To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher

Don't you think you're hitting him with a lot at once? Since his expertise is in biology why do you expect him to defend topics in such varied disciplines as cosmology, physics, nuclear chemistry, and geology?And if you don't want participation by anyone but Hitchy, why didn't you post this topic in the "Great Debate" thread, where topics are limited to two participants?How come you're posting so much stuff that has already been refuted at this board?Since your definition of "kind" is exactly identical in function to the definition of species, why didn't you just say "species"? And wouldn't then the observation of new species unable to breed with their original populations refute your point that new "kinds" can't arise?These questions lead me to believe that you're not interested in actual debate, but rather setting up a shooting gallery where you pick whatever topic you think Hitchy is least likely to have expertise in. If I were him I'd do nothing but post links to the research you should already have done in regards to the refutations of all of your points.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-23-2004]

How clever of you to pick examples of recent speciation events. But your model fails for more seperate examples:Are housecats and tigers in the same kind? They can't breed. Are all kinds of crabs the same kind, as Kent Hovind has claimed? They can't interbreed.How would you tell the difference between two organisms from similar but originally separate kinds, and two organisms from the same kind who, through what I imagine you term "microevolution", no longer have the ability to interbreed?It's disingenuous of you to launch into a debate that centers around a term so nebulous you can easily shift the goalposts, and I won't stand and watch it happen. I look forward to Hitchy proving you quite wrong. At this board alone I have seen each of these arguments refuted again and again. If Hitchy doesn't care to find relevant threads to prove it, I'm more than willing to. It's up to him - he's got dibs. And any time you care to address those issues rather than playing Hovind's Greatest Hits, I'm at your disposal.

That? You didn't even make an argument. It's not the existence of pseudogenes that suggests common ancestry. It's the fact that pseudogenes are shared among organisms for whom taxonomy suggests a common ancestor. You didn't seem to address this point, as far as I could tell. If you feel you did, perhaps you could elucidate?Oh, and keep in mind that while we may not know the ultimate function of every stretch of genetic code, we do know exactly which areas are expressed as protiens. When we say "pseudogenes", we do so with great confidence that those code sequences are not used to make protiens.Until Hitchy jumps in do you think you could address my points about the definition of "kinds"? That's central to the debate of "macroevolution" occuring.