(April 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm)alpha male Wrote: @OP: You seem to think that creationists are stuck with the traditional Linnaean classifications. Why is that? Evolutionists propose changes to the traditional classifications all the time, typically based on genetic analyses which come out different from the morphological classifications.

Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.

(April 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.

That's not a problem if you allow them to redraw family level classifications as necessary.

Really. That's the answer. If you fudge the numbers as you see fit, there's no problem.

And people wonder why "Creation Science" doesn't qualify as science.

(April 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.

That's not a problem if you allow them to redraw family level classifications as necessary.

So in other words kind is vague. Because if that is the case no matter what we can call any group kind. I can say deuterostome kind and animal kind. The problem is not changing the taxonomic system based on new evidence, it is putting an non existent restriction for one group that is smaller and less diverse then the other group that is large and higher on the taxonomic scale can all be the same kind. So how can bacteria be the same kind and dogs be the same kind at the same time, but bacteria is a higher and more diverse group? How can one domain be the same kind but Eukaryota can not? What scientific papers are there that give a restriction on how far said group can evolve? I mean evolution is really population genetics using natural selection, and mutations.

The thought has been in my mind all day, so I am going to state it whether or not it receives praise.

"It takes all kinds".

(April 25, 2014 at 4:33 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: So in other words kind is vague.

Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?

(April 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 4:33 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: So in other words kind is vague.

Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm)alpha male Wrote: Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

Prepare yourself for redefining the words, or failing that, the rules that define the words themselves.

Like when you point out a contradiction in a holy text, and theists reply with "well if you redefine what a contradiction is it's no longer a contradiction!"

:-|

(April 25, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

Prepare yourself for redefining the words, or failing that, the rules that define the words themselves.

Like when you point out a contradiction in a holy text, and theists reply with "well if you redefine what a contradiction is it's no longer a contradiction!"

:-|

He can try but the difference is I go based on consensus. Because of that the definition will stay unless someone can disprove it and then we must conform to that new definition.

(April 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: But raccoons are part of the family Procyonidae, while Canidae is another different family. You are thinking of the order Carnivora in which they are both a part of.

Bleh....
Got raccoon dog mixed up with raccoon.
Oh well, live and learn.