Quetzal

Only if you try and lump plants in there as a separate kind. All plants are of course members of the photosynthesis kind - which includes cyanobacteria and lichens.

RufusAtticus

Am I the only one who noticed the tumbleweeds?

Peez

Bump?

RufusAtticus

buying
us
masssive
porn

nogods4me

there are only two kinds:
the kind who believe, and the kind who don't

RufusAtticus

Baby urchins meet poodles.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Silent Dave

Note to randman et al:

In case you don't know, to "bump" a post, as I am doing right now, is to simply post another message in the thread so that the thread is back at the top of the message board. The point is to render you unable to avoid the question by simply ignoring it until it drops off the page with the other older threads.

We will wait as long as it takes for your responses.


Dave

randman

You guys are pretty lame for people who are suppossed to know about science. I post about stasis, and you claim I am taking the idea out of context, but are you going to explain the context of the quotes on the other thread.
A few of you have answered intelligently, but nost of you have dodged the issue, and some appear to just be unaware of what the fossil record does in fact show.
Pretty pathetic.
By the way, I am not hear to defend creationism, but to point out the fallacies and deception within the evolutionist movement. Most of the ideas given as evidence of evolution are quite clear and within a layman's grasp, and that is the arena I prefer to stick with.
I am not a creationist scientist, and don't know much about it. Probably the more vague category of Intelligent Design is the better spot to place me in at this time. I realize to you guys that it is perfectly scientific and logical for order and design to come from nothing. That is one reason I think many of you are somewhat of a joke, but I beleive the more rational thought would be to expect that order and design stemmed from Intelligence.
I doubt if you bang around a bunch of rocks for 10 billion years, you will ever get a watch, but go ahead and persist in your modern myth. It is a free country.
As far as "kind", it comes from the Bible pre-modern science. It comes from the idea that creatures produce after their own kind. That could of course fir into evolutionary ideology, but it is thought to refer to the range of change creatures have, and creationists argue this includes speciation within a "kind."
For instance, most bears would constitute a "kind". So a polar bear and a grizzly bear could share a common ancestor, but the bears will never mutate into something other than bears.
It is really a simple concept, one in which I am surprised some here are too intellectually deficient to figure out.
By the way, the word "light" is also used very early in Genesis. But the science on "light" is still very much evolving, if you don't mind me using that term.
I think the idea of "kind" is expressive of a limited potential, a range within genetic possiblities, unaided by artificial, intelligent genetic manipulation of course.

RufusAtticus

Would you care to actually address the questions? Teenage comments are not going to persuade us that your position has any merit.

Already done. I actually explained transitionals to you using an analogy from my childhood. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000378" target="_blank">this</a> thread.

We understand what the fossil record shows: gradualism in some instances, stasis and PE in others. We dispute your interpretation of the fossil record since it contradicts the very scientists you quote to demonstrate the stocatic nature of the fossil record. Also, PE doesn't contradict gradualism with respect to the accumulation of mutations in small, isolated populations that have VERY low proability of being sampled with enough resolution to detect the changes.

I'm not asking you to defend creationism, just your assertions, which included that evolution only happens within "kinds." Would you care to answer my questions reguarding the "kind" hypothesis?

Actually, evolutionary biology is not easy for laymen to understand. Like all fields, scientists have to simplfy it to explain it to laymen. Just, because you have unanswered questions about this simplification, does mean that those questions weren't addressed decades ago in the literature. You have yet to demonstrate a profecency with respect to the scientific literature and your criticisms are far from persuasive.

So you can only make negative claims and not positive ones? This doesn't seem like a very persuasive position. If you were really interested in accuracy, you'd at least attempt to demonstrate creationism, instead of assuming that evolution being proved false would prove true your interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, evolution doesn't posit that the diversity of life came from nothing. (Life evolves by modfying and tweaking existing structures.) That is what creation states, since God is supposed to have used his diving powers to create something where before there was nothing. You should be more careful with your arguments.

I'm sorry, I didn't know we were talking about watches. I thought we were discussing living organisms. I also have no clue what banging rocks has to do with evolution or the origin of life, since no scientist considers banging rocks to be part of either.

And, as such, it is an out-dated concept, much like geocentry and the post-Flood origin of rainbows.

Yet creationists can provide no mechanism which can limit speciation to only occuring within a kind. Can you provide any sort of evidence from biology that an ur-populaion of organisms could not evolve into both bears and dogs? I asked for this mechanism in my first post. Can you provide it or not?

Evidence please that evolution is incapable of producing a population descended from bears that bears no resemblence to current bears. Until you do so, you cannot make the claim that "kinds" are immutable and evolution only happens within them. You also cannot make the claim that bears and racoons do not share a common ancestor. Fossil and DNA evidence indicates this, so unless you can demonstrate the accuracy of kinds, science has to consider universal common descent to be the best explaination for the diversity and history of life on this planet. Also, why bring up bears and not address my questions reguarding other kinds? I'm still waiting for answers.

Yes it is very simple, and I understand the concept very well. The "stork-theory" is also a very simple explaination of where babies come from. However, neither explains the available evidence and thus cannot be considered parsimonious explainations.

But can you demonstrate that "kinds" are a better (or even equal) explaination for the diversity of life than the explaination currently put forth by evolutionary biology. If you actually address my questions, that would help your position. I have given you a golden opportunity here to show how "kinds" relates to actual biology, but you seem to not want to do it. The only conclusion I can currently draw from your comments is that you are incapbale of actually defending the "kind" hypothesis, and thus I see no scientific value in your ideas.

Now, if you actually answer my questions, I'll reevaluate the scientific value of "kinds."

-RvFvS

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

Ad hominem! We always knew you had it in you.