Specific creatures, especially if we kinow them in their fossil form and otherwise are unfamiliar with them, don't say anything at all about what I'm trying to do. ...
Because you ignore anything you can't explain. I said:
Indeed I do expect you to misclassify them, but not because they are unusual or exceptional examples, but because your "classification" system is ad hoc and unusable by anyone else.
And I should add that you are incapable of classifying them in any way that makes sense, while the biological/ecological/evolutionary system is perfectly capable of classifying not just these but all known forms of life, from the present day, the fossil record and the genetic record in a cohesive repeatable way ... because it is science instead of fantasy.
... I'm not trying to spell out a system so specific that others could use it, ...
Obviously, because you are incapable and unwilling of doing that, because it would leave you open to invalidation, unlike this variable, willow-the-wisp, ever changing ad hoc, moving target pile of assertions you try to pass off as a system ... one that is remarkable only for its lack of system.
... I'm trying to give a general idea of what I'm arguing in this discussion and nothing more. ...
Which is made up fantasy du jour and just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
... I believe I've made a pretty good case for how evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible, ...
Not a dent, not a scratch, not a blemish.
Because evidence has contradicted you every step of the way. We have evolution beyond species, we showed it to you ... and you proceeded to redefine species instead of admit it.
Because there is no definition of "Kind" that stands up to the evidence.
Because you continue to ignore or downplay the role of mutations, in spite of the evidence demonstrating their effect, both in short term and in long term.
There is no known limitation that stops evolution from continuing to adapt species to stochastic and cyclic changes in ecologies and the ever changing interactions of all species in an ecosystem.
... and the taxonomic question is completely secondary, irrelevant to that discussion.
Denialism is not a system of rationally dealing with the evidence. It just protects fantasy from reality.
"Convergent evolution" is just one of those concepts needed by the erroneous ToE, it has no independent factual status on its own.
So if a species cannot evolve beyond what you call the "species genome" then how do you get similar organisms on the opposite sides of the earth -- one a placental mammal flying squirrel and the other a marsupial mammal sugar glider, occupying similar habitats with similar behaviors.
It seems to me that this invalidates your claim that "evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible" ... because there they are in living color and stereoscopic sound.
OR you have to consider ALL mammals to be one (faith)-species. Which contradicts your listing of dogs and cats and horses.
So I would think the taxonomic question to be very relevant.
Remember, the better explanation is the one that covers all the evidence, not just bits and pieces that are convenient.
Yes I'm sure much of what I'm arguing opposes many scientific concepts. I'm a creationist, what else would you expect? ...
Honesty, and maybe a little soul searching, and outright disappointment that creationism cannot explain the evidence or be supported by evidence, a little wonder whether or not you've been sold a bill of goods, that you've been lied to, that you're in an axe fight without an axe.
Evolutoin is a huge ungainly scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting purely conceptual mental exerceses. A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.
Again, bald assertion is not evidence. Evolution is a huge multifaceted scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting lines of evidence. The consilience of the fossil record and the genetic record is amazing coincidence ... if it were concocted out of whole cloth. The fact of one system validating the other (and vice versa) is strong evidence of reality, something you don't even have a whisper of.
The spatial/temporal matrix showing the paths of evolution taken is another strong line of evidence for Evolution, as it show the steps of evolution along specific paths in time and space, a very strong restriction ... unless evolution is true.
... A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.
A perfect description of creationism. A fantasy promoted by a delusional cult without regard for reality.
Oh and besides beaks, wings, bird legs and feathers there's the basic body shape, plus the fact that if it has long legs it also has a long neck and vice versa. They also have pretty distinctly bird eyes. All of them share these characteristics. A bird is a bird is a bird and nothing else.
quote:Oh and besides beaks, wings, bird legs and feathers there's the basic body shape, the fact that if you have long legs you also have a long neck and vice versa. They also have pretty distinctly bird eyes. All of them share these characteristics.
As an aside there are plenty of birds with long necks and short legs. Most waterfowl for instance. Some birds of prey have surprisingly long legs without especially long necks.
But none of that addresses the question of why birds should be taken to be a species rather than a genus, a family or an order.
And the “A bird is a bird is a bird and nothing else” applies equally well no matter what taxonomic level the birds are taken to be.
Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
OK, maybe. I had never really thought about the huge similarities among the beaks of hawks, ducks, and hummingbirds until now. Or their claws, except for the ducks. You’re blowing exceedingly thin smoke, Faith.
To address your last question first: There's too much in the higher taxonomic groups that doesn't fit the characteristics of birds while the bird group share just about everything in common. The only real differences among them do seem to be the claw feet versus the paddle feet.
Swans don't really have short legs, and actually their necks aren't even as long as… I at least ... expected anyway. they seem longer than they are because of the way they are folded back. I'll try to find pictures to post.
Birds of prey look like they have shorter necks than they do because of the way their wings fold up near their heads when at rest. They may still be shorter than their legs but I'll have to look again.
Probably the best way to assess this is to find skeletons of each bird. the skeleton of penguins was a real eye opener to me because it's a true bird body that is revealed that way, that is not evident under their feather padding.
Not sure what the exceedingly thin smoke means exactly but hey I'm a creationist, I have to identify the Kinds, and actually it's not hard at all when you really look at the creatures, though I'm sure there are cases that are difficult to fit into a Kind.
Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
So I looked up the Linnaean taxonomy for birds and they are in the Class Aves. That's the Bird Kind as I see it. What I call Species, but the taxonomic system only uses that term for very specific species of birds, such as Robin. I still want to call them all a Species but I guess I'll have to use Kind and probably clarify that from time to time as the equivalent of the Class Aves.