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

[painted wolf]

I think evolutionists are bold in criticising and not accepting the concept of 'kind' with the mess the term species is in, as previously posted. The snake is no exception. Was this example supposed to clarify the mess your own concept of species is in? It doesn't you know.

No, just point out the ridiculous nature of the "judging by appearances" argument you set forth. Thus far you have done nothing to make it less silly. At least scientists are actually working on defining the pre-evolutionary term "species" in a way that makes sense beyond the creationist definition that it started as.

Snakes appear to be a monophyly, regardless.

I never argued otherwise... you seem to still be having trouble actually digesting what you skim over.

The first snakes were created then adapted and became the rich variety you speak of. Hec, evos can't even agree on 'Family". Great example!!!

I'm not sure what sort of point you are trying to make here.... Other than you think simply saying "snake" is good enough and that any attempt at deeper understanding is worth mocking. Again, this isn't helping your argument.

Not even creationists will argue that various varieties of an organism, eg frogs, should not have names that identify their variety. That was areally dumb comment Wolf. The problem is not with the naming of variety. The problem starts when evos try to side step LCA as the ancestor that came after it was something other than a frog to fit the TOE model.

You refuse to define "frog" in any meaningful way. The point is, without you defining what the "frog kind" or "snake kind" is... other than "well it kind of looks to me like a ____"... it's completely useless.
Here lets try another "what kind am I?" Thus far every time I bring one up they are ignored.

Please identify/define these kinds

At this point any variety of frog or salamander will be used to claim a mid species find. We all know what researchers originally did with neanderthal sketches until they were reviewed in light of more evidence. Many so called mid species are nothing more than varieties of a kind. Neanderthal is human, tiktallic was not the first creature to climb onto land as there are older tetrapod footprints of the same age, Bird/dino..Arch..well researchers aren't sure which way this evolution went and feathered dinos have been discovered that were not mid anything.

There is so much wrong tossed in here... But I'll try to stick to the OP. Please tell me what the "bird kind" is in the creationist model.

Again I reiterate....Evolutionists do not have a definition of species that has scientific veracity and can be consistently applied. ..and don't you just hate it!

Not really... I think it's an exciting opportunity to further dismantle the pre-evolutionary holdover that is the Linnaean system. It only highlights the core truth of evolution... that all life is linked by a continuous line of decent.

If species could be strictly defined and immutable, then you would have evidence for creation. This is one more example of how you don't understand how your own arguments work against you.

Thanks for leading me to yet another example of the species confusion.

LOL... if you think there is confusion as to King and Coral snakes being different species you better hope to never meet one or the other. :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I think evolutionists are bold in criticising and not accepting the concept of 'kind' with the mess the term species is in, as previously posted. The snake is no exception. Was this example supposed to clarify the mess your own concept of species is in? It doesn't you know.

newhope: Here is yet another of the simple concepts you seem unable to grasp. I wonder why that is? ToE predicts that the species concept will be a mess. If the species concept were not a mess, ToE would be disproved. ToE explains why it is a mess, and must be a mess. I would appreciate it if I did not have to repeat it 100 times. If you don't understand why, because you don't understand (or deliberately choose not to understand) ToE, I will be happy to explain it to you.

 

[evolved yet?]

Please identify/define these kinds

I'm not sure what the first one is.
The second is a racoon dog.
And the third is a caecilian.

 

[evolved yet?]

Please identify/define these kinds

I'm not sure what the first one is.
The second is a racoon dog.
And the third is a caecilian.

This would make a good game.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not sure what the first one is.

The second is a racoon dog.

Correct... so is it "dog kind" then? If so what features make it "dog kind"?

And the third is a caecilian.

Nice try bur incorrect.

This would make a good game.

It would indeed! But right now I'm trying to figure out what determines what goes into what "kind".

Like.. what "kind" is this?

or this?

Are they different "kinds" or the same "kind"... what unites them if they are and what divides them if they are not.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Correct... so is it "dog kind" then? If so what features make it "dog kind"?
Nice try bur incorrect.

