Kinds - Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)

[georg....@gmail.com]

============================================================================
Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)

1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

=============================================================================

Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
A: Yes, See #2

Q: What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?
A: Yes, See #2

Q: Is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.
A: No

Q. Are the kinds in Levitucus 11:13-19 the same as in Genesis?
A: No. The senses of the Hebrew MIN are not the same. The LXX translators render MIN in Genesis as GENOS in the Greek and as TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it) in Leviticus.

Q. Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
A: The context in Genesis provides the basis for the "test for kinds". Organisms were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. [3]


Q. Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about.
A: The original pair of cats, dogs and elephants would have been distinct kinds.


Footnotes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Fertilization by the union of gametes from different individuals, sometimes of different varieties or species, an online dictionary.
[2] The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. [ it-2 p. 152, Kind, Insight on the Scriptures, page 152, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
[3] Ibid

[Bill Rogers]

This is not a theorem, it's just a definition. It does not tell us anything about the biological world. just about how you will use the word "kind."

[georg....@gmail.com]

You may be right. But what about this definition of theorum? a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

[Oxyaena]

georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ============================================================================
> Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>
> 1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
> 2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

You've defined a species, Steadly. Wow, possibly the most original piece
of creationism since creationists first learned the definition of species.

>
> =============================================================================
>
> Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2

No, they only produce infertile hybrids that are not capable of breeding
any further. You're trying to back out of the hole you dug in another
thread for "Ray and Eddie". Of course, I cannot truly know you are
Steadly, but there are several red flags suggesting you are,
qualifications for the prestigious award of the "Order of the Ban Hammer".

>
> Q: What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2
>
> Q: Is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.
> A: No

This seems like suspiciously specific denial, anyone call for a ban?

>
> Q. Are the kinds in Levitucus 11:13-19 the same as in Genesis?
> A: No. The senses of the Hebrew MIN are not the same. The LXX translators render MIN in Genesis as GENOS in the Greek and as TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it) in Leviticus.

What the Hell are you talking about? There's no such thing as kinds, and
you're taking biology lessons from a group of ignorant near-savages who
believe that rabbits chew cud and snakes can talk.

>
> Q. Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
> A: The context in Genesis provides the basis for the "test for kinds". Organisms were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. [3]

Surprise, surprise. Unfortunately, as you admitted, the Bible is a bit
VAGUE when it comes to what a kind really is.

>
>
> Q. Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about.
> A: The original pair of cats, dogs and elephants would have been distinct kinds.

There's nothing to argue about other than pissing contests between
morons and losers.

>
>
> Footnotes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [1] Fertilization by the union of gametes from different individuals, sometimes of different varieties or species, an online dictionary.
> [2] The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. [ it-2 p. 152, Kind, Insight on the Scriptures, page 152, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Yeah you're Steady Eddie, Eddie claimed to be a Jehovah's Witness, and
since you're using the Watchtower Society as a reference, among several
other things (such as references to "cats and dogs and elephants" and
your suspiciously specific denial against being Steadly) one can deduce
that this deuce stain is Steady Eddie. I rest my case, BANHAMMER!


> [3] Ibid
>


--
"Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." - Oliver Goldsmith

http://oxyaena.org/

or

http://thrinaxodon.org/

[georg....@gmail.com]

Where can I read posts by Steady Eddie?

[georg....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 4:52:29 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

> georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > ============================================================================
> > Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
> >
> > 1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
> > 2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.
>
>
> You've defined a species, Steadly. Wow, possibly the most original piece
> of creationism since creationists first learned the definition of species.
>
> >
> > =============================================================================
> >
> > Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
> > A: Yes, See #2
>
> No, they only produce infertile hybrids that are not capable of breeding
> any further. You're trying to back out of the hole you dug in another
> thread for "Ray and Eddie". Of course, I cannot truly know you are
> Steadly, but there are several red flags suggesting you are,
> qualifications for the prestigious award of the "Order of the Ban Hammer".
>

You really consider infertile hybrids to be a different species? You are not getting that from my definition of kinds, are you?

[Bill Rogers]

OK, that's an OK definition of a theorem. But all you've got so far is a definition of kinds; the definition doesn't tell you anything about biology, it only tells you that if two animals are fertile, then you will call them the same kind, and you call their offspring the same kind as the parents.

[John Harshman]

On 8/3/16 4:11 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ============================================================================
> Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>
> 1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
> 2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.
>
> =============================================================================
>
> Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2
>
> Q: What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2
>
> Q: Is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.
> A: No
>
> Q. Are the kinds in Levitucus 11:13-19 the same as in Genesis?
> A: No. The senses of the Hebrew MIN are not the same. The LXX translators render MIN in Genesis as GENOS in the Greek and as TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it) in Leviticus.
>
> Q. Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
> A: The context in Genesis provides the basis for the "test for
> kinds". Organisms were endowed with the capacity for reproducing
> offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge
> 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. [3]

Sorry, but Genesis doesn't count as an argument, at least not one that
anyone who isn't already a biblical inerrantist literalist would credit.

> Q. Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about.
> A: The original pair of cats, dogs and elephants would have been distinct kinds.

Good try, but you need to do better. What do you mean by "cat"? Does it
include the single domestic species, the genus Felis, the family
Felidae, or what? Same with "dog" and "elephant". Are mammoths
elephants? Are deinotheriums?

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [1] Fertilization by the union of gametes from different individuals, sometimes of different varieties or species, an online dictionary.

Once again, you make your statement ambiguous. Fertilization is a much
lower bar than cross-fertility. Human and chimp gametes will indeed go
to the zygote stage, which is all that note says. Are humans and chimps
the same kind?

> [2] The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms
> wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits.
> If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point
> where fertilization ceases to occur. [ it-2 p. 152, Kind, Insight on
> the Scriptures, page 152, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

That's circular reasoning. Let's remember that kinds are not defined by
cross-fertility. It's up to you to show that cross-fertility is
coincident with kind-ness. To do that you need some independent way of
recognizing kinds. Good luck.

> [3] Ibid

Quotes from JW literature are not a point in your favor.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I did not think you could falsify my definition of kind. It is verifiable by direct observation. I do not think you understand what circular reasoning is.

Wiki says:
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

For example:
Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.

You have not demonstrated anything like that. I have given two ways to recognize a biblical kind based on cross-fertility. I have produced readily available evidence from observation that this is correct.

You have produced no examples that contradict the definition I have given. What you have demonstrated is frustration that I have not been goaded into expanding the Biblical definition in a way that provides you a legitimate way to falsify it.

There is a reason for that. I stick to what the bible teaches. The bible is not a scientific book but when it touches on the topic it is accurate.

If you cannot provide an example of an animal that proves my definition is false then you have just confirmed this.

[Bill Rogers]

Definitions cannot be proven false. They may be different from the most common definition, but if you explain what you mean and stick to that meaning, you can define words any way you like.

I did, however, make a mistake in thinking that all you were offering was a definition. You did offer a definition "Things are the same kind of they are dross fertile." That was part 1. Part 2 was not a theorem derivable from definitions, but an empirical claim. It is equivalent to the claim that children are cross-fertile with their parents. That might or might not be true - there are counterexamples in plants that undergo polyploid speciation, and there might be examples in animals as well. In any case, the claim is not a theorem whose truth is derivable from definitions and axioms, it's an empirical claim that may or may not be supported by experiments.

It is also not equivalent to the claim that the nth generation descendants of an animal must be cross fertile with the original animal. It is perfectly possible that even though every parent-child combination in a long lineage is cross-fertile (same kind) that the original parent is not cross-fertile with a descendant in the nth generation, where n is a large number. That, also, is just an experimental question, not one that can be decided as a theorem.

[jillery]

Well then, that settles everything. All that nonsense about backing
up your opinions and presenting evidence is obviously overrated. It's
sooo much easier to just proclaim yourself correct, repeatedly as
often as necessary. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[georg....@gmail.com]

There is a paper I read recently that determined that Hybrid Male Sterility (HMS) in mammals was likely due to epigenetics.

You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I have observed both #1 and #2. I have a feeling so have you, even if you don't live on a farm :)

[John Harshman]

On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.

How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?

[John Harshman]

It's not a definition. It's a diagnosis. If it were a definition it
couldn't be falsified, because any definition is true by definition. Now
a diagnosis can be falsified if it doesn't actually diagnose the thing
it claims to.

> Wiki says:
> Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
>
> For example:
> Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.

That isn't circular reasoning. That's tautology.

> You have not demonstrated anything like that. I have given two ways
> to recognize a biblical kind based on cross-fertility. I have
> produced readily available evidence from observation that this is
> correct.

Since you claim to define kinds based on cross-fertility, recognizing
them by cross-fertility is tautological. As in your New Zealand example.
Kinds are defined by cross-fertility. Therefore what shows
cross-fertility is a kind. See? It becomes circular if we realize that
the actual definition of "kind" is separately created entity, and you
have failed to make the connection between separate creation and lack of
hybridization.

