It’s not that simple, according to AIG. What do you think of Baraminology?
(cough cough) Ring species.
3 Likes
I clearly said a simple starter, didn’t I.
So tigers and house cats are not the same cat “kind”. Do the rest of the YECs here agree?
1 Like
AIG has a Mammalian list of baramins. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/mammalian-ark-kinds/
Also, this is helpful if you’re curious about the State of Baraminology circa 2017 (it’s a mess)
2 Likes
I clearly stated “a simple starter” didn’t I.
Sorry, doesn’t work. It’s known that reproductive isolation can evolve between populations, sometimes even in a single generation (see allopolyploidy). Further, we can observe all degrees of isolation from free interbreeding through selection against hybrids, behavioral isolation, partial hybrid sterility (perhaps in one sex only), full hybrid sterility, hybrid inviability, up through complete lack of fertilization. This sort of ambiguity is of course what we would expect from evolution. But not from separate creation.
Even many creationists agree that reproductive isolation can’t be used to diagnose kinds. Thanks for at least trying, but you should think a bit harder next time. You still have no way to diagnose kinds.
4 Likes
Foxes (Vulpes) break the simple starter set, for example
2 Likes
Now you’re saying interbreeding isn’t a way to tell “kinds”? Maybe you should make up you mind.
1 Like
Still not clear on what you mean by “broad base”. Do you just mean that in a nested hierarchy, the most inclusive clades have more species than the less inclusive ones? But that’s just an unavoidable logical consequence of nested hierarchy.
2 Likes
@r_speir, the very first use of the pyramid was in your post. You are the only one using it.
The 7 organisms are at the top. There is only two branches at the bottom.
And likewise is my disbelief in your science unavoidable.
You sound like being impervious to scientific evidence is a good thing. Maybe for you it is but not to anyone with the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity about the world.
Exactly. You as much as admit that no possible evidence could change your mind.
1 Like
Why do you make me hold your hand? Then let me say it all again, but this time add what your intelligent mind was supposed to add on its own:
“And likewise is my disbelief in your science unavoidable because you are doing it wrong - it is too broad-based, meaning you have forced every animal on the planet to claim common ancestry. It is too broad-based at the bottom…!”
[any idiot could do that - and by the way I am not calling you an idiot. I am just making a point using that label]
Why do you say “forced”? Have you ever looked at the evidence? You certainly have ignored every post that attempted to show you any. Incidentally, most animals are not vertebrates.
I will repeat my question: Where can I find a complete taxonomy of “created kinds?”
Thanks in advance for your answer.
1 Like
I thought I saw another thread here about misrepresentation. You know full well we are discussion “your evidence” right now, yet you stand there ball-faced and accuse me of ignoring EVIDENCE. This is preposterous.
I have no idea. Would it surprise you that I do not make a habit of studying creationist material? Well, I don’t. I would have to go hunt it down just like you.
No, we aren’t. You have, for example, twice today ignored my answer to a challenge you posed regarding direct radiometric dating of sedimentary rock. Did you look at xenotime? You ignored it the last time this came up too.
1 Like