It would indeed! But right now I'm trying to figure out what determines what goes into what "kind".

Like.. what "kind" is this?

or this?

Are they different "kinds" or the same "kind"... what unites them if they are and what divides them if they are not.

wa:do

Oh, that's just to damn easy.
Everyone knows that they are both "fossil kinds"!

Next?!

 

[newhope101]

newhope: Here is yet another of the simple concepts you seem unable to grasp. I wonder why that is? ToE predicts that the species concept will be a mess. If the species concept were not a mess, ToE would be disproved. ToE explains why it is a mess, and must be a mess. I would appreciate it if I did not have to repeat it 100 times. If you don't understand why, because you don't understand (or deliberately choose not to understand) ToE, I will be happy to explain it to you.

If what you say is true than evolutionists have not better argument that creationists. Certainly evos expected a nice transition between these species that change kinds however what they discovered was a mess, all over the place....oh...then the mess became the basis of evidence. Good one!!!!

 

[McBell]

If what you say is true than evolutionists have not better argument that creationists. Certainly evos expected a nice transition between these species that change kinds however what they discovered was a mess, all over the place....oh...then the mess became the basis of evidence. Good one!!!!

Careful now.
Your blatant ignorance is showing.

 

[Autodidact]

If what you say is true than evolutionists have not better argument that creationists. Certainly evos expected a nice transition between these species that change kinds however what they discovered was a mess, all over the place....oh...then the mess became the basis of evidence. Good one!!!!

Thank you. You have now demonstrated that either you do not understand ToE, in which case you have no basis on which to criticize it, or you choose to deliberately distort it, in which case there is no reason why anyone should give anything you say any credence.

If you ever want to understand what ToE predicts about species, and why the fact that they are hard to define is a prediction of ToE, just ask.

Or, if you prefer, remain ignorant or dishonest. The choice is yours.

 

[newhope101]

Oh, that's just to damn easy.
Everyone knows that they are both "fossil kinds"!

Next?!

These pictures appear to be the ones proposed as intermediates between salamander and frog. If so, again you have posted fossils that can't even be classified into a family without debate.



A fossilized frog from the Czech Republic, possibly Palaeobatrachus gigas

Notice the word "POSSIBLY" is used. In other words "they don't know".

Wiki states: Many characteristics are not shared by all of the approximately 5,250 described frog species. However, some general characteristics distinguish them from other amphibians. Frogs are usually well suited to jumping, with long hind legs and elongated ankle bones. They have a short vertebral column, with no more than ten free vertebrae, followed by a fused tailbone (urostyle or coccyx), typically resulting in a tailless phenotype. This highlights Gods diversity in Frogs.

The morphology of frogs is unique among amphibians. Compared with the other two groups of amphibians, (salamanders and caecilians), frogs are unusual because they lack tails as adults and their legs are more suited to jumping than walking. Your mid species are nothing more than in species adaptations.

Frogs, salamanders and caecilians are kinds. (Wiki)Anderson and co-authors suggested that caecilians arose from the Lepospondyl group of ancestral tetrapods, and may be more closely related to amniotes than to frogs and salamanders, which arose from Temnospondyl ancestors.

Temnospondyli (from Greek τεμνειν, temnein = "to cut" + σπονδυλως, spondulos = "vertebra") is an important and extremely diverse taxon of small to giant primitive amphibians that flourished worldwide during the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic periods. A few stragglers continued into the Cretaceous. During their evolutionary history they adapted to a very wide range of habitats, including fresh-water aquatic, semi-aquatic, amphibious, terrestrial, and in one group even near-shore marine, and their fossil remains have been found on every continent. Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants.[1][2][3] So Temnospondyli is supposed to be the ancestor of the frog. Note the words an 'extremely diverse taxon'. In other words a nonsense was invented to illustrate evolution of kind to another kind. Note some AUTHORITIES disgaree and think they died out leaving NO decendants. It's truly all just unfounded gobble.