> You have produced no examples that contradict the definition I have
> given. What you have demonstrated is frustration that I have not
> been goaded into expanding the Biblical definition in a way that
> provides you a legitimate way to falsify it.

Definitions can't be contradicted. But that wasn't a definition.

> There is a reason for that. I stick to what the bible teaches. The
> bible is not a scientific book but when it touches on the topic it is
> accurate.

How do you know that?

> If you cannot provide an example of an animal that proves my
> definition is false then you have just confirmed this.

If I can show that two species that don't hybridize are related, would
that falsify your "definition"?

[jillery]

>I have observed both #1 and #2. I have a feeling so have you, even if you don't live on a farm :)

WRT #1, it's a truism by definition. There's nothing for you to have
observed.

WRT #2, among sexually reproducing organisms, there necessarily are
differences between parents and their offspring. So whether those
differences make them a different kind, is again a matter of
definition.

For example, suppose I define a cat kind as having, among other
things, 5 toes on each paw. Then a kitten is born with 6 toes on each
paw. So it's not a cat kind by my definition, and so violates your
#1, which is also a matter of definition.

Your observations say nothing about your definitions.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

>

>============================================================================
>Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>
>1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
>2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.
>
>=============================================================================
>
>Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
>A: Yes, See #2

You never got around to saying what "kind" mules are.

[...]

[Bill Rogers]

Hmm. You still don't seem to notice that #1 is simply a definition. It's not "if X is true then Y is true". It is simply, "If X has this characteristic, then I will call X 'Y'." There's no possible fallacy and your definition cannot be wrong. No definition can be wrong. It's just your description of how you will use words.

Now, there are reasons why your definition might not be the most useful possible. Here are a couple of reasons.

Your definition is this "Two animals are of the same kind if they are cross fertile." All that means is that the two statements, "A and B are of the same kind" and "A and B are cross fertile" are equivalent. No problem so far. The risk is that you will go beyond that limited definition without evidence.

For example. The relation "of the same kind" or "cross-fertile" is not necessarily transitive. If A is of the same kind as B, B is of the same kind as C, and C is of the same kind as D, it does not follow that A is of the same kind as D. If that's not obvious to you, just substitute "is crossfertile with" for "is of the same kind as," and you will see that your definition does not tell you whether A and D will be crossfertile. And there are actual examples of this situation, in which A, B, C, D (and more) are populations of an animal with the populations arranged in a ring, for example in a circumpolar ring. Adjacent populations are all similar enough to interbreed, but at the point where the ring closes (where A meets, say Z) the neighboring populations are too different to interbreed. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species. So your definition leaves open the possibility (and observation shows)that cross-fertility does not cleanly divide the biological world into distinct kinds, in part because the relation "is cross-fertile with" is not transitive.

Another simpler problem is just this. Animals reproduce "after their own kind," according to the Bible. By your definition, lions and tigers are "of the same kind" because they are cross-fertile. And yet, a pair of lions only ever gives birth to lions and and a pair of tigers only ever gives birth to tigers. So that reproducing "after their own kind" is not a sufficiently restrictive definition of what is observed, at least if kinds are defined on the basis of cross-fertility. Defining kinds as you do would allow Noah to take only either lions or tigers on the Ark, at some space savings, but would not explain why we now have both, since both lions and tigers breed true - that is unless you hypothesize a very rapid burst of "microevolution" immediately after everybody got off the Ark.

Words are just words. Your choice of a particular definition of "kinds" does not change what happens in the biological world; nor does a biologist's choice of a particular definition of species. As long as you describe what happens in the biological world accurately, you can use whatever definitions you like, as long as you stick to them consistently and don't let the connotations of the words you choose make you think you've proven something you haven't.

[Bill Rogers]

Just one note. Ring species were first described as an example of speciation without geographical boundaries. In that sense (and in that sense only) their existence has been debunked; in all cases there has been evidence of restricted gene flow between some adjacent populations. That makes them a poor example for one sort of speciation, but it leaves intact their use as an illustration of the non-transitivity problem in your definition of kinds. So if you read somewhere that "there are no real examples of ring species" they are referring to a very idealized perfect example with free gene flow between all adjacent populations. You don't need such an example to show the transitivity issue with your definition; the examples of alleged ring species in the Wikipedia article I cited suffice for that.

[georg....@gmail.com]

That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position is that the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided strong evidence that it is.

Genesis "kinds" do not have a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem because it is not intended to do more than relate the origin of the kinds. Note: Some have argued that the species problem is too multidimensional to be "solved" by one definition of species or one species concept.[29][30] Since the 1990s, articles have appeared that make the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving the species problem.

Mayer "argued strongly for what came to be called a Biological Species Concept (BSC), which is that a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other such populations."

I wonder if he got that from Genesis :)

[georg....@gmail.com]

The only thing I intended to prove is that the Genesis account is accurate based on what we observe. Apparently there is a lot of history with the posters here on the subject and perhaps a lot of inferences to other side-issues that are going over my head because I was not involved. That being said, I am here to learn and would love to learn those nuances.

BTW, Ligers are a hybrid of Lions and Tigers, correct?

[georg....@gmail.com]

I got the example you call a tautology from the Wiki article on circular reasoning. It is in the link I provided.

As for two species that do not hybridize that are related? Did you see my post where I illustrate that if one takes 'If X, then Y' and infers that if !X then !Y' that this is a logical fallacy?

[John Harshman]

On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.
>>
>> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>
> That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position is that
> the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided strong
> evidence that it is.

No you haven't. You have claimed to define a "kind" as "that which
hybridizes" and then claimed to recognize them by hybridization. But of
course anything that fits the definition will fit the definition. What
you fail to do is show that "kinds", so defined, correspond to the
original, created entities.

This is not evidence for anything, and certainly not for the correctness
of Genesis.

By the way, I know of no cross-fertilization between African and Asian
elephants. Does that mean your idea of kinds is wrong?

> Genesis "kinds" do not have a species problem ->
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem because it is not
> intended to do more than relate the origin of the kinds. Note:
> Some have argued that the species problem is too multidimensional to
> be "solved" by one definition of species or one species
> concept.[29][30] Since the 1990s, articles have appeared that make
> the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how
> species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving
> the species problem.

> Mayer "argued strongly for what came to be called a Biological
> Species Concept (BSC), which is that a species consists of
> populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that
> are reproductively isolated from other such populations."

> I wonder if he got that from Genesis :)

What, if anything, is your point here?

[John Harshman]

I think he did. They belong to the horse/donkey/mule (etc.?) kind.
Sterile members of a species still belong to that species, and I see no
reason why "kinds" shouldn't be given the same courtesy. Well, except
that the bible claims they reproduce "after their kind", so he's
self-contradictory on that front.

[Bill Rogers]

I don't believe you've done that, depending on what you are including in the phrase "the Genesis account". Observation does show that animals "reproduce according to their kinds" if you define kinds such that animals are of the same kind if they can reproduce together. But we hardly need Genesis to tell us that.

If you claim to have proved that other aspects of the Genesis account are correct, say the order in which things appeared, the creation of Homo sapiens from dust, the global Flood, then you've got rather a long way to go.

However, the restrictions on who gets born to whom are more strict than that definition implies. Even though you would count tigers and lions as one kind, a pair of tigers never gives birth to a lion and vice versa.

Yes, the hybrids are called ligers or tigons, depending on whether it was a male tiger with a female lion or vice versa.

[georg....@gmail.com]

You said: By the way, I know of no cross-fertilization between African and Asian elephants. Does that mean your idea of kinds is wrong?

Have you looked up the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent? -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

You probably don't know of a lot of things. That does not make then either right or wrong. That is an argument from silence, another fallacy.

[georg....@gmail.com]

Why are mules different than donkeys when you apply #2 from my definition/theorem?

[georg....@gmail.com]

You said: If you claim to have proved that other aspects of the Genesis account are correct, say the order in which things appeared, the creation of Homo sapiens from dust, the global Flood, then you've got rather a long way to go.

My posts on "kind" are solely in the context of John's initial challenge that the Genesis account of kinds was not supported by science. He may not have used those words exactly, but that is what I took away from it.

BTW, you seem like a logical individual. Do you think that I should add #3 to illustrate that one cannot invert #1 because of the fallacy of denying the antecedent?

[Bill Rogers]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 10:27:27 AM UTC-4, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
<snip old stuff>

>
> You said: If you claim to have proved that other aspects of the Genesis account are correct, say the order in which things appeared, the creation of Homo sapiens from dust, the global Flood, then you've got rather a long way to go.
>
> My posts on "kind" are solely in the context of John's initial challenge that the Genesis account of kinds was not supported by science. He may not have used those words exactly, but that is what I took away from it.
>
> BTW, you seem like a logical individual. Do you think that I should add #3 to illustrate that one cannot invert #1 because of the fallacy of denying the antecedent?

