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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 223 of 425 (541124)
12-31-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
12-31-2009 6:44 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT, I know you have trouble accepting reality, but...what?
are you telling me that man can create a dog from a wolf? or that wolves and dogs were already different kinds? or that they're still the same kind?
that was a spectacularly content-free posting even for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 6:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 10:42 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 224 of 425 (541126)
12-31-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Kinds
jasonlang writes:
peg writes:
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.
You're not sure the Ark would need all the 'kinds' seen today, Peg ??
I though the point was that new kinds cannot be created ? Or are you forgetting the bounds of your Ark-certified "kinds" ?? Very convenient these "kinds".
hear hear!
if they wouldn't need to know all the "kinds" that existed today, then that would suggest that new "kinds" can arise - which is flatly impossible if you're a (YEC) biblical literalist; god created the kinds, there can be no new information in the genome and NO. NEW. KINDS.
You need to know ALL the kinds that are around NOW AND ALL the kinds that ever were and have gone extinct, as kinds can NEVER increase and must ALWAYS decrease, but otherwise be static (i.e. when not going extinct, all kinds are always the same kind forever and always).
this is creation SCIENCE people, it is INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not that namby-pamby wishy-washy creationism with lack standards, no basis in reality and no methodology behind it!
be rigourous if you wish to be credible!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:37 AM jasonlang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 3:26 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 238 of 425 (541168)
01-01-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Kinds
peg writes:
i am thinking in terms of 'variety'
and Peg, you're being asked to define "kinds", not "variety".
it was said earlier by nuggin: "You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".
meaning, in your badly-put way, that a "gernsey" is of the "kind" known as "cow". Not a problem.
I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'
wait, wait, different breeds of cow are a different species? who the f*** said that? I don't think you'll find anybody to agree to that, and the cross-breeding that's more than possible between them would put the lie to that inside of five minutes.
However, are bison and buffalo "cows" ? they look pretty similar...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 241 of 425 (541173)
01-01-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Peg
01-01-2010 6:54 AM


Re: Huh?
peg writes:
Coyote writes:
Why should there be ring species among humans?
why would there not be?
Why would other animals experience the phenomenon of 'ring species' but not humans?
Do we not breed as much as any other creatures on the planet? (apart from insects of course)
Do we not have groups of people who breed in insolation from outsiders?
You have heard about all the other sub-species in the genus homo? the ones that went extinct a mere few tens of thousands of years ago?
yeah, that's the human ring-species you're talking about.
Fact is, ring species doesn't have to occur, but when and where it does you'll see the proof. Whining that it doesn't happen if it hasn't happened to humans (when there is no driving NEED for it to happen to humans to prove it does or does not exist) is pointless, futile and pathetic. sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 6:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 242 of 425 (541175)
01-01-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by ICANT
12-31-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
are you telling me that man can create a dog from a wolf?
I did not say that.
I did say mankind had interfered with the two kinds of animals. They have taken and produced a hybrid animal from the two.
I suppose the insemination was/is by artificial means as on a natural basis it would be difficult.
But if you leave them alone in the wild insemination will never happen as wolves have lifetime mates. The males will protect their lady to the point of killing an intruder. No one in the pack will bother another's lady.
Without mankind's intervention there would be no wolf dog.
so...let me get this straight.
donkeys and horses can hybridize (rarely naturally, more often with human intervention, with infertile offspring) - and so they're the same kind
horses and zebras can hybridize (rarely naturally, more often with human intervention, with infertile offspring) - and so they're the same kind
so horses, donkeys and zebras (at least) are all the same kind because they CAN interbreed (admittedly humans generally have to interfere, else it's really rare)
but dogs and wolves, quite capable of interbreeding in the wild (although it's probably rare - although the famous story of balto would tell me that's a lie if you say it never happens) and definitely capable of interbreeding with FERTILE offspring are somehow NOT the same kind because, apparently, it's rare or doesn't happen in the wild and takes human intervention (allegedly) to happen.
I'm sorry, ICANT, but I can't see the difference.
is it that because dogs and wolves have fertile offspring that makes them different kinds? I mean...that doesn't really make sense.
