Who can identify a couple of created "kinds"?

If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that you belong to all of the clades I mentioned previously?

According to every character or criteria required for any of these clades, as a human, you are also a hominine humanoid ape, a Catarrhine haplorhine anthropoid, an archontid euarchontoglire and a eutherian mammal. You are a cynodont therapsid, a synapsid amniotic anthracosaurian tetrapod and a stegocephalian sarcopterygii. You are osteichthyes, a gnathostome vertebrate, a craniate chordate deuterostome coelemate, a bilateral eumetazoan animal, and an opisthokont eukaryote organism. If you knew what all of these were, how could you still doubt common ancestry?

How does "progressive" creationism explain that?

Also, and this is a really big one; If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, and you admit you do. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically-created separate "kinds" from all those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as you would put it.

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Which of these are related? Which of these are created?

Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is.

I challenge you to identify any two taxa which scientists consider to be closely-related, but which you maintain to be specially-created and not related at all. Because there's an old saying that the more you try to set one thing off by itself, the more you find it inextricably connected to everything else. And that's certainly the case here.

__________________
"To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." --Benjamin Franklin
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." --Frederich Nietzche`
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," --Reverend Martin Luther

* A lonely tumbleweed skips by… *

__________________

i dont' think any of those groups are mentioned in the bible.

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As long as we're at it, why don't you enlighten entomologists has to how various orders of insects are related to one another.

__________________
"An inordinate fondness for beetles." -JBS Haldane

I think they're divided into three classifications.

Those that can be eaten.
Those that can't be eaten.
The four-legged variety.

And those that create a sweet savor unto the Lord when burnt.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

One could argue that a "created kind" is a species that appears in the fossil record without evolutionary ancestors.
However, using the phrase "created kind" is really more of a young earth thing.

"Young-earth creationists contend the "kinds" on the ark were species-stable, reproducing populations that did not interbreed with other populations-but different from what we define as species. Since the "kinds" were able to fragment into the subtypes we see today, they must have been larger than today's species and probably corresponded to what we define as the genus or family level.60 There are two ways, they say, modern species can be determined to be descendants of the original "kinds." As long as two creatures can hybridize, they must be descended from the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they must all be members of the same kind.61
Young-earth creationists point to a host of seemingly distinct animals in a family that can produce hybrid progeny (e.g., horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, dolphins and whales, etc.) as evidence species are descended from the same created "kind."62 The problem with this approach is even though these species may, in some instances, interbreed in captivity, they generally do not do so in the wild. Crossbreeding animals in a zoo or laboratory proves nothing. For the young-earth claim to be true, every animal in a family would have to hybridize naturally. All of the changes observed in the laboratory or breeding pen are limited. What breeders accomplish is diversification with a given type. What is needed is the origin of new types.63 Biologists have not been able to observe the entire sequence of animal species fragmenting into two or more morphologically species. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.64"
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speciation.html

Maybe you could answer his questions in your next post?

For example, give an example of such an organism with no apparent forebearers. Let's see if it makes sense cladistically, which it would have to were evolution were true, but wouldn't have to at all were it specially created.

I would say that is a species in which its purported ancestry is spurious at best. But then again, I would make that argument for many different species. One easy example would be the amphibian; for which we have found no true evolutionary ancestor.

!

Link 1.

Link 2.

Link 3.

Matthew, have you ever looked at anything about any of these subjects that wasn't written by a creationist? At least choose organisms that don't have obvious intermediates and forebearers in the fossil record for your arguments from ignorance. Good grief.

Matthew, the line between fish and amphibian is so fuzzy in the 380-345 mya range that experts still argue whether some of these are fish or amphibians (the truth basically being that there is no clear line of demarcation, and for all intents and purposes, some of them are fish-amphibians)! You can't get more transitional than that.