The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

.......this thread is beginning to sound like 'Grounhog Day'....
....you repeatedly ask me to define 'Kind'....and I say :-

....“A Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.”


….then you ask me to show how we can scientifically test which organism belongs to which Kind…...and I say:-
“The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.

.....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.”:pac::):D

....is it 'spamming' to keep asking the SAME questions over and over again????

No, I think they are either time-wasting or you've panicked them into repetitive response mode for comfort. The truth often has that effect.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.......this thread is beginning to sound like 'Grounhog Day'....

Tell me about it, you consistently and repeatably fail to properly answer people's questions ...

Do you get what you are being asked here?

I'm asking you how Creationist determine what organism is in what kind group (which one needs the definition of the kind grouping, and the process that a biologist can classify an organism into a kind grouping)

And you are responding by saying basically They do this by determining what organism is in what kind group

You are giving us a non-answer. Smoke and mirrors.

J C wrote: »

....you repeatedly ask me to define 'Kind'....and I say :-
....“A Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.”

And I say that that is not a biological definition (do you actually understand what you are being asked here?)

I know perfectly well the theological answer that "kinds" are descended from the pair of animals on the Ark. It is pointless telling me that back again. It is exactly the same as giving the answer "a kind is a group of organisms that belong to a kind"

I am asking (repeatably) how does one define a "kind". For example, under your definition how does one determine one kind from another. One can't do that if all one has to go one is that a kind is a group of organisms descended from created pairs.

J C wrote: »

.....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.”:pac::):D

to which I asked you explain how

You do know it is ok to say you don't have a clue, or simply that Creationists don't have these answers because no Creationist is actually bothering to try and find out. We all know that anyway...

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I think they are either time-wasting or you've panicked them into repetitive response mode for comfort. The truth often has that effect.

Yeah, that must be it :rolleyes: :P

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I think they are either time-wasting or you've panicked them into repetitive response mode for comfort. The truth often has that effect.

We're asking him to define "kinds" in genetic terms Wolfie. He hasn't done this. The definition he's given us in terms of breeding only works for species which sexually reproduce. It does not allow us to sort asexual or single celled life into kinds.

Speaking of the truth, what do you think of J C's efforts to significantly misrepresent the writings of Dr. Gee to make it appear as if he's criticising the theory of evolution when he is not? Do think this is an appropriate way for you guys to be conducting your argument?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He's pointing out that the fossil record is limited. That's not a criticism of the theory of evolution, it's a simple statement of opinion regarding one of the means we use to test the theory and one that we understand well. Finding a fossil that doesn't fit the model would be be a challenge or criticism. So I ask you again, where is the fossil evidence that breaks the model?

Also you placed my comment (made at 23:44) about "the quote your provided" (I was referring to the one about the "pre-existing story") next to a quote that you edited into post # 13526 at 23:57. I clearly wasn't referring to that quote yet in your response you put them side by side as if I were. A very poor show.

.....What ARE you on about???
....your verbage is as contorted as a corkscrew!!!!!

....Dr Gee has pointed out that the fossil record is so limited that ALL of the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box!!!!!


....it is quite clear that leading Evolutionists do HAVE doubts/reservations about many aspects of Evolution ......and it is quite legitimate to provide published verbatim quotes from these people expressing these doubts!!!!!

....especially when you won't believe me when I say roughly the same thing!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

How is that ninth commandment holding up?

....I am NOT bearing false witness against anybody.....
....but some of the Evolutionists may NEED to examine their consciences on this one....as they 'hound out' good scientists from their jobs for making scientifically VALID criticisms of Evolution!!!!

....my conscience is clear .... I use verbatim quotes ....while also identifying the 'origins' position of the person being quoted.....fairer than that I cannot be!!!!!:)

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

For the sake of balance, and because quoting scientists' opinions seems to be the order of the day, here's some more from Dr Henry Gee:

"That my cat Fred and I really have a common ancestor is not in doubt"
In Search of Deep Time, p.37

"Even though it is impossible to know for certain whether one species is the ancestor of another, we do know that any two organisms found on Earth must be cousins in some degree."
In Search of Deep Time, p.155

.....I never denied that Dr Gee IS and Evolutionist...in fact I EMPHASISED that he WAS an Evolutionist:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...and BTW Henry Gee (b. 1962) is a Materialistic Evolutionist...so leave him alone as well...and DON'T go trying to get him sacked, just because he points towards a few (very) inconvenient facts for those in the 'Spontaneous Soup is my Grandfather' brigade!!!!.

