Definition of Evolution

If it hadn't been done I would enjoy being the first to make such a suggestion. It need not be extinct to say that its "in transition", I place my bets that there is not one evolutionist on this board that thinks mudskippers are not transitional. (Not a fair bet really, as anyone who understands the theory would say that about any living creature not doomed for extinction) The interesting thing about the mudskipper is that it is so obviously transitional from one environment to the next that it becomes a living example of the likely path that such creatures as Tiktaalic took so long ago.From message 41 you state: Yes the evidence should be abundant and I feel its clearly self evident. No, it should not be necessary to find an obscure creature. There are so many examples that even you manage to bring up an example without even meaning too.

Good point. It can be said, and often I imagine, that I don't truly understand the theory.What I was thinking of is if the entire species (say the mudskipper) had gone extict before it had had a chance to produce a viable population of decendants of a different species. The result would then be that the mudskipper was never transitional as it never had the opportunity.

I agree to the point of saying it would be impossibly difficult. I also agree with this statement. The problem comes from the need for more detail. You, and surely every other creationist who has posted about kinds, are always immediatley asked for a useable definition of the word. Don't you wonder why?Lets say that your views become universally accepted. How do you, and your fellow creation biologists begin to re-write the textbooks? Yes its quite obvious that a hummingbird and an ostrich are related, but you can't write textbooks that way. How is it obvious? What defines a bird from a bat or a whale? The questions may sound stupid, but these questions have been answered in the texts - yet you reject them! So how do you suggest it be better described? Using your examples presented so far, I would grudgingly agree. Your method of classification is how I imagine the field of biology started out. The problem is with the incredible ammount of things that are not obvious, those things that defy common sense and simplistic classifications. If you cannot think of examples I would suggest that it is you that is now playing stupid.Starfish, Anemone, Thylacoleo, or the Virus (in all its many forms) Where do these fit? Is the starfish just a fish kind? Thylacoleo just an odd kangaroo? And such a definition has been lacking in all creationist writings thus far. I believe it to be impossible and would instead be satisfied with an example by example exploration of "kinds". Taken on a case by case basis I still feel that "kinds" either requires lightning fast evolution or a very very sophisticated ark. Interesting how you can see so clearly that there is two different topics of discussion. Two totally different things aren't they? Hows and whys, sort of like black and white, night and day, science and religion.