Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
|
Message 100 of 223 (316791)
06-01-2006 8:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
06-01-2006 3:05 AM
|
|
Re: attempted save
I would argue creationists leave "kinds" undefined on purpose. As soon as micro evolution gets too macro for comfort for them, they widen the definition of kind to encompass macroevolution....thus a "kind" could be anything from two HIV strains that differ by a point mutation to the lumping of chimpanzees and tapirs. Since it is a pure debating tactic and not grounded in science (or reality for that matter) creationists refuse to define the term but claim that the definition should be obvious.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2006 3:05 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2006 8:57 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2