06 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't understand your response. I think you mean that 'mammal', 'reptile', and 'chordate' have a place in biology. I can't tell if you think the term 'vertebrate' has a place in biology. If you are asking if the three terms I asked about are subdivisions of 'vertebrates', then the answer is yes, yes, and no. Vertebrate is a subdivision of chordate.
Sure. Vertebrates, no?
I have been told by I believe KellyJay that canines, felines, and equines are three different 'kinds'. In biology, all three are called 'mammals', 'vertebrates' and 'chordates'. This implies that all three groups are descendents of the first mammals, which were descendents of the first vertebrates, which were descendents of the first chordates. Now if the three 'kinds' were independently created, why would these terms be appropriate? Shouldn't felines be considered no closer to canines than they are to fish or birds as each group was hypothetically independently created and shares no relationship other than being created by the same being?
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't understand your response.
I don't understand your response. I think you mean that 'mammal', 'reptile', and 'chordate' have a place in biology. I can't tell if you think the term 'vertebrate' has a place in biology. If you are asking if the three terms I asked about are subdivisions of 'vertebrates', then the answer is yes, yes, and no. Vertebrate is a subdivis ...[text shortened]... lly independently created and shares no relationship other than being created by the same being?
My apologies. I always forget that people don't see the thought (or absense thereof) that went into a post. What I meant was that I think the terms do have a place in biology, and by Chordate you had some reservations about vertebrates for some reason.
The rest...
A very good post. I never thought about it that way (the implied evolutionary progression). I guess it would be kinda hard to kick out a classification system that has been in place for so long. Methinks some valuable research could be done in determining what exacly a "kind" is.
07 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI agree. I think that is something Creation Scientists should work on. It should be based on actual experimental data and hypotheses and peer reviewed.
[b]I don't understand your response.
My apologies. I always forget that people don't see the thought (or absense thereof) that went into a post. What I meant was that I think the terms do have a place in biology, and by Chordate you had some reservations about vertebrates for some reason.
The rest...
A very good post. I never thought ab ...[text shortened]... so long. Methinks some valuable research could be done in determining what exacly a "kind" is.[/b]
I think a major issue such scientists should address is how the similarities between different mammals, or between different reptiles, etc, make perfect sense according to TOE, while according to Genesis, there is no reason for it whatsoever - it just happened to be God's whim. We'd have to throw out the idea that one milk producing animal will have certain other similarities to other milk producing animals. This sort of reasoning is immensely useful in biology and has given results time and time again. How would creation scientists explain this?
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseExcellent response. Adifficulty arguing with IDers and creationists would be clarified if they stated whet they mean by 'kind'. I have asked the question repeatedly and never been afforded the courtesy of an answer.The word is currently used in the manner of the Queen of Hearts: kind means whatever I want it to mean.
[b]I don't understand your response.
My apologies. I always forget that people don't see the thought (or absense thereof) that went into a post. What I meant was that I think the terms do have a place in biology, and by Chordate you had some reservations about vertebrates for some reason.
The rest...
A very good post. I never thought ab ...[text shortened]... so long. Methinks some valuable research could be done in determining what exacly a "kind" is.[/b]
Clarity is needed
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere has not yet been a conclusive definition of species as of yet. I thoroughly agree that the defining the "kinds" of animals would answer many questions and advance biology and science significantly.
I agree. I think that is something Creation Scientists should work on. It should be based on actual experimental data and hypotheses and peer reviewed.
I think a major issue such scientists should address is how the similarities between different mammals, or between different reptiles, etc, make perfect sense according to TOE, while according to ...[text shortened]... biology and has given results time and time again. How would creation scientists explain this?
Creationists explain similarities in various creatures (milk-producing animals or man and apes) by emphasizing common design, not common descent...
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXIn what way explain. I think 'assert' is the word you're looking for
There has not yet been a conclusive definition of species as of yet. I thoroughly agree that the defining the "kinds" of animals would answer many questions and advance biology and science significantly.
Creationists explain similarities in various creatures (milk-producing animals or man and apes) by emphasizing common design, not common descent...
07 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomePerhaps in your perspective. Its an explanation if you have an open mind to ID. Then again, evolutionists thrive on assertions and assumptions which somehow merit enough support to be integrated into the education system.
In what way explain. I think 'assert' is the word you're looking for
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXEvolutionary theory is quite consistent with the fact that 'species' is hard to define. Two groups of organisms which descended from a common ancestor could be anywhere on a range of similarity or difference to one another; however, they would share certain similarity based on common descent. The concept of 'species' isn't really built into evolutionary theory.
There has not yet been a conclusive definition of species as of yet. I thoroughly agree that the defining the "kinds" of animals would answer many questions and advance biology and science significantly.
Creationists explain similarities in various creatures (milk-producing animals or man and apes) by emphasizing common design, not common descent...
However, 'kind' is built into creationist theory. A 'kind' would be a type of organism which was independently created by God. If there were commonalities due to the fact that the designer was the same, then those commonalities should exist for all kinds, as all were created by the same designer. Similarities of reptiles to one another which are not shared by mammals, and those similarities between mammals which are not shared by birds, are not explained by the idea of a common designer since both alligators and cats were hypothetically created by a common designer. Why would cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, mice, elephants, whales, etc. all produce milk, all have fur/hair, and all be within a certain range of genetic similarity while alligators are not? Where are the milk producing scaled invertebrates with insect wings? Why do some traits go with other traits? That isn't explained by common design, but it is explained by evolutionary theory.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't really get the point of your post, but here goes:
Evolutionary theory is quite consistent with the fact that 'species' is hard to define. Two groups of organisms which descended from a common ancestor could be anywhere on a range of similarity or difference to one another; however, they would share certain similarity based on common descent. The concept of 'species' isn't really built into evo ...[text shortened]... ther traits? That isn't explained by common design, but it is explained by evolutionary theory.
You get Classes (mammals, reptiles, insects, etc) and then kinds within those Classes (felines, canines and so forth < which still need research and proper classification). While these are quite definitive (any child can tell you the difference between a cat and dog - even a tiger is a big kitty) they can variate very much within their kind, but not beyond (the various kinds of dogs - but never to anything but another type of dog).
All creatures have several common traits (DNA, cells, mitochondria, ATP motors, etc). I cannot clearly define kinds (because, tragically, most people are so trumped up by evolution that little research has been put into the field, but hopefully, people will wake up to the idea and redirect the funding and research), however, every kind created was single and complete - it wasn't a paint-by-number random combination creature that wouldn't function practically (your milk-producing, scaled invertebrate with insect wings - a cheesy alien flick?). Why should a creator make a junk creature as you've so vividly postulated? To blur the line between kinds more? Or must a Creator equally share various genetic and biological traits between the creatures?
Emphasis mixed with consistency makes asthetic beauty - think of music and paintings - so too with nature (emphasis on facial hair in your case, perhaps 😉 I think nature's various creatures, their common traits mixed with uniqueness can be easily explained by common design...
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXWhy are there Classes? The Kinds were independently created right? Why would there be another set of groupings that grouped some Kinds together and excluded others?
I don't really get the point of your post, but here goes:
You get Classes (mammals, reptiles, insects, etc) and then kinds within those Classes (felines, canines and so forth < which still need research and proper classification). While these are quite definitive (any child can tell you the difference between a cat and dog - even a tiger is a big kitty) the ...[text shortened]... creatures, their common traits mixed with uniqueness can be easily explained by common design...