quote:
Please allow the following run-around:
1) Granted, kinds is an aloof term for science. In the same manner as separating one kind of girl-friend from another, one kind of love from another, one kind of thought from another, one kind of feeling from another, etc., etc.
Cladistic barriers of biology at present seem to me to correspond well with the kinds of the Bible. Perhaps you might convince taxonomists to change the structure to make it more scientific, e.g. to fit with the genealogical trees that have been so dogmatically speculated.
What 'cladistic barriers' are these? What 'dogmatically speculated' trees are you referring to?
quote:
But alas, our taxonomy will always hold its paradigm (against so-called evo-trees).
I have nevber heard of an "evo-tree." Maybe you can expand?
quote:
2) Mechanisms of prevention of one kind vs. another. Seeing that kinds is a dynamic term to begin with (methinks), I see no mechanism that would prevent a kind from changing, as long as it isn’t becoming more complex genetically.
Why not? Why can't "complexity" increase?
quote:
Budikka, I don’t believe kinds is meant to be a scientific term. Metaphysics has currently infiltrated taxonomy. That is to say, it’s extremely biased and based on outward appearances of life-forms.
Actually, that is an outdated perception.
quote:
Can’t both sides just accept the Linneaus Classification, which also is non-scientific, i.e., seeing that it categorizes the kinds based on macro instead of micro bio-characteristics?
?
™ Version 4.2