Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

So your definition of "kind" is that it is a "kind which can never become another kind since it produces after its own kind".Are you familiar with the concept of not using the word you are trying to define within the definition of that word?How can anyone possibly respond to your claims without a clear understanding of what a "kind" is?If a "kind" is "mammals" then the evidence we present to you will be very different than if a "kind" is subspecies.Further, and I KNOW you've had this explained to you before, incremental changes add up over time.I could easily state that one letter in the alphabet can only become a letter next to it, never a letter three or four steps away. But if A can become B, B can become C, and C can become D, then A can become D by going through the stages B and C.So, if you've got a reasonable definition of "kind" which you are willing to standby, then someone can present you with evidence that your claim is false.If you don't have a definition of "kind", then your claim has no merit in the first place and does not need to be disproven.

...which happens to coincide nicely with the fact that the geology, chemistry, astronomy, nuclear physics, astrophysics, dendrochronology, anthropology, linguistics, oceanography, meterology, etc etc etc all ALSO disagree with the Creationist timeline.

Icant claims: So, I ask him to define kind. His response: That's ALSO not a definition of kind. But, since you've placed the burden on me, very well I accept. Kind = Subspecies.And proving that a subspecies can give rise to a different subspecies has been done NUMEROUS times. The E Coli/Citrate experiments are a good example of this occurring under EXTREMELY monitored conditions.But examples abound in nature as well. One need only look at the world of cattle to see that there are literally dozens of different breeds/subspecies to choose from. This DIRECTLY contradicts your claim that one subspecies can never ever be breed to produce a new alternate subspecies.Now, since you've asked me to define kind and I have and you've asked me to provide examples of kinds producing new kinds and I have, I'll assume that you will admit that you were wrong.Oh wait, that's right. You won't. Glad to see that after three years absence I can return to find Icant still exactly where I left him.

On a long forgotten thread, Icant told me that there had never been any pre-flight feathers in the fossil record. I asked him "if I present evidence of pre-flight feathers, will you admit that you are wrong?" He assured me that if I was able to produce the evidence, he would indeed admit that his position on evolution in general and feathers in particular was wrong.I gave him several links to several images of any number of fossils out of China demonstrating downy feather -> flight feather evolution.His response? Crickets.It seems that Icant is short for "I cant see the evidence you present".

Icant admitted that he did not have a definition for them and asked me to supply one. I did. It's "subspecies".Since I am apparently the only one going on record with a definition, I suggest we let it stand.Of course this definition makes the Bible passages false, but really - aren't all Bible passages basically false?

Perfectly helpful and therefore not helpful. Really, we should say "Kind = Fruitcake". Since he's asking US to define the word HE'S using and prove him wrong at the same time."Cows reproduce after their own fruitcake. Eagles reproduce after their own fruitcake."It makes no sense. That's why you don't ask _other people_ to define a term you are using to debate them.

It will be some other kind of creature. It will NOT be a herford. It will NOT be a gernsey.You asked ME to define "kind" because you were unwilling to do so. Therefore, since I am the sole arbiter of "kind", I determine what IS or IS NOT a member of which "kind".You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".

Then clearly your use of the word "kind" is complete BS. It means literally NOTHING.Icant is an Icant kind. Waffles are a waffle kind. Asians are an Asian kind.It's a useless word. You are basically claiming that one "kind" can not become another "kind" because there is no such thing as "kind" in the first place.That's not science. That's not creationism. That's simply a poor vocabulary.

ICANT doesn't believe in evolution, even of his own arguments.

How would you know? You can't define kind.If I present you with a bird you can't tell me if it is or is not a member of the "chicken" kind because you have NO system of classification which defines what characteristics are required to be considered a chicken or a non-chicken. The _ONLY_ sensible thing I've ever seen you post.

It really isn't.There are seagulls represent ring species. The ones which live close to one another can breed. The ones other the opposite ends of the range can not breed.Are they one kind? Two? 15?Obviously, a couple of goat herders who've never been more than a days walk from their village can't possibly know that gulls living in Nova Scotia can't reproduce with the same species of gull living in Greece. So the RATIONAL answer is: "Well the people that made it up don't know as much as we do now. They were wrong."Some how, though, I don't think "they were wrong" is going to be your answer.

Sort of like "believing" that gravity is the force which attracts two masses toward one another.Or believing that fire puts off heat as a by product of combustion.These aren't really things that require belief.

Forget the modern definition of species. Let's stick to your definition of "kind".You said that a "kind" is two animals which can reproduce together.Imagine we have a ring species of an imaginary species (A "blosort") which stretches across the USA.The ones in California can breed with the one's in Arizona which can breed with the one's in Texas, etc. All the way to the tip of Maine.The ones in Maine can't breed with the ones in California (just like other ring species found all over the world).Now, a volcano erupts and blankets the middle of the country with ash, killing all the Blosorts from Texas through Maryland.All that is left are the Western Blosorts and the Eastern Blosorts - neither of which can reproduce with the other.By your definition of "kind" these are now two different "kinds". Right?

Peg. You're being dishonest. You just said that kind was determined by whether or not the things can reproduce a few posts ago.I'm simply trying to go by your definition, but now you are changing the definition and adding "varieties" as a 2nd catagory which, frankly, is not mentioned in the Bible.It wasn't "The cows after their kind, except for some of them which had different varieties which were a sort of kind but not really".What's the deal? Is it just that the word "kind" really has no meaning because the people writing the Bible didn't intend it to be taken so seriously?

Great, can you present us with one of those examples in which none of the three people are Creationists?If there are "many" examples, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one.