I would expect that Dr Gee, as an Evolutionist, would ALSO make statements like the ones you quote above about his cat Fred and himself having a common ancestor !!!!

.....but he has genuinely and within context pointed to the paucity of fossil evidence for Human Evolution from Apes.....and that is WHAT the quote that I published said!!! :eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....he has pointed out that the fossil record is so limited that ALL of the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box!!!!!

That may be true. But what part of that falsifies evolution? Show me the fossil that falsifies the theory.

J C wrote: »

....it is quite clear that leading Evolutionists do HAVE doubts/reservations about many aspects of Evolution ......and it is quite legitimate to provide published verbatim quotes from these people expressing these doubts!!!!!

The first quote from Dr. Gee does not express doubts about evolution. The others point out what is well known, that the fossil record it patchy. What is there supports evolution. Unless you can point to something there that falsifies it? Either way, that does not constitute a reservation about evolution at all. The quotes that Rockbeer provided above make that rather clear.

J C wrote: »

....especially when you wont believe me when I say roughly the same thing!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

"There are gaps in the fossil record" is roughly the same thing as "evolution is impossible!!!!"? Give me a break.

J C wrote: »

....the Evolutionists NEED to examine their consciences on that one....as they 'hound out' good scientists from their jobs for making scientifically VALID criticisms of Evolution!!!!

....my conscience is clear .... I use verbatim quotes ....while also identifying the 'origins' position of the person being quoted.....fairer than that I cannot be!!!!!:)

You are quoting verbatim and out of context. That is dishonest, plain and simple. Unless you think this is honest...

Here J C claims that the world is older than 6000 years:

J C wrote:

ALL of the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box!!!!!

Wolfsbane on the creationist's tactic of repeating themselves:

Wolfsbane wrote:

I think they are either time-wasting or you've panicked them into repetitive response mode for comfort. The truth often has that effect.

I've quoted verbatim, therefore I'm being honest. Right? Or do I have to include the post numbers for it to be honest?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Tell me about it, you consistently and repeatably fail to properly answer people's questions ...

Do you get what you are being asked here?

I'm asking you how Creationist determine what organism is in what kind group (which one needs the definition of the kind grouping, and the process that a biologist can classify an organism into a kind grouping)

And you are responding by saying basically They do this by determining what organism is in what kind group

You are giving us a non-answer. Smoke and mirrors.



And I say that that is not a biological definition (do you actually understand what you are being asked here?)

I know perfectly well the theological answer that "kinds" are descended from the pair of animals on the Ark. It is pointless telling me that back again. It is exactly the same as giving the answer "a kind is a group of organisms that belong to a kind"

I am asking (repeatably) how does one define a "kind". For example, under your definition how does one determine one kind from another. One can't do that if all one has to go one is that a kind is a group of organisms descended from created pairs.

....I think that wicknight's 'brain cell' just broke!!!!!:eek::D
.....please take a long deep breath ....or even a few deep breaths...and then put your question(s) in plain (uncontorted) English...and I will try and answer them!!!!:pac::D:)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're asking him to define "kinds" in genetic terms Wolfie. He hasn't done this. The definition he's given us in terms of breeding only works for species which sexually reproduce. It does not allow us to sort asexual or single celled life into kinds.

Speaking of the truth, what do you think of J C's efforts to significantly misrepresent the writings of Dr. Gee to make it appear as if he's criticising the theory of evolution when he is not? Do think this is an appropriate way for you guys to be conducting your argument?

The fact that we can't determine into what kinds asexual species belong is not to say they don't belong to a kind - just as difficulty in placing some in one species or another does not mean they don't belong to a species.

I've applied my non-scientific mind to your objection concerning JC's use of Henry Gee:
Originally Posted by Henry Gee
The conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.
Are you saying this is not the conventional understanding of how evolution brought us to where we are? Are you saying that there is no necessary Man or any other being? That evolution could just as easily been a a series of sideward steps, with no increase of brain or increase of complexity?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....I think that wicknight's 'brain cell' just broke!!!!!:eek::D
.....please take a long deep breath ....or even a few deep breaths...and then put your question(s) in plain (uncontorted) English...and I will try and answer them!!!!:pac::D:)

What is the genetic test for a created kind?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fact that we can't determine into what kinds asexual species belong is not to say they don't belong to a kind - just as difficulty in placing some in one species or another does not mean they don't belong to a species.

