What is a "kind"?

[peteos]

Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors

Yes it does. Might I suggest once again, that you are not aware of what this evidence is, would look like, how it could be falsified, and how it has been examined for well over 150 years.

But if you really really wish to know, if you really really want to know why scientists think common ancestry is a reality...if it actually matters to you to understand common ancestry from the perspective of 99.99% of the world's biologists...if it would all interest you to actually understand evolution instead of the same old misunderstanding... THEN PLEASE, READ

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

Its short (12 pages). Lucid. Written in complete laymens terms.

I'm not suggesting it will convince you. Johnathan Wells is a more capable and informed scientists then me and at least as late as 2001 he didn't think common ancestry was a reality. But at least you could finally understand and interact with the real evidence. If you can come up with examples where the nested hierarchy of life breaks down, I would love to hear it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it nothing you say makes any sense?

Because I'm talking to atheists?

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

Because I'm casting pearls?

[bible]Matthew 7:6[/bible]

You only oppose uniformitarianism because you've painted yourselves into a corner and need some way to dismiss all the evidence against your young earth nonsense.

And what "young earth nonsense" would that be, Aron?

Especially since I'm on record as denying YEC.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Disproven by Scripture first:

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]

Why was it even researched and taught in the first place?

IOW --- you scientots make stuff up (based on "evidence", of course) --- then disprove it yourselves.

It is true that an important role of science is to falsify alternative hypotheses. Certain hypotheses that seemed reasonable at one time based on the evidence available at that time have been falsified on further examination and study. Some examples of falsified hypotheses that were falsified way back in the 19th century are phlogeston, spontaneous generation and a recent global flood.

 

[peteos]

Especially since I'm on record as denying YEC.

Interesting. What are you then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Define 'kind'

For what --- the fifth time?

• A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

This is just a working definition, and a guess.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Because I'm talking to atheists?

Many of us are not atheists and what you say often makes no sense to anyone capable of logical thought.

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

Because I'm casting pearls?

[bible]Matthew 7:6[/bible]
No because you are spewing nonsense.

And what "young earth nonsense" would that be, Aron?

Especially since I'm on record as denying YEC.

You are on record spouting total nonsense. Do you or do you not believe that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago? Do you or do you not believe that there was a global flood about 4,500 years ago?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Disproven by Scripture first:

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]

I fail to see the connection between this quote and spontaneous generation. Perhaps you could clarify.

Why was it even researched and taught in the first place?

Humans are fallible. And in any way, it was disproved first in 1668 and criticised long before that, so it's not like you learned that stuff in school.

IOW --- you scientots make stuff up (based on "evidence", of course) --- then disprove it yourselves.

Spontaneous generation was not based on evidence, that's why it was disproved.

Like a self-promoting security guard who is always starting fires, then "discovering fires" and putting them out.

Unless you are implying that philosophers started propagating SG knowing it was incorrect, your analogy - again - fails.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is true that an important role of science is to falsify alternative hypotheses.

No --- no --- no! That is PR baloney.

(And I stopped reading after this sentence.)

 

[Split Rock]

For what --- the fifth time?

• A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

This is just a working definition, and a guess.

So, one of the central themes of creationism is nothing but a "guess." And you accuse us of making stuff up? Is that a plank I see in your eye?

 

[Molal]

For what --- the fifth time?

• A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

This is just a working definition, and a guess.

Sweet, so if it is at the top of the species taxon and then it can be characterized as another species due to evolution - then it has 'jumped' the 'kind' barrier.

Or do you now have to provide a creationists definition of species?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No --- no --- no! That is PR baloney.

Said the creationist teacher to the geologist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are on record spouting total nonsense.

It'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I "spout total nonsense".

Do you or do you not believe that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago?

I do.

Do you or do you not believe that there was a global flood about 4,500 years ago?

I do.

 

[peteos]

A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

Its a start!

Okay. So are lions and tigers in the same kind.
Dogs and foxes?
Lions and house cats?
Chimpanzees and Bonobos?
Blue Whale and Humpback Whale?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

For what --- the fifth time?

• A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles.

This is just a working definition, and a guess.

Maximum alleles? What does that mean? Do you even know what alleles are? Which taxon on would the animal be at the top of? Exactly What does it mean to be at the top its taxon?

How do you get locusts and grasshoppers to be separate kinds in this definition when the are the same species?

The fact is that creationists want to define kind broadly enough to limit the number of "kinds' required on the ark to a number that 8 people could take care of for a year and narrowly enough so that humans can't be the same "kind" as chimps. These two goals are mutually contradictory so there will never be a precise definition of "kind".

 

[Aron-Ra]

Disproven by Scripture first:

No, that's actually what the Bible promotes; complex and fully-devoloped life-forms magically appearing out of nothing.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I "spout total nonsense".

Coincidentally, Finland is having a heat wave right now.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I "spout total nonsense".

The record high for Helsinki is 88F which I am sure the people considered hot and you have been spouting total nonsense at least as long as you have been posting here.

I do.



I do.

So you believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago and claim you are not a Young Earth Creationist and still you have trouble understanding why we say you are spouting nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a start!

Okay. So are lions and tigers in the same kind.
Dogs and foxes?
Lions and house cats?
Chimpanzees and Bonobos?
Blue Whale and Humpback Whale?

I don't know --- are they?

Perhaps we could get a taxonomist in here to tell us?

 

[Molal]

I don't know --- are they?

Perhaps we could get a taxonomist in here to tell us?

We could get a scientist to tell us???

I am almost speechless...........the heresy

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I don't know --- are they?

Perhaps we could get a taxonomist in here to tell us?

What do you mean - "are they?" You are the one that's been asked!

(I have a feeling that a geneticist could also be of assistance explaining what "maximum alleles" means.)