Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
From: gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Kinds
Message-ID: <1797@uw-june>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 22:19:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1797
Posted: Thu Sep 27 22:19:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 02:28:13 EDT
References: <286@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 54

>>[Phil Polli]
>>I would love to see a succinct, testable definition of "major kinds of plants
>>and animals".

>[Paul DuBois]
>Here you go.  This may not be good enough.  Say so if not, and
>why.
>---
>Gish, D. "Evolution - The Fossils Say No!", Creation-Life
>Publishers, 1973, San Diego.
>
>"We must here define what we mean by a basic kind.  A basic
>animal or plant kind would include all animal or plants which
>were truly derived from a single stock.  In present-day terms,
it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool.
>All humans, for example, are within a single basic kind, _Homo
>sapiens_.  In this case, the basic kind is a single species.
>
>In other cases, the basic kind may be at the genus level.
...
>Note that creationists do not deny variability that takes
>place within what is above defined as a kind.  What is denied
>is that two kinds have a common ancestor.  For example,
>dog and cat kinds would not be said to have a common ancestral
>kind.

Ok, I'd like more information on *exactly* where you and/or D. Gish
draw the line around the human kind.  The definition of _H. sapiens_
is a bit fuzzy around the edges, since there is good fossil evidence
for a number of (what appear to be) transitional forms between _H.
sapiens sapiens_ (modern humans) and _H. erectus_ (which most
evolutionists believe to be a direct ancestor of _H. sapiens sapiens_).
These range from Cro Magnon man (nearly indistinguishable from modern
humans, and generally generally classed within _H. sapiens sapiens_),
to Neanderthal man (which has a more swept back skull than _H. s. s._,
and is classed seperately, as _H sapiens neandertalensis_), to even
earlier forms (sorry, no names), to Java man and Peking man (_H.
erectus_, noted for an even more swept back skull (almost pointed in
back), heavy brow ridges, and lack of a chin). There is also good
evidence of a continuum between _H. erectus_ and _H. habilus_.

It seems to me that, wherever you try to draw the line, there'll be
considerable evidence against it, so unless you can come up with some
evidence *for* drawing the line, Occam's razor says to go with
theories that *don't* separate humans from apes, no matter whether
they're creationist or evolutionist.

--
Human:    Gordon Davisson
USnail:   5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105
UUCP:     {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
Disclaimer: I'm a computer scientist, not a physical anthropologist,
            so I don't really know what I'm talking about. (but
            don't let that keep you from answering my questions)