You’re literally asking him for a real example of a thing he’s just said does not exist?
3 Likes
I’m a bit worried what might happen with @colewd and @rtmcdge together in the same thread. Might their combined gravity cause some sort of black hole to form here?
3 Likes
8 Likes
If the earth was populated by groups of organisms, each of which used completely different molecules as the basis of inheritance rather than every one using DNA, that would be one example. Or they could be made of completely different elements. There are many possible examples if you put your mind to it. The problem for you and @rtmcdge is that none of them even slightly resemble what we actually observe.
2 Likes
I have not. I didn’t define Kinds, and if I had I wouldn’t have said that, because it’s word salad.
I would have no idea what that sentence meant. I see that @Faizal_Ali, below, has tried to interpret what you mean to say, but I don’t have that sort of confidence in translating word salad.
Max Factor #5?
3 Likes
My job provides much opportunity for practice. 
6 Likes
No, that’s your garbled understanding of what I claimed, nor is the way you would identify something the same thing as its definition.
No idea. Again: it’s impossible for me to interpret what you meant. Your word salad discourages response. The same is true for the word salad that made up the remainder of that post. If you want to have any sort of conversation with me you need to learn how to write coherent prose. I’ll wait here.
2 Likes
It might be more interesting to hear if you agree. And then to hear your explanation for why we do not observe anything like this at all.
Or maybe it won’t be interesting in the least. That is also very possible.
2 Likes
If you or @Dan_Eastwood were given a project to define and identify Kinds how would you go about it?
Why would they be tasked with defining words they don’t use?
6 Likes
Indeed. And the whole purpose of the word “kind” in this context is obfuscation, anyhow. For any fixed meaning of “kind,” some aspect of @rtmcdge’s arguments against the “fake” version of the theory of evolution fall apart. Similarly, were he to change tracks and start arguing against actual evolution, any meaning of “kind” will get him in trouble. But as long as he insists that everybody knows what “kind” means, while committing to no specific meaning himself, he’s got the ability to carry on his argument in such a way as to convince…well, who? Himself, I guess.
7 Likes
You didn’t ask me, but I think it can be quite easily defined: Kind refers to any group of organisms whose members are related to one another thru common descent.
The problem faced by YEC’s and other deniers of universal common descent is that they are unable to support, with evidence, their claim that life on earth consists of many “kinds” which are unrelated to one another. The reason they cannot do so is because the claim is demonstrably false.
9 Likes
This.
You might as well ask how I would go about a project to define and identify fairies. But as others have said, it should be possible to identify kinds by their inability to fit into a nested hierarchy with other kinds. Since we have no such organisms, we conclude that kinds do not exist.
1 Like
This is how you claimed you would identify Kinds.
He appealed to different types of molecules. Do you agree with him?
Living organisms given the constraint of the type of molecules used, the functions of the cell and the sharing of different complex functions appear to naturally fall into a nested hierarchy regardless of the cause of the pattern.
The continued naked assertion that the only explanation for the nested hierarchy is common descent appears to be false as the nested hierarchy is best explained by the basic architecture ( shared molecules, functions of the cell and sharing of complex functions) of living organisms.
What appears to separate Kinds is different gene patterns and chromosome counts. From this criteria we should be able to identify several of them.
I agree with you. I would define common descent here as related through reproduction.
I think you are ignoring the evidence of millions of species being reproductively isolated with genetic differences that are not observed to be part of the reproductive process.
You seem to have forgotten that this was in response to a question, which you asked yourself, regarding the defin;tion of “kinds”, not about common descent.
I cannot explain how you could make such an error.
“… not observed to be part of the reproductive process.” I’d ask you to clarify WTF that is supposed to even mean, except I know that you probably don’t even know yourself.
2 Likes
Yes, you can define it as such. And there is no evidence disputing it. The only problem comes in where some species do not appear to actually have been species of that kind, but, they can still bare young with one another. Or at least had done so at one time.
Now, it seems as though there are those who will only mate with another species, or what appears to be a close species of that same kind.
And again, this pattern is what has been observed.
And you are wrong there is plenty of evidence supporting this. There has been for thousands of years.
Even more, what is observed is the only pattern that has been observed. While on the other hand, universal common descent HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL, except for in the minds of those who claim it occurred at some time in the past, but are unable to produce examples of it occurring in the time of our ancestors, or those of us present today.
No.There is no ignoring going on.
Humans are humans with a preponderance of DNA similarity that defines us as human.
But, there is enough genetic differences to identify us as unique from each other, outside of presenting identical twins in this.
Which is why the term species is how these organisms should be referred to.
They are species that belong to the different kind populations of life.
And there is nothing that disputes this. NOTHING
Hi RT
I think I understand your claim. Can you provide a citation here?
Please define what you mean by “this”
I agree there is little evidence if any supporting universal common descent.
The interesting question to me is how do you identify created Kinds? What is the best objective criteria? There is plenty of new genetic evidence that can help.
Hello. A citation for what exactly? That there are different kinds of lifeforms.
I’ll have to allow everyone to compare those kinds of organisms they are familiar with and watch as they replicate or reproduce others of their own kind.
Is there any evidence better than empirically observed evidence?
Then supply it, please. Wait. supporting what? Universal common descent?
Now, I’m sorry for thinking you do not know what you are talking about.
But, it’s true.
I dare you to provide at least one empirically observed evidence showing the types of examples that the evolutionists claim led up to the dinosaurs becoming the ancestors of birds, the land animal the ancestor of whale or the apelike thingamajig that somehow had descendants that went on to become apes of today and man of today.
Where, please is your evidence?
It is basically based upon how evolutionists have attempted to support their universal commn descent evolution.
Look at it and if there’s something similar close your eyes and wish it was evidence,
Na, just kidding. That’s what the evolutionists need to do. Those who know better, just trust upon what is observed.
Cats, give birth to cats. Sure, there are various species of cats, and even more subspecies.
But, there are also a kind within a kind, or at least this is the case if you are willing to make the claim that the tiger, lion and such are related to the kitty, kitty, kitty cat.
Maybe they are. I can go either this way, or think these were a created kind all on their own.
Because of their sizes.
But, what is sure, is that birds did not grow wings, to escape a cat. Because then the cat grew legs to catch the bird, but somehow couldn’t grow wings as well.