Summations Only

I think the problem some of us have is the chimp to man evolution.I do now think there are transitionals, tho within (the yet undefined) kinds. For Wolf to Dog (variation within a kind) there would have to be some transitional within that species. As well as all other evolved species.The problem (for me and I think other Creationists) is that we are classified as apes. On the dog will be dogs thread, I can see the fox, cat, canine connection no matter what there clade is. It's pretty similiar it seems. The jump I can't make is chimp to man (or a common ancestor between the two).I can see if cat, fox, dog, horse - wolf, dog are all closley related.
And to pair them off into kinds wouldn't really matter. They are all animals after all. Yet I do think there are "kinds" somewhere in all of the species. Just where the line is I don't know.I think it comes down to where we humans fit in this whole thing, that is the problem for Creationists.Also, land to water mammals (and water to land) is a big jump to make for Creationists (myself included). The amount of changes involved. I'm not sure what the TOE teaches on such transitions or if the Theory states that happend or happens.There probably is some genectic similarities with land and water mammals...and i'm not sure how i would classify water dwelling "kinds". Is there clades for water mammals?I'll have to go look it up. It's probably catagorized differently.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Also from EvoWiki:Taxonomy
Taxonomy has a long history, with Aristotle giving the first detailed classification of living things. His classification of animals was:Blooded (vertebrates)
Viviparous quadrupeds (land mammals)
Birds
Oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians)
Fish
Cetaceans (Aristotle did not realize their mammalian nature)
Bloodless (invertebrates)
Land arthropods (insects, arachnids, myriapods)
Aquatic arthropods (mostly crustaceans)
Shelled animals (shelled mollusks, echinoderms, etc.)
Soft animals (cephalopods, etc.)
Plant-animals (cnidarians, etc., which superficially resemble plants)
However, he had made no effort to classify plants or fungi. Modern approaches to taxonomy, while obviously more diverse than in Aristotle's time, but can be lumped into three major schools: phenetic, phylogenetic (cladistic), and evolutionary.Page not found - Evolution WikiSo to stick with vertebrates for now, there are land mammals, birds, oviparous, fish and cetaceans.The mammal kind, bird kind, oviparous kind, fish kind, cetaceans kind.Do any of these kinds transition/evolve into the another? Or do they stay in that kind?I know science doesn't use the word kind but it's easier for me to seperate them for now using that term. I'm just using it loosley for to make it easy to understand what I mean and where i'm coming from.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I'm being a little to general here. RAZD and I already broke down the clades from feline and canine.I talking more land mammal to water. I'm sure there is no reptile to feline stuff like that.So there's kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, species.Where does cladistics fit in here? I'm a little confused about that. It seems reptiles don't fall into clades.So the felidae is the family?From Wiki:There are 41 known species of felids in the world today, which have all descended from the same ancestor.[1] This taxon originated in Asia and spread across continents by crossing land bridges.Felidae - WikipediaAll species of the felidae kind.Im too confused. I'm searching reading and I can't put it together. Where does a clade fit in here?I thought Felidae was a clade but it says family.From Wiki:Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia
Family: FelidaeFelidae - WikipediaWhere do clades fit into this? Is Felidae a clade or a family?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I know what i'm doing now. Im mixing Linnaean taxonomy with Cladistics.This Linnaean taxonomy:Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia
Family: FelidaeCladistics is:From Wiki:A clade[note 1] is a group consisting of a species (extinct or extant) and all its descendants. In the terms of biological systematics, a clade is a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1] The idea that such a "natural group" of organisms should be grouped together and given a taxonomic name is central to biological classification. In cladistics (which takes its name from the term), clades are the only acceptable units.Clade - WikipediaMy bad. Now I think i'm back on track.

I'm trying to keep beliefs out of it, sorry Pressie. I'm interested in the Science of it right now and classification and how and why classify the way we do and how I can possibly come up with a definition of "kinds" that can be worked into a scientific hypothesis for Creation. Maybe there is a thread for what you're asking. This thread isn't it. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Thanks. So which is a more "tighter" grouping in your opinion?Cladistics seems easier to navigate but not as "classified" as (taxon?)taxonomy is.If you were trying to break the species down to the finest details which would you choose? Or can it be a combination of the two systems? A new system so to speak using the two together?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Yeah, this does seem to be the problem. That's why I said maybe the best route to go would be defining "kinds" with the differences in mind, rather than the similarities.It's the only way around the chimp to man scenerio I think, speaking from a Creationist perspective of course. I looked up the definition of kinds and the most recent (I think) definition of kinds on Creationist websites and it seems to cover a broad spectrum of species as opposed to just clades or taxonomic catagorties. The Biological species concept? Where is that opposed to clades and taxonemy? I don't think i've heard of it.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Also, maybe intelligence can be an added feature to the definition of "kinds", that should create some seperation.ABE: I don't want to go off topic in this thread either. Maybe I should start a new thread. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Do you mind elaborating on this for me? A bunch of "individuals" do make up a population don't they?