"Microevolution"

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

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




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.

You are the one that called it meaningless, not us.

Why do you continually deny what you've written?

 

[Tiberius]

It is defined by the immediate context.

You said here that the word "kind" IS defined. You said it is defined by the immediate context.

So what is that definition?

 

[Dharma Wheel]

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

It must be worth noting that ''Dinosaurs'' are extinct as some have evolved into birds, which are now a different species altogether regardless of descent, just as primates are not plesiadapis.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

You said here that the word "kind" IS defined. You said it is defined by the immediate context.

So what is that definition?

kind 1 (k

nd)adj. kind·er, kind·est 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature.
2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.
3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals.
4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke.
5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise.
6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.

 

[Gracchus]

It must be worth noting that ''Dinosaurs'' are extinct as some have evolved into birds, which are now a different species altogether regardless of descent, just as primates are not plesiadapis.

Birds are not a species. All birds are members of the Class Aves. And to a cladist, they are still dinosaurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

It must be worth noting that ''Dinosaurs'' are extinct as some have evolved into birds, which are now a different species altogether regardless of descent, just as primates are not plesiadapis.

Ya -- and wolves are extinct as some have evolved into Dobermen?

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

Are you saying that dinosaurs have gone extinct because birds have taken their place?

I'm under the impression that, according to evolution, dinosaurs are alive and well on planet earth -- some just need to put the 'avian' qualifier on it, for some reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

And to a cladist, they are still dinosaurs.

What are they to astronomers?

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Birds are not a species. All birds are members of the Class Aves. And to a cladist, they are still dinosaurs.

Yes, they are a Class not a species. A small error. But the fact remains that Birds evolved from dinosaurs but are not dinosaurs. If people want to call them dinosaurs, why not archosaurs?

Also, Holtz's views on Clades are actually very criticised in the scientific community, with most scientist pointing out that Birds have evolved enough to be classed differently. They are not really Dinosaurs, in mainstream science, as even Anthony J. Martin pointed out in 'The Introduction To the Study of Dinosaurs', so we cannot really talk of dinosaurs flying over our heads regardless of what certain cladists think.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Ya -- and wolves are extinct as some have evolved into Dobermen?

No, wolves are not extinct.

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

I am simply saying that whilst birds did descend from dinosaurs, they are not dinosaurs, just as apes are not plesiadapis.

Are you saying that dinosaurs have gone extinct because birds have taken their place?

Not quite. Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, so the fact that birds exist is not the cause of their extinction.

I'm under the impression that, according to evolution, dinosaurs are alive and well on planet earth -- some just need to put the 'avian' qualifier on it, for some reason.

That is where you are wrong. Dinosaurs are extint, but creatures that evolved from them do still exist, just as your grandmother might be dead, but you are alive.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

What are they to astronomers?

Irrelevant, I would presume.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am simply saying that whilst birds did descend from dinosaurs, they are not dinosaurs, just as apes are not plesiadapis.

Some disagree:

Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs;

SOURCE

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

As much as the "small changes" in the speed settings on your fan will eventually turn it into a formula one race car.

Or "small changes" in muscle will eventually turn you into a forklift.

Adaptation is an intelligent, designed feature. And the same principle employed in the fan, in muscle, is applied in the DNA bio-computer.

The ability for designed structures to make minor adaptations is nothing new, its presentation as Darwinism notwithstanding.

Fans, race cars, and forklifts do not reproduce, do not mutate, and do not have DNA. Stop being silly.

 

[Delphiki]

As much as the "small changes" in the speed settings on your fan will eventually turn it into a formula one race car.

Getting there...

Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles

Of course, you used an example of something we can both agree are designed and built by humans. (fans, cars, forklifts, etc).

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Some disagree:

SOURCE

It doesn't matter, most scientists would not call them ''Avian Dinosaurs'', or anytime of dinosaur just as most scientists wouldn't call a human a plesiadapis. Either way, birds do descend from dinosaurs.

 

[Tiberius]

It is defined by the immediate context.

You said here that the word "kind" IS defined. You said it is defined by the immediate context.

So what is that definition?

Don;t forget this, AV!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Don;t forget this, AV!!!

You give me the context, I'll give you the definition.

Let's define 'kind' this way, and see where it goes:

• 'kind' is the subset of plants and animals in existence in any given context -- as the context changes, the subset of plants and animals would change accordingly

In the context of the Creation week, only a few representative animals had to exist and be named by Adam.

Likewise, in the context of the Flood year, only a few representative animals had to exist and board the Ark.

 

[Jro]

So... when a story is easier to explain with fewer organisms, there are fewer organisms? How very, and suspiciously, convenient. Can we apply this definition in modern days? Eg, a zoo has many kinds of animals, because otherwise no one would visit, but hot dogs are only made out of 'pork'?

 

[AV1611VET]

So... when a story is easier to explain with fewer organisms, there are fewer organisms?

Would you rather believe the Ark was a Tardis booth?

Either way, I don't care.

If kinds were subsets of the animal kingdom, and if they contained the DNA necessary to quickly repopulate the earth afterwards, then the Flood story is easy to explain.

On the other hand, if kinds are simply synonyms for each and every species of animal in existence at the time, then the Ark was a Tardis booth and again, the Flood story is easy to explain.

 

[Jro]

I don't see those as easy explanations at all. They raise many other questions, which, eventually will have to be answered with "because it's god and god is magic," or something similar. Why not just say "Magic!" at the beginning rather than speculating on mechanisms which require more speculations and spoon bending, each step taking you further from the biblical account?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not just say "Magic!" at the beginning...

Because I differentiate between 'magic' and 'miracles'.