>"kind" cannot be a synonym for "species" - because the technical
>language associated with "species" was absent from the Hebrew
>language. Studies of the Levitical clean and unclean animals suggest
>a much broader meaning than "species".
>
I would argue that 'kind' can not be equivalent with the biological genus,
or family either. There are no fossil examples of living genus's prior to
the....
and there are no fossils members of any modern mammalian family prior to
the upper Cretaceous! All animals were different in the lower, older
rocks. If you make 'kind' equivalent to the 'order' then you are allowing
so much evolution (an ability to evolve the pangolian, the anteater, the
cat, the cow etc) from a single pair of organisms. It makes a mockery of
'kind'. What you will see below is that the modern genera and families are
not found in the earliest flood deposited rocks. And you will see that the
entirety of living beings has changed from pre-flood to post flood
(especially if the end of the flood is where Austin puts it at the end of
the Cretaceous. This means that young-earth creationists, like Austin,
believe that all this change took place in about 6000 years. This further
requires that young earthers are really hyper-evolutionists. They believe
in morphological change at a more rapid pace than any evolutionist would
ever suggest. Here is the paleontological data:
Living genera Extinct genera
Recent 1154
Pleistocene 419 411
Pliocene 133 629
Miocene 57 692
Oligocene 11 483
Eocene 3 566
Paleocene 0 213
U. Cretaceous 0 31
M. Cretaceous 0 1
L. Cretaceous 0 4
U. Jurassic 0 40
M. Jurassic 0 2
L. Jurassic 0 1
U. Triassic 0 4
Living families Extinct families
Recent 137 0
Pleistocene 109 42
Pliocene 77 58
Miocene 68 77
Oligocene 40 104
Eocene 26 121
Paleocene 2 54
U. Cretaceous 1 12
M. Cretaceous 0 1
L. Cretaceous 0 4
U. Jurassic 0 9
M. Jurassic 0 2
L. Jurassic 0 1
U. Triassic 0 2
>> ... Or are there cases where evolution supposedly
>> crossed the taxonomic boundaries of genus or even family?
>
>One of the strengths of "Basic Type biology" is that it takes
>hybridisation data as DATA. It conveys information about
>relationships. The studies that have been done indicate that
>inter-generic crosses are not uncommon, and that inter-family
>crosses do not occur. Because of the fuzziness of taxonomy, there
>may be a few exceptions to this. Creationists refer to this
>speciation as "variation within the created kind", and do not regard
>it as supportive of evolutionary theory.
>
>It is important to note that creationists are not consistent about
>this. There are still some that resist the idea of speciation -
>without biblical or scientific warrant. It is also important to note
>that evolutionists have tended to create a straw man here - perhaps
>drawing from Darwin himself. Darwin regarded all variation as
>supportive of his theory and inconsistent with creation. Yet there
>were creationists (Carl Linnaeus) who came to the position that
>speciation was possible after creation.
>
>Best wishes,
>David J. Tyler.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm