Observed change in kinds.

[DogmaHunter]

I hate to dig back into the pile.
So, here is it in a similar version: A kind is a term used for life-form classification. In other words, you may take it as a blank label.

This "definition" does not give one the criteria required to determine if 2 random organisms belong to the same "kind".

In other words, it's a useless definition. Try again.

 

[juvenissun]

That's so true.

In the eight years I've been here, Split Rock is one of the very few that has admitted he learned anything from us.

I think either selfinflickted or 46and2 is another one who has admitted such.

I have a lot of respect for them, even when they ridicule.

I do learn a lot from them, only they had no idea on what did I learn.

 

[juvenissun]

This "definition" does not give one the criteria required to determine if 2 random organisms belong to the same "kind".

In other words, it's a useless definition. Try again.

You are not my formal student. You do not learn, why should I try again?

 

[Elendur]

You are not my formal student. You do not learn, why should I try again?

To show that you've got the goods to back up your claim.
Of course, it's entirely your choice to spout claims without any sort of basis, you should just keep in mind that your reputation will reflect just that.

 

[[serious]]

I can certainly see you are not a teacher. If a student asked you what does "gallon" mean, you DO NOT answer it by the way you did. Only teaching assistant would probably do that to show off his knowledge.

Actually, I happen to be a certified teacher in biology, chemistry, and physics.

SI units are covered in most intro level science texts regardless of exact field. The history of the measures are sometimes included, sometimes not. Approximations to allow a rough idea of the mass/length/volume are often given.

I cover SI units first week.

EDIT: the chemistry book in use in my district covers SI units in chapter 2 section 1.

Here's some of the questions high school students answer on the ancillaries provided by Glencoe:
Matching:
1. second
2. meter
3. kilogram
4. cubic meter

a. A platinum-iridium cylinder that is stored at constant temperature and
humidity
b. The microwave frequency given off by a cesium-133 atom
c. A cube whose sides all measure exactly one meter
d. The distance that light travels through a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, I happen to be a certified teacher in biology, chemistry, and physics.

SI units are covered in most intro level science texts regardless of exact field. The history of the measures are sometimes included, sometimes not. Approximations to allow a rough idea of the mass/length/volume are often given.

I cover SI units first week.

EDIT: the chemistry book in use in my district covers SI units in chapter 2 section 1.

Here's some of the questions high school students answer on the ancillaries provided by Glencoe:
Matching:
1. second
2. meter
3. kilogram
4. cubic meter

a. A platinum-iridium cylinder that is stored at constant temperature and
humidity
b. The microwave frequency given off by a cesium-133 atom
c. A cube whose sides all measure exactly one meter
d. The distance that light travels through a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second

Lower level teaching usually address overloaded questions. An overloaded question is a question based on or built on (many) assumptions or basics. Students learned the answer to these questions without an understanding on the background details. This is typical type of learning is fine for children. But the knowledge needs to be taken apart and refined in higher level education.

Use "gallon" as an example (I am repeating the whole thing): What is "gallon"?

Lower level answer: "A" gallon is 3.8 liter.
Problem: The question is not about "a" gallon, but just "gallon".

Higher level answer: "gallon" is an unit to measure volume of fluid.
Implication: there is no quantitative limitation (or definition) to this term, so far. A gallon of compressed air will have air more than 3.8 liters.

See the difference?

 

[BL2KTN]

Lower level teaching usually address overloaded questions. An overloaded question is a question based on or built on (many) assumptions or basics. Students learned the answer to these questions without an understanding on the background details. This is typical type of learning is fine for children. But the knowledge needs to be taken apart and refined in higher level education.

Use "gallon" as an example (I am repeating the whole thing): What is "gallon"?

Lower level answer: "A" gallon is 3.8 liter.
Problem: The question is not about "a" gallon, but just "gallon".

Higher level answer: "gallon" is an unit to measure volume of fluid.
Implication: there is no quantitative limitation (or definition) to this term, so far. A gallon of compressed air will have air more than 3.8 liters.

See the difference?

In what state/country do you hold a teaching certificate?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are not my formal student. You do not learn, why should I try again?

Why?
To put your money where your mouth is, that's why. To FINALLY answer the question that many here have asked you multiple times in this thread alone.

But go ahead, derail more. All it does is make your credibility plummeth even further below sea level.

 

[[serious]]

Lower level teaching usually address overloaded questions. An overloaded question is a question based on or built on (many) assumptions or basics. Students learned the answer to these questions without an understanding on the background details. This is typical type of learning is fine for children. But the knowledge needs to be taken apart and refined in higher level education.

