Here you go again. Your theories refers to evolutionists theories. You know...the ones you are trying to defend, but without sucess!
I have
not "defended" any theories in these two threads. You have been assuming that because I point out
a weakness in
your explanation, that I am attacking the theory (baraminology) that you are explaining. You give me too much credit. I am doing nothing more than I stated pointing out a problem with your explanation.
Furthermore you assume that I think that by attacking that theory I am promoting or "defending" an alternate theory, and you make assumptions about what that alternate theory is, as though there is only one possible alternative to baraminology. First, even if there were only two possibilities, pointing out a weakness of
your explanation does nothing to discredit
the theory of baraminology (though your failure to correct that weakness does not look good in terms of advocating the theory to the scientific community). Second, Baraminology is not the only version of Special Creation, so discrediting it would do nothing toward "defending" the Evolutionary Model against Creationism.
So none of my posts have "defended" the Evolutionary Model, nor did they atvempt to do so. The only way to defend a scientific theory is positively, not negatively. Pointing out the supposed flaws of the Evolutionary Model does not defend baraminology, and you are simply wasting your time and everyone else's trying to do so.
This is what you said
Evolutionists do not have this problem. They freely admit that the "root: of a clade is chosen relatively. Any clade can be broken into two clades by dropping the common ancestor. Any two neighboring clades can be combined into one clade by adding the common ancestor. There are no definitive, separate "kinds."
By 'chosen relatively' I suggest you are actually meaning 'have no idea'.
Not at all. It means choosing the best point for the comparison that you are making, recognizing that 1) there is no "absolutely" best point, and 2) for a different comparison, a different point might be better. The point is
chosen, and it is chosen for a reason. It is not random. It is not "have no idea."
I've done genealogical research on my family. When I print my family tree, I can list it starting with my grandparents, or I can start with my great-grandparents. It matters because on my mother's side I have the important information about all my great-grandparents. On my father's side, I'm still missing information on my great-grandmothers. If I am printing a tree for a cousin on my mother's side (just my mother's side information) I start with my great-grandparents. If I am printing for a cousin on my father's side (just my father's side information), I start with my grandparents. If I am printing the tree for my sister (both sides), I can choose whether to start both trees with my grandparents, or to start the one with the grandparents, and the other with the great-grands. In any case, the trees have complete information from the starting points to the present. There is nothing "I have no idea" about the information.
I don't really care what you say. You see this above. It demonstrates that even with biased and assumptive algorithmic magic these researchers are still as confused as they were 150 years ago. Imagine how much more confused they would be if their research was actually realistic.
Actually, I don't see. That graphic is too small for my tired old eyes to be able to read. Plus you have posted the graphic without posting or linking to the paper it came from, so I have no idea if it is intended to illustrate the point you claim it does.
But apparently you are arguing a detail which is equivalent to asking of two contemporaneous fossils, which one belongs to the older species. If someone guessed wrong about something small like that it would not upset evolutionary theory as a whole. After all, according to that theory, sharks and cockroaches have existed mostly unchanged while other species came mutated, and mutated again. Not every species evolves at the same rate in the Evolutionary Model.
On the other hand, "Created Kinds" is at the heart of baraminology. And yet you have given no evidence why different kinds had to have been created separately. You have have given no criteria to evaluate the differences that may provide such evidence, and you and your colleagues do not agree on which kinds are, indeed, separate. If you want to convince me, or anyone, that baraminology is right, the first step is for you to provide that kind of evidence. That is all I ask. That is all I have ever asked of you.
I gave an example for Loudmouths cards with my birds. Looks like it has been ignored. I wonder why.
And I said that I don't think Loudmouth's theory conserning classifying by differences is a profitable argument. I don't agree with him on that issue, so I don't care whether or not you can refute him.