So what you are saying after all of our evolutionary changes we are still apes still the same kind ?
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.
Chimpanzee's are classified in the Hominidae Family along with Gorillas and Orangutans and...Humans. We ARE part of the classification known as the "Great Apes".
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).
As far as comparing Humans with Chimpanzees, we share about 96% of our genes with them, so I have to wonder what degree of difference you would consider for being a 'kind'. (of course that topic has been brought up many times here...)
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, orangutang
But 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.
But the birds in question cannot reproduce so how come they are the same kind?
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?
And theoretically an a chimp/human hybrid is possible so are we the same kind?
I don't believe that.
So we are all the same kind??
According to evolutionists we would be.
And by your definition it is impossible to produce a new kind because it would always have a common ancestor no matter how different it looks, or how large the genetic barrier it has to its cousins or ancestors that make it impossible for it to reproduce with them.
That's correct. Under creationism, no new kinds are being created these days.
Then we have examples of salamanders Ensatina eschscholtzii, fly's, birds Greenish Warbler, etc of not being able to reproduce even though they look remarkably similar to each other
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.
But that just obscures the big idea, that being unable to reproduce seperates kinds. If that is the case, then there would be 1000's of kinds even among the birds.
Yeah, that makes sense.
What do you mean when you say, "...how much micro-evolution is possible"? You appear to be saying that there is some arbitrary limit to micro-evolution. If so, what is that limitation?
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.
You're traveling dangerously close to the Theory of Evolution when you say, "If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds". Common ancestry is a central pillar of the ToE. ie. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees.
If we share common ancestry with the chimpanzees, then we are of the same kind?
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.
Cute. I wasn't aware you were royalty.
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?
Anybody who knows anything about creationism knows that humans have to be in a special place as a seperate kind.
How do you determine how much genetic change is impossible?
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?