So whether or not something is a "kind" depends on purely arbitrary and ad hoc criteria, depending upon what argument one needs to make Got it.
Be warned, however, that this sort of arbitrariness will sink your ark.
But you have to in order to explain post-flood speciation.
No, you asserted it.
What good is a view it it rests on mere assertion?
If whether or not critters can interbreed is one of your ad hoc criteria, this should give you pause:
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. ...
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. ...
This means that if allowed to continue, it is plausible that human sperm could fertilize gibbon oocytes. I'm guessing some more ad hoc stuff will rescue your position.
And yet you employ scientific arguments. Not very good ones, by the way, but scientific nonetheless. Your science fails.
Good - I applaud that.
I retract that applause.
Do you really think that is a rational position to take? You are merely dismissing data/evidence because it does not comport with your preferred religious tales based on uncorroborated miracle tales from ancient times.
They are happy, but not very well informed.
Here, your non-science background shines through.
How would you even know, given what you've admitted?
Actually, those papers were not even explicitly about evolution, so I don't know what you are referring to.
There are published experiments confirming the reliability of DNA analysis in reconstructing evolutionary relationships using tested analytical methods. The changes in DNA sequence/content match hypotheses of descent.
As you already indicated, you merely reject things that do not match up with your biblical view, so why should we entertain your attempted dismissal of science via rather naive 'science' arguments?
Or better yet, why rely on the fallacy of begging the question?
Evidence can be presented supporting evolution. What - other than ancient, uncorroborated and evidence-free tales - can you present for your view?
I don't - you folks seem to enjoy constraining your Creator's supposed powers of creation to relying on a few basic forms, and reusing/re-purposing them.
Not really. Not at all, in fact. If it were really 'just similarities', you might have a point. But it is NOT mere similarities - it is, among other things, the patterns of shared unique mutations, the patterns of biogeographic distribution, etc.
For you to merely reject it because it does not prop up your tribal stories?
How about, for once, present evidence FOR creation? Tell me - for the first time ever - how a tribal deity transformed dust of the ground into Adam.
Upvote
0
