Re: The fossil record confirms Ray and Linnaeus not Devil's Advocate

[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
<cut to one point>
How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if
entities were separately created, we should be able to distinguish
their boundaries quite easily.
Opposite actually.

If there are two "kinds" of seed bearing fruit trees and you can
make a third from the first two then the third kind is after the
original first 2 "kinds" of fruit trees; but, becomes a separate
kind within the original kinds. I believe you call it a sub species.
No, I call it weird confusion on your part. I don't think you have any
real idea what you mean by "kind". What you have here is actually an
odd fantasy of what many creationists think would be a consequence of
evolution -- no separate kinds, just a smearing out of genotypes.
Creationists, on the other hand, commonly believe that if two
organisms can hybridize, that means they belong to the same kind. (In
fact, I swear that was once your criterion, now abandoned.)

"seed bearing" fruit tress was pretty specific; Not a "smearing". In the end, you still have another "kind" of seed bearing fruit tree which is what you started with.

No, that's not specific at all. It refers to a nebulous sampling of angiosperms, choosing a habit that is clearly convergent in multiple groups and that you couldn't defend even if you had any notion of botany.

Selective breeding can be seen as far back as Genesis when Isaac bread spotted and solid calves.

That wasn't selective breeding. That was sympathetic magic. If you recall, he bred these calves by showing their mothers spotted rods.

The "each after his own kind" concept is not hard follow John yet you have such difficulty with it. Why is that? I have tried to explain it several times and from several different approaches. I am beginning to believe you deliberately misunderstand.

A dog is simply a variation "after his own kind" (the wolf) as explained in Genesis. Some will call this micro-evolution. Dogs are the same species as the wolf but are different "kinds" of the original wolf. Yet even though they may eventually become reproductively isolated one day the dogs are still "after his own kind" (the wolf) as described in the bible. We can observe this kind of evolution, we can even manipulate it ourselves. We can repeat it.

But if you think a fish can eventually (for what ever reason) gave rise to another "kind" such as a dog, well, you are sadly mistaken with your science. That has never been observed, not can we repeat it, nor can we manipulate it. Some call that macro-evolution. There is not a shred of real objective evidence for that.

You are using "kind" in multiple meanings here. You say that dogs are a different kind than wolves, and that therefore evolution from one kind to another is possible. Yet you also say that dogs are the same kind as wolves. And you further say that a fish must be a different kind from a dog, and that it's therefore impossible for them to be related. So kinds can change into other kinds, but they're all the same kind, but kinds can't change into other kinds.

Of course there's real objective evidence for macroevolution, the best being the nested hierarchy of life. A fish and a dog are both vertebrates, and their genomes retain traces of their common ancestry.

It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own
kind" which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
Do you understand that seed-bearing fruit trees belong to many
different families of plants, and that many other members of these
same families aren't trees at all? Your notion of "kind" is
incoherent.

No ..the problem is your classification of things is wrong and that is why the biblical explanation makes no sense to you.

How would you classify things? Are you saying that an apple and an orange are related by common descent, but an apple and a rose are not?

We may never know what all of the /original/ created kinds were.

In the Book of Enoch they mention 14 tress which are what we call
"evergreens" today. But today we have more then 14 evergreens. Some
have been added to the earth's population of evergreens after their
own kind.
"Evergreen", like "tree" or "fruit tree", isn't a taxonomic term at
all. There are many different sorts of evergreen plants, belonging to
many different families. Many of these families have other members
that aren't evergreens.

That is like saying you are a member of the human family and the ape family and the fish family ALL at the same time. Now who is "blending"?

You are misusing the technical term "family" here. Any given organism can belong to only one family. Under current classifications, humans and apes belong to the family Hominidae. There is, strictly speaking, no human family. And there are a great many fish families, none of which we belong to. However, there is a much larger taxon called Craniata or Vertebrata, to which all fish belong, as do apes and humans.

You have also managed to confuse the nested hierarchy of life with this random assemblage of entities you envision. You are the one who is blending. Not me.

Like I said. Your classification of things is wrong. You should re-write it order to follow biblical laws and principals; which are clearly explained in the bible of course. THEN and only THEN will you have more accuracy when classifying "LIFE".

If these laws and principles were clearly explained, you should be able to classify life sensibly, which you can't. (It would help if you knew something about biology.)

The earth is dynamic; which is what evolution attempts to explain
but fails.
All you do here is reveal your complete ignorance of botany, and of
biology in general. And you seem to disagree strongly with other
creationists, including Ray.

Unlike you , at least Ray understands there is an original created "kind" for everything. Soon he will reconcile to his research that Isaac bread spotted and solid calves intentionally and that by doing so he was following the biblical principal described in Genesis as "each after his own kind".

But please notice that when Isaac bread spotted and solid calves none of them showed the slightest sign of diverging into another "kind" that is nothing like the /original/ kind that was started with.

So variation within the "kind" seems permissible under the biblical principal "each after his own kind" while a total divergence from the original kind seems impossible. Complete divergence has that ever been observed or repeated as we see with it's counterpart micro-evolution which we can witness and manipulate every day.

Well of course. Nobody is proposing a total divergence. Descendants of ancient ancestors all retain many similarities inherited from that ancestor. Fish and humans are not "nothing like the /original/ kind". Their retained similarities are in fact clues to their relationship.

Conclusion:
1) Micro Evolution = Yes
2) Macro Evolution = No

Reason: We can observe and repeat number 1. We have never observed or repeated number 2.

Depending on your precise definition of #2, we have repeated it. But never mind. The important thing is that we have observed it, meaning that we have gathered evidence that can't be interpreted sensibly in any other way. There are many varieties of evidence, most of which you ignore, in fact most of which you seem not to be aware of at all despite having been told many times. The best evidence, as I may have mentioned, comes from genomes.

If you still do not understand how the biblical principal "each after his own kind" works after this post then you may never understand because of your bias frame of mind on the subject.

Or perhaps because of your self-contradictory uses of the term "kind" to mean both immutable, created groups and transformations of those groups.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humiliation redefined
    ... many people won't eat salmon and just feed it to their dogs. ... Seems a waste to me because I will eat any fish. ... Depending on where one lives, there are King, Red, Silver, Chum ... But what you've heard about is Chum (aka Dog Salmon), ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Humiliation redefined
    ... many people won't eat salmon and just feed it to their dogs. ... Seems a waste to me because I will eat any fish. ... Depending on where one lives, there are King, Red, Silver, Chum ... But what you've heard about is Chum (aka Dog Salmon), ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Humiliation redefined
    ... many people won't eat salmon and just feed it to their dogs. ... Seems a waste to me because I will eat any fish. ... Depending on where one lives, there are King, Red, Silver, Chum ... But what you've heard about is Chum (aka Dog Salmon), ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Humiliation redefined
    ... many people won't eat salmon and just feed it to their dogs. ... Seems a waste to me because I will eat any fish. ... But what you've heard about is Chum (aka Dog Salmon), ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: corruption in Malaysia
    ... Yes, but after a few months when the heat was off then it will repeat again, this country is a laughing stock for Singapore dont you know? ... Malaysia is a shame because we got a shameless government by UMNO edict within the BN. ... aka running dog chow-kow-sick-fk who shouts thief for the past 20 years and this dog is a "lawyer".This sclerotic disbarred lawyer spews stolen ideas and states them as the dog's ... This dog steals, steals and steals other peoples' ideas posting them here as the dog's own. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)