But you can invert #1. Your #1 is simply a definition. It says that "belong to the same kind" is equivalent to "are cross-fertile." That means that A and B are members of the same kind if and only if they are cross-fertile. That's how definitions work. You are not saying anything ABOUT kinds, you are just defining how you will use the word, so there is no possibility that your definition is wrong, and there is no logical fallacy in inverting #1, because, as a definition, it is an "if and only if" statement.

If you were to say, for example, "If two animals belong to the same kind they are cross-fertile," that would not be a definition, but a proposition. If that proposition were true, it would be a fallacy to conclude that because two animals do not belong to the same kind, they could not be cross-fertile.

But if *that's* what you are doing, then you still have not provided a definition of "kind" because you've provided no test to determine whether two animals do not belong to the same kind [because if your #1 is a proposition rather than a definition, you cannot use the issue of cross-fertility because they might be cross-fertile without belonging to the same kind].

So if #1 is a definition, John is guilty of no logical fallacy. But if you intend #1 as a proposition, then you still have to define kinds.

[georg....@gmail.com]

My format for #1 is exactly the same as in the example from Wiki for their example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

If P, then Q [ If life-forms are cross-fertile, then they are of the same kind.]

But

Not P, therefore not Q is an example of the fallacy. [If life-forms are not cross-fertile, then they are not of the same kind.]


While I did not include this fallacy in my definition, I did design it ahead of time to include it conceptually.

[Bill Rogers]

OK, but then this is a proposition, not a definition. So you have yet to define kinds. You cannot define a word by asserting a proposition about it.

>
> But
>
> Not P, therefore not Q is an example of the fallacy. [If life-forms are not cross-fertile, then they are not of the same kind.]

That is true, but only if you meant #1 as a proposition rather than a definition. And if that's the case, you still need to define "kinds."

>
>
> While I did not include this fallacy in my definition, I did design it ahead of time to include it conceptually.

There is no fallacy in a definition. If you are making a definition of kinds, then you can say "A and B belong to the same kind if and only if they are cross fertile". That's a definition, and the "if and only if" bit is what makes it a definition. And the "if and only if" bit is what makes it *not* a fallacy to assert that if A and B are not cross-fertile they are not of the same kind."

Your misunderstanding seems to be that you are not keeping a clear distinction in mind between a definition and a proposition. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. They are two different things.

When you make a definition you explain how you will use the word. You can say "If and only if A and B are cross fertile I will call them members of the same kind." That fully explains what you mean by the word "kind" That's a definition.

But if you say "If A and B are cross fertile they belong to the same kind, but if they are not cross fertile they might still belong to the same kind," then you have not provided a definition of kind. And nobody can decide whether your claim is true until they know how you are defining "kind."

[John Harshman]

Your definition, or what you claim is a definition, of kinds is that
they are interfertile. African and Asian elephants are not interfertile.
By your definition, they aren't the same kind. That's good evidence that
your supposed definition isn't actually your definition. Why do I have
to spell this out?

[John Harshman]

I'm not responsible for errors in Wikipedia.

> As for two species that do not hybridize that are related? Did you
> see my post where I illustrate that if one takes 'If X, then Y' and
> infers that if !X then !Y' that this is a logical fallacy?

As I have pointed out several times, and other people have pointed out
too, if your statement is taken as a definition, it can't be false (by
definition), and species that don't hybridize are not the same kind.
That's how definitions work.

If on the other hand your statement is taken as a diagnostic test, it
can be false, but in order to show it's false we must have a genuine
definition of "kind" and some instantiations with which to compare the
criterion. If we use the criterion as you suggest, we would have to find
hybridization between individuals of different kinds. I have suggested
the cross-fertilization between humans and chimps as a potential
falsifier, assuming you think humans and chimps belong to different kinds.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I was not making a definition. That is your word. What I was doing was reducing the statement in Genesis to a logical expression (from my own understanding) so that it could be tested. I don't represent that statement as being all inclusive to answer any question someone might have of kinds.

I believe it fulfills that objective, and also that there have been no examples that prove it wrong.

Some people want more, but at this point that is all there is.

[John Harshman]

Mules are clearly different from donkeys, and from horses too. What is
your independent definition of "kind" that lets us say they're the same
kind as donkeys? You have managed to produce another tautology. Without
a definition of "kind", your statement is vacuous.

[John Harshman]

No, that was your word. You have consistently claimed it was a
definition, even when I told you it wasn't. Without a definition of
"kind" and a list of taxa that fit that definition, there is no way to
test the claim. What is the definition of "kind"?

> I believe it fulfills that objective, and also that there have been no examples that prove it wrong.
>
> Some people want more, but at this point that is all there is.

There can be no examples to prove it wrong until we know what a kind is.

[Bill Rogers]

It's going to be impossible to prove it right or wrong until you provide a definition of "kinds." It cannot be tested until you make explicit what you mean by "kinds," and since you want to make a proposition about kinds and cross-fertility, you cannot use cross-fertility in the definition.

[georg....@gmail.com]

My statement from #2 is that anything born of a pair of organism is the same kind as the parents. I am basically quoting Genesis.

Consider #2 a theory based upon my observations. If you can falsify the theory, please do so. Do you consider a donkey or mule to be a different "species" than the parents?

[John Harshman]

A mule is certainly not the same species as either of its parents.
Whether it's the same "kind" depends on your definition of the word,
which you have yet to provide. Statement #1 is not a definition, and you
have finally (in another post) agreed that it isn't.

What is your definition of "kind"? How do we tell if two organisms
belong to different kinds? Why, given your definition of "kind"
(whatever it may be), does your criterion follow from it?

[Rolf]

Den 04.08.2016 01:11, skrev georg....@gmail.com:
>
> ============================================================================
> Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>
> 1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
> 2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.
>
> =============================================================================
>
> Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2
>

> Q: What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?
> A: Yes, See #2
>

> Q: Is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.
> A: No
>
> Q. Are the kinds in Levitucus 11:13-19 the same as in Genesis?
> A: No. The senses of the Hebrew MIN are not the same. The LXX translators render MIN in Genesis as GENOS in the Greek and as TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it) in Leviticus.
>
> Q. Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
> A: The context in Genesis provides the basis for the "test for kinds". Organisms were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. [3]
>
>

> Q. Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about.
> A: The original pair of cats, dogs and elephants would have been distinct kinds.
>

Aha, we are dealing with the pairs coming of the Ark, not with regular
populations. That's a different story, maybe further research on the
Bible may solve your problem, but AIG probably is your best source for
solutions to this and all your other problems.

They are all so common I'd be surprised if they don't already have the
solution you want.


>
> Footnotes

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [1] Fertilization by the union of gametes from different individuals, sometimes of different varieties or species, an online dictionary.

> [2] The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. [ it-2 p. 152, Kind, Insight on the Scriptures, page 152, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

> [3] Ibid
>

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

What you do not seem to be grasping is that you are defining kinds as
forms that are cross-fertile but saying that forms that are not
cross-fertile e.g. mules can still belong to a kind. That second part
means that your initial definition is inadequate, at best it only
defines *some* members of a kind, not all members.

That is a big part of what people are trying to get across to you but
you seem unable to understand the significance of it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.
>>
>> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>
> That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position
> is that the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided
> strong evidence that it is.

Biology aside, it is beyond dispute that Genesis is not correct as a
description of the world and how it works and has worked. For example,
do you believe that there is a solid barrier at the top of the sky? Do
you believe that fruit trees originated before stars did?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[jillery]

I'm hoping Kaplin will slip up and actually say what he thinks
biblical kinds have to do with the species problem.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Oxyaena]

georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:57:30 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

>> On 8/3/16 4:11 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ============================================================================
>>> Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>>>
>>> 1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind. [2]
>>> 2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.
>>>
>>> =============================================================================
>>>
>>> Q: Are horses and donkeys of the same kind?
>>> A: Yes, See #2
>>>

>>> Q: What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?
>>> A: Yes, See #2
>>>

>>> Q: Is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.
>>> A: No
>>>
>>> Q. Are the kinds in Levitucus 11:13-19 the same as in Genesis?
>>> A: No. The senses of the Hebrew MIN are not the same. The LXX translators render MIN in Genesis as GENOS in the Greek and as TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it) in Leviticus.
>>>
>>> Q. Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
>>> A: The context in Genesis provides the basis for the "test for
>>> kinds". Organisms were endowed with the capacity for reproducing
>>> offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge
>>> 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. [3]
>>

>> Sorry, but Genesis doesn't count as an argument, at least not one that
>> anyone who isn't already a biblical inerrantist literalist would credit.
>>

>>> Q. Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about.
>>> A: The original pair of cats, dogs and elephants would have been distinct kinds.
>>

>> Good try, but you need to do better. What do you mean by "cat"? Does it
>> include the single domestic species, the genus Felis, the family
>> Felidae, or what? Same with "dog" and "elephant". Are mammoths
>> elephants? Are deinotheriums?
>>

>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [1] Fertilization by the union of gametes from different individuals, sometimes of different varieties or species, an online dictionary.
>>

>> Once again, you make your statement ambiguous. Fertilization is a much
>> lower bar than cross-fertility. Human and chimp gametes will indeed go
>> to the zygote stage, which is all that note says. Are humans and chimps
>> the same kind?
>>

>>> [2] The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms
>>> wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits.
>>> If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point
>>> where fertilization ceases to occur. [ it-2 p. 152, Kind, Insight on
>>> the Scriptures, page 152, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
>>

>> That's circular reasoning. Let's remember that kinds are not defined by
>> cross-fertility. It's up to you to show that cross-fertility is
>> coincident with kind-ness. To do that you need some independent way of
>> recognizing kinds. Good luck.
>>
>>> [3] Ibid
>>
>> Quotes from JW literature are not a point in your favor.
>
> I did not think you could falsify my definition of kind. It is verifiable by direct observation. I do not think you understand what circular reasoning is.

