How many different kinds of birds are there?

Once again I make an attempt to open the question of created kinds, or baramins, or whatever you want to call them: groups within which there is common descent but between which there is not. This is an opportunity for the creationists who frequent TSZ to school me on the subject.

I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not? In any case, I’m not asking for precision; an answer within an order of magnitude will do.

Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved. How about you?

306 thoughts on “How many different kinds of birds are there?

  1. CharlieM: I repeat, “Of course if someone denies any higher reality than the human physical senses gives us access to then all of this will be considered as nonsense.”

    For some reality is limited to anything that humans are aware of. Nothing else is permitted.

    If you understand this higher reality, why can’t you answer the simplest of questions? You can’t even explain how you know about this higher reality. When pushed, you make it seem as if you’re just talking about inference from observations, i.e. just what scientists do. But I assure you, so far you have shown no evidence of doing anything like what scientists do.

    That smug little assertion of superiority does nothing to help your case.

  2. John Harshman: So, to sum up, every species of corvid has a different group soul, but all corvids are related by common descent, but hooded crows are a different kind from carrion crows, but they’re all just different expressions of the human archetype, but leaves. What could be clearer than that?

    John, I too would like some clarity. I take it you believe that there is an unbroken line of descent from primordial life to homo sapiens. Can you give me the name of at least one linking species in this line?

  3. CharlieM: John, I too would like some clarity. I take it you believe that there is an unbroken line of descent from primordial life to homo sapiens. Can you give me the name of at least one linking species in this line?

    No. That’s not the nature of the evidence, which is all about nested hierarchy.

    Now that I’ve given a clear answer to your question, please do me the same courtesy. I take it you don’t believe that there is an unbroken line of descent from primordial life to Homo sapiens. Where is the break? What species are humans related to (by actual common descent, not by any mystical bonds of similarity or whatever). And how do you know?

  4. CharlieM: I take it you are an expert in flatulence?

    I sure am. And you can “smell” this new reality too, through your inner thinking of transdimensional squirrels

  5. CharlieM: what I am talking about is precisely the method used by scientists.

    ROFL. Exactly the same faulty reasoning that theists like Bill Cole exhibit. “I base my beliefs on evidence!1!!1! the evidence is [enter list of random observations with no logical connection to their “pseudo-theory”]”

  6. Theories, theories. All God’s chillun’s got theories. And they got such luminaries as Goethe and Aquinas and Steiner and even Jesus Christ behind them! They may not agree with each other any more than they do with contemporary science, but they’re all completely correct anyhow. Inner thought and revelation guarantees that result.

    As I said, bless their hearts, every one.

Leave a Reply