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)