"Not exactly, but you're missing the point, there's no limit to kind, if
you want an upper limit (no matter how futile it is) with the case of
dogs and cats you should move it up to at least an order, but even that
isn't foolproof, perhaps you should move it up to domain, as even
organisms as far apart as plants and humans share a nucleus,
mitochondria, and several other cellular features that are
characteristic of the domain Eukaryota.

What I`m trying to say is that trying to place a limit on "kind" is
arbitrary and pointless, since ultimately the evidence does not fit with
the notion of "kind", your futile efforts at defining kinds is cute, but
unsatisfactory. Humans are primates, since we share several features
with other members of the order Primata, such as nails instead of claws,
opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a large brain relative to
body size.

Features that show we are in a cohort with monkeys include a dry nose,
instead of being wet, the absence of whiskers (or "vissibrae"), above
average intelligence, and several other features. So by creationist
logic humans belong to the "monkey" kind, except there is no such thing,
old world monkeys are more closely related to us than new world monkeys
are, so would we be part of the "Primate" kind, or better yet, the "ape"
kind? Of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, creationists
love to grab at straws and claim we are not primates, and we are above
nature, even creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized that we were
primates, something that other people detested, but you have to look at
the facts, to do otherwise is dishonesty and willful ignorance.

You have shown that you are willing to be willfully ignorant in face of
the evidence, I was merely testing how far you'd go before you crack and
have to make a flippant remark to avoid owning up to your mistake, that
there is no such thing as a "kind", and even if there was it would have
no biological viability. You only do slightly better than Ray, who
refuses to even concede that "microevolution" exists, that is, evolution
within a species, even though from a scientific viewpoint such a thing
doesn't exist, because it's just evolution, we've even seen speciation
in action."

Here's a little sample of a post where I whooped your ass and you still
haven't refuted any of my points.

>
> Wiki says:
> Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
>
> For example:
> Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.

Equivocation fallacy, Harshass's statement that a Watchtower track is
not a reliable source is not equal to your example of circular
reasoning, Harshass was merely making a statement that the Watchtower
Society is not a reputable organization, and one will be better off
using actual science than creationist screeds.

>
> You have not demonstrated anything like that. I have given two ways to recognize a biblical kind based on cross-fertility. I have produced readily available evidence from observation that this is correct.

The definition of kind you are providing is a species, Steadly. You have
produced no evidence at all suggesting that there is such a thing as a
"kind", your futile efforts to do so are cute but unsatisfactory.

>
> You have produced no examples that contradict the definition I have given. What you have demonstrated is frustration that I have not been goaded into expanding the Biblical definition in a way that provides you a legitimate way to falsify it.

You admit that it cannot be falsified, thus it is not scientific by
definition, in order for something to be regarded as science it has to
be falsifiable, if it is not falsifiable it isn't science. Your
incorporation of the Bible into science isn't science, because by the
very definition of science, science can only test the natural world, the
supernatural cannot be verified to exist any way at all, claims made by
religions can be falsified, religions cannot be. Science works on a
premise of methodological naturalism, that everything that has happened
can be explained by some working of Nature, in a bygone era people used
to believe that lightning was caused by angry gods, now we know that
lightning is caused by "kindling" of hail in a storm cloud, be it a rain
storm or snow storm, or just in the atmosphere in general.

The same goes for disease, people used to believe disease was punishment
against sinners by the abomination in the sky. Now we know that disease
originates from a variety of factors, most notably the transmission of
disease by way of pathogens, the reason why the Black Death killed so
many people in Europe was because the environment they fostered was
suitable for rats to live in, and rodents are notorious carriers of the
Plague, indeed, the most recent case of the Plague was in 2003.

>
> There is a reason for that. I stick to what the bible teaches. The bible is not a scientific book but when it touches on the topic it is accurate.

Right, a book proclaiming that the Earth has four corners and that
snakes and donkeys can talk and that rabbits chew cud and people can
live inside fish and that heaven is a firmament with a glass dome
separating Earth from the heavens, and that people can walk on water,
and heal with their hands, and that the stars are anthropomorphic beings
that have human-like emotions and fight with one another and with people
on a few occasions and that Jesus raised an entire army of people from
the dead despite such an incident never being referenced anywhere in the
Roman historical records, or that King Herod conducted a census of
new-born babies in 1 AD, when no records of such a census ever taking
place exist and so many other historical and scientific inaccuracies, I
doubt that when it touches on the topic it is accurate.

>
> If you cannot provide an example of an animal that proves my definition is false then you have just confirmed this.
>
>
>

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than
that, Eddie.

--
"Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." - Oliver Goldsmith

http://oxyaena.org/

or

http://thrinaxodon.org/

[georg....@gmail.com]

Do you believe asking questions is equivalent to making an argument?

[georg....@gmail.com]

The fact is that I did not bring up this subject. John did. I merely questioned his ability to back up his claims that biblical kinds could be falsified from scientific data. As such I do not have the burden of proof. I merely need to ask for the evidence.

So far I see there is none. Since I don't bear the burden of proof, all I need to do is show reasonable doubt. Cats have kittens and dogs have puppies.

[georg....@gmail.com]

Google cut me off yesterday. Does anyone know about posting limits? That being said, I merely offered the Wiki on species problem to show that perhaps evolutionists should remedy their problem first before criticizing the word "kind" which is not intended to disambiguate kinds as is "species".

[Robert Camp]

I doubt anyone believes that.

But you are giving us good evidence that refusing to answer those
questions which are intended to clarify your position is equivalent with
being afraid that your position is incoherent and indefensible.

[John Harshman]

In order to attempt to falsify some kind, I need you to provide me with
some kinds to investigate, and we need to agree on a definition of
"kind". So far you have no definition and you have given me only highly
ambiguous terms like "dog", and have been unwilling to clarify what
"dog" means. I'm waiting.

> So far I see there is none. Since I don't bear the burden of proof,
> all I need to do is show reasonable doubt. Cats have kittens and
> dogs have puppies.

Again, you are attacking a strawman model of evolution in which dogs
give birth to cats. There is no such model of evolution. Evolutionary
models also predict that dogs will have puppies, so your "evidence" for
kinds is no evidence at all. On the other hand, there is abundant
evidence that, while whales may give birth to baby whales and hoofed
animals to baby hoofed animals, over a very long period of time a
population of even-toed hoofed mammals (artiodactyls) gradually
transformed into whales. Are whales and hoofed mammals the same kind?

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/5/16 7:37 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.
>>>>
>>>> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>>>
>>> That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position
>>> is that the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided
>>> strong evidence that it is.
>>
>> Biology aside, it is beyond dispute that Genesis is not correct as a
>> description of the world and how it works and has worked. For example,
>> do you believe that there is a solid barrier at the top of the sky? Do
>> you believe that fruit trees originated before stars did?
>>

> Do you believe asking questions is equivalent to making an argument?

Depends on the question. The one you just asked, for example, is pretty
obviously an attempt to *avoid* an argument that you know you would
lose. The Bible, at least in literal straightforward interpretation,
says things that are wrong. Your attempted justification of "kinds"
will never change that. So if your reason for trying to justify "kinds"
is to shore up the Bible, you are wasting your time.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/4/16 9:04 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My statement from #2 is that anything born of a pair of
> organism is the same kind as the parents. I am basically
> quoting Genesis.

You may also wish to consider that everything you say about "kinds" is
irrelevant unless you can show that the Bible says that the kinds
themselves do not change over time. And it doesn't say that.
Reproduction within kinds is entirely consistent with limitless evolution.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:37:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by georg....@gmail.com:

>On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.
>> >>
>> >> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>> >
>> > That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position
>> > is that the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided
>> > strong evidence that it is.
>>
>> Biology aside, it is beyond dispute that Genesis is not correct as a
>> description of the world and how it works and has worked. For example,
>> do you believe that there is a solid barrier at the top of the sky? Do
>> you believe that fruit trees originated before stars did?

>Do you believe asking questions is equivalent to making an argument?

