Beer Looter Dude is one of my heroes.
Posted on 11/27/2005 7:11:52 AM PST by Pharmboy
Also, as a relatively long-lived species (compared to insects, bacteria, etc.), with about 20 years or so between generations, we are rather slow when it comes to reproduction -- and thus evolution.
Which part don't you understand?
They weren't talking about Hominid evolution, or even primate evolution, as being slow evolvers, but vertebrates in general being slower evolvers than invertebrates.
"This changes a few concepts..." ~ Pharmboy
Nooo kidding? :)
"...If this new tree is correct, all the morphological characters that traditionally have been used to identify similarities between species will need to be reevaluated to understand how these traits evolved." ....
..."Because the current tree has been widely accepted for nearly a century, I think there is going to be a delay of maybe a few years before the general scientific community gets used to the new tree," Vidal says. "If other research groups working in this area find the same pattern with additional genes, then I believe the scientific community may accept these results more quickly."
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1784&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
A "kind" is by definition a distinction of physiological features that cannot be reached by another "kind". As such, creationists don't pin down "kind" because it's subject to change whenever new observations of changes in morphology occur, and they don't want to admit that they're just making things up rather than doing real science.
I see. So as omnivorous primates with all the same kinds of organs, Humans and Chimpanzees are the same "KIND". Thanks for the clarification!
Funny, statisticians have no problem with the concept.
I have no idea what concept you are referring to here.
So are you saying “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
No, I am not saying that.
That is the way I saw it too. Also I think the idea that humankind is a big evolutionary step away from its 2Mya ancestors is misguided.
It demonstrates biological complexity all the way back.
A Primer on using Vague Taxonomy against evolutionists
In Vague taxonomy, organisms are grouped into categories such as Kind, Sort and Ilk. A key advantage of Vague Taxonomy is that there are no rules. All we do is provide a number of generic words which you can plug into your own personal arguments against evolution. Here are the core words:
Kind Variety Sort Ilk Type
And here is an example senario in which they are deployed to sucessfully defeat an evolutionist:
Evolutionist: Birds evolved from reptiles
Answer: Nope that's impossible because birds and reptiles are seperate Kinds of animal
Evolutionist: A cunning argument indeed, but what exactly is a kind?
Answer: You'll know it when you see it, or rather I will.
Evolutionist: Well okay if you won't directly define what a Kind is then perhaps I can pin it down via example. Lets begin - are frogs and toads seperate Kinds of animal?
Answer: No, because they are of the same Ilk
Evolutionist: Okay well if frogs and toads are the same Kind then chimpanzees and humans must be the same Kind too as they are a lot closer.
Answer: I didn't say frogs and toads are the same Kind, I said they are the same Ilk. Also chimpanzees and humans are different Sorts of animal by the way. Ever seen a chimpanzee playing in an orchestra? Clearly a whole different Sort of animal there.
Evolutionist: Well aren't frogs and toads different sorts of animal too?
Answer: Nope because they are the same Ilk.
Evolutionist: Ilk?? Well what about salamanders, are they also the same Ilk as frogs and toads?
Answer: Frogs, toads and salamanders are the same Variety of animal
Evolutionist: But I asked about Ilk - are salamanders the same Ilk as frogs and toads?
Answer: Sorry you can't use the category Ilk in relation to salamanders
Evolutionist: Why not???
Answer: Because they are a different Type of animal
I don't suppose you had to look very far to come up with this.
yup it's almost plagiarism
Not necessarilly of the same ilk, but in the same vein..
Yes...I re-read it and you're right. But they did talk about hominids also. It is a bit confusing. Still, our species split about 6 mil years ago from the ape line, and to accomplish all of this in that period of time is huge--and quick.
lol
Beer Looter Dude is one of my heroes.
Some evolutionary steps 'look' larger than they are. We have a tendency to 'weight' some adaptations more than others even though the evolutionary advantage is no more than any other. I think this applies to the last few evolutionary changes humans have experienced. We give them more import than evolution deems necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.