What I have noticed about these debates...

In Tennessee, for instance, if you are a Christian and you will affirm a literal Biblical view, including disavowing evolution because of Genesis One, then you can home school your children with no problem whatsoever. You can set up a school and let your children attend the school only four hours a day. It is against the law for the government to test or assess your teachers.If, however, you do not take the Bible literally, then you have to send your children to school six hours a day, your teachers must be credentialed, and you must have a salaried staff running the school.State supported creationism right here in the United states. Interesting, isn't it?

I'll match that. It would be worth it.Maybe we could take up a collection and offer it around to the major organizations. Just think if they actually gave us a definition of kind to work with. If someone like Answers in Genesis would do it (or surely Kent Hovind would give it a shot if we could collect $1000 or so), then you scientist types would have an actual solid stance that creationists had taken that you could work with.

"What they really don't like, and what the Constitution prohibits, is the suggestion that our government favors or otherwise puts special approval on any particular religious tradition. For instance, a public shrine, on government property, dedicated to a specific religion - like this Ten Commandments business. I mean, if you support the Ten Commandments shrine on the statehouse grounds, then I assume you won't mind if I enshrine the Koran right next to it?"As I read this, I just thought I'd let you know a couple of things that you maybe didn't realise when you wrote this statement.1. The law of the United States of America was (if you read a bit of history) founded on the principals found in the Ten Commandments.2. Muslims who read the Koran (that you mentioned) also support the Ten Commandments as part of their religion.Regards,JCgirl

AC- I'm afraid you are mistaken. DNA can survive relatively intact for at least 20 million years if the right conditions exist. An example being the Clarkia Lake Beds in Idaho where leaves from plants such as the genus Metaseqouia can be found with their colors still looking as fresh as if they fell today. Of course this lasts for only a few minutes before they turn black from oxidation. The REAL exciting point is that DNA from the chloroplasts has been extracted and sequenced in two of the genera, Magnolia and Taxoduim. A small percentage of leaves tested held DNA from nuclei as well.
Makes me quiver just thinking about it from: Gould, Stephen "Magnolias from Moscow", Dinosaur in a Haystack. Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995. pp403-410.further reference Goldberg, E.M., et al. "Chloroplast DNA sequence from a Miocene Magnolia species" Nature, April 12, 1990.

Can I ask firstly, why is it that Evolutionists everywhere seem to be getting their knickers in a knot about this question of what is a definition of a "kind?" It seems to be a side issue that you're all getting off on. Very minor, but good for clouding the real issues!You said in your post, "Maybe we could take up a collection and offer it around to the major organizations. Just think if they actually gave us a definition of kind to work with. If someone like Answers in Genesis would do it (or surely Kent Hovind would give it a shot if we could collect $1000 or so), then you scientist types would have an actual solid stance that creationists had taken that you could work with."I don't know if this will really help you (by the way, not interested in any $$ at all - just curious about this whole controversy over "kinds"). This is something that I found included on the AIG website. It isn't originally from the scientists or writers from their organisation, but they have included it because it represents what they believe about it. It was by Andrew Kulikovsky."In addition, assuming that speciation has been an on-going occurrence since Creation, the eleven thousand vertebrate species in question would have most likely descended from a much smaller number of proto-species. Each would be the ancestors of animals in the group that taxonomists call a genus (or possibly the higher taxonomic order known as a family) and what the Genesis account calls a ‘kind’"This is what the Genesis account calls a "kind."Genesis 1:21
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.The Heinemann dictionary says of the word, "kind.""A class or category of similar or related things."Again, I don't know if that will help you guys at all as it seems to be a major issue that Evolutionists seem to be having at the moment, but when Creationists talk of kinds they are referring to a class or genus of related animals. Just as Evolutionist can't be absolutely certain about things that happened thousands of years in the past (or whatever you want to believe about the age of the earth), Creationists can't be scientifically exact either about things that happened back then because we can't actually view the process of speciation happening! Both camps are in the same boat with regard to that!Creationists and Evolutionists, however, differ on their view of speciation. For instance, Evolutionists, believe that humans evolved from the primate line, but Creationists believe that humans were made distinct from primates. To try and view a Creationist idea from an Evolutionist point of view, ie to say that humans and apes are in the same "kind" is only twisting the issue even further!

deleted duplicated post[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 08-26-2003]

quote:

---

And evolution isn't about thinking at all, but agreeing. If it were
about thinking----creationism would not be considered a threat by the
ACLU...