Wiki. Relationship to modern amphibians
The Lissamphibia, the modern amphibians, appear to have risen in the Permian.[5] The root of the group is controversial, but may be with the Temnospondyli. Skull morphology of some of the smaller later form has been compared to those of modern frogs and salamanders. The presence of bicuspid, pedicellate teeth in small, paedomorphic or immature temnospondyls like the genus Doleserpeton has been cited as the most convincing argument in favor of the temnospondyl origin of lissamphibians.[6] Other analysis indicate that another fossil group, the Lepospondyli, are more likely candidates for lissamphibian origin, leaving the Temnospondyli an extinct group.[7] However, it's possible that they were close relatives of modern amphibians. Or perhaps distant relatives. APPEAR, MAY BE, POSSIBLE, PERHAPS are the operant words throughout ToE. Great science...!

So this info above proves, that you lot can prattle on about your evidence that sounds so convincing to anyone that does not research it. In actual fact, it's about as solid as straw. Surely you lot can find some little bit of evidence that is straight forward and not debated by equally qualified authorities. I haven't seen any yet. As I say you have no foundation to belittle creationists.

By posting your refutes you have only served to highlight that evolutionary theorists continue to grab at any straw that vaguely constitutes evidence, even if it does not make any sence and researchers have no idea of lineage or what the heck they are looking at...really.

Congratulations..Great refutes...NOT

 

[painted wolf]

I had no idea that any posted about a intermediate between a salamander and a frog.

But by all means keep evading the facts and demonstrating that you have nothing to support your side except shell games.

You want everyone to accept that nothing changes outside of its "kind" then you had better define what the heck a "kind" is.
So... what is a "kind"?

And please stop trying to change the subject with wiki distractions... It's not going to work and only makes you look desperate.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

These pictures appear to be the ones proposed as intermediates between salamander and frog. If so, again you have posted fossils that can't even be classified into a family without debate.



A fossilized frog from the Czech Republic, possibly Palaeobatrachus gigas

Notice the word "POSSIBLY" is used. In other words "they don't know".

Wiki states: Many characteristics are not shared by all of the approximately 5,250 described frog species. However, some general characteristics distinguish them from other amphibians. Frogs are usually well suited to jumping, with long hind legs and elongated ankle bones. They have a short vertebral column, with no more than ten free vertebrae, followed by a fused tailbone (urostyle or coccyx), typically resulting in a tailless phenotype. This highlights Gods diversity in Frogs.

The morphology of frogs is unique among amphibians. Compared with the other two groups of amphibians, (salamanders and caecilians), frogs are unusual because they lack tails as adults and their legs are more suited to jumping than walking. Your mid species are nothing more than in species adaptations.

Frogs, salamanders and caecilians are kinds. (Wiki)Anderson and co-authors suggested that caecilians arose from the Lepospondyl group of ancestral tetrapods, and may be more closely related to amniotes than to frogs and salamanders, which arose from Temnospondyl ancestors.

Temnospondyli (from Greek τεμνειν, temnein = "to cut" + σπονδυλως, spondulos = "vertebra") is an important and extremely diverse taxon of small to giant primitive amphibians that flourished worldwide during the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic periods. A few stragglers continued into the Cretaceous. During their evolutionary history they adapted to a very wide range of habitats, including fresh-water aquatic, semi-aquatic, amphibious, terrestrial, and in one group even near-shore marine, and their fossil remains have been found on every continent. Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants.[1][2][3] So Temnospondyli is supposed to be the ancestor of the frog. Note the words an 'extremely diverse taxon'. In other words a nonsense was invented to illustrate evolution of kind to another kind. Note some AUTHORITIES disgaree and think they died out leaving NO decendants. It's truly all just unfounded gobble.

