"Microevolution"

[AV1611VET]

You win. If Berkley says it, it must be the truth.

85

 

[Upisoft]

85

What is that supposed to mean? The original question was:

I understood him quite well. Question. If dinosaurs became extinct how is it their traits are passed on in creatures today?

It is clearly speaking about the dinosaurs that have gone extinct, thus defining "dinosaur" meaning in the context the question is asked.

You shifted the question to the birds, who no one calls usually dinosaurs. Yes you are correct, they are descendants of the dinosaurs and scientist consider them dinosaurs. But the working definition of the word "dinosaurs" defined by the Son of the King's question did not include them.

If you are trying to make a point by showing that words can have different meaning in different contexts, then I guess I have to inform you that I already know that. Is there a single piece of text that you must never interpret?

 

[Tiberius]

far be it for me to actually agree with AV, but in this case I do. To a degree.

I think it is more correct to say that while every species of dinosaur that lived back then is extinct, one group of dinosaurs has evolved into the birds we see today.

As to whether it is completely accurate to call them dinosaurs is open to discussion. Yes, birds and dinosaurs are very closely related. But one could also make the argument that reptiles are amphibians as reptiles evolved from them.

Just because a group evolved from another group doesn't neccessarily mean that they should automatically be classes in that original group.

still, i can see a good argument supporting the claim that birds are dinosaurs.

I suppose it would be most accurate to say that birds are dinosaur descendants.

 

[AV1611VET]

far be it for me to actually agree with AV, but in this case I do. To a degree.

I think it is more correct to say that while every species of dinosaur that lived back then is extinct, one group of dinosaurs has evolved into the birds we see today.

As to whether it is completely accurate to call them dinosaurs is open to discussion. Yes, birds and dinosaurs are very closely related. But one could also make the argument that reptiles are amphibians as reptiles evolved from them.

Just because a group evolved from another group doesn't neccessarily mean that they should automatically be classes in that original group.

still, i can see a good argument supporting the claim that birds are dinosaurs.

I suppose it would be most accurate to say that birds are dinosaur descendants.

Reminds me of a planet I once knew --

 

[Tiberius]

Reminds me of a planet I once knew --

Oh, don't start that.

The Pluto issue was an arbitrary choice that was made to provide a clear definition of what a planet was.

Dinosaurs and birds relationship is based on evidence.

 

[USincognito]

No, they haven't. Komodo dragon, turtles, other various lizards.

Technically none of them are dinosaurs. In fact pliosaurs and pterosaurs weren't technically dinosaurs but marine and flying reptiles accordingly.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Once you identify a number of distinctive features then you can call it a bird. There are various kinds of birds. Again they are identified by features, behaviours, things that set them apart. So a species could also be called a kind. However a species or kind of bird would necessarily belong to a larger kind having the features that distinguish it from every other kind and it would possess the distinctive features of a bird. I say necessarily so because I believe speciation accounts for the number of species we can identify, including the species that are extinct. The idea of speciation is that you can isolate a population of individuals from the main population and after a while they all begin to look alike. So theoretically the number of species you can get from a population is unlimited.

Oh, so now there's multiple types of bird "kinds." So are species always "kinds?" Once I identify a number of distinctive features I can call it a bird? This applies to everything? What about animals that have seem to have several distinctive features of multiple animals? What about dolphins? They look like fish. Are they part of the fish "kind?"

Also, how can a species (kind) of bird belong to a larger "kind?" It says animals were created according to their kind. It doesn't say anything about nested kinds. One level of kinds.

The point is, is that you will never be able to define kind. It's nebulous and vague, and fits whatever argument the creationist using it wants it to be. What is a kind? According to your post, it fits species, genus, and possibly even higher. Where does it stop? When we get all the way to Kingdom?

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is, is that you will never be able to define kind. It's nebulous and vague, and fits whatever argument the creationist using it wants it to be.

-- Now you're getting it!

QV please: 58

 

[Cabal]

-- Now you're getting it!

QV please: 58

So much for literalism.

 

[Tiberius]

So the term "kind" is actually meaningless as far as we Humans are concerned, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the term "kind" is actually meaningless as far as we Humans are concerned, yes?

It is defined by the immediate context.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It is defined by the immediate context.

And what is the context of this fable?

 

[Tiberius]

I'd also like to hear that, AV. In the context of Genesis 1:21, what does "Kind" mean?

Here's the passage for those who don't know it by heart.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Son of the King]

I'd also like to hear that, AV. In the context of Genesis 1:21, what does "Kind" mean?

Here's the passage for those who don't know it by heart.

Genesis 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


The alternative is that every living creature that walks, crawls, hops, slithers or flies here on earth other than insects or spiders all came from this "ONE" kind.

Eusthenopteron (CLASS: Bony fishes, ORDER: Crossopterygii, SUBORDER: Rhipidistia) ​

Eusthenopteron
(ancient extinct rhipidistian lobe-finned fish) ​

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd also like to hear that, AV. In the context of Genesis 1:21, what does "Kind" mean?

3

58

58

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

3

58

58

In short, you claim that in the context of Genesis, the term "kind" is meaningless to humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

In short, you claim that in the context of Genesis, the term "kind" is meaningless to humans.

It has no use outside of its context.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It has no use outside of its context.

That's not what you said in your linked posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what you said in your linked posts.

You and Tiberius are trying to inject the term "meaningless" into the definition, and I disagree.

So the term "kind" is actually meaningless as far as we Humans are concerned, yes?

In short, you claim that in the context of Genesis, the term "kind" is meaningless to humans.

You two can talk yourselves out of understanding if you want, but it'll just mean you'll obligate yourselves to continue asking for a definition until judgment day (or 'doomsday' to you scientists).

I have said this about 1k times, and it bears repeating here:

If you guys can't understand Genesis 1 (where that word first appears), you guys aren't going to properly understand anything else.

And the many, many requests for a definition of 'kind' substantiates that claim.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, AV. let's see what you actually say about the definition of kind.

3

Meaningless outside of heaven. Yet in gen 1:21 it is being used to describe something on earth. Fail.

58

Again, no definition outside of Heaven. Again, it is used in Gen 1:21 to describe animals ON EARTH. Again, fail!

58

A link to a link. God forbid you should actually WRITE something. At least cut and paste so we don't have to go on a bloody wild goose chase.

But you say again that it has no definition this side of heaven.

Why do you insist on saying that the word has no meaning on earth when the Bible uses it to refer to animals on earth?

So if it has no meaning this side of heaven, why does the Bible use it to refer to something terrestrial?

And if it cannot be defined this siode of heaven, why did you claim that it was defined by its immediate context?