Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[newhope101]

LOL... you've had more than five minutes newhope.

I'm sorry you don't like people pointing out flaws in your genius... but life and science are tough. :beach:

wa:do

Wolf, you have only pointed to flaws in your genius. I have given a definition of kind for the purpose of discussion. You appear to be the only one that is unable to understand it.

 

[painted wolf]

Wolf, you have only pointed to flaws in your genius. I have given a definition of kind for the purpose of discussion. You appear to be the only one that is unable to understand it.

No, I've been asking you to strengthen your definition... and you have changed it in response to my questions.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate it... but this is the difference between offering a definition to a lay-person and someone with a biology background.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

PaintedWolf....Let me remind you that this is a forum, not a scientific panel of which you are the adjudicator. It’s really simple Wolf…try to follow. Subfamily or family, whichever is the lower taxonomic rank. It really is not too hard for the average person to follow.
　
I am sorry you cannot take on a simple definition of ‘kind’. Thank goodness your acceptance is not required

 

[ellenjanuary]

Raggin' on the Wolf ain't the way to make a point. She has been nothing but kind, understanding and patient on these forums for a grip of time. If you have an issue, take issue, not offense.

 

[painted wolf]

PaintedWolf....Let me remind you that this is a forum, not a scientific panel of which you are the adjudicator. It’s really simple Wolf…try to follow. Subfamily or family, whichever is the lower taxonomic rank. It really is not too hard for the average person to follow.
　
I am sorry you cannot take on a simple definition of ‘kind’. Thank goodness your acceptance is not required

It's a debate forum... if you can't stand to have your precious definition debated, you should have stuck to the DIR forums.

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

Coupla things: we are not "Homo sapiens," we are homo sapiens sapiens. God did not create the dog. We did. The Bible clearly states "do not mix kinds," so, if yer spouting the Bible, and you have a dog, or you eat chicken; then you are a sinner!

 

[outhouse]

You know whats great about creationist??

with a little knowledge they seem lost, in my opinion. They pick a gray area on purpose to explain away there magic theorys that never ever have any merit behind them.

since science and magic are different no REAL scientist accepts both. Anyone who does and there credibility is up for question.

There myth doesnt have one valid point anywhere, thus they dance around there own beliefs as a whole so they cannot get pinned down.

First younf earth and the myths behind it, following on the same beliefs but discountingthere very source they came up with old earth, then as evolution science had firm roots in place they dreamed up the ID myth. It to me is so hillarious for them to say evolution doesnt take place but at the same time watching that there whole creation myth is evolving.

All I want to know is? what will they believe next week?????

science has painted a clear picture putting the pieces of the puzzle together

creationist look for the missing pieces and cry foul, the picture is still clear despite them

 

[ellenjanuary]

You know whats great about creationist??

with a little knowledge they seem lost, in my opinion. They pick a gray area on purpose to explain away there magic theorys that never ever have any merit behind them.

since science and magic are different no REAL scientist accepts both. Anyone who does and there credibility is up for question.

There myth doesnt have one valid point anywhere, thus they dance around there own beliefs as a whole so they cannot get pinned down.

First younf earth and the myths behind it, following on the same beliefs but discountingthere very source they came up with old earth, then as evolution science had firm roots in place they dreamed up the ID myth. It to me is so hillarious for them to say evolution doesnt take place but at the same time watching that there whole creation myth is evolving.

All I want to know is? what will they believe next week?????

science has painted a clear picture putting the pieces of the puzzle together

creationist look for the missing pieces and cry foul, the picture is still clear despite them

Hey! I'm a created evolutionist! I might have to take that personally, get all offended and stuff...

 

[newhope101]

This is the state of your 'genus' definition re Homo. I can't see why any of you have a problem with anyone's definition of Kind. My definition works much better than any of your definitions..and with fewer exceptions. Just another example of biologists grabbing at straws. Let me know when you make up your mind.

Wiki Hominidae: An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 well corroborated such features compared with perhaps as little as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids such as the australopiths not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]
The classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid" – the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, i.e. only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid," which includes all great apes and humans.

 

[PolyHedral]

My definition works much better than any of your definitions..and with fewer exceptions

But your exceptions are not based on any sort of biology. It doesn't matter what "species" means. It does matter if "kind" doesn't match up with reality.

 

[outhouse]

This is the state of your 'genus' definition re Homo. I can't see why any of you have a problem with anyone's definition of Kind. My definition works much better than any of your definitions..and with fewer exceptions. Just another example of biologists grabbing at straws. Let me know when you make up your mind.

Wiki Hominidae: An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 well corroborated such features compared with perhaps as little as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids such as the australopiths not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]
The classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid" – the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, i.e. only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid," which includes all great apes and humans.

your talking the work science has done and reconstructing the tree to fit YOUR needs. Nothing more in my opinion

 

[painted wolf]

This is the state of your 'genus' definition re Homo. I can't see why any of you have a problem with anyone's definition of Kind. My definition works much better than any of your definitions..and with fewer exceptions. Just another example of biologists grabbing at straws. Let me know when you make up your mind.

Wiki Hominidae: An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 well corroborated such features compared with perhaps as little as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids such as the australopiths not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]
The classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid" – the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, i.e. only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid," which includes all great apes and humans.

Do you understand what the difference between a genus (Homo) and a family (Hominidae)?
What does a cut and paste job on Hominidae have to do with Homo?

You realize that complaining about the genus Homo being poorly defined and then posting about something other than the genus Homo makes you look like the one grasping at straws.