Wiki. Relationship to modern amphibians
The Lissamphibia, the modern amphibians, appear to have risen in the Permian.[5] The root of the group is controversial, but may be with the Temnospondyli. Skull morphology of some of the smaller later form has been compared to those of modern frogs and salamanders. The presence of bicuspid, pedicellate teeth in small, paedomorphic or immature temnospondyls like the genus Doleserpeton has been cited as the most convincing argument in favor of the temnospondyl origin of lissamphibians.[6] Other analysis indicate that another fossil group, the Lepospondyli, are more likely candidates for lissamphibian origin, leaving the Temnospondyli an extinct group.[7] However, it's possible that they were close relatives of modern amphibians. Or perhaps distant relatives. APPEAR, MAY BE, POSSIBLE, PERHAPS are the operant words throughout ToE. Great science...!

So this info above proves, that you lot can prattle on about your evidence that sounds so convincing to anyone that does not research it. In actual fact, it's about as solid as straw. Surely you lot can find some little bit of evidence that is straight forward and not debated by equally qualified authorities. I haven't seen any yet. As I say you have no foundation to belittle creationists.

By posting your refutes you have only served to highlight that evolutionary theorists continue to grab at any straw that vaguely constitutes evidence, even if it does not make any sence and researchers have no idea of lineage or what the heck they are looking at...really.

Congratulations..Great refutes...NOT

Here's another simple concept that you fail to grasp. Where any of these fossils fits has nothing to do with the evidence for ToE. It is not NOT not the evidence for ToE.

What's interesting is that you agreed to review the evidence for ToE. I presented about 1/10 of it, none of which included any fossils. You said that you understood and accept that the evidence supported the theory, so I stopped. Do we need to go back to that thread and start over? Because you don't seem to either understand or accept any of it. Now you claim it doesn't, citing other material completely.

This follows a long period in which you claimed to be an agnostic, which you clearly are not.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you are a compulsive liar. If there is some other conclusion, please point it out to me. Thank you.

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact Quote:What's interesting is that you agreed to review the evidence for ToE. I presented about 1/10 of it, none of which included any fossils. You said that you understood and accept that the evidence supported the theory, so I stopped. Do we need to go back to that thread and start over? Because you don't seem to either understand or accept any of it. Now you claim it doesn't, citing other material completely.

I keep telling you that to say one understands is not the same as accept as valid. Is this too hard for you to grasp? Obviously so.

Now you're side tracking and getting personal...and I do not blame you. What else can you say or do? You know I'll find the nonsence behind any evidence you spit out.

This is a species and kind thread and again I reiterate, you have no consistent definition re species. You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'....

There are many forms of supposed evidence for Toe. Unfortunately there is not any that is not debated in some way, these days. You see the debates in various areas of TOE as a simple need for clarification as evidence comes to light. Many creationists see it as 'grabbing at straws'. It is NOT the same as rebuking the laws of gravity. It IS the same as rebuking teletubbies as transitional species.

Toe and the evidence to support it looked far more convincing 30 years ago.

 

[McBell]

I keep telling you that to say one understands is not the same as accept as valid. Is this too hard for you to grasp? Obviously so.

Nice attempt at dodging the issue.
The issue is not that you do not accept the ToE.
The issue is that you claim to understand the ToE yet go to great lengths to misrepresent the ToE.

You have merely confirmed you are bold faced liar.
You either lied when you claimed to understand the ToE or you are lieing when you intentionally misrepresent the ToE.

Now you're side tracking and getting personal...and I do not blame you. What else can you say or do? You know I'll find the nonsence behind any evidence you spit out.

The only thing bigger than the lies you tell is your ego.

This is a species and kind thread and again I reiterate, you have no consistent definition re species. You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'....

You continue to whine and harp on this species definition yet you cannot make up your mind as to what a "kind" is?
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
At least there is a workable definition of the word species.
To bad your 'kind' is so meaningless it is worthless.

There are many forms of supposed evidence for Toe. Unfortunately there is not any that is not debated in some way, these days. You see the debates in various areas of TOE as a simple need for clarification as evidence comes to light. Many creationists see it as 'grabbing at straws'. It is NOT the same as rebuking the laws of gravity. It IS the same as rebuking teletubbies as transitional species.

Yes, there is all manner of evidence for the ToE.
To bad the only thing you are able to present for evidence of creation is your sad sorry attempts at discrediting the ToE.

