Bible and "kind"

Here are two images from http://wnt.utexas.edu/~eskeletons/ Betcha can't tell which one's the ape!
There are a number of easily visible differences. The arms on the ape are nearly twice as long as the legs, the ape has a drastically different skull, different type of ribcage, etc. Humans and apes are very different.

Actually, I don't see much difference.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that's a mistake. For instance, nature is the very definition of the uncontrolled environment, yet studies frequently are done in the wild. Yes, and the assement of that evidence (in controlled environments) proceeds according to the scientific method.Science can tell us about the past, because the tests you perform on evidence from the past are controlled and repeatable. If we discovered that living chemistry followed entirely different laws of physics and chemistry than nonliving chemistry, that would falsify abiogenesis, as far as I'm aware. If we had never made the observation that distant objects are moving away from us, we would never have developed the big bang theory. Hence, distant objects not moving away from us would falsify the theory. Moreover, if we did cross that inflection point where the universe began to collapse - which nobody thinks is going to happen, btw - we wouldn't see it all at once - we'd see nearby objects begin to approach before we saw distant objects approach. So in fact, your explanation would be falsified as well. I agree. The problem for you is that it appears that all organisms share a common ancestor - all organisms are the same "kind." That's what evolutionists have been saying all along. It doesn't work. You still can't answer any questions with it. How many kinds? What were the kinds? How would you answer this question? If the scientific evidence shows that all organisms are from the same kind, because they all share a common ancestor, is this a finding you're prepared to accept?If the Bible didn't say anything about the creation of life - if Genesis had been torn right out and lost to humanity - would you have an objection to the theory of evolution? But apes and humans share a common ancestor. Heredity, taxonomy, and the fossil record confirm this. By your own definition of "kind" they're in the same kind. What gives?

I guess I'll point out some specific major differences.Here is the skull of a gorilla: And here is the skull of a human: Notice how the human forehead has practically nonexistent brow ridges and is very smooth and rounded? The gorilla skull has massive brow ridges and no forehead. Also notice the "fin" coming out of the skull of the gorilla. There is not even a trace of this on the human skull.The widest part of the gorilla skull is the face, the skull narrows towards the back of the head. The human skull is wider towards the back, allowing for a much larger cranial capacity.The front of the human skull is almost flat; the jawbone barely protrudes forward past the eye sockets. The gorilla has a prominent jutting forward of the jaw.The jaw is another difference. Look at the teeth of the human skeleton versus the teeth of the gorilla. In addition to extremely obvious size differences between the teeth of the two skulls, notice that the human teeth meet straight together, but the teeth of the gorilla are significantly bowed out.Also with the jawbone, notice how "robust" the ape jaw is compared to the human jaw. The gorilla has a massive bone connecting the lower jaw to the rest of the skull; the human has only a small, thin bone.Do you see what I mean by significant differences?

So these differences are enough to make a pair of organisms different kinds?So a great dane and a corgi are different kinds by this standard?We are expecting one standard to be applied you understand. That is what no one seems to be willing or able to do?

The following photos I got from arachnopics.These are for those of you that keep insisting the "but they're just spiders" belief. This tarantula is a vitalius sorocabae. This one is a Tapinauchenius purpureus.The 2 are completely different species in completely different genus.Stop saying "they're just spiders!"

---

The Laminator

​

No.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well if you WANT to say that the "kind" in the Bible has the same meaning as creationists assign it perhaps you could start with explaining how it rules out gradual change as proposed by evolution.

Brad I can't be sure this is what you mean, but I'll make my own point from it anyway...certainly there is a difference of behaviour when comparing chimps/apes with humans. I tried hard to understand your post, since the evolutionists have ignored it, I will assume you win the debate.I do notice that the other side seem to try and find the most complicated and confusing species as to intentionally baffle us as to their "kind". That always amuses me, but JT made an important point which covers this. S/he said something similar to "all animals now have came from a kind previously and/or the kinds of the biblical era". Nevertheless, as with the case of the spider - can we see their evolutionary ancestors in nature? Many species have died - what if a species is hard to identify as a certain "kind"? Surely the extinction of ancestry would explain their bafflement qualities and leave "kinds" intact, if those bafflements are few and far beteen???. Afterall - creationist do not deny the existence of fossils, and evo'd have regularly used the excuse, "But some things don't preserve well". I don't see why I can't use that excuse now. Maybe a "few" kinds are un"kind"able because of extinction of previous ancestry. Or even because we do not know of all of the "kinds" God has.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-05-2004 09:35 AM

Actually, there is very little difference between the behaviour of Chimps and humans. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the behavior traits of Chimps in particular is one of the stronger arguments supporting Evolution.edited to fix the quote so it might make sense. Cache is Cache
They

• have communities
• hunt and gather food
• show cooperation in planning and executing tasks
• use tools
• communicate within the group
• have members that specialize in different parts of a communal task
• can plan ahead

This message has been edited by jar, 05-05-2004 10:07 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is so vague as to the actual realities that it is amusing. Btw - you should fix that quote, it's not my quote.Nearly every animal could fit your criteria. "Use tools". But can chimps "make tools" - or even make machines, roads cities etc.

