Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

You have no education to give.

So, I will not educate you either.
Remember it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, I will not educate you either.
Remember it.

We have always had to educate you. I don't see why that would change.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. It is the best.
One who does not want to learn will not be educated.

One who does not know can not teach.

 

[[serious]]

Let's take a step back and let me reformulate my position:
For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

I would challenge you to formulate a definition to which neither of those statements applies.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's take a step back and let me reformulate my position:
For any definition of kind, change between kinds is either:
a. possible and has been observed.
-or-
b. unnecessary to explain the diversity of life on earth.

I would challenge you to formulate a definition to which neither of those statements applies.

Once you defined a kind, then the change of that kind will never (should not) happen by definition. Otherwise, the definition has problem and need to be modified.

I don't understand why is this basic principle of classification so hard to see. Between the choices of a and b, certainly b is a better answer. However, a classification scheme should not be used to explain the origin of the system. It is only used to classify.

Your logic system is deeply poisoned by the idea of evolution. You better throw it away so you can think free.

 

[[serious]]

Once you defined a kind, then the change of that kind will never (should not) happen by definition. Otherwise, the definition has problem and need to be modified.

I don't understand why is this basic principle of classification so hard to see. Between the choices of a and b, certainly b is a better answer. However, a classification scheme should not be used to explain the origin of the system. It is only used to classify.

Your logic system is deeply poisoned by the idea of evolution. You better throw it away so you can think free.

I'm fine with that. Define kind such that it fits your criteria of excluding the possibility of change between kinds and that would be needed for evolution to occur.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm fine with that. Define kind such that it fits your criteria of excluding the possibility of change between kinds and that would be needed for evolution to occur.

If one can do that, then it is fine. But it should not be the purpose, but a consequence.

I am not a biologist, otherwise, I would start long time ago to build the hierarchy of life kind. It would not be less complicated than that in the cladistics, but it would probably be more practical and useful. It does not have the burden to link one skeleton to another similar one genetically (a big hint is right here to see how would that system be like).

 

[Loudmouth]

If one can do that, then it is fine. But it should not be the purpose, but a consequence.

I am not a biologist, otherwise, I would start long time ago to build the hierarchy of life kind. It would not be less complicated than that in the cladistics, but it would probably be more practical and useful. It does not have the burden to link one skeleton to another similar one genetically (a big hint is right here to see how would that system be like).

Grand proclamations from someone who admits they know nothing of the topic. Gotta love it.

 

[juvenissun]

Grand proclamations from someone who admits they know nothing of the topic. Gotta love it.

You need to learn how to do that.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was going to leave this dung pile of a threa....

No harm done there.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.How would you reply?

If a properly documented process can be repeated by a "hostile"
examiner who can duplicate the original conditions of the original
observer, then the issue may fall into an area that can be repeated
and verified through the scientific method.

Else not.

 

[[serious]]

If one can do that, then it is fine. But it should not be the purpose, but a consequence.

I am not a biologist, otherwise, I would start long time ago to build the hierarchy of life kind. It would not be less complicated than that in the cladistics, but it would probably be more practical and useful. It does not have the burden to link one skeleton to another similar one genetically (a big hint is right here to see how would that system be like).

Whether it's a goal or a consequence, if such a definition exists, you should supply it. We aren't asking you to sort every animal in existence into groups,rather simply define what a group looks like. For example, a clade is a group consisting of an ancestor and all it's descendents. A descendant can be recognized, generally speaking, by having characteristics unique to that group, and not having characteristics unique to groups outside that clade. This relationship can also be established confirmed by genetic analysis showing, for example, unique patterns of ERVs within a clade.

Now, is that a perfect definition? Probably not. but it gives us something.

Your turn.

 

[[serious]]

If a properly documented process can be repeated by a "hostile"
examiner who can duplicate the original conditions of the original
observer, then the issue may fall into an area that can be repeated
and verified through the scientific method.

Else not.

Genetic analysis can be performed by a hostile examiner. It shows the same pattern of nested groups as it does for any other researcher.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a properly documented process can be repeated by a "hostile"
examiner who can duplicate the original conditions of the original
observer, then the issue may fall into an area that can be repeated
and verified through the scientific method.

Else not.

The sequence and genomic locus of endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) can be confirmed by a hostile examiner. The random nature of retroviral insertion can also be confirmed by a hostile examiner.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences​

A hostile examiner can also compare the pelvises of humans, chimps, and transitional hominids all for themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need to learn how to do that.

How to do what?

 

[juvenissun]

Whether it's a goal or a consequence, if such a definition exists, you should supply it. We aren't asking you to sort every animal in existence into groups,rather simply define what a group looks like. For example, a clade is a group consisting of an ancestor and all it's descendents. A descendant can be recognized, generally speaking, by having characteristics unique to that group, and not having characteristics unique to groups outside that clade. This relationship can also be established confirmed by genetic analysis showing, for example, unique patterns of ERVs within a clade.

Now, is that a perfect definition? Probably not. but it gives us something.

Your turn.

I have given a few such examples:

Grazing kind, --
Dog kind, -- any animal similar to the shape of dog
Monkey kind, -- say: climbing tree (so those don't are not monkey kind)
Human kind, -- Use fire
etc.

Well, those are just examples. The criteria would be either functions or shapes or ....


Don't tell me how should I do it. I KNOW how cladistics work. Rather, you may ask questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human kind, -- Use fire

Cheatgrass uses fire, too. I guess they are in the human kind.

 

[[serious]]

I have given a few such examples:

Grazing kind, --
Dog kind, -- any animal similar to the shape of dog
Monkey kind, -- say: climbing tree (so those don't are not monkey kind)
Human kind, -- Use fire
etc.

Well, those are just examples. The criteria would be either functions or shapes or ....


Don't tell me how should I do it. I KNOW how cladistics work. Rather, you may ask questions.

Since bonitos can be taught to use fire, monkey kind can become human kind. Thus, we've observed change between kinds.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genetic analysis can be performed by a hostile examiner. It shows the same pattern of nested groups as it does for any other researcher.

But the mechanism of the original occurrence is outside of science to examine.
We can only guess. Anyone can look at the data and create assumptions about what happened.
There are one or two things we don't yet know about genetic mechanisms.

 

[juvenissun]

Since bonitos can be taught to use fire, monkey kind can become human kind. Thus, we've observed change between kinds.

The new system can simply ignore that. Even the change is true (still a problem), it is rare enough and can be ignored.