Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 76 of 425 (539767)
12-19-2009 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
12-19-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Kind
I have asked before but I will ask you. Where can I find all these fossils showing all this transition?
"[F]ind all these fossils..." All these fossils? There ain't no such place. Anyone with any kind of fossil collection has a little bit of it. But like a million people owning a single piece of a jigsaw there's nowhere you can find all of it. Search around and you'll find a massive number of individual fossils which won't convince you. Why won't these fossils convince you? Two reasons: a. you don't have the education to understand them and b. no one fossil can prove anything.
Now (a) may sound like an insult or a dismisal but it's not. Biology is hard; you want to judge it seriously you need to spend at least a decade studying it*, you want to understand why that ridge means this or that ridge means that you need to understand way more than "oh look it's a monkey".
Truth is, fossils are two a penny and all the best ones need you to understand a whole load of (a) to grasp the significance of them. Do you even know what the choanoflagellates I mentioned in my last post are? No? Then why do you think you can talk about this and say anything worth listening to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 425 (539778)
12-19-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
12-19-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Kind
I have asked before but I will ask you. Where can I find all these fossils showing all this transition?
RAZD has posted a fine sequence on any number of occasions.
I'm sure you must have seen it.
So, are you: 1) ignoring the evidence, or 2) denying the evidence?
Because that's what it comes down to. The evidence you are asking for has been posted at least a dozen times that I can remember.
And just because you ignore or deny the evidence doesn't make it go away.
It is all still there whether you say yea or nay.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 10:21 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:03 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 78 of 425 (539779)
12-19-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
12-19-2009 10:49 AM


Re: Kind
Icant claims:
All I have ever said is a kind is a kind and can never become another kind as they produce after their kind.
So, I ask him to define kind. His response:
Then you come up with a definition of Kind.
That's ALSO not a definition of kind. But, since you've placed the burden on me, very well I accept. Kind = Subspecies.
And proving that a subspecies can give rise to a different subspecies has been done NUMEROUS times. The E Coli/Citrate experiments are a good example of this occurring under EXTREMELY monitored conditions.
But examples abound in nature as well. One need only look at the world of cattle to see that there are literally dozens of different breeds/subspecies to choose from. This DIRECTLY contradicts your claim that one subspecies can never ever be breed to produce a new alternate subspecies.
Now, since you've asked me to define kind and I have and you've asked me to provide examples of kinds producing new kinds and I have, I'll assume that you will admit that you were wrong.
Oh wait, that's right. You won't. Glad to see that after three years absence I can return to find Icant still exactly where I left him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2009 10:49 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:19 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 79 of 425 (539780)
12-19-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Coyote
12-19-2009 9:43 PM


Re: Kind
I'm sure you must have seen it.
So, are you: 1) ignoring the evidence, or 2) denying the evidence?
Because that's what it comes down to. The evidence you are asking for has been posted at least a dozen times that I can remember.
On a long forgotten thread, Icant told me that there had never been any pre-flight feathers in the fossil record. I asked him "if I present evidence of pre-flight feathers, will you admit that you are wrong?" He assured me that if I was able to produce the evidence, he would indeed admit that his position on evolution in general and feathers in particular was wrong.
I gave him several links to several images of any number of fossils out of China demonstrating downy feather -> flight feather evolution.
His response? Crickets.
It seems that Icant is short for "I cant see the evidence you present".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2009 9:43 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2009 11:24 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 80 of 425 (539781)
12-19-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Nuggin
12-19-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Kind
It seems that Icant is short for "I cant see the evidence you present".
I have come to realize that, as Sagan noted,
quote:
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
Now, I don't know about the "need to believe" part, but the "not based on evidence" part is certainly something that I have seen in debating with creationists.
Some of them are absolutely unwilling, or unable, to accept any evidence--no matter how solid--if it contradicts their religious beliefs.
That would not ordinarily be a problem. I believe in "Live and let live." They can believe whatever they want. They can rub blue mud in their navals on alternate Wednesdays for all I care.
But when creationists try to get their beliefs taught as science, in public schools, that is another matter entirely. And when they claim that certain of their beliefs are supported by science, when they actually are contradicted by science, that too is another matter. (See tagline.)
And there are not a few creationists out there who are trying to destroy science because it produces explanations contrary to their religious beliefs. That I will not let go unanswered. (The Enlightenment will not be reversed!)
But this is getting off topic.
The topic is "kinds" and the definition thereof. And after many posts we are no closer to a definition than when we started.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 10:21 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 11:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 425 (539782)
12-19-2009 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coyote
12-19-2009 11:24 PM


Re: Kind
The topic is "kinds" and the definition thereof. And after many posts we are no closer to a definition than when we started.
Icant admitted that he did not have a definition for them and asked me to supply one. I did. It's "subspecies".
Since I am apparently the only one going on record with a definition, I suggest we let it stand.
Of course this definition makes the Bible passages false, but really - aren't all Bible passages basically false?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2009 11:24 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 12:14 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 3:02 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 82 of 425 (539784)
12-20-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nuggin
12-19-2009 11:43 PM


