[JohnnyM]

"But that is not the same as classifying something as "ape" or "man.""

Ichy's post mentions the trouble creationist scientists have in classifying homminid fossils, and if these creationists believe that there distinct boundaries between animals know as kinds, then this kind of classification should be easy.

However, in that example, it seems that the deck is stacked, because you are telling someone to classify a fossil without any other information necessary for classification.

JM

[Junior]

The operative word there is "creationist." They're the ones claiming it should be easy to classify remains as either "ape" or "man" -- but then have difficulty doing so. Real scientists don't go in for this pigeon-holing. They understand all those remains fall along a spectrum such that it would be difficult (if every critter that made up the spectrum left its remains in the hands of scientists) to point out where one "species" ends and the next begins.