Observed change in kinds.

[DogmaHunter]

.

What if you define it as a the difference between different Orders (in biological classification)?

I'm pushing for more of an answer because I know creationists would want more of an answer.

You assume that the likes of comfort want an actual answer. They don't. Ask AV. He's the same caliber. They aren't interested in what you answer. The question is just an excuse to start preaching.

It's futile to try and discuss it with them because they have sacrificed their sense of reason. All that matters to them is what the bible says.

 

[Ecowolf]

No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.

I posted a question about "kinds" and how hybrids fit. Not a single reply! I have nothing against creationism or baraminology. As a scientist (I use that term loosely, I may not yet have a science degree but I do get paid to conduct research), I welcome different ways to view evidence.

I find "kinds" simply not an acceptable way to classify organisms. Its just way too vague when taxonomy is about finding the relationship of one organism to another in the closest manner possible. Baraminology is literally trying to reinvent the wheel, or tree in this case.

The major problem I have with kinds is that its only applied to animals. All other forms of life are apparently considered not living! Thats a bit hard to accept, actually I cant accept that. Too deny that a organism is alive simply based the on notion that if its not actively moving or doesnt bleed to death when you stab it is just wrong on so many levels.

To deny an living, breathing organism the status of Life is to deny having any responsibility to Life itself. "Its not alive, so why should I care" is exactly what I hear and see. This kind of mentality is why so many ignore or ridicule those who work to protect all living things.

It goes against everything I have learned, observed and believe in.

 

[juvenissun]

I'ld first ask him to define the word "kind" in such a way that I can use that definition to determine if two random organism are of the same "kind".

Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?

 

[juvenissun]

I posted a question about "kinds" and how hybrids fit. Not a single reply! I have nothing against creationism or baraminology. As a scientist (I use that term loosely, I may not yet have a science degree but I do get paid to conduct research), I welcome different ways to view evidence.

I find "kinds" simply not an acceptable way to classify organisms. Its just way too vague when taxonomy is about finding the relationship of one organism to another in the closest manner possible. Baraminology is literally trying to reinvent the wheel, or tree in this case.

The major problem I have with kinds is that its only applied to animals. All other forms of life are apparently considered not living! Thats a bit hard to accept, actually I cant accept that. Too deny that a organism is alive simply based the on notion that if its not actively moving or doesnt bleed to death when you stab it is just wrong on so many levels.

To deny an living, breathing organism the status of Life is to deny having any responsibility to Life itself. "Its not alive, so why should I care" is exactly what I hear and see. This kind of mentality is why so many ignore or ridicule those who work to protect all living things.

It goes against everything I have learned, observed and believe in.

Before you value other forms of "life", you NEED to first know the value of human life. And I guess you did not spend enough time to do that.

 

[Strathos]

Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?

Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[SkyWriting]

No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.

No. It had and has a definition. The definition has never changed.
"That offspring is the same KIND of animal as it's parents."

Just because you don't like the usage,
is irrelevant.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

There is plenty of evidence for "Kinds" crossing over to another kind.
Donkey/Zebra is a possible example.

The problem being that if the crossover can be that fast, then it doesn't fit the macro-evolution standard that your looking to support.
So if it is scientifically testable through experimentation, then it's not macro-evolution anyway.

Only if you can't check it, then maybe, macro evolution is happening.
It's a self defeating problem.
You can take a series of fossils, and pray that you put them in the right order. Or that their even related.

 

[[serious]]

Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?

Yes, species is defined that way for all sexually reproducing organisms. I'm unclear what your larger point is though. What is being requested is a similar testable definition of "kinds."

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, species is defined that way for all sexually reproducing organisms. I'm unclear what your larger point is though. What is being requested is a similar testable definition of "kinds."

The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

 

[jayem]

We can observe steps in the process by which "kinds" become differentiated. (Here meaning taxanomic classes.) The Tiktaalik roseae fossil is a lobe-finned fish, but with wrist, shoulder, and skull morphology suggestive of a land-dwelling tetrapod. It's logical to conclude that it is one of the "kinds" between fish and amphibians. The lungfish might be considered living examples.

