Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Hello again Chuck, hope you don't mind me giving my input (so much for the "semi one on one" ). If you do, just say so and I'l stop. Well, on it's most basic level, evolution simply is descent (children) with modification (variation). Which I think you accept. That is to say, you accept that organisms that produce offspring will have slight variations within that offspring, regarding the traits of the parents. The problem with this definition is that you can't quantify or describe what a "kind" is. There are no criteria that you can give that will help us determine "this is one kind of animal, and this is another". For instance, you admitted that you think a cat could turn into a fox (not immediately, I understand) in Message 121. However, cats are classified as follows:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. catusYet foxes (more particularly the red fox, which you were shown a picture of) are classified as follows:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Tribe: Vulpini
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpesSee that "Family" bit there? that where the first change this "hierarchy" takes place, if it is indeed possible for cats eventually "turning into" foxes (which i don't dispute). However, since mankind is classified as:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiensAnd chimps (but I could've taken any ape here) are classified as:Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: PanAs you can see, We are already in the same family as apes, meaning for a human to "turn into" chimp is "easier" than for a cat to "turn into" a fox. But given enough time, what makes the variations stop? What is it about fox genes that stops the (originally a) cat-genes from saying: "Right, here we are, no further, this is the end, we're there, nothing else to go to, yep, definitely it"? But finch beak variations aren't already included in the DNA. Finches with smaller beaks don't have genes stashed away somewhere for larger beaks, it takes a mutation of the "beak genes" to make the larger. Well yes, because it takes too long. Of course, like you said, macro takes "thousands millions of years", a human lifetime, or even rigorous recording of everything around us, is not nearly long enough to possibly detect changes like that. Why? Why should we be able to observe things that take "thousands millions of years" when we as humans only recently get as old as about 80 years? There is no "need" other than the fact that there are niches to fill. Like with fish to land animals. The fish had basically occupied the entire ocean, yet the land was free of all competition (yes, I know insects were there, but please, let's keep it simple). Menaning that any fish that would develop the means to get onto that land would be King supreme, for as long as no other fishes would do the same. But why would it sop at a certain border? One, I might add, you cannot define. What is the mechanisms that says "Until here and no further"? For example, what If I start walking. I walk 10 miles, I walk 20 miles, I walk 30 miles... What is that makes me stop walking, where is the impenetrable wall that makes me go "right, that's it, no further for me"? Extinction is precisely why the fossil record looks as it does, for all (I think) species found therein are not species that are still alive today. Which is perhaps a bit confusing to you. Of course no individual fossil might be a "transitional" but the species as a whole we find in the fossil record surely are. What else is archaeopteyrx but a transition between a dinosaur and a bird? Yes, the actual lineage of archy might not have gone anywhere, but its features are most definitely transitional. Fair enough. Would you say archaeopteryx is such a micro intermediate? Then what is its "kind"? Half-dinosaur-half-bird-thingies? But impossible from chimp to man? That's a lot easier than fox to cat. No, I can live with that. We can work out the details later, but sure, "horse to whale" is an acceptable analogy to me. But they're not. Foxes are canine. Again, look at the family. Foxes are canidae (canine, wolves are also in this category) and cats are felidae (feline, like lions are too). And if you mean that the "family" classification bit is the limit for "kind" (perhaps you made a mistake with foxes, it could happen), then still, humans are part of the same family as chimps.Thank you for your time, Chuck77. I hope we can keep this debate friendly (no, I'm not just referring to you ) {ABE}: A flying squirrel is classified as:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Rodentia
Family: Sciuridae
Subfamily: Sciurinae
Tribe: Pteromyini(there's no further than "tribe" here because there are 44 different species of flying squirrel that we know of, and I don't know what the species of the one pictured is)And a sugar glider as:Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Marsupialia
Order: Diprotodontia
Family: Petauridae
Genus: Petaurus
Species: P. brevicepsAs you can see the difference here starts with "order", even earlier than family, making these two even less related than foxes are to cats, which are themselves less related than humans are to chimps. We use genetics (at present, before, it was morphology, but even then, the classification of the exmple given by RAZD hasn't changed). Indeed. Care to start the ball rolling?Edited by Huntard, : Edited to incorporate second post

Sure. No problem with me, people make mistakes, no biggie.So, it would seem that whatever method you use, a "kind" would at least have to be at the "family" level. But then how to continue? What other criteria should be used to determine the "kind" Thank you. {ABE}:
Sure, fine with me.Edited by Huntard, : Chuck edited something in

This video gives great examples of the classification "evolutionists" use, I recommend it to you chuck.Yes, it's critical of creationism, but please look past that, I know you're not likely to change your mind on this, but the explanations he gives of classifications is so great, I think it will help you a lot. He might go a little fast, so perhaps look it over a few times. Link

