incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Dave, I have no wish to surprise you in your upcoming quest to define a “kind” in any meaningful fashion.
I will therefore lay ALL my cards on the table.
When it comes to explaining life on this planet, the following is the BARE MINIMUM in explanatory power that is required for your CGH to even enter the same solar system as the ToE. Anything else is a grievous waste of your time and ours.
You will provide a biologically relevant definition of “kind” that will allow us to identify these “kinds” and classify a representative sample of organisms (some of your choice, some of ours) according to comparisons of morphology, biochemistry and/or genetics (e.g., data such as Denton’s table) ON OUR OWN, without the wisdom of your opinion (and we better all arrive at similar conclusions or your criteria SUCK). Only then will we be able to bask in the light of your “Truth”. You have already argued that there should be a strong relationship between morphology, biochemistry and genetics. If this applies to evolutionary clades, it applies to “kinds” as well. Otherwise, you will have to deny such a link, and your days of “arguments against evolution” from Denton's table are worthless.
You will provide objective, biologically relevant criteria for recognizing these kinds. Any subjective argument of the “looks-like-a-fish/gorilla/retriever to me” sort will be dismissed with disdain unless you explain WHY it looks as such.
At the VERY least, to be consistent with your former claims, your biological criteria for kinds will have to give us a “window” in the amount of permissible “microevolutionary” divergence within a kind (according to whatever biological measure you deem relevant) that is:
(1) NARROW enough to separate chimps from humans as two separate kinds that could not have emerged via “microevolution”.
(2) BROAD enough to group bacteria, lungfish, and chimps/gorillas/orangutans/?monkeys? as single “kinds”.
I will be challenging you on the consistency of your definition with your own statements concerning “kinds”, your CGH, and your criticisms of evolutionary theory.
Good luck. You’re going to need it. May you succeed where EVERY former Creationist has failed. (Actually, for good reason, they’ve never tried.)
P.S. You have already been given more than enough information to realize that you are in tough with this one. If you wish to save time and receive a “dishonorable discharge”, please explain why the above request is unfair or cannot be met.
|