Re: Kind
"subspecies"
Wouldn't "clade" be a better pick? Those at least reproduce after their own clade, and never turn into a different clade. Each new sub-clade being nested in the previous, that is ....
I'm just thinking in terms of a reasonable way to follow his non-definition and find the thing in science it actually corresponds to. If this isn't helpful, feel free to ignore me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 11:43 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 12-20-2009 12:20 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 83 of 425 (539786)
12-20-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Iblis
12-20-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Kind
Perfectly helpful and therefore not helpful.
Really, we should say "Kind = Fruitcake". Since he's asking US to define the word HE'S using and prove him wrong at the same time.
"Cows reproduce after their own fruitcake. Eagles reproduce after their own fruitcake."
It makes no sense. That's why you don't ask _other people_ to define a term you are using to debate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 12:14 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 84 of 425 (539788)
12-20-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
12-17-2009 5:26 AM


Hi Huntard
Huntard writes:
If there were say three women who gave birth to our ancestors, yet in two of those lines after that at one time there are no female offspring, the mitochandrial dna of those two women is lost, and the one remainng woman is then mitochandrial eve. The same goes for the men, if there were three men and in two lines there are at one point only female offspring, then those two y chromosomes are lost, and the one remaining line becomes y chromosome adam.
you are basing this off speculation alone.
The facts are that there is most definately one man and one woman to whom we are all related....just as the genesis account shows.
we 'creationist scumbags' seem to be more interested in facts then the evolutionsists who are coming up with all sorts of ideas to discredit the genesis account. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:26 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 1:33 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 96 by Huntard, posted 12-20-2009 4:27 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 425 (539790)
12-20-2009 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
12-17-2009 5:28 AM


Huntard writes:
Actually, I was referring to the space problem. All species that are interfertile with one another (which are your kinds) could never fit on the ark.
some people have estimated that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals alive today could have been reduced to a comparatively few family kinds
2 of the big cats (lion/tiger/lynx/jaguar etc) could have produced the variety we see today.
remember, if they can interbreed, then they are of the same kind...and evolution does predict that animals can speciate when they become isolated. So its likely that the animals Noah took on the ark may not have looked like the ones we have today. IOW, he probably didnt take 2 'lions' as we know them. The 2 big cats he took may have been very different to what we have today but their reproduction likely produced the great variety we now have. ie lions, tigers, jaguars, lynx etc etc etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:28 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:29 AM Peg has replied
 Message 97 by Huntard, posted 12-20-2009 4:35 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 86 of 425 (539791)
12-20-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Jack
12-17-2009 5:50 AM


MrJack writes:
don't you think it's spectacularly dishonest of you to claim that the very same techniques used by geneticists are real, proper, valid science when you think they support you but reject them when they show we diverged from Chimps 6 million years ago?
dishonest of me?
there is science and there is evolutionary science. Is it honest of evolutionary scientists to weave their ToE into the data collected by other scientists and use that data to back up their theory???
i dont think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2009 5:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 1:35 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 106 by Dr Jack, posted 12-20-2009 7:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 87 of 425 (539792)
12-20-2009 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
12-17-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Thought of another problem
Huntard writes:
This is where there are let's say species A, B, C, and D in one area. Species A is interfertile with species B, but not with C and D. Species B is interfertile with species A and C, but not with D. Species C is interfertile with species B and D, but not with A. And species D is interfertile with species C, but not wit A and B.
Now, to what Kind do these belong?
chromosomes? genetics?
the fact that some of them can still breed with certain ones surely shows they are still members of the same species/kind
i accept that its a phenomenon that we see, but it's no reason to doubt the validity of a creator making many kinds of animals. For all we know, genetics was created to allow for great variety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 9:59 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Huntard, posted 12-20-2009 4:38 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 425 (539793)
12-20-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
12-17-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Kinds
ICANT writes:
The list would need to have every kind that is living on earth today as well as those that have become extinct since the flood took place.
im not sure if it would need all the kinds today.
we know that animals can produce great variety within their kinds such as dogs and cats for instance.
Noah would not have needed to take one of each variety of dog onto the ark, nor would he have needed to take one of each cat variety. The genes make it possible for one pair to reproduce a great diverse vareity of animals
just as humans have become very diverse in our features, so have animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 12:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:41 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 216 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:37 AM Peg has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 425 (539794)
12-20-2009 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:32 AM


Mitochondrial Eve
The facts are that there is most definately one man and one woman to whom we are all related....just as the genesis account shows.
Peg, you don't seem to understand what is meant by mitochondrial Eve.
I really suggest you study this a bit more before you sound off. You have it completely wrong.
we 'creationist scumbags' seem to be more interested in facts then the evolutionsists who are coming up with all sorts of ideas to discredit the genesis account. Why is that?
Perhaps we are just coming up with corrections to your erroneous posts. Ever consider that?
When you make such blatant errors in basic science, what else do you expect us to do?
And you will never convince anyone that your particular beliefs are accurate if you continue to post such erroneous statements. Why should we believe anything you say if you are so error-prone?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 90 of 425 (539795)
12-20-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:53 AM


Another mistake about science
Is it honest of evolutionary scientists to weave their ToE into the data collected by other scientists and use that data to back up their theory???
Yes. That's the way all science works.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:53 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024