Plus your entire definition is made up of exceptions... family or subfamily (but not tribe which you take exception to)...
depending on what biology tells you (the same biologists you claim can't figure any of this out and who's research you take exception to)...
but no further for no particular reason other than you take exception to it...
and nothing for humans (however you choose to define human at the time).

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Outhouse...If you are unable to accept the state of your own evolutionary science, creationsists are not to blame. The examples I use are not from creationist sites, lovey, they are from your own muddied research. If you choose one researcher over another and purport that work to be the clear and verifiable truth then you offer no better validity to your stance than any creationist does theirs.

Here's some more from Wiki and the research papers are referenced...I suppose many of you think you are smarter than your own leading researchers..Shame!

"As mentioned, Hominidae was originally the name given to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. However, that definition made Pongidae paraphyletic because at least one great ape species appears to be more closely related to humans than to other great apes. Most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups – this would require the use of Pongidae to be restricted to one of the great ape groups (containing Pongo, the orangutans) only. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutans and their extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings according to the two theories of human and great ape relationships.
Especially close human relatives form a subfamily, the Homininae. A few researchers go so far as to include chimpanzees[16] and gorillas[17][18] in the genus Homo along with humans."

Nice to see that you evolutionists are so clear about this stuff!

 

[newhope101]

Do you understand what the difference between a genus (Homo) and a family (Hominidae)?
What does a cut and paste job on Hominidae have to do with Homo?

You realize that complaining about the genus Homo being poorly defined and then posting about something other than the genus Homo makes you look like the one grasping at straws.

Plus your entire definition is made up of exceptions... family or subfamily (but not tribe which you take exception to)...
depending on what biology tells you (the same biologists you claim can't figure any of this out and who's research you take exception to)...
but no further for no particular reason other than you take exception to it...
and nothing for humans (however you choose to define human at the time).

wa:do

Back to sideling..nice to see you haven't changed. My only exception is human so I don't know what you are on about as usual..inventing your own stuff to support your refute. That doesn't work Paintedwolf. You are refuting a no brainer as I use your faulty family and subfamily rankings in giving you some idea of what kind means to me. You are just not savvy enough to get it or you are trying to be exhausting in continuing to pretend to not understand it. Obviously with your taxonomy being the mess it is especially around Homo exceptions are to be expected. Luckily I only need to separate humans out as an exception because they are created in the image of God and because your Homo ranking is the biggest mess ever.

As I said your acceptance is not in any way required.

I'm still waiting for you to articulate a definition of "high genetic similarity" in explanation to your definition of species. I guess I'll be waiting along time.

 

[painted wolf]

Your much vaulted source is Wikipedia?

Yes, there are a couple of people who want Chimps and Gorillas lumped within Homo, but they have yet to make a convincing case and it's never been considered main steam in any since.

It really doesn't make your case at all... it only shows how you read into things and jump to conclusions. Not to mention your cherry picking tendencies.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

If you are unable to accept the state of your own evolutionary science

sorry i understand we dont have all the answers to all the questions

creationsists are not to blame

understood, the only blame i have for them is that they follow a known myth.

lovey

why thank you

muddied research

valid research is not muddied

If you choose one researcher over another

this is where i believe your dead wrong.

Anyone can do research and come up with a conclusion, doesnt mean its valid.

science does not validate that way.

many of you think you are smarter than your own leading researchers

again I dont know if what you have posted is right or wrong I have not researched it myself.

I do know conclusions are not made by a particular view of one researcher until its been accepted

Nice to see that you evolutionists are so clear about this stuff!

do you have a reading problem or a comprehending one.

this statement is yours that you posted

An alternative minority viewpoint

this sums it up and is not proof of anything other then Painted Wolf is right and it makes you look to be weak and grasping at straws

 

[painted wolf]

Back to sideling..nice to see you haven't changed. My only exception is human so I don't know what you are on about as usual..inventing your own stuff to support your refute. That doesn't work Paintedwolf. You are refuting a no brainer as I use your faulty family and subfamily rankings in giving you some idea of what kind means to me. You are just not savvy enough to get it or you are trying to be exhausting in continuing to pretend to not understand it. Obviously with your taxonomy being the mess it is especially around Homo exceptions are to be expected. Luckily I only need to separate humans out as an exception because they are created in the image of God and because your Homo ranking is the biggest mess ever.

As I said your acceptance is not in any way required.

I'm still waiting for you to articulate a definition of "high genetic similarity" in explanation to your definition of species. I guess I'll be waiting along time.

No, you make an exception for any taxonomic rank you don't like... such as tribes or families.

Please define what is a Human? If humans are the "sole exception" they should be easy to separate out from the animals.

And I did address "high genetic similarity"... you must have missed it. >2% genetic variation (mtDNA) within a population.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

PaintedWolf....Let me remind you that this is a forum, not a scientific panel of which you are the adjudicator. It’s really simple Wolf…try to follow. Subfamily or family, whichever is the lower taxonomic rank. It really is not too hard for the average person to follow.
　
I am sorry you cannot take on a simple definition of ‘kind’. Thank goodness your acceptance is not required

O.K. so as an example, Noah would have taken around 18 pairs of snakes on board, and around 200 pairs of beetles? Would that be about right? And something like 35 pairs of rodents?

 

[Autodidact]

So according to you, New Hope, humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are all the same "kind?" Is that right?

 

[painted wolf]

So according to you, New Hope, humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are all the same "kind?" Is that right?

No no... Humans are an exception to the rule...

Now what gets defined as "human" is left undefined.

wa:do