Well, that's just it. On what basis should we call it a "kind", what are the definitions, the boundaries of a "kind"? Remember, I think evolution is true, and that there are no "kinds", there are species, there are families and so forth. What do you think are the qualifications of a "kind"? The criteria, as it were, to say "Ah! This has traits 1, 2, 3, 4 etc., therefore, it is clearly this kind!" That is what we need here. Example:I could say the traits of the order carnivora are:A group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms, whose body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, and who must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance (that's the "Animalia" part of the classification). Further they have a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail (that's the "Chordata" part). Also they are air-breathing, possess endothermy, hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands (the "Mammalia" part). They also eat meat (Carnivora). All carnivora (not to be confused with "carnivores") share these traits, without exception.What are your criteria for determining a "kind"? {ABE:} Well, yes and no. You will never, for instance see an elephant give birth to a giraffe. But also, you will never see a wolf give birth to a poodle (same species), or even a poodle to a bull terrier (same subspecies, meaning they can even have offspring together). Evolution says that whatever is born out of two poodles mating, it will never be so radically different that we wouldn't be able to call it a poodle. However, it will be a bit different. Now, if you add up thousands of these differences, you end up with, for example, a bull terrier. That is what evolution says. Add millions of changes and you might even end up with a cat (so to speak, this is impossible for reasons we really shouldn't get into until you have a firm grasp of the basics). Probably. Admitting ignorance is the first step on the way to learning. Macro is basically a whole bunch of micro. In evolution it is used for above species evolution, meaning one species turning into another. But even then, for example, it could mean one species of lizard turning into a different species of lizard. They would still be lizards, but they wouldn't be able to mate. A great example is ring species. Here you have different species, where the ones living next to each other are able to mate, and yet, not all can mate with each other.For example:You have species A, B and C . Species A is able to mate with Species B, species B is able to mate with species C, but species C is not able to mate with species A.Edited by Huntard, : Edited for Chuck

At the most basic level, species or subspecies (depending on a lot of other things). For example, we are the species Homo Sapiens, dogs and wolves are both the species Canis Lupus, and dogs are all subspecies Canis Lupus Familiaris. The most basic definition for species is "a group of animals that share a habitat and are able to produce viable offspring". For example, horses and donkeys can produce offspring (mules), yet those are sterile, and so, horses and donkeys are a different species. Honestly, I think creationists thought up the concept of "kinds", so that they can deal with the undeniable fact of micro-evolution. It simply cannot be denied that dogs evolved from wolves (for example). But how, if evolution is impossible? "Ah!" say the creationists "that's because they are still the same kind! They didn't evolve beyond the "kind" level!". Of course, they than never define how we are to determine which animal belongs to which kind (is "bird" a kind? Is "fish" a kind. Or is "ostrich" a kind or "robin" or "shark" or "tuna"?). But the problem runs deeper. For It hink that if creationists were to define "kind", they'd have to face the problem of "evolutionists" going: "Well, that doesn't make sense, you see, here you have this creature, belonging to kind A, and yet, it shares these traits with another creature belonging to kind B. Is it a transitional between these two kinds?" Yes, exactly that. All animals, from the very small to the very large are connected, and ultimately share 1 ancestor. For example, all land animals (except insects) share an ancestor very much similar to Tiktaalik. Not saying this is the common ancestor, but something like this must've been. One more interesting fact is how Tiktaalik was found. Scientists knew when this kind of fossil was likely to have been formed, and so they sought out rocks of that age, and what do you know, they found exactly such a fossil. Well, think of it as family. You are obviously connected to your cousins through your grandparents (your grandparents are the common ancestor to both you and your cousins). Now, the further apart you go (second cousins, third cousins etc.), the further back this common ancestry lies (great grandparents, great great grandparents etc.). With a common designer, why would we see the nested hierarchy we see around us? Why would the designer feel a need to design not a single mammal with feathers? Why not a single bird with a womb etc.? We are trying to find what constitutes a "kind" I think. At it's simplest, if we say apes are one kind, and humans are another, then what is the definition of "ape kind" and what of "human kind", so that when we find remains, we can always say, "well that's clearly an ape, and that's clearly a human". Really, you're only point of contention is that we are not and cannot be evolved from a common ancestor we share with apes (even monkeys). But the problem for accepting other parts of evolution means that you then cannot say "well yeah, I accept that a "wolf" eventually and over millions of years "turned into" a "whale"(keeping terminology simple here)", two "kinds" that surely are very dissimilar. "But I can't accept that an "ape" over millions of years "turned into" a "human" (again, simple terms)", which I'm sure you will agree, are far more similar than wolves and whales.