Use "gallon" as an example (I am repeating the whole thing): What is "gallon"?

Lower level answer: "A" gallon is 3.8 liter.
Problem: The question is not about "a" gallon, but just "gallon".

Higher level answer: "gallon" is an unit to measure volume of fluid.
Implication: there is no quantitative limitation (or definition) to this term, so far. A gallon of compressed air will have air more than 3.8 liters.

See the difference?

A gallon of compressed air will still be 3.785411784 liters for that temperature and pressure. If your saying uncompressed air takes up more room than compressed air, yeah, but that's not related to units. It's just the ideal gass law, P=nRT.

The unit "gallon" is actually defined as 3.785411784 liters. (well, it's defined as 231 cubic inches, and an inch is defined as 2.54 cm, which takes you into SI units.)

Again, I find it hard to believe that I would have to explain high school science to someone who claims to be a college geology professor.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are in the same kind (dog),

No, they aren't. I already demonstrated that they aren't. When you ask for a cattle dog you will not supply a wolf or chihuahua. Therefore, they are different kinds.

How to define dog kind? Hmm..., how about:
[morphological descriptions] + [obedient to human] ?

No. I already defined the dog kind by the ability to herd cattle with humans. Therefore, the wolf and chihuahua are different kinds than the australian cattle dog. Since we also know that they all share a common ancestor, the evolution of the cattle dog is an example of the creation of a new kind.

 

[juvenissun]

In what state/country do you hold a teaching certificate?

I don't have one.

 

[juvenissun]

A gallon of compressed air will still be 3.785411784 liters for that temperature and pressure. If your saying uncompressed air takes up more room than compressed air, yeah, but that's not related to units. It's just the ideal gass law, P=nRT.

The unit "gallon" is actually defined as 3.785411784 liters. (well, it's defined as 231 cubic inches, and an inch is defined as 2.54 cm, which takes you into SI units.)

Again, I find it hard to believe that I would have to explain high school science to someone who claims to be a college geology professor.

My friend in the Bureau of Standard won't think it is that strange.

 

[juvenissun]

No, they aren't. I already demonstrated that they aren't. When you ask for a cattle dog you will not supply a wolf or chihuahua. Therefore, they are different kinds.

[qutoe]

How to define dog kind? Hmm..., how about:
[morphological descriptions] + [obedient to human] ?

No. I already defined the dog kind by the ability to herd cattle with humans. Therefore, the wolf and chihuahua are different kinds than the australian cattle dog. Since we also know that they all share a common ancestor, the evolution of the cattle dog is an example of the creation of a new kind.[/QUOTE]

Fine, your definition is different from mine. If we have more different ideas, then we can have a meeting to fix it. What do you think the vote would be?

In case you (the world top dog expert) win, then we will put all house dogs into a different kind or subkind. What is wrong with that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fine, your definition is different from mine. If we have more different ideas, then we can have a meeting to fix it. What do you think the vote would be?

Vote on what? I already defined what a kind is, and demonstrated that new kinds do evolve.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fine, your definition is different from mine. If we have more different ideas, then we can have a meeting to fix it. What do you think the vote would be?

In case you (the world top dog expert) win, then we will put all house dogs into a different kind or subkind. What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is the creationist claim that "kinds cannot change".

It's an extremly pointless thing to say if creationists themselves can't even agree on what a "kind" is. In fact, it's evidence that you're knowingly just spewing nonsense.

I could for example claim that "blosmorfs" do not grow.
And when asked to define "blosmorfs", I could then derail and derail and evade like you are doing with the word "kind". And all you would be left with to do in response is shrug your shoulders and walk away.

 

[juvenissun]

What is wrong with that is the creationist claim that "kinds cannot change".

It's an extremly pointless thing to say if creationists themselves can't even agree on what a "kind" is. In fact, it's evidence that you're knowingly just spewing nonsense.

I could for example claim that "blosmorfs" do not grow.
And when asked to define "blosmorfs", I could then derail and derail and evade like you are doing with the word "kind". And all you would be left with to do in response is shrug your shoulders and walk away.

You did not thank me. So no more education for you.
Be smart on yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

You did not thank me. So no more education for you.
Be smart on yourself.

You have no education to give.

 

[[serious]]

You did not thank me. So no more education for you.
Be smart on yourself.

Worst pedagogical approach ever.

 

[Elendur]

Worst pedagogical approach ever.

^ This.

 

[juvenissun]

Worst pedagogical approach ever.

No. It is the best.
One who does not want to learn will not be educated.