Ring species

Not much. The greenish warbler kind has experienced some micro-evolutionary changes, but its still a greenish warbler. No macro-evolution is seen as expected.If anything, it supports creationist kinds because this kind has gone through this much change and its still just a warbler, not a warthog.(for some reason you have to use alliteration when making that point)

No, "ape" would be too broad to be a kind. A human is a differnt kind than a chimp.But a warbler is in the same kind as another warbler, probably something around the level of Passerine Nope, not that high up, that's half of all birds >.<, depending on how much evolution you want to allow.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : strike

No doubt, but that cannot be a kind because it is too broad. (and I don't see any reason to force the evolutionary classifaction system into the definition of kind). I suppose that different kinds are going to emcompass different degrees of difference. I don't think we're going to identify one overarching definition of kind that would fit with all the varying degrees of difference between the kinds.So, with a ring species like these warblers, there's no problem for creationists because they are all one kind.Too, we know that humans and chimps must be different kinds so an evolutionary classification like Hominidae isn't going to work as a kind either.I wonder, though, if there's any correlation between how complex a particular evolutionary class is, and how many degrees of difference there are within it.Like with apes (complex), we have four kinds: human, chimp, gorilla, orangutangBut with, say, ants (less complex), there's probably a lot more diversity in that grouping so we might expect 10+ different kinds.In the end, I think it does depend on how much micro-evolution is capable. With a lot of it, we could maybe trim down the ant kinds into just 2 of them, the large ants and the small ants (or whatever), that have diverged into all the different types of ant we see today.On the other hand, if not very much micro-evolution is possible, then a lot of those different types of ants would all be their own kinds.

It looked to me like you were expecting some sort of parallel to the evolutionary biological classification. Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind. (but the contrapositive isn't necessarily true)Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds. The proverbial we... the royal we. I dunno. Obviously though, if an amount of genetic change is impossible then it couldn't have taken place. I don't know. I guess it would be nature, itself.

---

Hey, I found a link for you if you care to look into it:Created kind - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Can't, or just don't?On the other hand, if all those other groups of warblers do reproduce, then why are they called different species? I don't believe that. According to evolutionists we would be. That's correct. Under creationism, no new kinds are being created these days.

Has there been studies on whether or not those warblers are capable of reproduction but simply do not?I thought they didn't mate because of differences in either mating calls or color patterns or something but not because of some genetic barrier. Yeah, that makes sense. Under creationism, there has to be some limit to how much micro-evolution can happen in order for there to be disctinct kinds that could not have evolved from each other. I don't know enough about it to say exactly what that limitation is, but I'd guess it have something to do with accumulating enough deleterious mutations to halt reporduction. Heh, although that probably won't make sense because if they're deleterious then we wouldn't expect them to be passed on and build up. Yeah, if we do share a common ancestor then it would make sense that we are the same kind and that would imply an amount of micro-evolution that is possible. [qs]Is there anyone else who, "...know[s] that humans and chimps must be different kinds..."? Are you the only one that "knows" chimpanzees must be different kinds?[/qs]Anybody who knows anything about creationism knows that humans have to be in a special place as a seperate kind. I dunno. You could probably determine a max amount given a certain amount of time. Don't you think there's got to be some upper limit on a mutation rate?