It is when an accurate answer to the question refutes an
initial claim. You claimed that Genesis is an accurate
account, and his question, which highlights the structure of
part of the universe *and* the order of some events as
stated in Genesis, asks how you reconcile Genesis as an
accurate account with the fact that both are incorrect.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[georg....@gmail.com]

As I have already mentioned, I did not introduce the topic. I am responding to the assertion that what Genesis says about kinds has been refuted by science. Because of this, I do not have the burden of proof. I have provided a reasonable response, which is all that is necessary for one who does not have that burden.

Why should I attempt to prove that kinds do not change over time when the bible does not say that kinds do not change over time? Your use of the word change is very vague.

Do you think Darwin's Finches changed over time, and why do you think that happened?

[georg....@gmail.com]

You have made a claim without any supporting evidence. You are welcome to your opinion. Should you decide to back up those assertions I will be glad to test your burden of proof.

[georg....@gmail.com]

What I see is that there are unspoken assertions that are masquerading as questions. If you really believe you can disprove the two points from my OP, go ahead and try. These points are a reply to someone who said that science disproves what the bible says about kinds.

[Bill Rogers]

Nobody can possibly disprove your original two points until you define what you mean by "kind."

[georg....@gmail.com]

Then for the scope of this discussion, my job is done here :) I was replying to a challenge that science falsified what the bible says about kinds.

[Oxyaena]

You do bear the burden of proof, dipshit. Your "theorem" isn't a
theorem, it's not even a hypothesis. What you brought up was merely a
definition of species, and you have not addressed any of the points I
made in my rebuttal to your OP. How bout you take a lesson from a
genuine scientist who's whooping creationist ass, take a seat and get
schooled, Eddie.

The notion of "kinds" can be falsified, here's a portion of a post you
still haven't addressed, Eddie:

"Not exactly, but you're missing the point, there's no limit to kind, if
you want an upper limit (no matter how futile it is) with the case of
dogs and cats you should move it up to at least an order, but even that
isn't foolproof, perhaps you should move it up to domain, as even
organisms as far apart as plants and humans share a nucleus,
mitochondria, and several other cellular features that are
characteristic of the domain Eukaryota. What I`m trying to say is that
trying to place a limit on "kind" is arbitrary and pointless, since
ultimately the evidence does not fit with the notion of "kind", your
futile efforts at defining kinds is cute, but unsatisfactory.

Humans are primates, since we share several features with other
members of the order Primata, such as nails instead of claws, opposable
thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a large brain relative to body size.
Features that show we are in a cohort with monkeys include a dry nose,
instead of being wet, the absence of whiskers (or "vissibrae"), above
average intelligence, and several other features. So by creationist
logic humans belong to the "monkey" kind, except there is no such thing,
old world monkeys are more closely related to us than new world monkeys
are, so would we be part of the "Primate" kind, or better yet, the "ape"
kind? Of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, creationists
love to grab at straws and claim we are not primates, and we are

abovenature, even creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized that we were

primates, something that other people detested, but you have to look at
the facts, to do otherwise is dishonesty and willful ignorance.

You have shown that you are willing to be willfully ignorant in face
of the evidence, I was merely testing how far you'd go before you crack
and have to make a flippant remark to avoid owning up to your mistake,
that there is no such thing as a "kind", and even if there was it would
have no biological viability. You only do slightly better than Ray, who
refuses to even concede that "microevolution" exists, that is, evolution
within a species, even though from a scientific viewpoint such a thing
doesn't exist, because it's just evolution, we've even seen speciation
in action."



>

> So far I see there is none. Since I don't bear the burden of proof, all I need to do is show reasonable doubt. Cats have kittens and dogs have puppies.
>

You're confusing a straw man of evolution with actual evolution, dogs
don't give birth to cats and the other way around, actually doing so
would falsify evolution. Dogs and cats are too far apart to interbreed.

"I believe that this "work of mutation and natural selection" is
entirely correct! Of course, a cat cannot come out of a dog, that's not
evolution, one problem among many is that evolution can only work with
preexisting structures, a dog cannot become a cat, and vise-versa, once
upon a time there was a sort of "cat-dog" (for want of a better term),
not the kind you're thinking about (which reminds me of the show
"Cat-Dog" I used to watch with my kids), but a common ancestor of
feliforms and caniforms, respectively, the "cat" and "dog" branches of
the carnivore family tree, feliformes including hyenas, civets,
mongooses, cats (all members of the felid family, including Smilodon,
Proailurus, lions, leopards, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, margays, pampas
cats, kodkods, house cats, wild cats, pumas, fishing cats, servals,
caracals etc.) and the like. Caniformes include dogs (obviously),
bears, seals, sea lions, bear-cats, raccoons, tayras, weasels, otters,
red pandas, badgers, skunks, martens, wolverines, foxes, jackals,
coyotes, elephant seals, black bears etc.

So yes, approximately 42 Ma there was a "cat-dog" but only in the sense
of being the common ancestor of all the carnivora species we have now,
probably a miacid, since they are the most basal of the carnivoramorphs,
an indication of common ancestry among these groups are the presence of
carnassials, the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar,
respectively, this trait is shared among all the carnivorans.

Creodonts have carnassials, but they occur in different teeth from the
carnivores, and even from each other, the two families of creodonts have
two separate sets of teeth that form the carnassials, one indication
that the order is polyphyletic. So going by evidence of the carnivorans,
there is evidence for "organized complexity" being derived from
"mutation and natural selection", but you're going to be the creatard
you are and ignore what I`m explaining to you, as usual, aren't you?"

[Oxyaena]

That's because dipshit has no definition of "dog", he has no definition
of "kind", because "kind" isn't a viable biological taxonomic rank, at
what point does a boundary delineate a boundary between one "kind" and
another "kind"? The "Dog" and "Cat" kinds share traits characteristic of
the order "Carnivora", yet most cretinists such as dipshit refuse to
take this into account, such as the carnassials, composed of the first
upper molar and fourth lower premolar in carnivores.

Dipshit has no way to dismiss or accept these homological structures
shared by members of the order Carnivora, if he does his whole concept
of "kind" comes falling down, such as certain traits shared by sponges
and humans, such as organelles such as lisosomes and the lack of chitin
and cell walls, or the presence of cilia. These occur in two wildly
different animals, humans and sponges, whom most creationists place in
two separate "kinds", despite the shared traits.

This just goes to show that the whole concept of "kind" is arbitrary and
scientifically useless, creationists such as dipshit are merely kicking
a dead horse by doing so.

>
>> So far I see there is none. Since I don't bear the burden of proof,
>> all I need to do is show reasonable doubt. Cats have kittens and
>> dogs have puppies.
>
> Again, you are attacking a strawman model of evolution in which dogs
> give birth to cats. There is no such model of evolution. Evolutionary
> models also predict that dogs will have puppies, so your "evidence" for
> kinds is no evidence at all. On the other hand, there is abundant
> evidence that, while whales may give birth to baby whales and hoofed
> animals to baby hoofed animals, over a very long period of time a
> population of even-toed hoofed mammals (artiodactyls) gradually
> transformed into whales. Are whales and hoofed mammals the same kind?
>

This is unsatisfactory, dipshit will dismiss this evidence because you
have not given any evidence but merely asserted that artiodactlys
evolved into whales, I will give evidence for you. In the case of
embryological evidence, whale embryos are born with a full covering of
hair and four tiny legs, early whales in the fossil record had an
artiodactly ankle structure, such as the one present in *Basilosaurus*,
an otherwise exclusively marine animal yet still had tiny vestigial hind
limbs, complete with kneecap, tibia, femur, wrist bones, ankle, and
digits. Yet this whale also had a blowhole, streamlined body, and a tail
fluke.

Other evidence includes locomotive evidence, such as how a whale swims,
it swims with its body undulating up and down like a dog running a race
track rather than side to side like crocodiles and eels. This is only a
mere sampling of evidence, dipshit being the dishonest and willfully
ignorant ignoramus he is, will dismiss this with no due consideration of
the evidence at hand.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I was not discussing the soft science, evolutionary biology (evolution). You called me Eddie and I am not. That being said, I do not understand the snippet you quoted or what it has to do with falsifying what Genesis says about kinds.

When I speak about cats having kittens and dogs having puppies, I am not inferring anything about evolution. From what I understand of evolution, it also predicts the same thing.

What am I missing here?

[jillery]

>Google cut me off yesterday. Does anyone know about posting limits?

I'm not sure what you mean by "cut me off". There was a time when GG
limited the number of posts from any one individual to any one topic
for any 24-hour period. I don't know if GG still does that.

>That being said, I merely offered the Wiki on species problem to show that perhaps evolutionists should remedy their problem first before criticizing the word "kind" which is not intended to disambiguate kinds as is "species".

I don't see how the two problems are related. At the very least, to
justify one problem by citing another problem is just an excuse to do
nothing. More important, the two cases you mention are at best
superficially equivalent, in that they both associate together
organisms with similar characteristics.

