"Best" evidence for evolution.

Thank you very much. Wish it helped. My eyes are getting so bad I can't read that thing at all. Just a blur. There is a procedure that might help but I'm not going to any doctors for a while if I can help it. Maybe it was a different version of the chart I saw anyway. Thanks again but I've got to give up on this for now..

They are variations or subspecies, that's all.

Yes.

I think there is probably a DNA definition that would define a Species but I realized recently that I go by morphology in defining it.

Dogs wolves and coyotes can be identified as the same species by morphology. I think that is how Species need to be defined until there is a clear genetic definition.

I looked at the Linnaean chart. But I think it's fair enough to work out my own observations.

Yes, a lot of taxonomic classification gets into characteristics I consider quite secondary. I think structure is the basic definition of a Species or Kind. Sure some will disagree with how I see structure, but white butterfly wings are way down in the subspecies category. The body parts of the butterfly are what make it a butterfly and maybe if I got into insects I'd put the butterfly with some other insects based on structure but I don't know. It's a lot easier to do with birds and reptiles and mammals.Creationists are always being asked what a Kind is since biblically we understand all creatures to belong to a Kind that is separate from all other Kinds. So that's what I'm doing here. For a long time I assumed it was impossible to determine a Kind by observation, but I argued that evolution uses up genetic variation and eventually runs out and where it runs out is the boundary of the Kind. I still think that's true. But now I'm trying to find descriptive criteria as well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I certainly hope you don't mind if I disagree with you. Defining the Kind by morphology seems very useful to me. The Bible gives no guidelines but the creatures themselves aren't hard to classify. Just as the dog body is different from the cat body and the horse body is different from the deer body, the human body is different from the ape body. I really do not care if I disagree with you or with Linnaeus. I do know what I mean by structure and could not care less if you agree with it or not.Most cheery cheers to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes the raven and the dove are different kinds (lower case) and there are lots of other similar examples. Doknkeys are different from horses for instance. That's fine, they are strikingly different from each other, but MORPHOLOGICALLY ravens and doves are birds and birds simply has to be the original Kind. The genetic picture should also show that. All the Bible says is that God created original Kinds. They aren't defined.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

way back a few years ago there was a thread about genetics on which I specifically asked the geneticist constributors if they could identify say a dog from DNA alone and as I recall they said they could.yes the "kinds" taken on the Ark may have included what I would call subkinds, not sure.There's nothing wrong from the biblical point of view with sorting the Kinds by their morphology."Each after its own Kind" refers to the original Kinds. We know evolution didn't happen, what happened was that God created animals according to something we call a Kind. The word is simply English for "species."

The morphological groupings are really quite exact, specific, not just "subjective."

The idea is to identify as many recognizable points of similarity between the structures as defining the Kind into which they fit. Uniqueness like the owl's makes it a subkind or subspecies since it would no doubt share all the points that identify birds. I haven't been working on this lately but the idea is to find as many such points of morphological identity as I can.

You say you haven't seen it but you should have because I got pretty far with some of it. I don't remember anything about differences, just identifying a group by points shared by all its members. Birds for one. dogs for another. Trilobites. Such groupings have no higher groupings since they are the Kinds, but they would have lots of subgroupings.

No, they saw a lot of it differently. I group wolves, coyotes, foxes and forget the other one all in one Kind with dogs. All cats are one Kind, I think they split them. I group donkeys and mules with horses. Etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Any higher grouping is going to bring together groups that do not share all the same points among themselves. I want to identify ONLY those that share THOSE points with each other. I don't think they are shared at all outside the group either but that is going to take more thought. That is, a dog's paw is unique to dogs and shared with all of them in tht Kind, and will not be found in any other grouping, but only with other members of that Kind. A cat's eye same thing. You won't find birds' wings anywhere else but on birds. Etc. As I said it will tak a lot more thought but each point or feature should belong ONLY to that Kind and not be found in any other. Similarities but not identity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.