"Best" evidence for evolution.

You're going to have to stick with 'kind', or the scientific 'Family'. 'Species' has a different meaning. Every one of those categories has identifiable morphological features and are genetically related. That's why they're in the categories they're in. Except that they proveably are. That's why they're grouped that way. This is science Faith; it's not made up, you can see exactly how if you need to. But, of course, you won't. They'll be identical because you're doing the same things that taxonomists do. Mind you, it's get damn complicated with some organisms, but you've got enough on your plate just dealing with the big and obvious ones like dogs and cat.Not that you're actually going to attempt any of this of course.

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.

quote:

---

Yes I've explained how the trace fossils fit into the "order."

---

No, you haven’t. How could they if the order was produced by mechanical sorting?

quote:

---

And those who "seriously study" sedimentation are NOT seeing anything that resembles the strata.

---

Oh, they certainly do. Or - to point out an obvious example - are you going to tell me that sand dunes don’t exist ?

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.

quote:

---

Footprints occur on the surface of rocks that were then coverd by sediment that killed the animal that made the footprints.

---

So the trace fossils reflect life living at the time. Why would that fit with an order produced by mechanical sorting? That’s the question you are supposed to be addressing.For the rest I need only point out that it is irrelevant to the question. (It has, of course, already been answered)

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.

quote:

---

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

---

In other words you have no explanation of why they fit the order. As I stated in Message 705 you only explain how you think they occurred. Not why they fit into the order - which you say was produced by mechanical sorting.Why not just admit I as right all along? Rather than trying to argue with me and proving that I was right?

Of course I can't explain the order. The order in fact makes no sense. It's there but it makes no sense. Anyway the animals that made the footprints got buried IN the order.

quote:

---

Of course I can't explain the order.

---

?Yet in Message 707 you claimed you had explained the order. If I’m obviously correct, why deny it and then try to bluff with an explanation that doesn’t explain the matter under discussion? Twice.

No, what I thought I said was that I could explain how the TRACE FOSSILE fit into the order.

quote:

---

No, what I thought I said was that I could explain how the TRACE FOSSILE fit into the order

---

Which is what we’ve been talking about all along. If you want to change the subject please make it more obvious.Nevertheless by failing - twice - to offer an explanation that actually addresses the issue you have demonstrated that you cannot explain why the trace fossils fit into the order.Yet, the conventional explanation explains that, as well as better explaining the order.

You can't mix terminology. If you recognise animals below your kind as individual non-interbreeding groups - which I'm sure you do - then you need a category name for them. Maybe kinders and sub-kinders. Whatever you call them they'll settle into the same groups that science has already defined. And if you don't call them anything, they'll still exist. I'm sure that you'll soon find that you do otherwise you'd have to name each animal individually.And as for anything above Family, well just as an obvious example how about insects? They're an enormous Class - way above family but maybe you'd put them as a kind? Beetles alone contain 400,000 species and, as an Order they are also above family. Are beetles a kind?It doesn't matter what you call these groups, you're doing what has already been done, then drawing a totally arbitrary line in different places in a totally subjective way. No two creationists would be able to agree what the kind is because you have no objective way of drawing the line. So the level of developed detail in your new taxonomy is that 'some time back some told you something'. Impressive.You'll never even start to do this task because you know that you can't. Instead, what you'll do is tell yourself that you've done for cats and dogs and that'll do for you.

I'm not out to establish a definitive creationist taxonomy, I just wanted to identify some groups morphologically as a Kind. I'm not interested in distinguishing between groups that continue to interbreed versus those that don't. And I'm sure except for a few examples that interest me, such as the trilobites, I'm not going to try to classify insects.