Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 151 of 425 (540582)
12-26-2009 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Peg
12-26-2009 6:10 AM


So, do you trust paternity tests?
(*hint: both use the same techniques)
But science is not the ultimate truth.
Nor does it seek to be. Only religion seeks to be "the ultimate truth". But it sure does give us a hell of a lot better understanding of the world we live in.
their research into genes has shown that all people are decended from one pair and they give certain dates for when these ancestors lived but is their calculation accurate??? Can you be sure they are 100% accurate in their dates??
Rarely is anything in science 100% accurate. They could be off by a couple thousand years. Having said that, the bible is NEVER 100% accurate, yet you are not skeptical of that? I call shenanigans.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 6:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

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


Message 152 of 425 (540606)
12-26-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by bluescat48
12-26-2009 10:56 AM


bluescat48 writes:
This would be exactly what one would expect primitive men to postulate since they had no knowledge of animal relationships and could only go on certain external characteristics.
except that moses was not trying to postulate anything other then the fact that God had created the animals.
Genesis was not trying to explain nature, it was explaining where nature came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 10:56 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 153 of 425 (540607)
12-26-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Nuggin
12-26-2009 1:50 PM


Re: Kind
Nuggin writes:
All that is left are the Western Blosorts and the Eastern Blosorts - neither of which can reproduce with the other.
By your definition of "kind" these are now two different "kinds". Right?
not necessarily for the reason that there are many different 'kinds' of birds and within each 'kind' there are many different
'varieties'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 1:50 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 9:52 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 154 of 425 (540610)
12-26-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Blue Jay
12-26-2009 11:25 AM


Re: Kind
Bluejay writes:
So, what's the difference between genetically-caused reproductive isolation and speciation?
i have no idea, perhaps they are the same thing?
But i draw the line at linking all existing animals with previous lower life forms.
Bluejay writes:
Peg, the example of ring species is not a matter of definitions or semantics. It's an actual, natural phenomenon: these are real animals that show gradients of interfertility between populations, not words or viewpoints or interpretations of data!
I'm aware of that, but its been said that ring species is proof that evolution changes animals from one species into another
as i said, i think it has more to do with genetics rather then animals slowly evolving into new species of animal.
Bluejay writes:
We can't figure out how to distinguish one species of these gulls from another, because, any definition we use will either include some that cannot interbreed, or exclude some that can interbreed, both of which kind of violate our definition of "species" and your definition of "kind."
this is where i gets confusing because its still a bird, but its a different variety of bird...yet you call it a new species.
So while you are calling this particular bird a new 'species', genesis would be calling it a 'kind'
the winged kind and a variety within the winged kind.
I think it has everything to do with definitions.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 12-26-2009 11:25 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Blue Jay, posted 12-27-2009 12:30 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 155 of 425 (540612)
12-26-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
12-26-2009 2:22 PM


hooah212002 writes:
So, do you trust paternity tests?
its not the genetics that is the problem, its the dating they put to it that I think is harder to pinpoint. And there have been many examples where one scientist dates something at a particular point and someone else at a much younger point and someone else at a much older point.
You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2009 2:22 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 12-26-2009 9:53 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 158 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 9:53 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 159 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2009 10:08 PM Peg has replied
 Message 160 by Iblis, posted 12-26-2009 10:17 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 156 of 425 (540617)
12-26-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peg
12-26-2009 8:50 PM


Re: Kind
not necessarily for the reason that there are many different 'kinds' of birds and within each 'kind' there are many different
'varieties'
Peg. You're being dishonest. You just said that kind was determined by whether or not the things can reproduce a few posts ago.
I'm simply trying to go by your definition, but now you are changing the definition and adding "varieties" as a 2nd catagory which, frankly, is not mentioned in the Bible.
It wasn't "The cows after their kind, except for some of them which had different varieties which were a sort of kind but not really".
What's the deal? Is it just that the word "kind" really has no meaning because the people writing the Bible didn't intend it to be taken so seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 8:50 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 10:20 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 425 (540618)
12-26-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Peg
12-26-2009 9:07 PM


Dating
You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating.
The accuracy is generally within about 3% when all of the calibrations that we use are applied. It is often a lot closer.
Good enough?
But this has nothing to do with species/kinds. Back to the topic!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 158 of 425 (540619)
12-26-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Peg
12-26-2009 9:07 PM


And there have been many examples where one scientist dates something at a particular point and someone else at a much younger point and someone else at a much older point.
Great, can you present us with one of those examples in which none of the three people are Creationists?
If there are "many" examples, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM Peg has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 159 of 425 (540621)
12-26-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Peg
12-26-2009 9:07 PM


Unfortunately, Peg, I am unable to find much in the way of accuracy of genetic dating. All I could find is a recent hullabaloo about ancient penguins being found to be 1-500,000 years older than previously thought. -->ancient penguins being found to be 1-500,000 years older than previously thought.
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.
But what do you know? SCIENCE did what it does best and corrected itself.
Edited by hooah212002, : whoops. I jumped the gun. should have cleaned it up BEFORE hitting submit
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:18 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 160 of 425 (540622)
12-26-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Peg
12-26-2009 9:07 PM


its not the genetics that is the problem, its the dating they put to it
So chimps are our cousins, it just happened much more recently? Was it before or after the flood?
(Hint: read up on Cain, Ham and Esau. Apes don't turn up in the Bible until around Solomon's time, so you have lots of room.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 10:45 PM Iblis has replied

