Clades and Kinds

Hi ICANT,Irony can be so delicious: Exactly what I said A few representatives of EACH kind = ALL KINDS.Now... But it doesn't matter!!! That's what I'm trying to tell you. Kinds will be clades no matter when they were created, or if they evolved. You can call it transmutation if you like, but it has nothing to do with speciation and diversity within life. Indeed. So you agree that they are not completely different. Perhaps you would like to explain how different two hypothetical species must be in order for the one to have "macro-evolved" into the other rather than "micro=evolved"? Birds never stopped being archosaurs. They didn't "evolve away" from it, but merely formed a sub-clade within that clade.Cows can not join the bird clade because they would have to share an ancient bird ancestor with the birds, which they don't. However, in theory, a cow could change into something similar to a bird. It is just extremely unlikely that it will happen. It was very unlikely that dinosaurs would become birds, they could have taken any route, but they had to pick one. Cows could become bird-like, but there are so many other paths to take that it's extremely improbable for them to take that specific route.God Bless,-Meldinoor

I felt the same way when Larni thought I was arguing for the flud in the OP See message 3

No, but you wish I did.
I asked you for a definition of "macro-evolution". What you give me is a silly example of cows turning into birds. I ask for a general definition, you give vague replies.It IS impossible for cows to turn into birds. It is VIRTUALLY impossible for them to turn into an animal that looks just like a bird. That's what I meant when I said: Now, just to show you why your definitions of macro-evolution do not actually occur, I'm going to restate them:Macroevolution 101 by ICANT1. Macro-Evolution: An animal becomes a completely different animal. (Message 48)Animals never become a completely different animal. Evolutionists agree. We are not totally different from bacteria. If that is macroevolution, it doesn't happen.2. Macro-Evolution: Cows turn into birdsWell, it certainly hasn't happened yet, so I guess Macro-Evolution has yet to occur! 3. Macro-Evolution: Lead turning into GoldMore plausible than cows turning into birds, but has nothing to do with evolution.Care to give your definition another go? Or would you rather go on dodging the question with irrelevant examples and quote-mines from my posts?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi NosyNed,I disagree. The only assumption cladistics makes is that organisms can be grouped by common ancestry. As long as this is true on some scale, clades can be used to group related animals. As such, any creationist, including ICANT, can apply cladistic methods to classify animals as kinds.Cladistics in itself is only a system of classifying organisms. As such it can't be used to support any theory. However, the reason cladistics is so successful in describing all of life is that lifeforms naturally fall into a nested hierarchy with supergroups and subgroups. This natural arrangement of living things is, in my opinion, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favour of the ToE.Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

Ah, I see now. So, one kind of critter is one kind of critter not two kinds...Hmm...1 = 1
1 not 2Yeah, I get it now! Your superior logic had me stumped there for a minute

Hi ICANT,ICANT, I realize it might be hard for you to define a kind. To be fair, it's not always easy to define taxonomic groupings. Not even the term species is universally well defined. But among sexually reproducing species it is usually defined as animals that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.Notice how I supplied a "definition" of species rather than an "example". If I had simply said "Cats are a species", I would have given an example, but we would not have known whether Naked Mole Rats constituted a species. Using my definition I can confirm that Naked Mole Rats do indeed constitute a species.Now, will you at least consider offering a definition of "kind"?Even if you persist in ignoring this request, your kinds are still clades. Even if only on the species level, each of your kinds will contain individuals who share a common ancestor. Once you have accepted the definition of clade as being inclusive of your "kinds", you need to understand that evolution will never remove an organism from its kind. So when you said: you were very very wrong. When birds evolved from ancestral archosaurs there was never a point when they were neither archosaurs nor birds. Neither have they ever stopped being archosaurs.This is a very simple concept, and furthermore, it doesn't prove evolution, nor is it evidence against your personal beliefs in YEC. You only have to understand how evolution works, and unlearn how it doesn't. Only then can you decide whether you want to continue rejecting it. I will reject evolution right away, the moment I'm faced with a superior theory. You seem to think you have one. If you can define it properly maybe you will convince me, but until you do so I'll stick with the theory that I understand. Ditto.Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

Hi ICANT, Nope. I don't actually give a rat's behind what you believe about our origins. I'm more concerned with finding the truth myself, then beating others over the head with it. However, I do want you to stop abusing this thread by consistently avoiding the topic and raving against your hopelessly flawed understanding of the theory of evolution.When it comes down to it, this thread isn't even about the validity of evolution. I really tried as hard as I could to reach common ground with believers of a divine creation.For the purposes of this thread:
I am not assuming that life arose from non-life.
I am not assuming that all life-forms evolved from a common origin.
I am not assuming that your beliefs about creation are wrong.The moment you start raving about your personal beliefs you lose credibility in my eyes. It shows that not only are you ignoring posts that many of us have spent precious time writing, but you are also unwilling to address the topic.As the creator of this thread I would ask you to avoid the following:1. Avoid raving about the origins of life
2. Avoid raving about the lack of evidence for macro-evolutionInstead focus on the following:1. Concede or contest my basic assumption that kinds are clades (at some level)
2. Concede or contest that neither evos nor creos believe species will cross clade lines at any time in the future (let's not worry about the past)
3. If you would like to give a general description of terms like "kinds" or macro-evolution, please do so without drifting off-topic.Remember that contesting something is more than just saying "no". As this is a science thread, simply using faith to "prove" your point is not sufficient. If you do not believe your beliefs are supported by anything but faith, then don't bother arguing them in a science thread.You may remember, in message 43: Slevesque is a creationist too, who also will not accept evolution for one minute. However, he understood what this thread was about and conceded that a common misconception about evolution should not be used as an argument. Note that mine and slevesque's opinions about evolution still differ, but he has my respect for being honest and not raving off topic. I hope you will follow his example and address the topic, but if not, well there are plenty of other virgin threads out there that have yet to be raved in by any man.Respectfully,
-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Hi penstemo, and welcome to evcforum. Hopefully you'll find this place as fun and informative as I have.Your question is a good one, and can easily be answered if you think of all life as a tree. You can take any tree, and look at its branches. It has many branches, and they're all connected (via the trunk). Each branch on the tree (including the whole tree itself) is a clade. New branches split off of older branches to form new clades, however they are still part of the bigger branch (clade).In the case of humans, we are a part of the primate clade, which is also a part of the mammal clade. Each clade is inside a larger clade, but clades never cross. Ergo, we will always be mammals, and primates, and humans (although perhaps not as we picture humans). No species can ever leave its clade to become something entirely different.Hope this answers your question.Respectfully,-Meldinoor