You're right about the quote. Had the wrong string in cache. I fixed it.But yes, Chimps do make tools.And you need to remember that humans have only been building cities (and there are still many cultures that don't build cities) for a very, very short period of time. Real roads are even newer. Until very recently, roads were exactly like the pathways that Chimps have and even like those of many other species.Sometimes we tend to forget just how recent our modern culture really is. Things like cities only appeard a moment ago and until then, the lives of the average human and chimpanzee were very, very much alike.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,
WIZ had "when". I had only some mammal division with the idea that primtes were "smater" than cats. It is possible my ideas on behvior could be DISPROVED (say within Wright's curve WITHIN Gladyshev's law etc) but to answer "in kind" and not for mere discussion's sake ONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE a means to quantify any relation of TIME of Gould(geologically) and Gladychev(physcio-chemically) for any of the ECOLOGY that was under the condition of shift either from downward causation (Gould) or upward (Gladyshev). This is not to say that macrothermo does not have downward causality but I only seperate that for dicdactic purposes only. The is a YEC of a world differenc between my brother's teenage fasination with primates and mind with herps where Greg was looking into the work on teaching primates to communicate with humans while he went on to to Information Technology BELIEVING that Chomsky (natural language) was correct but that I realize(d) instead for any series the Chomsky heirarchies probably DO NOT APPLY CORRECTLY to the Galdyshev Law for all vertebrates and certainly for that subset of translation in space and form-making that I think the LAW will in prinicple be shown evident (hoxology) hopefully in my life time.There is a real issue here but it is difficult to draw beyond my CLAIM of grade/clade confusions where David Z Albert (TIME AND CHANCE) wrote (Quantum Mechanics p 133 "(footnote4)The empirical thermodynamical consequences of the classical and the quantum-mechanical versions of statistical mechanics are (or course) going to differ - but those differences...""And the thing I want to think through in this last chapter is whether or not there might be more to the story than that. The thing I want to think through in this last chapter is whether or not the transition to quantum theories might somehow (while we're at it) accomodate a much more radical and more interesting sort of transformation of the strucutre of statistical mechanics"that was"above-mentioned quantum mecahical correlate."p133It might or might not be MORE than this as to the confusion I have certainly biologically been able to write in the "TRANSLATION" or SHIFT that occurs in graphs of both grades and clades by data divisions of any combined phenotype and geneotype. I see no acutal reason (there are plenty of discussions for discussing (only) ones)to disagree with GPGLADYSHEV that some such new notion of statisical mechanics is needed here biologically and Georgi was right to suggest that perhaps I was being overinfluenced by reasoning such as David's I have started to USE to show that the KIND that is the connotation of the shifting could indeed be replaced by some understanding perhaps of the time that might be relaxed in the process but I am needing to study more of the formalisms as it is only needed a twist between grade and clade not an acutal defintion of the real processes and systems at issue. It is clear that Gould's OTHER use of time than this IS NOT NECESSARY from Wright's perspective but if Wrights BALANCE is substantiallly a part of G's RULE of the relation of thermos then Gould's ideas on time could be even possibly DISPROVEN within the machination of G's ideas BECAUSE Of Gould's failure to embrace actual physical imposition in biological form. This need data though but I think I have phrased that juggernaut correctly. It may be that Gould would have wanted to just use his concepts if we had direct evidence of the substractions from a GPG heirarchy. In another time I have thought that this would involve addtions in vertebrates and substractions in invertebrates (crudly) but that was a thought I only had once. That kind is highly less reliable. I have suggested in addtion to the interpretation of Wright a slightly different "principle" than Gladyshev in the small but I HAVE NO IDEA if it works(is true). That is something I need to figure out for my self before discussing it.

The truth is us humans are different from the rest because we all have Body,Soul & Spirit..And these just do not arise from lifeless chemicals...This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-05-2004 11:09 AM

Well, it seems that all animals have a body. How does this enter into it?Soul and Spirit? Just what are those? How do you know that only humans have those things? Every indication is that someother animals have some of the kind of consciousness that we have. Is that soul or spirit?