BTW, are you EVER going to present any of the alleged evidence for creation?

Toe and the evidnece to support it looked far more convincing 30 years ago.

again with the bold faced lies.
You just cannot help yourself, can you?

 

[painted wolf]

So, what is a "kind"... if your point is science is untrustworthy due to the "species problem" than give us the definition of "kind" that is accepted by all creationists and makes species obsolete.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact Quote:What's interesting is that you agreed to review the evidence for ToE. I presented about 1/10 of it, none of which included any fossils. You said that you understood and accept that the evidence supported the theory, so I stopped. Do we need to go back to that thread and start over? Because you don't seem to either understand or accept any of it. Now you claim it doesn't, citing other material completely.

I keep telling you that to say one understands is not the same as accept as valid. Is this too hard for you to grasp? Obviously so.

Well then, I guess we need to go back and continue to review the evidence, since you're still extremely confused. Or deliberately dishonest. Which is it? Why do you continue to distort it? The articles you cite are NOT the evidence for ToE. It's as simple as that. They're irrelevant.

Now you're side tracking and getting personal...and I do not blame you. What else can you say or do? You know I'll find the nonsence behind any evidence you spit out.

Yes, the entire field of Biology is a bunch of nonsense. All biologists are idiots. In fact, science itself is sheer nonsense, and should be abandoned in favor of copying the Bible over by hand.

This is a species and kind thread and again I reiterate, you have no consistent definition re species.

That's right. Because ToE is correct. ToE correctly predicts that it is impossible to consistently and clearly define a species. Just let me know if you don't understand why, and I'll explain it to you.

You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'....

That's because your hypothesis requires that there be a clear, definite, demarcation. ToE predicts there will be none. Kind of opposite.

There are many forms of supposed evidence for Toe. Unfortunately there is not any that is not debated in some way, these days.

This is false. There is virtually no controversy about ToE within the field of Biology.

You see the debates in various areas of TOE as a simple need for clarification as evidence comes to light. Many creationists see it as 'grabbing at straws'. It is NOT the same as rebuking the laws of gravity. It IS the same as rebuking teletubbies as transitional species.

Actually, it is exactly the same as trying to refute the Theory of Gravity. In fact, it's harder, because evolution is more clearly understood, and the evidence is stronger, than for the Theory of Gravity. The only debate is between religion and science. Within science, there is no debate about whether ToE is correct, only continued debate about its specifics and application--just like any other well-established scientific theory.

Toe and the evidence to support it looked far more convincing 30 years ago.

This is simply false. There has been no movement one way or the other for over 50 years. ToE was well established by 1920, and has not been refuted or rejected since, except by religionists like you, who reject science as a way of learning about the world.

Do tell us, newhope, why do you post so many things that are simply, clearly, false? This is something I wonder about creationists--is it ignorance, dishonesty, or ignorant dishonesty?

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact your thread reminded me of a parrot reciting from an old text book mindless to any recent research. Sorry.

You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'.... Auto quote:That's because your hypothesis requires that there be a clear, definite, demarcation. ToE predicts there will be none. Kind of opposite.

That's a lie or ignorance. TOe initially predicted smooth transisitions until researchers found none. Then it was conveniently polished to fit the evidence. Sounds like your creationists refutes....change with the flow.

Quote Auto: This is false. There is virtually no controversy about ToE within the field of Biology.

There is no kind way of saying this..I do not believe you have any quals in this field. Did you not read "Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants."..and that was in a recent post You have a sad memory..

How is this not a controversy within the field of biology? Even Paintedwolf has stopped that line and can speak to a more solid refute than you.

All you can see is your text book. Eat more brain food...it may assist your memory...and get on the net. Any text book is likely to be outdated by the time it hits print.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact your thread reminded me of a parrot reciting from an old text book mindless to any recent research. Sorry.

You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'.... Auto quote:That's because your hypothesis requires that there be a clear, definite, demarcation. ToE predicts there will be none. Kind of opposite.

