Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

The problem is that you then allow for no way to identify those errors. The definitions are the most basic tool we have, if we allow for exceptions we will destroy the very purpose of a definition.


Definitions are not exclusive. If a mammal is defined by having characteristics A, B and C then something which has the characteristics A, B, C, D and whatever else is a mammal.


Since you have an arbitrary size of the group you can arbitrarily choose individuals to both fall within the definition and not. Which is a contradiction. That doesn't work.
If you want to utilize statistics to produce a definition, you'll need to define the group from which you derive the statistics. You can't get around that.

ANY classification WILL have exceptions. Either we ignore them, or we could include them in statistics.

The case discussed is: Human can use fire. The exceptions are: mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] humans, babies, etc. Basically, this type of argument can simply be ignored. The capability of a life form changes with its growing stage. It is not an argument at all. But, to be general and inclusive, statistic criterion could be considered.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Here's a list of biological classifications. Would someone please let me know where "kind" fits in.

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

All of them. "Kind" is a vague word, intentionally that way. It is good to have words that can be used to describe vague situations.

 

[Elendur]

ANY classification WILL have exceptions. Either we ignore them, or we could include them in statistics.

No. There are plenty of classifications which do not have exceptions. I'd argue that they're the best ones as well.

Since if you're going to make exceptions, you're obviously using a hidden criterion to your classification which is a big no-no.

The case discussed is: Human can use fire. The exceptions are: mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] humans, babies, etc. Basically, this type of argument can simply be ignored. The capability of a life form changes with its growing stage. It is not an argument at all. But, to be general and inclusive, statistic criterion could be considered.

If you're going to use statistics, use it properly. I've explained the details of how to do that twice now.

Since behaviours can change over the life span of an organism, it's a good hint that one should not use behaviours as a criterion for a definition for the general population.

 

[USincognito]

Here's a list of biological classifications. Would someone please let me know where "kind" fits in.

Life
Domain <--| between here..
Kingdom --|
Phylum ---|
Class -----|
Order -----|
Family ----|
Genus ----|
Species <-| and here, depending on context.

 

[ob77]

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

Kind is not undefined. Every seed produces a replica of what produced it, whether it be plant or animal. An apple seed grows into what? A Peach tree?
All the information is in the seed as to what is going to be produced.
Fish beget fish according to their kinds....A tuna begets tuna and so forth.
Fish turning into amphibians is nonsense. No one can trace the in between examples of such. If apes turned into mankind, then why are there still apes?
You , nor anyone else can answer simple questions, you simply state nonsense as being fact. The only thing one could point to is mutation, and mutation is not evolution. Robins are still robins, Crows are still crows, and they know enough not to mongrelize to produce a Crobin. Kind unto kind, and that is a fact you cannot ignore or explain away.

 

[USincognito]

Kind is not undefined. Every seed produces a replica of what produced it, whether it be plant or animal.

Untrue. Every being has between 30 and 100 novel mutations.

An apple seed grows into what? A Peach tree?

If you're under the impression that such single-generation saltational speciation is how evolution works, you need to read up a lot more before entering the conversation.

All the information is in the seed as to what is going to be produced. Fish beget fish according to their kinds....A tuna begets tuna and so forth. Fish turning into amphibians is nonsense. No one can trace the in between examples of such.

Actually, we have the evidence both from fossils and genetics.

If apes turned into mankind, then why are there still apes?

Humans, taxonomically, are apes, so your question makes no sense. Additionally, humans did not evolve from any existing species of ape.

You , nor anyone else can answer simple questions, you simply state nonsense as being fact.

Dunning-Kruger cleanup on aisle one!

Robins are still robins, Crows are still crows, and they know enough not to mongrelize to produce a Crobin.

The fact that you think evolution happens by hybridization is indicative of how little you know about the subject. I'd suggest more reading, less opining.

Kind unto kind, and that is a fact you cannot ignore or explain away.

For all of your pontification and tautalogies, you never gave us a scientifically workable definition of "kind" that has both predictive and explanatory power. We're still waiting.

 

[[serious]]

You are going back to the old argument. I have no problem to let giraffe, dog, cow, etc. to be put in mammal kind (for now). But human should not be one of them. The difference is significant enough to set up a new kind for human.

If the Ford logo is so significant (e.g. has a nuclear engine), then Ford cars are entitled to be put into a different kind, may be: Imperial Platform. If so, then Ford cars are no longer in the car kind.

Which brings us right back to the first question. How do we determine what differences are significant enough to warrant a different kind?

Ultimately, we are still waiting for you to answer the first question:
How do we determine what is and isn't a kind?

