
particular mutation. I would be perfectly happy if everyone agreed that the
evolution of humans was possible; beyond that, I think your belief in what DID
happened rests on your accepted philosophies, religion, worldview, opinion,
etc. In other words, this, perhaps, would be the correct and comfortable
position for faith to occupy.
>GM: "I certainly would not argue that humans and apes are in the
>same kind (in the sense of a baramin), but then I don't believe
>that there ever was a baramin in the scriptures anyway.
>I'm not sure if you have used the term "baramin" before in this
>series of posts. I was going to put it to you that whilst the
>biblical kind ("min") is non-technical, we do need a technical
>term to convey the thought of a supernaturally created ancestral
>form/basic type/category. Frank Marsh favoured "baramin" - and
>I am willing to use this term. But I use it with the proviso
>that "min" is non-technical. If you concur, then you will no
>longer press the point that speciation events disprove the
>biblical statements on "min" (assuming the term refers to
>reproduction).
>Now, to turn to Nick Matzke's post to Steve Jones:
>>Questions for Steve, or any other interested parties:
>> 1) Glenn's point is NOT valid because "kind" could actually
>equal "order", correct?
>
>This is what Steve suggested - although I have expressed the
>issue differently. As indicated above, "kind" (min) is non-
>technical and does not relate to any biological classification
>term. However, IMO there is sufficient in the Bible to suggest that
>ancestral populations of animals and plants were created
>supernaturally and so there is value in describing them with a
>technical term such as "baramin". Their identification must be
>determined by research, not by reference to the Bible, and the
>evidence points to unbridgeable gulfs existing at or near the
>Family level of classification.
OK, let me get this straight: you are asserting that the Genesis references to
"kind" "is non-technical and does not relate to any biological classification
term". Therefore, it has no bearing on helping us decide if a particular
species arose naturally or supernaturally. Correct?
You appear to be saying that the Biblical evidence for the existence of
supernaturally created groups (baramin) rather than naturally evolved groups
lies elsewhere in the Bible, NOT in the texts everyone has been arguing
(good-naturedly discussing, I like to think) over for weeks now. If you could
show us some of this other evidence, I'm sure we'd all be grateful.
> 2) Therefore, the descent of one species from another could
occur by natural processes without violating the God's word that
plants and animals must reproduce after their kind. If
kind=order, then supernatural action would account for the origin
of new orders/kinds, and natural action (whether or not
ultimately controlled by God) would account for the origin of
family, genus, and species. Correct?
If you replace "kind" by "baramin", the logic is correct.
> 3) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) belong to the Family
Pongidae, and humans (Homo sapiens) belong to the Family
Hominidae. Both Pondigae and Hominidae belong to the Order
Primates. Correct?
Correct.
> 4) Therefore, humans and chimps (as well as monkeys,
gorillas, orangutans, lemurs, and bush babies) belong to the same
kind and humans could have naturally developed from the same
ancestors as chimps without requiring supernatural intervention
(as long as kind=order). Correct?
"As long as kind=order", your logic is correct.
>I have thought through this a couple of times, and the logic
looks pretty solid to me. It looks like a catch-22 for Steve and
others with similar views:
>
>Either:
>1) you have to accept that it is possible that humans and chimps
> evolved from the same ancestors by a natural process allowed
within the category of biblical kinds, OR
>
>2) you have to say that, in fact, kind does NOT equal order and
>must equal a lower grouping such as family, genus, or species,
>in which case there is hard, verifiable, documented evidence that
>in today's world, organisms do NOT always reproduce according to
>their kinds. This means that the Bible is, in this case,
>incorrect (or more accurately, the common (and apparently
>textually correct) interpretation of the meaning of this part of
>the creation story is incorrect).
>
>Speaking for myself, I would say that the "baramin" (technical
>term) does not equal order, but represents a lower grouping close
>to the Family level. The rest of your (2) does not follow: it
>is erroneous to say that there is "hard, verifiable, documented
>evidence that in today's world, organisms do NOT always reproduce
>according to their kinds". This goes back to using "kinds" in
>a technical sense.
OK, I agree that "kind" is not a technical term. However, you asserting that a
technical "kind" (different from the Genesis sense of the word), or "baramin"
does exist, and corresponds to the family. Glenn, I believe, posted evidence
that there are documented cases of organisms interbreeding between families, as
well as evidence that animals grouped in the same families have greatly
differing chromosome numbers. In any genetic comparision, humans are more
closely related to chimps than chimps are to other members of their family, so
chimps and humans should objectively share the same family (and the same
baramin, if your assertion is correct). None of this evidence has been
contradicted by anyone yet. We can logically draw two conclusions from this:
1) The thesis "animals reproduce according to their baramins" is wrong (in at
least some cases) if baramin=family.
2) Humans and chimps are in the same baramin according to any objective
grouping. Thus, human and chimp evolution from a common ancestor is possible
naturally.
>The lesson I believe we are to learn from the Copernican
>revolution is not that the Bible has a "primitive, defective"
>cosmology, nor that it is theological truth breathed through an
>outdated perspective on the world, but that the Bible uses the
>language of appearance in describing the Cosmos - a simple mode of
>communication that conveys no error and remains timeless in its
>effectiveness to reach the human mind. I am suggesting that the
>principle applies in just the same way to the "kind" (min).
>
>>Take your pick. If you don't like either one, here's option
>three (my favorite):
>>
>>3) you have to admit (as has been asserted on this server) that
>the phrase that plants and animals reproduced after their kinds
>reflects nothing more than an observational report of Middle
>Eastern nomads 3-4,000 years ago, who saw little change in the
>offspring of animals and plants within their period of
>observation, which was probably about the same as their 35 year
>(or less) average lifespan.
>
>Rather than describe it as "an observational report of Middle
>Eastern nomads", I would say this is God's revelation regarding
>the origins of living things which Moses recorded for our
>benefit. Apart from that, I see no more technical content in the
>word "min" than Nick does.
>
>Best wishes,
>
I will shamefacedly admit that my characterization as "an observational report
of Middle Eastern nomads" was written as I was getting all worked up over this
issue, and thus comes out a bit sarcastic, reductionist and anti-religious. I
say the reference to kinds is an observational report that is somewhat
innaccurate due to too small an observational period. It is equally valid to
say that the reference is in the "language of appearence" - thus, organisms
APPEAR to reproduce after their kind (they appear to do so to Moses, or whoever
authored Genesis).
Thanks, Nick