And all the while ignoring mophology.
"Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Your argument was predicated on our inability to test the ability of a long extinct population to breed successfully with an extant population. Your argument is based on a false concept of evolution, a false concept of speciation, a false concept of genomic evidence and a false concept of common descent.
"Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
They are attempting to classify organisms based almost exclusively on differences. This will lead to completely arbitrary classes (baramins).
Introductory Baraminology.
The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed. This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur. This is just one example of a poorly placed organism, there are many more.
Further more, EM is prone to pre-judgements because of the application of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory requires that certain organisms be placed in specific groups to 'prove' that it (evolution) is a viable theory. This means that there is a tendency to 'fudge' the interpretation of features. Because there is an associated theory and it has difficulty placing certain organisms EM needed to be replaced by a theory-free scientific method of classification, thus the develpment of Baraminology.
Baraminology is not based on any theory; therefore creation scientists will have no pre-conceptions of where to place an organism, as EM does, and uses a system of selection designed to more accurately place those organisms. The system of selection Baraminology uses is called 'Discontinuity Systematics' (DS). The combination of the two is referred to as 'Baraminic Systems' (BS). With BS there is no gray area between classes of organisms, each organism can be placed relatively easily into its proper class, thus preserving the obvious gaps between classes. It also becomes obvious that using BS enables us to correctly place humans outside the class that contains apes.
Since EM's clades are visually represented by a tree with a single trunk containing many branches it fails to show the multiple kinds originally created by god. It would seem that the correct non-theory based scientifically designed visual representation of god's creation should be a forest of trunks filled with branches. This is exactly what happens when BS is used.
Unfortunately the word 'kinds' has a bad connotation in scientific circles so the term Baramins was developed.
HOLOBARAMIN
The basic grouping of organisms is the Holobaramin which roughly conforms to EM's class/family. The holobaramin consists of all the organisms in a god created grouping. A good example would be humans, Homo sapiens. The holobaramin containing humans would not contain any apes - gorillas, chimpanzees or any other monkey. The holobaramin containing gorillas would contain the different species of gorillas and chimpanzees.
MONOBARAMIN
Holobaramins can be further broken down into Monobaramins. Using the previous example, each race of human would be placed in its own monobaramin. Each genetically variant type of gorilla would be placed into its own monobaramin. The same applies to chimpanzees. It must be noted that chimpanzee placement is not yet finalized; they may eventually be placed in their own monobaramin. To facilitate the division of organisms into their correct monobaramin, two more baramins have been developed, the Apobaramin and the Polybaramin.
APOBARAMIN
The apobaramin is comprised of any number of holobaramins and is used during the separation process. This makes it easier to compare two or more baramin.
POLYBARAMIN
The polybaramin is comprised of any grouping of organisms, holobaramins and monobaramin and/or apobaramins.
SELECTION PROCESS
The process proceeds as follows:First a polybaramin is created containing any number of classified and unclassified organisms. Each one is compared using DS and roughly assigned a holobaramin within the polybaramin. Once all the loose organisms are assigned to a holobaramin a group of holobaramins are placed in an apobaramin for further study. They are analysed for differences to verify that all the organisms are placed correctly. If they pass the inspection each holobaramin is examined to determine the correctness of organisms within each monobaramin. This guarantees that there are no borderline or amorphous organisms such as can occur when using EM.
The method used to place each organism into its monobaramin is called discontinuity systematics (DS). Rather than using comparative methods which are based on similarities of DNA and other observations, DS uses a method which uses the relative difference between organisms. Generally computer programs are used to give 1D, 2D or 3D visual representations of the differences between the genetic code of organisms. The greater the visual difference, the farther apart the two organisms. This is quite reliable in discerning the original group god created. Determination of correct baramin is based on strict scientific guidelines as follows:
1. Scripture claims. This has priority over all other guidelines.
2. Hybridization. Judged by viable offspring obtained from a cross of two different forms.
3. Ontogeny. Development of an individual as it matures.
4. Lineage. Direct observed or inferred between extinct and extant forms.
5. Morphology and physiology.
6. Stratigraphic arrangement of fossils.
7. Ecology.
Talk about modifying evidence to fit a theory. This is a far from science as you can possibly go.
Just as a note to all:Linnaean taxonomy was developed long before Darwin released 'The Origin of Species' (more than 100 years) and before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. It could not possibly be based on Evolution.
Just one more creationist source of misinformation.
Again, you cannot modify evidence to fit a theory. You only modify interpretations of evidence.
That you believe that you can modify evidence shows that you do not understand the difference between evidence and extrapolation.
How long have fungi been classified as Eukaryote organisms?
Taxonomy is an ongoing process.
wow
Now WHO could disagree with that? The utility of BS to the CRIDers cannot be overstated.
Spectacularly poor choice of acronym.
(Dr. Sigmund Freud, please pick up the white courtesy phone)
Ah, how appropriate.