---

Says a guy who does not even know what the theory of evolution is much less spends time thinking about composing his own posts much less thinking about anything at all...but I am happy to know I don't have to think when I plan experiments and run projects...man, I must be smarter than I thought if I can do all this science without thinking

quote:

---

ALL traces of DNA will disappear under adverse conditions or within
8 THOUSAND years (whatever comes 1st).

---

Figures...he gives his first hard number to try to support his claim and it is wrong...Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Nov;16(11):1466-73. Related Articles, LinksNuclear DNA sequences from late Pleistocene megafauna.Greenwood AD, Capelli C, Possnert G, Paabo S.Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. alexgr@amnh.org.We report the retrieval and characterization of multi- and single-copy nuclear DNA sequences from Alaskan and Siberian mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius). In addition, a nuclear copy of a mitochondrial gene was recovered. Furthermore, a 13,000-year-old ground sloth and a 33,000-year-old cave bear yielded multicopy nuclear DNA sequences. Thus, multicopy and single-copy genes can be analyzed from Pleistocene faunal remains. The results also show that under some circumstances, nucleotide sequence differences between alleles found within one individual can be distinguished from DNA sequence variation caused by postmortem DNA damage. The nuclear sequences retrieved from the mammoths suggest that mammoths were more similar to Asian elephants than to African elephants.Mol Ecol. 2002 May;11(5):913-24. Related Articles, LinksMolecular analysis of an 11,700-year-old rodent midden from the Atacama Desert, Chile.Kuch M, Rohland N, Betancourt JL, Latorre C, Steppan S, Poinar HN.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22 04103 Leipzig, Germany.DNA was extracted from an 11,700-year-old rodent midden from the Atacama Desert, Chile and the chloroplast and animal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) gene sequences were analysed to investigate the floral environment surrounding the midden, and the identity of the midden agent. The plant sequences, together with the macroscopic identifications, suggest the presence of 13 plant families and three orders that no longer exist today at the midden locality, and thus point to a much more diverse and humid climate 11,700 years ago. The mtDNA sequences suggest the presence of at least four different vertebrates, which have been putatively identified as a camelid (vicuna), two rodents (Phyllotis and Abrocoma), and a cardinal bird (Passeriformes). To identify the midden agent, DNA was extracted from pooled faecal pellets, three small overlapping fragments of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were amplified and multiple clones were sequenced. These results were analysed along with complete cytochrome b sequences for several modern Phyllotis species to place the midden sequence phylogenetically. The results identified the midden agent as belonging to an ancestral P. limatus. Today, P. limatus is not found at the midden locality but it can be found 100 km to the north, indicating at least a small range shift. The more extensive sampling of modern Phyllotis reinforces the suggestion that P. limatus is recently derived from a peripheral isolate.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Sep;28(3):485-99. Related Articles, LinksAncient DNA analysis reveals woolly rhino evolutionary relationships.Orlando L, Leonard JA, Thenot A, Laudet V, Guerin C, Hanni C.CNRS UMR 5534, Centre de Genetique Moleculaire et Cellulaire, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 16 rue R. Dubois, Batiment G. Mendel, 69622, Villeurbanne Cedex, FranceWith ancient DNA technology, DNA sequences have been added to the list of characters available to infer the phyletic position of extinct species in evolutionary trees. We have sequenced the entire 12S rRNA and partial cytochrome b (cyt b) genes of one 60-70,000-year-old sample, and partial 12S rRNA and cyt b sequences of two 40-45,000-year-old samples of the extinct woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis). Based on these two mitochondrial markers, phylogenetic analyses show that C. antiquitatis is most closely related to one of the three extant Asian rhinoceros species, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. Calculations based on a molecular clock suggest that the lineage leading to C. antiquitatis and D. sumatrensis diverged in the Oligocene, 21-26 MYA. Both results agree with morphological models deduced from palaeontological data. Nuclear inserts of mitochondrial DNA were identified in the ancient specimens. These data should encourage the use of nuclear DNA in future ancient DNA studies. It also further establishes that the degraded nature of ancient DNA does not completely protect ancient DNA studies based on mitochondrial data from the problems associated with nuclear inserts.to name a few studies...