However, in the case of biblical kinds, the characteristics it uses
are arbitrary, as I illustrated with flying kinds. The Bible could
have as easily associated animals by color.

In the case of biological species, there is at least an effort,
however flawed and incomplete, to associate organisms which show
groups of similar characteristics, so in the case of mammals, it isn't
just that they nurse their young, but they have hair, are
warm-blooded, etc.

[jillery]

That "challenge" was in response to a post you made. Are you no
longer interested in your reasons for posting your OP in the first
place?

[Oxyaena]

The snippet shows that kinds are an arbitrary and scientifically useless
form of classification, they are not a viable taxonomic rank, and your
"theorem" is nothing more than a definition of species.

>
> When I speak about cats having kittens and dogs having puppies, I am not inferring anything about evolution. From what I understand of evolution, it also predicts the same thing.

It's best to apply Occam's razor, why ascribe biogenesis to special
creation when there is a better, more parsimonious explanation already
at work? You just described a well known fact of science, biogenesis,
that's been known for centuries (the lingering remnants of spontaneous
generation were dispelled by Louis Pasteur, but there are experiments
dating back to the 17th century disproving spontaneous generation as
well, at least for mice and flies), that life gives rise to life, that's
all there is to it. Evolution can explain the law of biogenesis better
than creationism can, because creationism, whilst not being scientific
at all, ascribes the origin of life to acts of special creation *ex
nihilo*, despite such a thing violating the law of conservation of energy.

Evolution is not abiogenesis, not at all, life could have well been
created by some the proverbial man from Mars, or your God. But it
doesn't matter, evolution has been demonstrated to exist time and time
again, and has withstood the test of time, while creationism hasn't and
is only believed by scientifically illiterate ignoramuses who are behind
the times by half a millennium.

This may be going slightly off topic, but I am explaining biogenesis and
evolution, abiogenesis does not violate the law of conservation of
energy because life originating from prebiotic chemicals is still energy
being recycled and reused, the same goes for matter. This is
elementary-grade stuff, and I am bewildered at the fact that
creationists can't wrap their heads around this despite the fact that
this is taught in fucking grade school.

Your definition of "kind" is only the definition of species, which has
been known since the 19-fucking-50's, when Ernst Mayr developed a
working definition of species, which is when two populations can
interbreed, if they cannot interbreed they are not the same species.
Admittedly, there are some problems with this, science corrects itself,
religion doesn't. Such as with asexually reproducing organisms such as
bacteria or amoeba, yet some otherwise sexually reproducing species can
also reproduce asexually, such as parthenogenesis in reptiles and
amphibians, there's one species of lizard in the Southwest that is
entirely comprised of asexually-reproducing females, yet they still
undergo mating rituals and the like, could this be a vestigial remnant
of earlier times when their ancestors reproduced sexually? There's no
other explanation that accounts for the behavior, creationism can't
create a viable definition. The point is, your "theorem" is riddled with
holes, and I am helping you understand why.

>
> What am I missing here?
>
>

[georg....@gmail.com]

Yes, about mid-day yesterday every time I tried to post I got a message saying I had exceeded a limit. In trying to search for the reason it appeared that I had either exceeded a total number of posts per day or some sort of limit due to length of posts.

As to flying kinds, I am not sure of your point. All animals that fly are not being called the same kind. As for that being arbitrary like color, I don't see the comparison.

Remember, the purpose of the bible was not to categorize animals in the way the soft science of evolutionary biology attempts. The only thing I am really concerned with is addressing the challenge made in this forum that science has falsified the Genesis account.

[georg....@gmail.com]

When someone says evolution has been proven, that statement incorporates a lot of different topics. The main thing I see as an obstacle for me believing the theory is that all we see is derived from random beneficial mutations. Most of the proofs I have seen assume evolution to prove evolution. For example, since it is assumed that chimps and humans evolved from a common primate, the SNPs are counted, an estimate is made of mutation rate and those factors are fed into calculations that re-enforce the theory.

So I would ask, what are examples of beneficial mutations that have been observed to be the ultimate cause (not intermediate or proximate cause) of something that has increased fitness for a species?

[Oxyaena]

That's a major misconception I'd be happy to dispel. You see, evolution
isn't random, mutations are of course. But Natural selection acts on
beneficial mutations and weeds out those that don't contribute and
hamper the genome, the vast majority of mutations are neutral mutations,
such as blue eyes in Caucasians or blond hair in Solomon Islanders.
Natural selection itself has been observed, such as the case with the
silent crickets of Hawaii, back in the early 90's a parasite was
introduced that plagued the native crickets, they did it by tracking
down the crickets by their mating calls, in just twenty years the
cricket population went from being loud and boisterous to near-silent.
There was a mutation that led to the crickets being quieter in their
mating rituals, thus leading to the proliferation of the "quiet gene" in
the population, at the expense of crickets without the gene.

This is called evolution by natural selection, you seem to be one of the
honest types of creationist, so I respect you for it. Unlike others such
as Kalk, Eddie, or Ray. I look forward to discussing with you, George,
and I apologize for calling you Eddie.

> Most of the proofs I have seen assume evolution to prove evolution. For example, since it is assumed that chimps and humans evolved from a common primate, the SNPs are counted, an estimate is made of mutation rate and those factors are fed into calculations that re-enforce the theory.

You got most of that right, but there's inherently something wrong with
molecular clocks, mutation rates aren't constant, and it's evidence for
the theory, it doesn't reinforce it, evolution could theoretically be
disproved, such as by discovering a dragonfly with cell walls, something
animals lack.

>
> So I would ask, what are examples of beneficial mutations that have been observed to be the ultimate cause (not intermediate or proximate cause) of something that has increased fitness for a species?
>
>

Mutation isn't the only factor in evolution, another factor would be
sexual selection, where the mate with the most attractive display gets
the mate, at the expense of the competitor, such is the reason why rams
fight for mates, the girls pick the one that wins the fight, and they
subsequently have to guard their harem from any would-be pretenders.
There's also genetic drift, but I don't feel like doing into it right
now, I'll leave you with a link if you so desire:

http://oxyaena.org/evoarchive/colby.txt

[John Harshman]

On 8/5/16 2:22 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

> The only thing I am really concerned with is addressing the challenge
> made in this forum that science has falsified the Genesis account.

In that case, how have you addressed that challenge? All you've talked
about so far is the claim that offspring are similar to parents, which
nobody says is wrong, and that some members of different species can
produce offspring, which Genesis doesn't even talk about.

Now what's false about the Genesis account is the notion that there are
separately created "kinds", when in fact all life is descended from
common ancestors. And the notion that various categories of "kinds" were
created during discrete periods, first all plants, then all flying or
swimming animals, then all beasts and creeping things, then humans. The
fossil record shows that to be false, as does the phylogenetic tree.
Genesis is wrong in a host of other ways, but that would do for a start.
Would you attempt to defend these claims?

[jillery]

>Yes, about mid-day yesterday every time I tried to post I got a message saying I had exceeded a limit. In trying to search for the reason it appeared that I had either exceeded a total number of posts per day or some sort of limit due to length of posts.

One solution to that problem is to take a little time to install a
real news reader and use a real news server.

>As to flying kinds, I am not sure of your point. All animals that fly are not being called the same kind.

You're right, but that's not the point. Rather, the only
characteristic Biblical flying kinds have in common is that they fly.
See the difference?

>As for that being arbitrary like color, I don't see the comparison.

"Flying" is a particular kind of locomotion. "Red" is a particular
kind of color. One can sort organisms by these characteristics, but
doing so doesn't tell you much about other relationships among them.
That's one of the differences between Biblical kinds and biological
species.

>Remember, the purpose of the bible was not to categorize animals in the way the soft science of evolutionary biology attempts.

I have no idea what the purpose of bible kinds is. Please elaborate.

>The only thing I am really concerned with is addressing the challenge made in this forum that science has falsified the Genesis account.

So are you no longer interested in your purpose for posting your OP?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/4/16 8:04 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1
>>>> is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a
>>>> fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are
>>>> not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of
>>>> the same kind.
>>>
>>> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>>
>> That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position is that
>> the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided strong
>> evidence that it is.
>
> No you haven't. You have claimed to define a "kind" as "that which
> hybridizes" and then claimed to recognize them by hybridization. But of
> course anything that fits the definition will fit the definition. What
> you fail to do is show that "kinds", so defined, correspond to the
> original, created entities.
>
> This is not evidence for anything, and certainly not for the correctness
> of Genesis.
>
> By the way, I know of no cross-fertilization between African and Asian
> elephants. Does that mean your idea of kinds is wrong?

There is one known case of a Indian Elephant giving birth to a cross
with an African elephant. This happened in Chester Zoo in England in
1978. The baby, named "Motty" died after 10 days. There's been no
other examples of Indian and African elephants producing a hybrid.