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


Message 161 of 425 (540623)
12-26-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Nuggin
12-26-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Kind
Nuggin writes:
You just said that kind was determined by whether or not the things can reproduce a few posts ago.
I'm simply trying to go by your definition, but now you are changing the definition and adding "varieties" as a 2nd catagory which, frankly, is not mentioned in the Bible.
animals of the same kind were told to go forth and multiply, so the genesis kind is one that can reproduce. However I did also say that there were multiple 'kinds' created
for example:
God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds
how many sea creatures are there? Millions? And these millions of sea creatures cannot all reproduce together, only ones of the same 'kind' can do so.
For a simpler example, we have dogs.
Dogs are one 'kind' but they come in great variety. You may call it 'speciation' because dogs have become so different???
but they are still dogs and they are still the same 'kind'
i hope that is clearer.
Nuggin writes:
What's the deal? Is it just that the word "kind" really has no meaning because the people writing the Bible didn't intend it to be taken so seriously?
the bible kept it very simple because, unlike evolutionists, it wasnt trying to define anything.
the hebrew word 'kind' is literally a 'genus'
I dont really know how else to explain it. I think the problem is that the terms evolutionists use today is much different to a genesus 'kind' so they are incompatible.
What do evolutionists call animals that can interbreed? (please keep in mind that lions and tigers can interbreed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 9:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 11:19 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 162 of 425 (540624)
12-26-2009 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Iblis
12-26-2009 10:17 PM


Iblis writes:
So chimps are our cousins
it fits with the evolution theory so i guess it must be true!
I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Iblis, posted 12-26-2009 10:17 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Iblis, posted 12-26-2009 11:09 PM Peg has replied
 Message 164 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2009 11:10 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 163 of 425 (540625)
12-26-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Peg
12-26-2009 10:45 PM


I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.
Why does the paternity test say they are, then?
I don't see why you think you can have all these murder convictions and acquittals, and the Cohens, and Y-chromosome Noah and Mitochondrial Eve, without admitting Washoe and Koko are people too.
I would mention that they talk, but I know that doesn't faze you; if snakes and donkeys can talk, why not monkeys. But you sure seem to cherry-pick the genetic testing.
In another thread, you noted that lions and tigers don't mate naturally, only in test tubes. On the other hand, sheeps and goats do, horses and donkeys do, both producing hybrids. On yet the other hand, llamas and cows do, moose and cows do, cowboys and cows do, but no offspring. What's up with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 10:45 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:51 PM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 164 of 425 (540626)
12-26-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Peg
12-26-2009 10:45 PM


I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.
Unfortunately for you, your belief doesn't have any impact on reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 10:45 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 165 of 425 (540627)
12-26-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by hooah212002
12-26-2009 10:08 PM


hooah212002 writes:
But what do you know? SCIENCE did what it does best and corrected itself.
Its been correcting itself over human origins for years...but it keeps making the same mistakes over and over lol
The theoretical family tree of human evolution is full of castoffs of previously accepted so called 'links'
Piltdown man was accepted by the whole scientific community for about 40 years before modern testing revealed it was a fake
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal (not sure of its name) supposed to have lived about 70 million years ago. There was also the Aegyptopithecus or Egypt ape of 40 million years ago. It was proclaimed to be our human ancestor even though there was no link to the small rodent that came before it. Then a new creature called Ramas ape came along that was said to be from 14 million years ago. From its fossils evolutionsists constructed an apelike creature who walked on two limbs. It was called the first representative of the human family and it was presented as such in evolutionary literiture as such. But all this was based on a few jawbone fragments and teeth! How do you get an upright walking ape with such little evidence??? Pure imagination!
The mistakes kept coming though. The next one that had been listed as an ape-man was the Australopithecus of about 3 or 4 million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor. But later it was discovered that the Australopithecine skull was simian, not human. All this after telling the world that the real ape-man had finally been found!
then there is Lucy. She's our ancestor for sure except that her scull is a 3rd the size of a human scull and even New Scientist reported that Lucy's skull is more chimp then human. Neanderthal man was first pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. But now it is known that the original reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton that was badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found and its been confirmed that he was not much different from modern humans. It wasnt an ape at all just like Cro-Magnon man who is also not an ape man.
It seems pretty clear to me that belief in ape-men is unfounded. Any apelike creatures that did live in the past were simply that, apes. And any fossils of ancient humans that do differ from ours demonstrate the variety within the human kind. We have large and small living side by side today and they are all still human.
Evolutionists may correct themselves, but they continually repeat the same mistakes because they are hell bent on proving their theory that humans came from apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2009 10:08 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 12-26-2009 11:34 PM Peg has replied
 Message 180 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2009 3:59 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