Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: creationism topics Message-ID: <859@opus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 21:19:13 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.859 Posted: Mon Oct 1 21:19:13 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 07:09:37 EDT References: <32500003@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 27 From Ray Miller: > Dick Dunn accuses creationists of circular reasoning in their definition > of kinds. He, of course, assists himself in this accusation by "paraphrasing" > creationists. All the while, he still hasn't given a "succinct, testable defi- > tion" of species either. Actually, what we have here is a prediction by crea- > tionists, that kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic, > one that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should > reveal. Yes, I paraphrased. I said I was doing so. If you've got a complaint about the way I paraphrased, state it. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind. Nobody asked me to give a succinct, testable definition of species, so I didn't. How can creationists "predict" the definition of a term (kind)? The "unique common genetic characteristic" idea leads to a paradox: Suppose that animals A and B have such a unique characteristic x in common. Suppose similarly that animals B and C have a different unique characteristic y in common. Suppose that A does not have characteristic y and C does not have x. Which of A, B, and C are of one kind? Does the definition of "kind" somehow exclude this possibility? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.