 

[[serious]]

The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

Well, we have observed speciation, so that would provide an example of one kind turning into another.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, we have observed speciation, so that would provide an example of one kind turning into another.

The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.

Define kind in an applicable way.

 

[[serious]]

The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.

How? If you have a species of mouse, and that species splits into 2 species that can't interbreed, you have 2 species. If kind = species, then kinds can change into other kinds. Simply using a different term for it doesn't fix the problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just replace the "kind" with "species", then you know the request is not a good one. How about kind is a life form which does not interbreed with other kinds? Is it useful enough?

Then I'll introduce him to the many speciation events that we know of which resulted into 2 new species that could no longer interbreed.

I'll also introduce him to so-called ring species.

Then he'll pretend that I didn't give him these examples, he'll invent some lame excuse for why the examples don't count or he'll just move the goalpost. And we'll be back to square one, where he will ask a new dishonest question or even simply repeat the same question that was just answered.

Amirite?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. It had and has a definition. The definition has never changed.
"That offspring is the same KIND of animal as it's parents."

Just because you don't like the usage,
is irrelevant.

Ok.

In that case, I'll justcall carbon-based-life a "kind".
Humans and chimps descend from the "primate kind".
Humans, chimps, lions, whales and elephants descend from the "mammal kind".

Mammals etc descend from the "tetrapod kind".

Tetrapods descend from the "vertebrate kind".

Vertebrates descend from the "eukaryote kind".



If you don't like this, which I'm sure you don't, you're gonna have to be more detailed in your "definition" of the word "kind".

Because what you said fits like a glove with what I just wrote.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is plenty of evidence for "Kinds" crossing over to another kind.
Donkey/Zebra is a possible example.

The problem being that if the crossover can be that fast, then it doesn't fit the macro-evolution standard that your looking to support.
So if it is scientifically testable through experimentation, then it's not macro-evolution anyway.

Only if you can't check it, then maybe, macro evolution is happening.
It's a self defeating problem.
You can take a series of fossils, and pray that you put them in the right order. Or that their even related.

1. there is no set definition of what constitutes as "macro" evolution, as I'm sure you have been told millions of times by educated people. "macro" evolution is not an actual thing in evolution theory. Creationists just like to pretend as if a different mechanism backs it as opposed to "micro" evolution. But as educated people have no doubt told you many times: these creationists are lying to you.

2. is it a self-defeating problem when we calculate the orbit of pluto? Because that can't be checked either, since we don't live long enough to see it complete an orbit.

3. the only "self-defeating" thing here, is your nonsense that has been corrected thousands of times, yet you keep repeating it. What's "self-defeating" is the fact that you need to resort to lies and misrepresentation of facts to make your religious point.

4. we don't have to "pray" to "put fossils in the right order". We have to observe them being found in the right order. And we do. Without exception.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The use of kind will eliminate that problem. No speciation in kind.
And that is a very good feature in this "kind" classification.

1. you just said that kind = species.
you literally said:

The request was: define kind, otherwise, nothing could be done.

Well, if kind is defined the same way as species, then what could be done?

2. you're moving the goalpost

3. define "kind" clearly or move along.

 

[juvenissun]

How? If you have a species of mouse, and that species splits into 2 species that can't interbreed, you have 2 species. If kind = species, then kinds can change into other kinds. Simply using a different term for it doesn't fix the problem.

In that case, both mice species could be treated as ONE kind, if no consequence is resulted.

In real case, the scenario just won't happen. So, it is a fictional problem.

 

[juvenissun]

Then I'll introduce him to the many speciation events that we know of which resulted into 2 new species that could no longer interbreed.

I'll also introduce him to so-called ring species.

Then he'll pretend that I didn't give him these examples, he'll invent some lame excuse for why the examples don't count or he'll just move the goalpost. And we'll be back to square one, where he will ask a new dishonest question or even simply repeat the same question that was just answered.

Amirite?

If I simply ignore your knowledge of the ring species, what would I miss?
Practically NOTHING !
If something is done with no consequence, then do it by all means.