Define "Kind"

You misunderstand. "Kind" is often defined to include all species with a common ancestor. By that definition ALL evolution is within a "kind". It is not a hypothesis - the deifnition of kind encompasses all evolution, even the evolution of all life on Earth from a single ancestor (which would simply mean that all life on Earth was of the same "kind").Equally, asking for an example of evolution that crosses undefiend limits is futile. So long as the limits are undefined there is no way to produce such an example.Finally I refer you to the OP which specifically refers to the claim that evolution outside of "kinds" is not observed. Under the conditions you have referred to such a claim is worthless. It represents only a rhetorical attempt to pretend that there is evidence for boundaries that would cause problems for the idea of universal common descent, while in fact saying nothing of the sort.

I just lost my post for some reason.I'm not typing the whole thing out again so I'll sum up.Evolutionists accept that creatures reproduce after their kind. It leads to the famous nested hierarchy.The real issue is created kinds, baramin.However, this doesn't discount macroevolution since that could easily be the case if the created kinds are extraordinarily general (cow, dog, monkey, bird, serpent, fish, crab etc). It does obviously discount universal common descent.Just some random food for thought.

Yes, well, that's the point at issue. I would expect that the Kinds are as general as those you list. And I don't see how macroevolution applies there, since if there are built-in limits, those ARE the limits that define the boundary between micro and macroevolution.

Everything I've ever said is worthless to you, Paul, but it doesn't seem to stop me

Are seriously suggesting that the fact that we have no examples of evolution that aren't evolution somehow supports creationism ?Because under the usual definition of "kind" that is what it means to say that we have no known examples of evolution outside of a "kind".

If you don't consider a snake (or a snake with legs) becoming something akin to a brachiosaurus macroevolution, or a cow becoming a whale, or a dog becoming a bear, or a primate becoming both a mouse lemur and a gorilla macroevolution...then so be it.However, most creationists would consider this macroevolution I'd have thought. The only other way is to define macroevolution as evolution that happens across 'kinds', but without defining 'kinds' the word macroevolution has no definition either, so we are still stuck as to whether or not some undefined thing happens or not.Most of the time I see macroevolution as simply being large scale evolution that cannot be directly observed.

We won't have any new or different examples, it will be a matter of recognition of a different pattern in what the facts have always been.

quote:

---

We won't have any new or different examples, it will be a matter of recognition of a different pattern in what the facts have always been

---

Are you actually bothering to read my posts ? I repeat by the usual deifnition of "kind" ALL evolution is within a "kind". Evolution all the way from bacteria to humans is "within a kind" - so long as it happened.

I may be at odds with some of them, I don't know. This wouldn't be fun for me if I had to consult the prevailing thinking on the subject all the time -- that's for when I'm really stumped and really need to know what they make of something.I really do think there is an enormous genetic variability that was originally built into each Kind. I have no problem with everything from the housecat to the saber-toothed tiger's having "evolved" from an initial Cat that contained all those genetic possibilities, all the wild cats, and all the domesticated breeds to every extreme.Probably no problem with lemurs and gorillas, or with the whole range of serpents (although it is possible they belong to different Kinds of course). Dogs won't become bears though, but bears include raccoons, and dogs include wolves and coyotes. Cows and whales, no, that one seems to breach an intuitive boundary. These are all merely my subjective intuitive groupings of course. That is the usual view of it. It's going to take the establishment of clear limits before we know where microevolution stops, and that will be the boundary of a Kind.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 11:06 AM

No, no they don't want that! There is a trap in this whole thing. Kind can not be so general as to include chimps and humans in one kind. (ID'ers mostly, I think, do that but that is a different question as ID'ers are (mostly, I think ) really in effectively TOTAL agreement with ALL the understood natural history of life on earth.)It appears, to the cynical, that various proponents of the idea of "kinds" are actually trying very hard to not define the word. As soon as it is possible to determine what "kind" is in a very clear, operational way then one of two things happens:1) Kinds are "ungeneral" enough (below the family level) that we can see examples of them arising and "macro evolution" is proved.2) Kinds are general enough that it requires inferences from historical evidence to determine that they arise. Macroevolution is not "proven". But, oh dear, chimps are humans are the same "kind". The only way out of this is to then just arbitrarily define humans and chimps as different kinds with a wholly and very obviously ad-hoc "fix" which then destroys the "science" that they are claiming to be putting forward.The remaining choice is to continue to claim that "kinds" are inviolate but never,even when pressed to, define them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-21-2006 11:06 AM

Believe me, we WANT to be able to define the Kinds. It is extremely frustrating not to be able to do that. It may "look " to you like there's a "payoff" in keeping it undefined but that's just typical denigration of the motives of the opponent.I have no doubt but that the boundaries of the Kind will some day be truly scientifically objectively determined.If I overlooked the grouping of humans with monkeys, please allow me to correct that. Humans are definitely one and only one Kind unto themselves.

You don't see that as an "intuitive boundary"?

So you said. What is it you want me to say? Logically it may make a sort of formal sense, but practically it's a bust, of no use to the discussion.

Huh?I thought I said all my groupings were my own subjective intuitions.

Yeah, I know. I'm just surprised that your intuition doesn't flag bears and raccoons as separated by a boundary. Intuitively they're nothing alike.