 

[juvenissun]

No. There are plenty of classifications which do not have exceptions. I'd argue that they're the best ones as well.

Since if you're going to make exceptions, you're obviously using a hidden criterion to your classification which is a big no-no.


If you're going to use statistics, use it properly. I've explained the details of how to do that twice now.

Since behaviours can change over the life span of an organism, it's a good hint that one should not use behaviours as a criterion for a definition for the general population.

The characteristic behavior of adult is one of the most critical criterion used for classification. Exceptions due to the stages of growth can definitely be ignored.

 

[juvenissun]

Which brings us right back to the first question. How do we determine what differences are significant enough to warrant a different kind?

Ultimately, we are still waiting for you to answer the first question:
How do we determine what is and isn't a kind?

I am not a biologist. So I can only say something about the principle. Since I know human, so I will use human as an example:

The high intelligence of human IS the chosen criterion to separate human from other animals. In order to give a representative behavior of the high intelligence, I select the raise and the use of fire.

So, how to identify significant criteria for kind classification? Biologists can work the most of it out. The principle is to focused on the function of life forms.

 

[Mainframes]

I am not a biologist. So I can only say something about the principle. Since I know human, so I will use human as an example:

The high intelligence of human IS the chosen criterion to separate human from other animals. In order to give a representative behavior of the high intelligence, I select the raise and the use of fire.

So, how to identify significant criteria for kind classification? Biologists can work the most of it out. The principle is to focused on the function of life forms.

The criterion defining the genus Homo, which contains Modern Humans - Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is actually cranial capacity which is in turn generally correlated with intelligence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The criterion defining the genus Homo, which contains Modern Humans - Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is actually cranial capacity which is in turn generally correlated with intelligence.

Watch that "Homo sapiens" stuff.

Paul says it leads some to atheism.

 

[Mainframes]

Watch that "Homo sapiens" stuff.

Paul says it leads some to atheism.

Hopefully.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Hopefully.....

Some say the #1 cause of atheism is Christianity, but I disagree.

I say the #1 cause of atheism is [believing in] evolution.

 

[[serious]]

I am not a biologist. So I can only say something about the principle. Since I know human, so I will use human as an example:

The high intelligence of human IS the chosen criterion to separate human from other animals. In order to give a representative behavior of the high intelligence, I select the raise and the use of fire.

So, how to identify significant criteria for kind classification? Biologists can work the most of it out. The principle is to focused on the function of life forms.

No, they can't. You see:

For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. does not require change in kinds for evolution to progress from simple cells to current diversity.

Kind simply does not exist the way you want it to. Hoping that someone else will prove your point for you isn't going to work out well for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind simply does not exist the way you want it to. Hoping that someone else will prove your point for you isn't going to work out well for you.

Kind = genus.

 

[RickG]

Kind = genus.

Seriously? The theory of evolution doesn't even support that. Not by a long shot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously? The theory of evolution doesn't even support that. Not by a long shot.

I wasn't aware the theory of evolution supported "kinds" by any definition.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory; and science's job today is to refute, not confirm, every jot and tittle of Scripture, so as to prepare the way for the Antichrist.

In my opinion.

 

[[serious]]

No. For example, I and you are NOT mammals. Because we have a better category to go to. Mammals has A, B, and C. But we have A, B, C, D, and E. So we are NOT mammals. ONLY when you have the idea of common ancestry, then you will recognize that ALL who has A, B, C, are mammals regardless what else they have.

In fact, my idea of statistical criteria would still work. Here is how:

We collect, for example, 100 mammals and try to tell if they are ALL humans. They all fit the criteria of mammal, but still in question that if they are humans. So apply a statistical criterion, for example, using fire, on these 100 individuals. If 50% (an assumed value) of the population fit the criterion, they the group (100 of individuals) can ALL be classified as human.

Of course, there could be some in the group that do not fit. But this is a statistical criterion and should be performed on a group of population. So we simply ignore those odd ones in the classification.

So if 50% of the mammals in the Great Ape Trust right now can raise and use fire, all of them are human?

 

[RickG]

I wasn't aware the theory of evolution supported "kinds" by any definition.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory; and science's job today is to refute, not confirm, every jot and tittle of Scripture, so as to prepare the way for the Antichrist.

In my opinion.

You misunderstand AV. I'm not talking about kinds, I'm talking about Genus. The theory of evolution does not support in the least bit that forms of life evolve at the Genus level, rather it is at the species level.

 

[AV1611VET]

You misunderstand AV. I'm not talking about kinds, I'm talking about Genus. The theory of evolution does not support in the least bit that forms of life evolve at the Genus level, rather it is at the species level.

Then we're in agreement that kinds don't evolve?