See:
http://www.elephant.se/Motty_the_elephant_crossbreed.php?open%3DLiving%20Elephant%20Species

Of course, He's still wrong about "kinds"


Snip the rest

DJT

[John Harshman]

Live and learn. Hey, that's one ugly site. Is that the best reference
you can find? Actually, hybrids between genera are not exceedingly rare.
They're comparatively common in ducks. Even between tribes.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:


[...]

>
>When someone says evolution has been proven,

Fundamental error #1.

Science does not *prove* anything, science offers *explanations* for
the things we see.

> that statement incorporates a lot of different topics.

Exactly. Evolution has been studied from a whole range of different
angles and the Theory of Evolution has stood up to those different
studies. The Theory of Evolution is the best available explanation of
what has been found in the fossil record; it is the best available
explanation of the enormous diversity of species we see around us; it
is the best available explanation of what genetic research shows us.

> The main thing I see as an obstacle for me believing the theory is that all we see is derived from random beneficial mutations. Most of the proofs I have seen assume evolution to prove evolution. For example, since it is assumed that chimps and humans evolved from a common primate, the SNPs are counted, an estimate is made of mutation rate and those factors are fed into calculations that re-enforce the theory.

Fundamental error #2. Science does not just look for evidence that
confirms existing theories, it also hunts out evidence that
contradicts those theories or throws up an entirely new explanation -
the greatest fame any scientist could ever get would be coming up with
something new, not for a mundane further enhancement of something we
already know.

And that is arguably the biggest single strength of the Theory of
Evolution, absolutely nothing has been found to contradict it, nothing
better has been offered as an alternative.

You are quite entitled to simply believe that "God did it" but you
cannot expect people to discard scientific explanations unless you
offer some alternative explanation of *how* God did it and deal with
the evidence that the scientific theory is built upon.

For example, you claim that dogs and cats are different kinds but,
apart from your vague definition of what a "kind" is, you offer no
explanation for the physiological structures they have in common or
how we find fossils that fit a pattern of being predecessors with the
patterns from the two species converging towards a common origin in
the distant past.

>
>So I would ask, what are examples of beneficial mutations that have been observed to be the ultimate cause (not intermediate or proximate cause) of something that has increased fitness for a species?
>

Fundamental error #3. You simply have not grasped what evolution is or
what mutations are.A mutation is not some feature appearing out of the
blue. A mutation is a small genetic change and a series of such small
changes, if they are somehow beneficial for survival and breeding, may
slowly (i.e. over millions of years) spread through a population and
eventually, along with other mutations taking place, may result in
some changed feature in the population. You cannot simply take a
feature and identify a single mutation that caused it. It's like
asking what specific event in my life caused a specific grey hair to
on my head to prematurely turn grey.

[Oxyaena]

I rest my case, dipshit isn't honest after all, I was bluffing in the
post above this one to see if he'll give in, of course I`m not the most
honest person in the world myself, I once was one of Usenet's worst
trolls, but this guy, his utter stupidity reeks of willful ignorance.
The worst case of dishonesty someone can get, next to politics and my
spouse lying to me about how much money s/he used from my credit card.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/5/16 11:58 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 10:22:24 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/4/16 9:04 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> My statement from #2 is that anything born of a pair of
>>> organism is the same kind as the parents. I am basically
>>> quoting Genesis.
>>
>> You may also wish to consider that everything you say about "kinds" is
>> irrelevant unless you can show that the Bible says that the kinds
>> themselves do not change over time. And it doesn't say that.
>> Reproduction within kinds is entirely consistent with limitless evolution.
>

> As I have already mentioned, I did not introduce the topic. I
> am responding to the assertion that what Genesis says about
> kinds has been refuted by science. Because of this, I do not
> have the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is a frequently misused concept. Outside of a
courtroom, whoever is making a point has the burden of proof. They are,
of course, free to drop that burden if they do not care much about it.

> I have provided a reasonable response, which is all that is
> necessary for one who does not have that burden.

As have I.

> Why should I attempt to prove that kinds do not change over
> time when the bible does not say that kinds do not change over
> time? Your use of the word change is very vague.

If you don't care to dispute that Darwinian evolution is consistent with
biblical kinds, you need not do anything.

> Do you think Darwin's Finches changed over time, and why
> do you think that happened?

Of course they changed, and are still changing. Given the realities of
mutation and selection, it is impossible (except via extinction) that a
population could *not* change.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by georg....@gmail.com:

>On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 11:57:24 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:37:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by georg....@gmail.com:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:42:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 8/4/16 6:45 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:17:28 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> >> On 8/3/16 7:47 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> You are correct that the claim is not a convertible proposition. #1 is If X then Y. However to infer that not X, then not Y would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. Therefore if two organisms are not cross-fertile, one cannot infer from my #1 that they are not of the same kind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can you infer that organisms are not of the same kind?
>> >> >
>> >> > That is not the point of the Genesis account. Your position
>> >> > is that the Genesis account is not correct, and I have provided
>> >> > strong evidence that it is.
>> >>
>> >> Biology aside, it is beyond dispute that Genesis is not correct as a
>> >> description of the world and how it works and has worked. For example,
>> >> do you believe that there is a solid barrier at the top of the sky? Do
>> >> you believe that fruit trees originated before stars did?
>>
>> >Do you believe asking questions is equivalent to making an argument?
>>
>> It is when an accurate answer to the question refutes an
>> initial claim. You claimed that Genesis is an accurate
>> account, and his question, which highlights the structure of
>> part of the universe *and* the order of some events as
>> stated in Genesis, asks how you reconcile Genesis as an
>> accurate account with the fact that both are incorrect.

>You have made a claim without any supporting evidence. You are welcome to your opinion. Should you decide to back up those assertions I will be glad to test your burden of proof.

What supporting evidence would you like for those two items?
Genesis says that the stars were created after the Earth,
including the trees; we know that the stars existed long
before the Earth. Genesis says that the sky is a solid dome;
we know that there is no solid dome, only the Rayleigh
scattering which produces the illusion of a blue surface.

That enough?

Genesis also implies (if one counts the "begats", as Bishop
Ussher did) that the Earth came into existence on 4004 BC;
we know that it's billions of years older than that.

So, how do you reconcile these contradictions?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:48:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by georg....@gmail.com:

Well, that certainly makes it easier: Simply refuse to
define your terms and no one can refute them.

Of course, it doesn't prove anything, but since you have no
desire to support your assertions, and are only interested
in playing word games, you consider that a "win".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:22:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by georg....@gmail.com:

<snip>

>Remember, the purpose of the bible was not to categorize animals in the way the soft science of evolutionary biology attempts.

You seem to have a personal definition of "soft science"
which is not the same as the one used by actual scientists,
who tend to use the term for such "sciences" as psychology
and sociology. Evolutionary biology uses exactly the same
scientific processes as physics, a "hard" science.

> The only thing I am really concerned with is addressing the challenge made in this forum that science has falsified the Genesis account.

Answered elsethread, multiple times.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 10:02:54 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps reading his posts was instrumental...

[georg....@gmail.com]

It may be somewhere in between, but it is not a hard science, even from the perspective of one who is involved.

http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~collinsn/1310/cd%20contents/1500%20readings/Other%20papers%20that%20might%20be%20of%20interest/PigliucciSoftSci.pdf

[georg....@gmail.com]

I did not make an assertion. I am responding to an assertion. Do you understand where the burden of proof lies?

[georg....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:37:20 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

My terms? No, I am not YHWH or Moses.

[georg....@gmail.com]

Under certain circumstances I would agree with you, but this concept is not limited to merely judicial cases, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof.

Holder of the burden[edit]

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]

Now, if I had asserted that biblical kinds are true and that this proved that the species concept of evolutionists was therefore false, then I would bear the burden of proof.

If I was to assert that biblical kinds was true and that unless it was proven false then it was true, then that would be an argument from ignorance. I have not done that.

What I have done is to respond to the assertion that the statement in the bible about kinds is false because science has proved it wrong. I could have just said, show me the proof, but I did not. I went beyond and provided some proof, that observations confirm the concept is true. I did not say that this proves it was true or that evolution is wrong.

On the other hand, I am being presented with arguments that if I do not provide more information and/or show that biblical kinds is superior to the evolutionary species concept that the statement on biblical kinds is false. That is also a form of the argument from ignorance.

It is ironic that a poster said that Mayer's definition of species related to fertility was equivalent to what I posted on kinds. It is amazing that Mayer is given credit for what Moses wrote so many years ago :)

[jillery]

Your song was old before you started singing it. You aren't the first
to assert something controversial and then backpedal when challenged
about it. You won't be the last. But it's a shame that you show
yourself to be the biblical kind to do that at all.

>On the other hand, I am being presented with arguments that if I do not provide more information and/or show that biblical kinds is superior to the evolutionary species concept that the statement on biblical kinds is false. That is also a form of the argument from ignorance.

