Define "Kind"

Arguing that evoluton outside "kinds" is impossible is not valid unless there is:a) A definition of "kind" that does not entail that all evolution is within a "kind"b) allow the identification of "kinds" so that we can tell if a particular example of evolution is "outside" of a "kind".Without such a definition the assertion is simply unfalsifiable - we could conclusively prove universal common descent of all earthly life and still not have shown evolution outside a "kind".Disallowing such arguments would only handicap creationists if creationists have to use rhetoric to make up for a lack of rational arguments. I do not think that you want to claim that that is the true state of affairs.

You misunderstand. "Kind" is often defined to include all species with a common ancestor. By that definition ALL evolution is within a "kind". It is not a hypothesis - the deifnition of kind encompasses all evolution, even the evolution of all life on Earth from a single ancestor (which would simply mean that all life on Earth was of the same "kind").Equally, asking for an example of evolution that crosses undefiend limits is futile. So long as the limits are undefined there is no way to produce such an example.Finally I refer you to the OP which specifically refers to the claim that evolution outside of "kinds" is not observed. Under the conditions you have referred to such a claim is worthless. It represents only a rhetorical attempt to pretend that there is evidence for boundaries that would cause problems for the idea of universal common descent, while in fact saying nothing of the sort.

Are seriously suggesting that the fact that we have no examples of evolution that aren't evolution somehow supports creationism ?Because under the usual definition of "kind" that is what it means to say that we have no known examples of evolution outside of a "kind".

quote:

---

We won't have any new or different examples, it will be a matter of recognition of a different pattern in what the facts have always been

---

Are you actually bothering to read my posts ? I repeat by the usual deifnition of "kind" ALL evolution is within a "kind". Evolution all the way from bacteria to humans is "within a kind" - so long as it happened.