That's not at all the argument at hand here. We're asking how that determination is made. We've been given a method, but we're looking for a broader definition. And for clarity on comments J C made about using DNA sequencing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've applied my non-scientific mind to your objection concerning JC's use of Henry Gee:
Originally Posted by Henry Gee
The conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.
Are you saying this is not the conventional understanding of how evolution brought us to where we are? Are you saying that there is no necessary Man or any other being? That evolution could just as easily been a a series of sideward steps, with no increase of brain or increase of complexity?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Evolution does not equal an increase in complexity in all circumstances, just as it does not mean brain development, nor bipedal walking in all circumstances. If it did, then there would be no single celled life, no invertebrates, no quadrupeds. All of these organisms are evolved. None are less evolved than us, since we've all been evolving for the same amount of time. Should we consider ourselves less evolved than birds because we cannot fly? Of course not.

What Dr. Gee was addressing was the anthropocentric view of evolution. The notion that bacteria represent "low" evolution, animals more and humans the most. The concept that we are the height of evolution, basically. In evolution there is no such thing as being "highly evolved"- you survive to reproduce or you do not. Your species flourishes or it does not. That's all.

J C claimed that his first quote (which is not actually the one you've commented on) was referring to evolution when it was in fact referring to the quote that you just commented upon. The anthropocentric misinterpretation.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not at all the argument at hand here. We're asking how that determination is made. We've been given a method, but we're looking for a broader definition. And for clarity on comments J C made about using DNA sequencing.



Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Evolution does not equal an increase in complexity in all circumstances, just as it does not mean brain development, nor bipedal walking in all circumstances. If it did, then there would be no single celled life, no invertebrates, no quadrupeds. All of these organisms are evolved. None are less evolved than us, since we've all been evolving for the same amount of time. Should we consider ourselves less evolved than birds because we cannot fly? Of course not.

What Dr. Gee was addressing was the anthropocentric view of evolution. The notion that bacteria represent "low" evolution, animals more and humans the most. The concept that we are the height of evolution, basically. In evolution there is no such thing as being "highly evolved"- you survive to reproduce or you do not. Your species flourishes or it does not. That's all.

J C claimed that his first quote (which is not actually the one you've commented on) was referring to evolution when it was in fact referring to the quote that you just commented upon. The anthropocentric misinterpretation.

Just a final quickie for tonight: Yes, I understand the frog is as (supposedly) evolved as me. Let's say it and I are represented by X as a measure of our complexity: I am asking if evolution could have stalled and kept on producing different sorts of our ancestors of level X : 1000M? The frog, or bacteria today surely are much more complex than their supposed ancestors? Are not the features of humanity ... acquired in a sequence ?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a final quickie for tonight: Yes, I understand the frog is as (supposedly) evolved as me. Let's say it and I are represented by X as a measure of our complexity: I am asking if evolution could have stalled and kept on producing different sorts of our ancestors of level X : 1000M? The frog, or bacteria today surely are much more complex than their supposed ancestors? Are not the features of humanity are acquired in a sequence ?

The frog and you are not of the same complexity. Evolution can produce new species at from a species of complexity level X at complexity level X, greater than X or less than X. Massive changes in either direction would not happen in a single generation. Complexity may be static, lost, or gained as a result of evolution. Typically it is gained, but to think of evolution as a constant gain in complexity is incorrect. The features of humanity were indeed acquired in sequence (though doubtless we have lost features along the way and some of our "features of humanity" are in other species also), but we were not the "inevitable consequence".

We've digressed now though. We're not even talking about the quote that J C posted. Whether Dr. Gee is actually correct is not the point. He was talking about anthropocentrism, but J C claimed that he was talking about evolution.

My question to you is whether you consider that dishonest and if so whether you think that that tactic is acceptable?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....he (Dr Gee) has pointed out that the fossil record is so limited that ALL of the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box!!!!!

AtomicHorror
That may be true. But what part of that falsifies evolution? Show me the fossil that falsifies the theory.

....the fact that ALL of the WORLD'S Hominid fossils can fit in a shoe box (and are made up of bone FRAGMENTS) certainly doesn't lend much support to the 'fairytale' that we are all an Ape's Cousin!!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
"There are gaps in the fossil record" is roughly the same thing as "evolution is impossible!!!!"? Give me a break.

....depends on the number and size of the gaps......there are billions of gaps....and they are un-bridgably wide!!!!:D

wrote:

AtomicHorror
I've quoted verbatim, therefore I'm being honest. Right? Or do I have to include the post numbers for it to be honest?

