What is a "kind"?

[AV1611VET]

Maximum alleles? What does that mean?

Beats me.

Do you even know what alleles are?

I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time).

Which taxon on would the animal be at the top of?

I haven't a clue.

Exactly What does it mean to be at the top its taxon?

Opposite from the bottom.

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

Very carefully?

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.

Maybe it would be best we don't define it then, and let the Bible handle Itself?

These two goals are mutually contradictory so there will never be a precise definition of "kind".

Then stop asking us please, if you don't like our answers.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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

I have been studying science for 50 years and working in science for more that 40. You have again shown your total ignorance of the way science works.

And I stopped reading after this sentence.)

Of course you did. You desperately need to maintain you supreme ignorance of science and its methodology and results as they so totally conflict with your bizarre world view.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Evolution = continuing natural processes

Creation = completed supernatural processes

(I love the way you guys use the word magical as a synonym for divine or supernatural.

 

[Molal]

AV
I have absolutely no idea what we are talking about do you.

Infact, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

It must be the heat wave in Helsinki.

 

[Split Rock]

Beats me.

I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time).

I haven't a clue.

Opposite from the bottom.

Very carefully?

Maybe it would be best we don't define it then, and let the Bible handle Itself?

Then stop asking us please, if you don't like our answers.

I think we are all done here. Thread finished.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Beats me.



I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time).



I haven't a clue.



.

Av has just summed himself up beautifully.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

AV - if you don't know what alleles are, stop using the term.

Really, I have to control myself to not regress into caps locked expletives. Your arrogance is outrageous.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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?

I may be the closest thing to that here. So let me help you with that.

Dogs and foxes are different species, and different genera, but are both canids.
Lions and house cats are also different species of different genera, but within the same family of felids.
Chimpanzees and bonobos are both different species of the same genera, and in the the same taxonomic family as we are.

But I think I know a more interesting series of questions for this thread.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as you put it. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves.

So is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Which of these are related? Which of these are created?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

AV1611VET has logged off. He will return tomorrow and spout the same nonsense as if this thread never existed.

 

[peteos]

I think we are all done here. Thread finished.

Definitely. I think AV summed it up for us very nicely.

 

[FishFace]

Evolution is a form of self-worship in the name of science....

I've told you twice already. EVOLUTION THEORY IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE. NOTHING MORE.

Stop lying.

 

[FishFace]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

All of those are well defined. I don't see the relevance. Three of the four have been disproved. One has been shown to be possible, but not as expected. Another... well, it doesn't even belong in the list, it's nothing like the others.

 

[FishFace]

Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.

You're not a uniformitarian? So how come we see formations in the rock record exactly the same as today? Where is the evidence for a non-uniform past?

If you don't think there need be evidence, I assume you're scared that tomorrow gravity might reverse and you'll fly off into space.

 

[FishFace]

The science of Math does not agree with evolution.

BS. Explain yourself. Also, mathematics is not a science.

Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors, as it cannot even demonstrate un-natural selection creating a new specie ---- but only variety trait specific breeding..

But there are plenty of observed instances of speciation. And it's species, not specie.

 

[FishFace]

Disproven by Scripture first:

Even if the Bible did disagree with spontaneous generation, that's like saying that phlogiston was disproven by a drunken fool called Bill who happened to disagree with scientists of the time.

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]

You're fooling no-one - this doesn't have anything to do with spontaneous generation, which was the idea that maggots and mice spontaneously arose out of rotting meat.

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

For the same reason as anything does - someone has an idea, or finds something odd, and investigates it. Perhaps you ought to read something other than the Bible. You might learn something.

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

Spontaneous generation was believed since the time of Aristotle (I notice no-one thought the Bible disproved it until science did it for them.) If we had only had creationists, we would still believe in spontaneous generation.

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

Corrected for accuracy.

 

[FishFace]

Especially since I'm on record as denying YEC.

In your version of English, perhaps. In everyone else's you are. We are part of everyone else, so you are a YEC.

 

[FishFace]

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.

Please tell me what an animal (what about a plant?) would look like if it had "maximum alleles." Most animals have two sets of chromosomes, and copies kill them. You can have at most one allele per chromosome, so the maximum number of alleles is... 2.

Yet there are hundreds of alleles for some genes nowadays.

Pity you don't actually understand your guess - it falls down flat on its face.

 

[FishFace]

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

Oh... The forecast doesn't appear to be improving:

 

[FishFace]

Evolution = continuing natural processes

Creation = completed supernatural processes

(I love the way you guys use the word magical as a synonym for divine or supernatural.

The only difference that can possibly be argued for is which fairy tale each belongs to.

 

[Molal]

I am still laughing at the heat wave in Helsinki.........