Biological classification vs 'Kind'

Because it might help those of us struggling with your point to work out what it is you actually mean? I thought your point was that the two definitions are contradictory? Well if they believe that new kinds cannot be produced by evolution then they must also believe that all kinds have been created as seperate creations.Thus the difference in these positions you seem to be focussing on becomes moot. Certainly it is not contradictory. I didn't say you were ignoring any contradictions. I said you were ignoring the limit on change that creos believe micro-evolution is capable of. Where is their contradiction in that?

If I have understood...PaulK's position seems to be that there is a contradiction between defining kinds as both that which were created and that which can evolve.But if creos assert that all kinds were created and that no new kinds have evolved (or are able to evolve) then there is no contradiction.So I think his contradiction is practically non-existent and theoretically superfluous.

It seems I am not alone. I genuinely do want to get what you are saying. This is getting very frustrating. How?I still don't see it.Can you spell it out step by step?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Both of which they consider impossible in practise. No. Anything that HAS actually been produced by evolution is not a new kind. This is the point where you extrapolate too far and include all imaginable evolution. No. They are saying that no evolution that HAS ACTUALLY occurred is macroevolution. This is not the same as believing that all conceivable evolution (i.e. what those evil atheist evolutionists believe) requires no macroevolution. No. All the evolution that HAS ACTUALLY occurred is microevolution. No. See above. Only if you ignore what they actually believe and instead apply your reasoning to a brand of conceptual evolution that they deny as impossible at the very outset. Ditto.

To which we can add:5) Creationists consider macroevolution to be unevidenced, micro-evolution from a single common ancestor to require new kinds by means of evolution and thus Darwinian common descent to be an evolutionist fantasy borne of atheistic desire.All of which I entirely agree as being their position. It is the part where PaulK says that creationists cannot hold to both definitions in 1) and 2) above whilst remaining logically consistent in their opposition to common descent by micro-evolution alone that I fail to see. If they place limits on the change that microevolution can achieve then it all seems internally consistent even if evidentially wrong.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The standard creationist position does include the combination of definitions under discussion. BUT it also includes the base assertion that microevolution is limited in the amount of change it can achieve. Thus we have the following:A) All kinds were created
B) For new kinds to occur by means of evolution rather than creation would require macro-evolution
C) Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible
D) Micrevolution from a single common ancestor alone cannot account for the diversity of life on Earth alone because it is limited in the change it can achieve
D) Thus there are no uncreated kinds and the diversity of life on Earth is the result of microevolution from a number of kinds significantly > 1This is their position. If you agree with that then we are simply arguing over semantics. If you disagree with the above then we apparently do genuinely disagree but your reasons for disagreeing remain as much of a mystery to me as they did at the beginning of this conversation.if you agree I have no interest in the semantical argument. If you disagree I think I will follow CS's example and just bow out confused and unable to grasp your point.Either way I'll leave it at that. But I am interested enough to ask you if you agree with A) - E) or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This is my last post on this: No. Instead it insists that Darwinian common descent is impossible because microevolution alone is unable to account for the observed diversity of life on Earth. Which is exactly why they consider macroevolution to be theoretically impossible as well as practically unevidenced. Yes. It is. Faith writes:

quote:

---

"Kinds are the grouping of many genetic variations on their theme, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since. So their classification is basically genetic, not morphological and they ARE the top of the tree genetically speaking". Message 159

​

"THAT is the boundary between micro-and macro-evolution, and the path to that point is the definition of the Kind" Message 1

---

So explain to me how this incorporates their base assumption that microevolution is limited in the degree of change that it can result in?

Creos insist that the accumulated effects of microevolution are limited. They don't specify the limits they just act on a 'know it when I see it approach'.If that is all we are saying here then we all agree and this has been the most convoluted approach to a very simple point. Yes they do believe all evolution is Micro. Which taken in conjunction with whatever limit there is on the accumulated effects of micro-evolution makes Darwinian common descent impossible. Which necessarily means that the number of originally created kinds be significantly > 1This may well all be evidential nonsense. But it incorporates both of the definitions PaulK says are contradictory and still remains internally logically consistent.So I still don't see what his point is.

So this entire bad tempered tangent is simply wrangling over the pointlessly subtle and practically irrelevant distinction between:A) Kinds were created by God. New kinds would require macroevolution. Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible. Therefore there are no new kinds.andB) Kinds are defined as being created by God. New kinds cannot occur by evolution because then the first definition would be violated. Therefore there are no new kinds.Neither of which actually requires creationists to logically accept that universal common descent occurred at all. Making that side of things just a giant red herring. Now that I can agree with. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.