"Kind" is a well defined and useful standard by which to classify organisms. "Species" allows evolutionists the latitude to put anything anywhere. And when it comes to people, the classifications are done according to certain politically correct requirements.
Again, not actually evidence, just assertion. No wonder you had such difficulty with my thread (I can't help but notice most of the posts in there were by you, and only a slim fraction actually met the criteria of "evidence".
Oh, you mean the League of Reason where they banned me till kingdom come for having an opinion they didn't agree with? That league of "reason"? :chuckle:
Ah yes, I see that. You were banned in the beginning of March, but you bailed on your "why is the earth round" debate in mid-December of the previous year. I think nearly three months should be enough time to come up with an answer, don't you? Lucky for you, you have until August before they let you back; I can't wait to see how you will answer now you've had six months to think about it.
Before you bailed in December, one of the moderators asked you (and not for the first time either) to please try and marshal your arguments, writing:
You're really not being clear, or coherent and it's getting on everyone's nerves. Why not lay out your points and evidence in one post, then let us ask questions based on that? This topic has been a joke so far...
It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, and it's one voiced to you here regularly. I can't help but notice that more than one community thinks you have disingenuous motives, and you use debate to conceal and twist rather than to shed light and understanding. That's two separate groups who think you're a dishonest debater... I dunno maybe the common factor, Stripe, is
you. It's not that you're a YEC; OEJ is a YEC, but he doesn't give off the disingenuous vibe that you do.
"Kind" is a well defined and useful standard by which to classify organisms. "Species" allows evolutionists the latitude to put anything anywhere. And when it comes to people, the classifications are done according to certain politically correct requirements.
You failed to explain how it is useful. Again.
No evolutionist can rationally justify why neanderthals were a different species while, say, the Mbuti are not.
You keep cutting and pasting, even though the quote I have provided you twice is exactly that rational justification you say you're looking for. Neanderthals have DNA sequences that are common with chimpanzees, but not shared with H. sapiens. This means that every man alive, be he Comoran Islander, Australian Aborigine, Caucasian Icelander, or Congolese African, all carry the same set of mutations that are part of what marks us as Homo Sapiens. After the last common ancestor we shared with our Neanderthal relatives, humans underwent a series of mutations that changed the genetic heritage of our branch of the family. Neanderthal man did not undergo the same changes to specific sequences, and neither did the chimpanzees. This means that all neanderthals and all chimps share certain ancestral sequences that become mutated in modern humans - sequences all modern humans share. It also means that neanderthals and humans should also have some mutated sequences in common that chimps do not share, as we shared a more recent common ancestor and that's exactly what that paper finds. It's a great example of the genetics of common ancestry.
Sorry that biology in the real world is messier than the neat compartmentalized and unrealistic version you apparently have in your head but it seems that nature is that way. There is more than one way a speciation event can occur, and they all have to start somewhere.
What evidence is it that you would like to support the assertion that "Kind" is well defined and "species" is not?
I don't think that's ever been my request. I have asked you to start making actual arguments instead of unsupported assertions, whether you are advancing your cause or attempting a refutation. I have further requested that you provide evidence to show that the concept of a "kind" is actually a useful category in any way other than it conveniently supports the biblical version of events.
Unfortunately, it doesn't even do that without a lot of unscientific shoe-horning, as seen here:
...The monobaramin is a group of organisms that share continuity, either genetic or phenetic....
Source
And this is a great case in point. The quote I keep using about Neanderthal DNA sharing genes with modern chimps that the entirety of humankind does not share with either should put Neanderthals, humans and chimps in a monobaramin, which makes them all the same kind. And, in fact, there are a number of overwhelming arguments to include humans and chimps in the same kind - there is less genetic distance between a human and a chimp as there is between different members of the felidae genus (aka "cat kind"). And then the water gets even more muddy when baraminologists try to classify the other hominid species (ape or human?).
But uh-oh, humans and chimps as the same "kind"? Obviously we can't have that, so bogus little tricks such as the "cognitum" are invoked, where the final say to assigning a kind when its controversial or unclear is making the call based on your preference, because that's what Adam did when he named the animal - "Doesn't look like a human, so stick it in the monkey-kind" - even though chimps are closer to humans genetically than tigers are to house cats.
Another example of an insurmountable problem from a scientific perspective that is inherent in baraminology can be found in the same creation.com article (italics mine):
To do baraminology then, we evaluate two kinds of evidence: Additive and subtractive... ...Unfortunately, subtractive evidence proves difficult to identify in many cases. Sometimes the creation record in Genesis can provide the strongest subtractive evidence. For example, we know that whales share no ancestry with land mammals (Gen. 1:20–21).
Gen 1:20-21 reads: " So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind."
This is a great example of "because the bible says so" trumping scientific investigation. No need to explain inconvenient similarities in genetics or in physiologies of the fossil record - just use the bible to shut common descent out of the picture. How is that supposed to be a convincing argument, unless you already believe that the bible is the infallible word of God?
These techniques attempt to shoehorn inconvenient physical reality into the biblical account, but they explain less than the current scientific approach, and they can only work by using an ad hoc (and unscientific) approach. They are doomed to fail.
You should read your own link. If you actually bothered to read it, you'd see that there are a large number of caveats around whether this potential speciation will get fixed or not. Nobody claims that the earlier steps in reproductive isolation can't be reversed, and probably many are, just as many potentially advantageous mutations don't get fixed in a population due to simple bad luck. Biological systems are complex, interconnected and messy; you can like it or lump it, but that's just the way it is.
Your objection to the concept of species appears to be based in that fact that the definition is not sufficiently exact. I have pointed out that you can make the same criticism of the term "gene", but creationists tend not to bleat about that for some reason. The reason we use the term species is because it provides some utility in identifying where creatures can try to dismiss the concept of species, but it's used in baraminology, as even a casual look at creationist literature will show... Species-level nomenclature provides a handy way to distinguish between organisms that are closely related, and yet not the same.
Now will you finally share with us the scientific value of kinds? You say it's more useful, but I am completely unaware of any example of the concept being effectively applied in a way that sheds any new light on biology (unlike the current approach to taxonomy). How is the concept of a kind of more utility than the nested hierarchy?
And if you think I don't post anything of substance, feel free to start
a thread asking people to link to my evidence based contributions. :rotfl:
You know, your recent debate that you added to your evidence thread might be the first contribution you've made to the thread that actually featured you providing actual evidence for your views, so well done there. It would be churlish to point out that it's been more than a year and a half since I posted that thread; after all, better late than never, that's what I say.