...verbatim is enough...no need for post numbers!!!!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What is the genetic test for a created kind?

....you have been asking all the questions...now it is my turn...

Tell me what is the genetic test for a species....and I promise I will give you the genetic test for a created kind!!!!

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fact that we can't determine into what kinds asexual species belong is not to say they don't belong to a kind - just as difficulty in placing some in one species or another does not mean they don't belong to a species.

....just on a technical point, we CAN definitively determine the Kind of asexually reproducing animals by assessing their mutual recombination and conjugation compatability....
...and we can provisionally determine their Kind by morphology...and RNA and DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of allocating particular asexual organisms to particular Kinds !!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....you have been asking all the questions...now it is my turn...

Tell me what is the genetic test for a species....and I promise I will give you the genetic test for a created kind!!!!

Same chromosome number and gene loci positions would probably do it. However, genetics has sounded the death-knell of the Linnaean taxonomy, which is why cladistics are coming to the fore. So whilst species are quite well defined and testable in terms of breeding, we now don't use Linnaean taxonomy as a whole as definitive any more. It's useful as a short hand, but we recognise that it does not represent anything real.

J C wrote: »

....just on a technical point, we CAN definitively determine the Kind of asexually reproducing animals by assessing their mutual recombination and conjugation compatability....
...and we can provisionally determine their Kind by morphology...and increasingly by examining their RNA and DNA sequencing!!!!:D:)

Explain how?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the fact that ALL of the WORLD'S Hominid fossils can fit in a shoe box (and are made up of bone FRAGMENTS) certainly doesn't lend much support to the 'fairytale' that we are all an Ape's Cousin!!!!

Do you have a source on that quantity aside from Dr. Gee?

J C wrote: »

....depends on the number and size of the gaps......there are billions of gaps....and they are un-bridgably wide!!!!:D

For there to be billions of gaps in a data set, there has to be billions of data points.

I return to an earlier question. How many data points do I need on a scatter graph to hypothesise that the data is appearing in a linear distribution with a certain deviation? How many before I can say I am satisfied that my hypothesis is holding?

To suggest a theory is invalidated by the gaps is laughable. That's what the theory is for; to connect the dots between our data points.

All that is needed is one point on that graph to call my hypothesis into question. If confirmed and reproducible, it can falsify my hypothesis.

So where is the fossil that falsifies evolution?

J C wrote: »

...verbatim is enough...no need for post numbers!!!!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

Are you saying that my quotes and interpretation are honest? Would you be satisfied for me to use them to support the claim that you and wolfsbane support evolution? Would that be morally right in your opinion?

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....depends on the number and size of the gaps......there are billions of gaps....and they are un-bridgably wide!!!!:D

That's laughable. I'm no scientist but even I know that no scientist would ever say such a thing. How big is a gap? How many data points are required to fill it? These aren't matters of conjecture, they're determined by the data.

Enquiry looks at the evidence and attempts to discern patterns. You look at the absences of evidence and say "let's make up a story".

How do you account for the pattern that confirms evolutionary theory? Are you saying that all the available evidence fits this pattern by chance? And we're just to wait for the discovery of all the evidence that contradicts it, even though none has been produced so far? And swallow a load of unsubstantiated hogwash in the meantime?

I'll join the chorus and challenge you to provide a piece of evidence that contradicts the pattern. That would represent a 'hit' for you case.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Same chromosome number and gene loci positions would probably do it. However, genetics has sounded the death-knell of the Linnaean taxonomy, which is why cladistics are coming to the fore. So whilst species are quite well defined and testable in terms of breeding, we now don't use Linnaean taxonomy as a whole as definitive any more. It's useful as a short hand, but we recognise that it does not represent anything real.

....same chromosome number and selecte gene loci....DON'T do it!!!!
...interbreeding ability with the production of fertile offspring is STILL the Primary Test of a Species!!!!:D

.....and the the death-knell of so-called 'Linnaean taxonomy'....that you speak of....is the death-knell of the so-called 'Evolutionary Tree'...which took over Linnaean taxonomy....over 100 years ago!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....same chromosome number and selecte gene loci....DON'T do it!!!!

Why not? Not saying you're wrong here, but do you have a reason?

J C wrote: »

.....and the the death-knell of so-called 'Linnaean taxonomy'....that you speak of....is the death-knell of the so-called 'Evolutionary Tree'...which took over Linnaean taxonomy....over 100 years ago!!!!!

