How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

I think it was pretty clear that what was meant was a scientific definition for 'Kind' as a scientific term. Your definition is not that and your examples go to show how scientifically vacuous the concept of 'Kind' is as a scientific term. When you have a classification system which describes the highly monomorphic human species as a single distinct group but lumps the tens of thousands of highly divergent species of fish together in one grouping then your classification system is worthless.TTFN,WK

So, is a donkey the same 'kind' as a horse?Is a lynx the same 'kind' as a lion?Is a tiger the same kind as a lion?

Suggesting that hummingbirds and ostriches can interbreed? That whale sharks, hagfish, candiru, and sardines share a common, recent ancestor?You might want to put a little more thought into that, ICANT. You are currently operating on a system like that my two-year-old grandson uses: "Fishy!" "Horsy!"Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Thanks Modulous, I believe this and the following statement you made. My bold and underline.I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.
I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads. As I understand it there has been much change that has taken place within kinds. This is a proven fact.It is not a proven fact that one kind became another kind.
It is not a proven fact where the universe came from.
It is not a proven fact where life came from.Therefore I conclude my theory is the correct theory.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

nator demanded a definition from me of kind, and then proceeded to tell me I was not qualified to give a definition.Therefore I had to look up and find one, which I did.I can't help it if you don't agree with it.Why would science have a definition for kind?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sounds like your grandson is a very smart child. Are you proposing that Great Dane's and Chihuahua's are not the same kind because they cannot interbreed.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, it is not the only theory. Lamarckism is another theory for example. However ToE is the most complete and consistent scientific theory to explain how populations change over generations. That is not a scientific theory though. That's a theological theory. Well - actually it isn't proven - we don't have a testable definition of a kind. So we can't test the hypothesis. So it isn't close to having been proven. Agreed. As I said 'the only real issue is how much change has occurred' Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change. Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change, unless we define populations in such a way to include entities which are not living.So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE, you just disagree with both the consenus view of natural history and that the ToE can account for the changes proposed by the consensus view of natural hisory.

No I do not believe in the theory of evolution.Being brought up on a farm I believe in evolution. Example: I believe you can take some piney woods rooters (wild hogs) and using selective breeding and cross breeding and come up with some amazing hogs. You start out with small hogs around 150 lbs and can wind up with hogs that weight 600 to 900 lbs.(Largest known was a Poland-China hog named Big Bill, who weighed 2,552 lbs.)I believe that many changes have occured in animals, plants, fish, fowl, and humans. But these things happened it is not a theory.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So those scientists should just drop their high-falutin' talk about clads and get back to Fishy and Horsey, eh?I'm curious as to how you and the two-year-olds of the world have decided to classify this one.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Why shouldn't creation be scientific?

quote:

---

My point is, that I wouldn't compare the two.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.

​

I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads.

---

So, what predictions of your theory, if found, would falsify it?Does it explain ALL the evidence found in nature better than any other theory?These are a couple of hallmarks of a scientific theory.The layman's use of the word "theory" is not at all like the way scientists use the word.Some scientific theories you might recognize:The Germ Theory of Disease
The Atomic Theory of Matter
The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System
Gravitational Theory
The Theory of Relativity
Evolutionary Theory

And yet curiously enough your post reveals that you don't know what it is. Perhaps you should have found this out before rejecting it.The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact of evolution: this explanation consisting of the law of natural selection and the laws and facts of genetics. Quite so, for example birds evolved from dinosaurs. This happened, it is not a theory.Theories, on the other hand, don't "happen", they explain and predict. The theory of gravity doesn't "happen", it's a well-tested set of laws and facts explaining the events which happen.Do try to get the basic vocabulary straight.

cool picture.is that some kind of tapir?

Your uncanny ability to make a fool of yourself never ceases to amaze me.