============================
BIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION
============================
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological "barriers" might exist between different categories of life."
This is Linnaeus:
"The 5 classes of plants. The number of species is the number of different forms produced by the Infinite Being from the beginning; and these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves. Therefore the number of species is the number of different forms or structures that occur today." [Stephen Freer, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.113]
How do you interpret the underlined words?
*******************
>>Kalamata: "I see you learned how to use Wikipedia. Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour. It is a tossup."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So there are three (including you) who hate natural-science and wish to replace it with their own unique theology. Wonderful.
They, like me, want to chase the theology of evolutionism out of science.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "That’s it. But his [Behe's] new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Or, more likely, toss his already tarnished reputation onto the trash-heap of history.
The only thing that would tarnish Michael Behe's stellar reputation would be to embrace the religious cult of evolutionism.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Neither of which translates to "family", and both of which mistranslate the Biblical work "kind".
That is correct. Linnaeus didn't use the word "family". He used the word "kind", and expressed it as multiple genera, which would place "kind" at what is now known as the family level.
"The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest genera, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this kind are: Haller's Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the ESSENTIAL character distinguishes a genus from those of the same kind included in the same natural order." [Stephen Freer, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]
It certainly appears that Linnaeus is grouping multiple genera within a single kind.
In discussing Linnaeus and classification, Michael Behe made this observation:
"Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin's vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos. But no, nothing. A surprising but compelling conclusion is that Darwin's mechanism has been wildly overrated—it is incapable of producing much biological change at all." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.6]
Behe also reminded us that the classification system is a human invention. From his "tone" I assume he was cautioning us against getting too caught in human-devised schemes and processes.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Which is nowhere defined in any scientific sense.
The created kind is observable science. Even children can tell the difference between the dog kind, the cat kind, and the human kind.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
">>Joe the Science Denier says..." Still rules #5 & #6, post #272.
Kalamata quoting BJK: "Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological "barriers" might exist between different categories of life"
Kalamata quoting Linnaeus: "...these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves."
Kalamata: "How do you interpret the underlined words?"
Those words are clearly evidence of Linnaeus' opinion, they are not evidence of any biological "barriers".
Kalamata: "They, like me, want to chase the theology of evolutionism out of science."
They like you will die disappointed.
However, as master propagandists you will doubtless find ways to puff up your own importance in whatever future changes happen.
Kalamata: "The only thing that would tarnish Michael Behe's stellar reputation would be to embrace the religious cult of evolutionism."
I have no interest in Behe's opinions.
Kalamata: " Linnaeus didn't use the word "family".
He used the word "kind", and expressed it as multiple genera, which would place "kind" at what is now known as the family level."
Sure, I "got" that, so you tell me, did Linnaeus ever define "kind" biologically or name the "kinds" he imagined existed?
Kalamata quoting Behe: "Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin's vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos.
But no, nothing."
A ludicrous claim, demonstrating that Behe hates science as much as Kalamata.
Kalamata: "Behe also reminded us that the classification system is a human invention."
Right, beginning with Linnaeus.
Kalamata: "The created kind is observable science.
Even children can tell the difference between the dog kind, the cat kind, and the human kind."
But neither you nor Behe can scientifically define or list such "kinds" and match them up to taxonomic categories. ![]()