jcgirl92, But none of the above are definitions. We are told by creationists that "kinds" exist, but since neither they nor the bible aren't defining what a kind is, it's impossible to independently verify. The truth is, creationists know this, & the moment they stick their heads over the parapet it's going to get shot off. Whatever criteria with which they choose to define kinds, I predict it can be shown that the same criteria shows with equal validity that kinds themselves are related.The conclusion is that biblical kinds are exactly that, non-scientifically supported groups of organisms purported by a religious book.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Sorry Mark! I guess you didn't quite read the whole article that I posted. You obviously missed this quote..."In addition, assuming that speciation has been an on-going occurrence since Creation, the eleven thousand vertebrate species in question would have most likely descended from a much smaller number of proto-species. Each would be the ancestors of animals in the group that taxonomists call a genus (or possibly the higher taxonomic order known as a family) and what the Genesis account calls a ‘kind’"I was trying to take a few ideas and put them together to give an idea of what a "kind" is. I still don't see what the big issue is here!

jcgirl92, I should have been clearer, although "kind" is purported to be what you describe, actual kinds haven't been identified, & would be rubbished the instant they were claimed, most likely using the same evidence that was used to claim a group was a kind.We still don't know what a kind looks like, & how it was inferred to be in the first place.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-26-2003]

Hi jcgirl,The "kind" argument really isn't a big deal for evolutionists. It IS a big problem for creationists (along with biogeography, geology, cosmology, etc etc). The problem arises when creationists - at least the biblical inerrantists who insist that the OT is absolutely factual and correct "from the very first word" - insist that so-called macroevolution is impossible because there is a barrier preventing "change in kind". Defining "kind" would seem to be a first step in addressing this claim.There are a couple of other inconsistencies that arise from the inerrantists insistence on "kinds". For instance, there are currently some three million named species of plants and animals. Conservative estimates of ten to thirteen million species (with wild estimates going up to 100-150 million if you include single cell organisms, which are relatively unknown and undocumented). Since all these species had to have originated from the handful of kinds that were carried in the ark 4500 years ago, the hyperspeciation that would have had to occur to get just the named species popping into existence in that short a timeframe makes even the extraordinary radiation of the Cambrian look glacially slow-motion. We're talking 670 completely new species every year from the arkian kinds between the Flood and today. If they go up the taxonomic scale, and claim that the arkian kinds represent genera or even family/order, then they're having to accept macroevolution - change in higher taxa - as valid - and again at a pace that far outstrips even the most fevered dreams of any evolutionary biologist. Talk about punctuated equilibrium!So, what was a kind, again? "A class or genus of related animals" isn't really helpful unless you can specify to some extent what is meant by "related". And, for reference, animals that are related at the class level include a HUMOUNGOUS number of utterly different organisms. At that level, you're talking about "all mammals = one kind". I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant. See the problem, now?

Hi Percy, Thats because you understand science and I dont LOL, this is why I very, very seldom get involved in a scientific debate. I normally stick to my own field of study. The specialists of any particular field of study have an immense advantage over the layman and I am honest enough to admit to everyone, and more importantly to myself, that I am not scientifically knowledgable enough to get involved in a scientific debate.Having said that, I have observed a few people at the forums here who do get involved in scientific debates and I feel that I know more about science than a lot of those people do. I would seriously like to study a science, but I have chose my academic path and I am now far too involved in that to have the time to study a science. Also, finding the time to do it would be difficult, that's one reason why I like it here so much, there are people here who are extremely well qualified in some sciences and their posts basically take a lot of the hard work out of tracking things down. Ok, my ignorance of science again!Really what I meant by this was that in some science classes that I helped out with the kids were extremely disappointed if they didn't get to do at least some experiments during the term. If their regular teacher was absent and I perhaps had to cover the class, then there would be no practical work as I am not qualified to teach science. All they would do is perhaps watch a video clip, read a few pages from a book and then complete a worksheet or two. Their work would be corrected by their teacher when they returned to work, so my job, in this instance, is really nothing more than babysitting. The kids know that if they have a teacher from another department that they are not going to get any practical work and they are always very disappointed when this happens. This was really all I was getting at. LOL, thats a science class that I would like to be part of!These classes would indeed be fun, however, I wouldn't like to be at the class that deals with the Jewish tradition of Adam mating with a female of many different animals before God gives him Eve as a partner.Brian

You probably saw the first advisory only after posting this, that happened to Mark, too. I would have thought the great scientific minds here would have produced something more imaginative than replying in kind. ------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Sorry Percy....I will desist...but could you define replying in "kind"? what is a kind?