Evopeach, msg 65 writes:
1) The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
Does this mean only a parent is a kind? This is a pretty narrow definition, as the above definition means that two different varieties of the same species are not of a kind: one variety cannot bring forth offspring within the other varietal group (genetically impossible).
This is contradictory to the usual creationist usage to move "kind" up the tree from species to a higher level.
This can only refer to the genome which is determinative of what an offspring will be gentically, morphologically , etc.
Still can't get to variety {A} from variety {B}, even though {A} and {B} can interbreed and produce living breathing breeding hybrids.
So the original number of kinds would be precisely the original number of unique genomes before a single variation had taken effect.
Tautology: the number created would be the number created.
This would of course be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of species at a later point in time due to the built in range of variation in the genome and later the variation caused by interbreeding, mutations, etc.
Why?
There has been massive extinction of many more species than exist on the earth today, so therefore there had to be more varieties of genomes in the past than exist now.
By orders of magnetude. Point falsified.
Evopeach, msg 77 writes:
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal
Looks to me like the answer has several logical problems with its construction and conclusions.
So, no, the answer is not satisfactory.
Or do you have another definition elsewhere?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*09*2005 07:50 PM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