That's a lie or ignorance. TOe initially predicted smooth transisitions until researchers found none. Then it was conveniently polished to fit the evidence. Sounds like your creationists refutes....change with the flow.

You just contradicted yourself. You are arguing that there are smooth transitions between species (that's why they're hard to define) and that there are not. Pick one.

No, it's not a lie, and it's not ignorance. ToE predicts that the demarcations between species will be gradual rather than sudden, and that it will be difficult to classify organisms in the gray areas.ToE's prediction is correct.

Quote Auto: This is false. There is virtually no controversy about ToE within the field of Biology.

There is no kind way of saying this..I do not believe you have any quals in this field. Did you not read "Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants."..and that was in a recent post You have a sad memory..

You mean there is no honest way of saying this. This is not a controversy about ToE. It's a controversy within ToE. Do you understand the difference? If so, why do you keep ignoring it? If not, why do you keep bringing it up? In other words, I ask you again, are you dishonest, or ignorant?

How is this not a controversy within the field of biology? Even Paintedwolf has stopped that line and can speak to a more solid refute than you.

It was accepted as a foundational theory within Biology around a century ago. There is no controversy about that, it has reached as much consensus as science has ever reached about anything. Within Biology (which of course, is all that matters, unless you reject science) it as non-controversial as a thing can be.

All you can see is your text book. Eat more brain food...it may assist your memory...and get on the net. Any text book is likely to be outdated by the time it hits print.

I find it amusing that someone who either does not understand or chooses to deliberately distort something feels entitled to school others. Now that's arrogance taken to an art.

 

[darkendless]

Autodidact your thread reminded me of a parrot reciting from an old text book mindless to any recent research. Sorry.

You lot can hardly define a genus or family, let alone species, yet you delight in persecuting creationists that are stuck with inacurrate descriptors to provide an adequate definition of 'kind'.... Auto quote:That's because your hypothesis requires that there be a clear, definite, demarcation. ToE predicts there will be none. Kind of opposite.

That's a lie or ignorance. TOe initially predicted smooth transisitions until researchers found none. Then it was conveniently polished to fit the evidence. Sounds like your creationists refutes....change with the flow.

Quote Auto: This is false. There is virtually no controversy about ToE within the field of Biology.

There is no kind way of saying this..I do not believe you have any quals in this field. Did you not read "Authorities disagree over whether some specialised forms were ancestral to some modern amphibians, or whether the whole group died out without leaving any descendants."..and that was in a recent post You have a sad memory..

How is this not a controversy within the field of biology? Even Paintedwolf has stopped that line and can speak to a more solid refute than you.

All you can see is your text book. Eat more brain food...it may assist your memory...and get on the net. Any text book is likely to be outdated by the time it hits print.

What annoys me is people like you will criticise the heck out of the theory of evolution but completely ignore entire fields of science which use way more assumptions such as engineering.

As a designer of a residential tower of maybe 10-12 levels, designers will make upwards of 100 assumptions from the foundations to the expected loads due to things like wind.

Why aren't you crusading to stop engineers designing buildings?

 

[newhope101]

So, what is a "kind"... if your point is science is untrustworthy due to the "species problem" than give us the definition of "kind" that is accepted by all creationists and makes species obsolete.

wa:do

I soooo wish I could. There would no doubt be debate even if the evidence was being fit in to assert various creationist models/theories. I can only provide a concept based on the taxonomic ranking at hand. I see the most recent common ancestor as described by genomic testing as a 'kind' that were more than likely created, I suppose closer to clade or family.

The various descriptors of say equine species and subspecies are names for the variartion within 'kind' that results from adaptation from an initial few creatures.

Ability/inability to mate is interesting however is irrelevant in determining the continuance of a kind. So if a finch cannot breed with a raven this does not mean they are not the same kind for they are still birds. Perhaps for the sake of this thread I'd say that species is a morphological and phylogenic descriptor of the variation in kinds of which are the equivalent of family (clade). However this common ancestor is the beginning of the line of that kind. I dispute the link back to another kind and another kind back to bacteria kind.