You are being asked to define your terms, specifically what you mean
by biblical kinds. Do you really think that's too much to ask for?

>It is ironic that a poster said that Mayer's definition of species related to fertility was equivalent to what I posted on kinds. It is amazing that Mayer is given credit for what Moses wrote so many years ago :)

Right here would have been a good place for you to have cited where
Moses wrote in the Bible what you posted in T.O.

[Mark Isaak]

> Under certain circumstances I would agree with you, but this
> concept is not limited to merely judicial cases, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof.
>
> Holder of the burden[edit]
>
> When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim
> that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of

> proof to justify or substantiate that claim. [...]

To dispute something is to assert something else. If I assert that
rocks have souls, and you dispute it, then, per Wikipedia, I have the
burden of proof. On the other hand, if you assert that it is wrong to
claim that rocks have souls, and I dispute it, then you have the burden
of proof. And yet the two situations are identical.

Like I say, "burden of proof" is frequently misused. Almost everyone
gets it wrong, even Wikipedia.

> [...]

> What I have done is to respond to the assertion that the
> statement in the bible about kinds is false because science
> has proved it wrong.

I don't recall what all was asserted, but what is wrong with what the
Bible says about kinds is that the Bible says that several (or many)
different kinds originated separately at roughly the same time. Science
has shown that wrong, even allowing for humungous wiggle room in the
definition of "kind".

As a separate issue, creationists often claim (or at least imply) that
they know what the Bible means by "kinds". This invites others to ask
what that knowledge is and where it comes from. I think that, rightly
or wrongly, is what most of the dispute is about.

> It is ironic that a poster said that Mayer's definition of
> species related to fertility was equivalent to what I posted
> on kinds. It is amazing that Mayer is given credit for what
> Moses wrote so many years ago :)

First, what you posted came more from you than from the Bible. Second,
Mayer went into quite a bit more detail than either you or Moses.
Third, Mayer's definition of species has known limitations, and serious
ones at that. It should be regarded as a useful approximation for a
common but not nearly universal case.

[georg....@gmail.com]

If "assertion" can be used in any of my posts, it is an assertion that the original claim that science has disproved that what the bible says about kinds is false.

In fact, most of my replies have been to re-direct the thread to its original intent. There has been much consternation that I won't take the bait, but really, my purpose was to engage the original poster's claim to see if there was any substance to it. There is not.

[georg....@gmail.com]

You said: First, what you posted came more from you than from the Bible.

GK: How so?

You said: Second, Mayer went into quite a bit more detail than either you or Moses.

GK:
That is likely why Mayer is outdated.

You said: Third, Mayer's definition of species has known limitations, and serious ones at that.

GK:
See, I knew it. What Moses wrote is timeless.

You said:
It should be regarded as a useful approximation for a common but not nearly universal case.

GK:
So, what Moses said was superior to what Mayer said. BTW it was not me that originally made that comparison. It was an evolutionist here.

[Öö Tiib]

How so? Others have to prove that Genesis is incorrect? What a
utter nonsense.

I claim that: "The ultimate masters of universe wear pink coats."
You say it is incorrect? Then burden of proof is up to you I am
done here. :D

[Öö Tiib]

> My terms? No, I am not YHWH or Moses.

You must believe because you believe that if you don't believe then that
is sin and you will be tortured for that alone for all eternity in hell
by God who loves you. You are human and so have full right to have that
(or whatever other short-circuit-like) position of mind.

Others are not obliged to show to you that this is ridiculous and those
are fairy tales and superstition that you got there. It may be even evil
to do that because your religion may help you to be better person and
live better life. Therefore maybe do not ask the questions to what you
do not want to hear the correct answers.

[georg....@gmail.com]

You don't appear to know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not accept the extra-biblical philosophy that has adulterated the bible. The bible does not teach that the punishment for sin is to be tormented in a fiery hell. It is simply death. You likely already believe when you die you will no longer exist and that is what the bible teaches. Of course, you don't believe in the resurrection, but you might believe that man may eventually solve the epigenetic and genomic problem that causes aging which will allow man to live much longer, maybe forever. Dance with who brung you.

If you don't believe what I say, search for "hell" on jw.org.

[georg....@gmail.com]

You seem to be new to this thread, so you did not see how it began. I responded to an assertion that science has disproven what the bible says about kinds. I don't care what you think about Genesis or the bible. Pretend you got a fortune cookie that said the same thing. You cannot disprove it. So the assertion by the original asserter carries no weight.

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 09:04:24 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

Once again, that's provably false. The following is the first post
to this thread/topic:

<9cd4e096-fcab-4168...@googlegroups.com>

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

============================================================================
Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)

1) If life-forms are cross-fertile[1], then they are of the same kind.

2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same
kind.

=============================================================================

There's no reference to disproving biblical kinds in there. Instead,
you make claims about biblical kinds without identifying what you
think biblical kinds means.

Considering you posted your OP less than a week ago, one can only
wonder why you continue to act as if you have forgotten all about it.
Who do you think you're fooling?

[georg....@gmail.com]

This is where it started, not with the OP of this thread.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/uAR83p8pAQAJ

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 10:08:07 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 9:52:17 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 09:04:24 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>This is where it started, not with the OP of this thread.
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/uAR83p8pAQAJ

GG is up to its usual tricks, so it doesn't show me which specific
post you mean. However, GG does bring up an entirely different topic,
"Question For Ray and Eddie", and your first post to that topic is
this one:

<a36ced82-74e0-4743...@googlegroups.com>

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:35:33 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

****************************************************************
>I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>
>What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
**********************************************************

It's almost certain the post you identified is a response to that.
Are you claiming that the extra day is keeping you from recalling this
post of yours?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 16:08:11 -0700 (PDT), the following

>I did not make an assertion. I am responding to an assertion. Do you understand where the burden of proof lies?

Of course, and the accuracy of the assertion your reference,
that Genesis is incorrect about many things (if read
literally, of course, something very few, if any, Biblical
scholars do) has been demonstrated multiple times, as noted.
When do you intend to acknowledge that it has?

Now, when do you intend to provide a definition of "kinds"
which can be addressed?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 17:27:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

>My terms? No, I am not YHWH or Moses.

Fine. Then provide, with cites, the definitions used by
YHWH. (Moses? When did he define anything?)

[georg....@gmail.com]

You missed the assertion about biblical kinds, even though I gave you the link:
John said: They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem.

I don't know where John went off to, but if you would like to take up his burden of proof that kinds don't exist (ie science has proven that what the bible says about them is not accurate) then feel free.

[Öö Tiib]

I do not know lot of things but that part at least looks correct.

> Of course, you don't believe in the resurrection, but you might believe
> that man may eventually solve the epigenetic and genomic problem that
> causes aging which will allow man to live much longer, maybe forever.
> Dance with who brung you.
>
> If you don't believe what I say, search for "hell" on jw.org.

I consider birth of new and death of old the essential components
of progress. I have had very interesting life. I have been even
resurrected once. Living forever means inevitably becoming
something outdated that others may want to dispose. ;)

[georg....@gmail.com]

The beliefs you just articulated are no more proved by science than are mine :)

[jillery]

>You missed the assertion about biblical kinds, even though I gave you the link:
>John said: They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem.
>
>I don't know where John went off to, but if you would like to take up his burden of proof that kinds don't exist (ie science has proven that what the bible says about them is not accurate) then feel free.

Perhaps you mean this post:

<SKGdnR-chPS_qDzK...@giganews.com>

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:04:49 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

***************************************************
>On 8/2/16 4:35 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>> creation?
>>>
>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>> perhaps you missed it.)

>>
>> I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>>
>> What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
>>

>They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem. There are
>others: nobody can say what they are, or how to tell where they start
>and end, or how fossils (remnants of the flood?) relate to them.
*********************************************************

As I said, John Harshman's comments are a direct reply to your post
which links biblical kinds with the species problem. As I and others
have pointed out many times, before anyone can "take up his burden of
proof", you need to take up your burden to explain what you mean by
biblical kinds, and how you think they relate to biological species.
As I and others have pointed out many times, your efforts to date are
plainly insufficient.

Your failure to acknowledge these expressed concerns, nevermind
address them adequately, and your effort to reframe the context of the
discussion, is suggestive of deliberate and disingenuous obfuscation.
If that is not your intent, then I regret stating my impression so
bluntly. But in any case, I sincerely ask you to settle these
multiply expressed issues once and for all, and directly acknowledge
these concerns, and answer them coherently and concisely.

[georg....@gmail.com]

John's reply did not mention species. You appear to be fixated on it. As I explained before, I posted the link because I believe it is hypocritical for evolutionists to criticize biblical kinds when they have such a problem with species.

But that was a side point, not the main one. If you want to start a new thread on species, go ahead, and I will read it.

[Bill Rogers]

Who cares what the Bible says about kinds? Perhaps if you define kinds carefully and flexibly enough you can bring the Bible into agreement with observation. So what? It's the observation that matters.