"Best" evidence for evolution.

I can't make out your chart very well but I'd guess that you are right, that I'd make Canidae my Species or Kind. Everything above that is irrelevant for my purposes. I'm looking for groups that are morphologically identifiable by an unvarying list of features, and genetically related. Carnivora and Mammal certainly don't help with the kind of classification I want to do since there is no possible genetic relationship and no morphological identity that defines them.I do want groups that I think are all genetically related and that is probably the Canidae in this case. So I don't see any need for any class above that for defining the original created Kind. The groups above wouldn't be genetically tied together but also they wouldn't be morphologically related as I'm trying to put it all together. Mammals and Carnivora are way too broad. The Kind or Species should share particular features with no variation in that part of their structure. All cats have an identifiable paw. It's shared by all of them and NOT found in any other group. Yes I know some have less retractable claws than others, but they are groupable by all other factors. That's the idea.So to sketch out my list of Species or Kinds: I think Birds/Aves (including penguins, ostriches, owls), Cats/Felidae (tigers, lions, leopards, panthers, bobcats, mountain lions, domestic kittycats), Dogs/Canidae (wolves, coyotes, foxes), Cattle/Bovine (buffalo), Pigs/Swine? Apes, Deer/? (moose, gnu, reindeer etc) make Kinds by the features or characteristics that are shared among every individual member of the group AND by being genetically related, which for the most part I guess I have to suppose at this point since I probably can'[t prove it.So I think my categories aren't quite those you say I must share with the taxonomists.ABE: On second thought I think you may be right. At least "Family" in this case does define the Canidae that I would call the Kind. The classifications below it seem unnecessary though, just various subspecies. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've got enough evidence for starters* even if I couldn't convince you with it. It makes me too tired to think of trying to make any kind of case to you at the moment. You wouldn't stick around for it anyway and I'm not thinking along those lines at the moment. You have the usual boring assumptions about how you can just keep going and going and going as if the genome didn't have built in limits. Oh well.I really don't know what "creationists" say about a lot of things, I work out my own views.What do I think happened? Well I certainly don't think there wre any billions of years. I do base it all on the Bible you know. There was no death at the original Creation, all death and diseases occurred as a result of the Fall which affected animals as well as human beings. All living things were originally created as separate Kinds with a limited but really quite large range of possible genetic variation in each genome which plays out down the generations in a beautiful array of variations on the theme of the Kind. An enormous number of such variations must have died in the Flood of Noah.I think the Fossil Record is just the collection of living things that died in the Flood and got buried in separate sedimentary strata all over the planet. Perfectly mechanical sorting event. Well the Bible said the purpose of the Flood was to kill everything and the fossils are evidence of that. The "record" is an illusion. Many creatures that had lived before the Flood died in the Flood, the dinosaurs for instance, the trilobites for instance, Archaeopteryx.*Evidence: Since as far as I know there is no genetic evidence of reduced genetic variability in the populations where I would expect it, I generally point to breeding programs where it is clear that you must lose genetic diversity to get the breed you want. Take dogs. Yyou have to eliminate all the genetic material that does not contribute to the qualities you want in your breed. Eventually this means you MUST reach genetic depletion and the evidence for THAT is that purebreds are subject to deformities and diseases. Purebreds used to be defined by many fixed loci (homozygosity) for the genes that determine the qualities of the breed. That's genetic depletion.Edited by Faith, : Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The features shared by all Mammals and Carnivora are not identical, they are similar, they may have the same function, but morphologically they are different.

The paw of all Canidae is identical as I am using the term. The paw of all Felidae is identical. The wing of all Aves is identical, that is it is built on the same kind of bone structure and it's festooned with the same kind of feathers though differently arranged and in different colors etc. Neither of these features will be found in any other group. That's what I'm working on anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's OK, I know what I mean, it's just a matter of getting the definition precise so even you might eventually know what I mean. I'm sure I'll have to make some adjustments but I've got the ballpark figured out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I really cared to prove anything to you I would make the great effort of trying to find examples. But I don't. And it does take a huge effort to find the right pictures for comparison.ABE: You don't care about being fair, you don't care to try to understand what I'm getting at, all you want to do is find some way, any way will do, to debunk anything I'm saying. Anything. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All I have is Google Image. Linnaeus' specimens were more useful but on the other hand the internet is jjust about miraculous for such purposes. Up to a point anyway. I can find dog footprints, wolf footprints, coyote footprints, fox footprints though I wanted to find good pictures of the actual paw and that I can't find although part of the problem is that my eyes are so bad. But the footprints are a very good start, certainly all the same Kind there. Mostly my own memory of course. If I could get a grant from, say, Bill Gates, I'd hire someone to do all that for me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mechanical sorting by a huge volume of water of the sedimentary strata containing dead creatures is a lot more possible than the accumulation of such sedimentary strata over hundreds of millions of years which just happen to become the graveyard of a very specific set of dead creatures that just happened to fall into exactly the right conditions for fossilization though that is highly improbable and a very rare occurrence even in the best of circumstances. And repeat this rare occurrence every few hundred million years to boot. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You know nothing about what's possible with mechanical sorting. And I've already explained all that about trace fossils. And no, sedimentation of the kind we see in the strata is NOT observed today. Give it up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I've explained how the trace fossils fit into the "order."And those who "seriously study" sedimentation are NOT seeing anything that resembles the strata.

Footprints occur on the surface of rocks that were then coverd by sediment that killed the animal that made the footprints.There is no more geological column occurring which is the location of all the strata laid down in the Flood but identified as Time Periods through which animals evolved.. There is no sedimentation even remotely comparable. It either occurs in the wrong place or it occurs in areas much smaller than the strata of the geo column, or it occurs in lake beds and deltas which give it a shape that doesn't exisxt in the geo column strata. It's delusional to claim the strata are continuing as before.Some of the strata cover enormous geographical areas, even most of whole continents. Nothing like that is happening now to add to the geological column. No, the oceans don't count. Sheesh. Also, the great extent of these straight flat thick rocks shows that nothing could ever have lived in that area during the supposed Time Period allotted to that rock, and yes time periods ARE allotted to rocks. If anything did live there at any given time it would all have been killed by the sediment.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I came around to agreeing that Family in the case of Canidae works for the Kind as I see it. All the other classifications aren't relevant though, both those above and those below. All those below are just various subspecies, certainly to be included in the Kind as microevolved from it but I don't see any need for "Genus" for instance.Some time back someone here said jackals and foxes are not related to dogs, which unfortunately stuck in my head, so I didn't expect to find them on a chart like yours. But I'm glad they are there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The footprints were made by animals running from the next wave of the Flood that overtook and buried them.

Edge hates me so I suppose he's never coming back to argue with me but I got interested this afternoon in the tepui of South America, those gigantic table-top mountains in the area of Venezuela and Guyana that I think are all sandstone. They're huge, about a quarter of a mile high and I think I read that one of them is something like twelve sequare miles in area. I read them as originally layers of the geological column laid down by the Flood, akin to the Coconino sandstone layer perhaps, that were left as the Flood waters washed away the rest of the layer that had originally beenlaid down along with rthem. Like the Monuments of Monument Valley in northern Arizona. I wondered if they contain fossils.The area is described as a Highland in Wikipedia so I would guess that there is quite a depth of strata beneath the ground they stand on.They woujld have made perfect locations for castles but I guess the culture didn't require castles as European culture did.Actually edge would only hate me all the more so there's no point in his coming to give his opinion of the tepui. I've already got my own. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.