Observed change in kinds.

[Loudmouth]

We started with a purpose. Why don't you pick up a 10-year-old computer and write a research report on it?

Why don't you write the paper?

If you are going to exclude a species from a kind because it has behaviors or features not found in other species of that kind, then you will have no kinds. Every species has unique features. Every one of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. The criterion is that human "can" "use" fire. It is valid based on animals "can not" raise or use fire.

For some people who can not "use" fire ... frankly, I can not come up with such an example. Can you? (Don't tell me that baby is not human. Otherwise, the conversation will end.)

You give fire to chimp, what would "he" do to it? Cooking?

Why would using fire exclude us from a kind?

Can I use the unique features found in chihuahuas to exclude them from the dog kind?

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't you write the paper?

If you are going to exclude a species from a kind because it has behaviors or features not found in other species of that kind, then you will have no kinds. Every species has unique features. Every one of them.

I have explained this three or four times or more in this thread. So I am NOT going to do it again.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have explained this three or four times or more in this thread. So I am NOT going to do it again.

Then I can only conclude that your definition of kind would result in millions of kinds, all made up of a single species.

 

[[serious]]

No. The criterion is that human "can" "use" fire. It is valid based on animals "can not" raise or use fire.

For some people who can not "use" fire ... frankly, I can not come up with such an example. Can you? (Don't tell me that baby is not human. Otherwise, the conversation will end.)

You give fire to chimp, what would "he" do to it? Cooking?

I've already provided the video of a bonobo making a camp fire and using it to toast marshmallows. As for a human who can't use fire, excepting children for some reason, we have the infirm, those with mental or physical handicap, and those without access to fire making supplies. I assume that you consider all those groups to be human as I do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Every species has unique features. Every one of them.

Oh I get it. Because that's how we define species. Clever dog.

 

[juvenissun]

I've already provided the video of a bonobo making a camp fire and using it to toast marshmallows. As for a human who can't use fire, excepting children for some reason, we have the infirm, those with mental or physical handicap, and those without access to fire making supplies. I assume that you consider all those groups to be human as I do.

I also said, they are all exceptions. It happened in all schemes of classification. No big deal.

A man without hands can raise and use fire? Of course, use his feet.

 

[[serious]]

I also said, they are all exceptions. It happened in all schemes of classification. No big deal.

A man without hands can raise and use fire? Of course, use his feet.

If you know when to make those exceptions, then you have another definition of kind that you are not stating. So what is your real definition of kind that tells you when to make exceptions to your pretend definition?

 

[theophilus777]

I've already provided the video of a bonobo making a camp fire and using it to toast marshmallows.

I just saw that - pretty cool!

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh I get it. Because that's how we define species. Clever dog.

No, it isn't. We define species as an interbreeding population. It has nothing to do with features.

Creationists keep wanting to exclude humans from clades because we have characteristics that are not found in other species in that clade. If we use this logic for every species, then no clade would have more than one species. Every species has unique features that would not be found in other species in that clade or kind.

Obviously, you can't use differences between humans and other species as a reason to exclude them from a kind since creationists do not use that same criteria for every other species.

 

[juvenissun]

If you know when to make those exceptions, then you have another definition of kind that you are not stating. So what is your real definition of kind that tells you when to make exceptions to your pretend definition?

If the exceptions do not interfere the practical use of the classification, then they are allowed. Otherwise, the system should be refined. So, ONE chimp "learned" to light the match should be an exception, at the best.

I wonder if we taught 100 such chimps to raise fire, how many of their kids will be taught the same skill by the adults? My prediction is: None. Very sad species. It seems another smart chimp movie is coming up. Kind of looking forward to see it.

 

[Mainframes]

If the exceptions do not interfere the practical use of the classification, then they are allowed. Otherwise, the system should be refined. So, ONE chimp "learned" to light the match should be an exception, at the best.

I wonder if we taught 100 such chimps to raise fire, how many of their kids will be taught the same skill by the adults? My prediction is: None. Very sad species. It seems another smart chimp movie is coming up. Kind of looking forward to see it.

If a chimp were capable of raising fire and they had practical use for it I guarantee that successive generation would learn the skill. Juvenile chimps routinely learn skills from their parents.

 

[juvenissun]

If a chimp were capable of raising fire and they had practical use for it I guarantee that successive generation would learn the skill. Juvenile chimps routinely learn skills from their parents.

So, why does it not happen? Where is your guarantee?

 

[Mainframes]

So, why does it not happen? Where is your guarantee?

That's where you read the first half of the sentence. Chimps may not be able to raise fire or may not have any use for it given they have semi-arboreal lives.....

 

[Loudmouth]

If the exceptions do not interfere the practical use of the classification, then they are allowed. Otherwise, the system should be refined. So, ONE chimp "learned" to light the match should be an exception, at the best.

I wonder if we taught 100 such chimps to raise fire, how many of their kids will be taught the same skill by the adults? My prediction is: None. Very sad species. It seems another smart chimp movie is coming up. Kind of looking forward to see it.

Why can't humans and chimps be in the same kind even if humans are able to use fire and chimps aren't?

A chihuahua is not able to herd sheep like a collie, so does that put them in separate kinds?

 

[juvenissun]

Why can't humans and chimps be in the same kind even if humans are able to use fire and chimps aren't?

A chihuahua is not able to herd sheep like a collie, so does that put them in separate kinds?

You can.
I don't want to.

 

[Elendur]

You can.
I don't want to.

And that's what it boils down to

 

[Loudmouth]

You can.
I don't want to.

Are "kinds" nothing more than preference?

 

[juvenissun]

Are "kinds" nothing more than preference?

Every classification is.

 

[[serious]]

If the exceptions do not interfere the practical use of the classification, then they are allowed. Otherwise, the system should be refined. So, ONE chimp "learned" to light the match should be an exception, at the best.

I wonder if we taught 100 such chimps to raise fire, how many of their kids will be taught the same skill by the adults? My prediction is: None. Very sad species. It seems another smart chimp movie is coming up. Kind of looking forward to see it.

How do you know to make a bonobo an execption? You still aren't answering that central question.