Evolutionary trees aren't based on taxonomy. They're based on genetics. The theory of evolution drove the abandonment of taxonomy in favour of a more meaningful system.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....depends on the number and size of the gaps......there are billions of gaps....and they are un-bridgably wide!!!!

rockbeer
That's laughable. I'm no scientist but even I know that no scientist would ever say such a thing. How big is a gap? How many data points are required to fill it? These aren't matters of conjecture, they're determined by the data.

....if you don't believe me then perhaps you will believe Richard Goldschmidt Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley who had this to say about the WIDE gaps that neo-Darwinian Evolution is supposed to cross by gradual changes....but DOESN'T:-
"Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture. The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why not? Not saying you're wrong here, but do you have a reason?

....what's this ...some kind of exam???

...there are many common sequences in different species and some different sequences in the same species!!!

....so DNA sequencing isn't yet a definitive test for species....to say nothing about the broader taxanomic category of Kind!!!

....DNA sequencing is only something like deciphering the letters of a strange languge on a page....
....in order to find out what the letters mean you must then put the letters into words and translate them!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....if you don't believe me then perhaps you will believe Richard Goldschmidt Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley who had this to say about the WIDE gaps that neo-Darwinian Evolution is supposed to cross by gradual changes....but DOESN'T:-
"Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture. The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

Goldschmidt's opinion is, once again, an opinion and not science. Where's the data?

Incidentally, your lazy research shows through yet again.

1. The Material Basis of Evolution was not published in 1982 but in 1940, before DNA was identified as the genetic material and thus prior to all data on genetic mutation as it pertains to evolution

2. You are quoting out of context again. In context, Goldschmidt was proposing a proto-version of the punctuated equilibrium concept, which would later be picked up by Gould (who, despite being rather a maverick, dismissed the assertion you quote above). Goldschmidt was not dismissing the theory of evolution at all, but suggesting a refinement.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....if you don't believe me then perhaps you will believe Richard Goldschmidt Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley who had this to say about the WIDE gaps that neo-Darwinian Evolution is supposed to cross by gradual changes....but DOESN'T:-
"Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture. The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

Since you are quoting Goldschmidt I take it that you a firm believer in rapid macro evolution?

While his rapid model of evolution is incorrect at least you have now acknowledged that large changes in the phenotype do occur.

J C

Here is what the late great Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University had to say about Lyell's fertile imagination.....the same imagination whose conclusions Darwin relied so heavily upon in developing his theory of gradual evolution:-

"the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out.
To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists." Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17 †

...the 'catastrophists' to which Gould is referring in complimentary terms....in comparison to Lyell....were 'Flood Geologists'....the antecedents of todays Creation Geologists !!!!!.:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....what's this ...some kind of exam???

It's a debate. We support our points.

J C wrote: »

....there are many common sequences in different species and some different sequences in the same species!!!

I didn't suggest "chromosome number and some specific gene loci positions", I suggested "chromosome number and gene loci positions", that being all of them. Big difference. Further, I said "gene loci positions" and not "gene sequences". My suggested test allows for polymorphism at all loci.

J C wrote: »

....so DNA sequencing isn't yet a definitive test for species....to say nothing about the broader taxanomic category of Kind!!!

Species may be definable by genetics, but there's a very good chance it is not. We are not assuming it is. We may have to abandon "species" as meaningful. The supertaxa above species are already considered no better than short hand.

Cladistics seems to be the way forward but for common usage taxonomy will suffice.

So, we're not claiming we can define species by genetics. We know that we may have to dismiss the species concept (beyond it's use for mere convenience).

What then of Created Kinds? Will you do the same if the genetics don't pan out? Can you now suggest, as I did for species, a genetic means to test Created Kinds?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Here is what the late great Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University had to say about Lyell's fertile imagination.....the same imagination whose conclusions Darwin relied so heavily upon in developing his theory of gradual evolution:-

"the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out.
To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists." Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17 †

...the 'catastrophists' to which Gould is referring in complimentary terms....in comparison to Lyell....were 'Flood Geologists'....the antecedents of todays Creation Geologists !!!!!.:D:)

So what?

J C

In this quote Gould completely invalidates the idea of gradual evolution which is the BASIS of neo-Darwinian Evolution:-

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace” Natural History May 1977 p.14 †

.....one is tempted to add that the REASON that species exhibit 'stasis' and appear suddenly and 'fully formed' in the fossil record is because they WERE Created!!!!:pac::):D:eek: