What Are "Kinds"

"2. There is NO evidence for human evolution. There is only the declarations with each fossil that is found. "

To take this a little further, we do not even need the fossil record to show that man is related to the other apes. The fossil record of this is convincing, however.

But through genetics, it can be shown that the phylogeny of the apes matches closely whether you are looking at coding DNA of different origins or any of many types of non-coding DNA such as Y-linked noncoding regions, pseudogenes, autosomal intergenic regions, X-linked noncoding regions, synonymous sites, introns, endogenous retroviral inserts, paralogs and nonsynonymous sites.

For examples see some of the following posts.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000000
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000001
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000002
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000003
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000004
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000005
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000019
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000020
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000023
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000027
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000028
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000031
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000033
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000035

Just why would all of this diverse data match up together with each other and with the fossil record?

 

"UTEOTW, different threads were requested for a reason, seeing the disorder that came about on the paleontology thread. "

Then we will split again. The more the merrier.

"That certainly is an interesting way of looking at it.
Can we use the same logic when creation needs something?"

I don't know what you are getting at.

When YEers try and apply infomation theory to the genetics of evolution they real quickly find that there assertions of no new information are not supported by infomation theory. Just duplicating a gene, even if it has no new function or even change in its code satisfies the information theory requirements for new information. In addition, we have observed new genes and new functions coming about through duplication and mutation and through other processes.

When you combine these facts together, YEers are forced to invent new definitions for information than people in the field use and are forced to further twist that definition to exclude the observed processes that lead to new genes and functions. In the process, they define a new definition that excludes what they wish but that has no relation to reality.

So it IS YEers that re using that logic and it is faulty.

"Where do you get that from? If you read the verses posted you will see that the scriptures separate humans from beasts."

Just give me a method that we can use to look at extant and fossil animals and group them into kinds. Then it will become clear.

 

"UTE, consider 'kind' to be generally, but not always, at about the modern 'family' or sub-family level.

canine
bovine
equine
feline"

Now, how do we make these determinations? What characteristics do you use to determie that "canine" is the right level at which to make the break?

What hard barrier says not to go a step higher up the ladder?

What distinctives show that canines should not also be grouped with, say, bear? Since you do not group canines and bears in the same "kind" what kind were the fossils which appear to be ancestral to both canines and bears? Is Hesperocyon a dog, a bear, or something else?

What about genetic data that links the larger group of carnivores and even the felines? (ayne, R.K., Benveniste, R.E. and O'Brien, S.J. (1989) in Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution (Gittleman, J.L., ed.), pp. 465-494, Cornell University Press) For that matter, a house cat and a lion are both in the same "kind?" Just where did the genetics come from to evolve those two species from the same ancestor in what must have only been on the order of hundreds of years or less? (Cats and lions are both known in ancient times.) This change can happen in just a few generations! You really do believe in rapid evolution, don't you!

And finally, once you put it at the level of family or even subfamily, humans and the apes (family) or the great apes (subfamily Homininae) are now in the same kind. What grounds do you have for exluding the same (if you have a basis for your assertion about kinds) genetic and morphological data that is used to group the other kinds from the discussion about humans? It seems to be arbitrary and capricious.

 

Do you have your reply yet?

So far we have a couple of circular definitions of kind and a few unsupported assertions about what they might be. A huge copy and paste, too.

We have no hint of an objective definition of kind that might be used to actually identify them. We have no hint into which kind we should place the known transitionals. We have no hint as to what kinds area tall. Mostly because it is a fabricated concept with no basis in reality.

 

Still looking for a definition of "kinds" that is not circular and that allows one to sort extant and fossil species into kinds in a definitive manner.

And...

Do you have your reply yet?</font>[/QUOTE]Anything?