All About Biblical Kinds

But who else would alert us to the threat of Jewish Space Lasers causing wildfires in California?

quote:

---

I just speak out of conviction to spread truth

---

It doesn’t look like it. Until you deal honestly with the fact of transitional fossils - and explain their existence - you aren’t doing that at all.

quote:

---

Hypothesizing what-if scenarios is an exercise in futility

---

“Biblically-based phylogeny” is necessarily an exercise in speculation.

quote:

---

One should do the best one can at all times.

---

So, start with the fact that evolutionary theory passed the test and many transitional fossils have been discovered. Any theory must explain their existence - which is why creationists so often try to deny their existence. The truth must give way to their dogma - that is the whole point of creationism.

quote:

---

I don't see any transitional fossils. There are a few rare controversial cases like Tiktaalik that get brought up but the overwhelming majority show microevolution within Biblical kinds and are not even remotely interpretable as between them.

---

Really? Archaeopteryx- described by Stephen Jay Gould as a perfect example - is very well known. Seymouria is another. And there are many, many more - morganucodon is an important one. If you haven’t actually investigated (and no, relying on creationist sources does not qualify) then you aren’t in a position to say.

quote:

---

Biblically, transitions are expected within Biblical kinds but not between them, which is what the fossil record shows, microevolution, not macroevolution.

---

Actually the evidence for microevolution is largely missing from the fossil record. Those are the gaps explained by punctuated evolution. Transitional fossils generally point to macroevolution (as science defines it).

quote:

---

More like an exercise in reading comprehension

---

Hardly. The Bible doesn’t clearly define the term, and it seems to be essentially a folk-concept related to species. There is certainly nothing to say that “kinds” represent any limit on evolution. That’s just an invention of creationists when they finally realised that they couldn’t fit all modern species on Noah’s Ark.

quote:

---

They haven't been discovered. The fossil record consistently shows long periods of gradual microevolution and then sudden appearance of brand new species. That was the whole reason for creating the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, to explain the consistent lack of macroevolutionary transitional forms.

---

Punctuated equilibrium was invented to apply existing evolutionary theory to the fossil record. The missing transitional are intermediates between species - so examples of microevolution - as you admit. Let us note also that you accept evolution between species so your claim here sabotages any argument you might make from Punctuated Equilibria. If the intermediates that are missing are for the evolution you accept then the issue has no relevance.Edited by PaulK, : Dealt with auto-”correction”

quote:

---

I have a Biblically-based phylogeny here:
Baramin - BibleStrength

---

No, you don’t. That’s just an attempt at a taxonomy. A phylogeny is based on ancestry, it’s not just a system of classification.

quote:

---

You are using circular logic, as ancestry assumes evolution from common ancestor.

---

Well that’s a dramatic failure of comprehension on your part. Pointing out that a phylogeny requires ancestry is a simple matter of definitions.