Please, shove that foot further in your mouth, it's getting entertaining again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 10:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 12:53 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 248 of 425 (541208)
01-01-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
01-01-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
so wolves and dogs are different kinds. horses, zebras, donkeys are different kinds...you do know that there are plenty of creo's that think all "horsey" breeds are the same "kind" because they can, however forced, interbreed?
and that dogs and wolves are the same "kind" for the same reason?
so where do you set the line in the sand? I thought the definition of "kinds" was easy, straightforward and simple?
so far, the secular scientific method holds all the points and your "kind" methodology has fallen before the first hurdle.
it fell over before it got out the gate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 12:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 3:28 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 250 of 425 (541213)
01-01-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by ZenMonkey
01-01-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ZenMonkey writes:
I'm sorry, my head is spinning.
ICANT writes:
Since I have never said that kinds could not cross breed and produce a new kind what does dingos and coyote's producing offspring have to do wth anything?
If you breed dogs you get dogs.
If you breed wolves you get wolves.
If you breed wolves and dogs you get half wolf and half dog. Then you can call it whatever you want. But it is not a dog and neither is it a wolf.
I'm trying to make sense of this. So:
All kinds that exist today were on the ark. There are no such things as new kinds.
A dog is a dog kind and a wolf is a wolf kind.
Dogs and wolves are not of the same kind.
Dogs and wolves can interbreed. Their offspring are not wolf kind nor are they dog kind.
But in Message 62 you said:
ICANT writes:
All I have ever said is a kind is a kind and can never become another kind as they produce after their kind.
So of what kind are these wolf-dogs? Did you just create a new kind or didn't you?
THIS.
wait, wait, I've got it, it's simple!
some of the offspring are wolf-dogs (ergo are DOG kind) and some of them are dog-wolves (ergo are WOLF kind).
they can interbreed quite happily but they're entirely different, separate kinds that are real easy to tell apart. honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-01-2010 2:41 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 258 of 425 (541221)
01-01-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
01-01-2010 3:13 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT writes:
Why did you call this half breed a wolf dog?
Instead of a wolf or dog?
But if you breed two dogs you get dog pups after their kind.
If you breed two wolves you get wolf pups after their kind.
They never produce anything other than pups after their kind.
ICANT, I'll take it slowly because you seem to be having trouble
* dogs and dogs produce DOG kinds
* wolves and wolves produce WOLF kinds
* kinds are separated by god and there can never be new kinds because that's NOT possible - only god has that power
* dogs and wolves can produce FERTILE offspring - but what are they?
they cannot be dogs because only "dogs and dogs" make dogs.
they cannot be wolves because only "wolves and wolves" make wolves.
they cannot be a new kind, because THAT'S. NOT. POSSIBLE.
so, what are they?
Edited by greyseal, : minor correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 3:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 4:56 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 260 of 425 (541223)
01-01-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by ICANT
01-01-2010 3:28 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT writes:
It makes no differece what male and female of a kind you breed their offspring will be the same kind.
so what, given the simple fact that kinds are kinds are kinds and new kinds can never be created, are the offspring of dogs and wolves?
or are they a special cop-out non-kind of animal abomination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 3:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 263 of 425 (541227)
01-01-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by jasonlang
01-01-2010 4:08 PM


Re: development and ecology, not genetics
So, my assertion would now read : "existing creatures possess inherited genetic traits which enhance phenotypic (non-genetic) adaptation to varying individual circumstances."
If I recall correctly, there is some type of beetle or ant or similar which grow normally without some sort of natural armour or something, but if the mother is stressed the offspring grow this extra carapace or somesuch - I think I heard about it on this board even.
I am most certainly not remembering it properly, but it is a certainty so your hypothesis is true.
STOP THE PRESSES!
here it is: Begley: Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution?
there's probably a better, direct link to the article in question, but this is what I was talking about.
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 4:08 PM jasonlang has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 265 of 425 (541229)
01-01-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by ICANT
01-01-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Kinds
2. These kinds can never cross with other kinds
I never said that.
so, and I'm infering from what you've been saying:
* these different "kinds" can sometimes breed and sometimes can't, sometimes look very similar and sometimes don't
* new kinds can arise through crossbreeding where they can
* changes can and do arise in populations so the kinds change a lot over time (microevolution!) and
* may or may not be able to interbreed with ancestral species because of all this crossbreeding and new-kind-creating
umm, ICANT, but that sounds a hell of a lot closer to evolution than I think you meant it to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 4:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 5:33 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 280 of 425 (541246)
01-01-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by ICANT
01-01-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
they cannot be a new kind, because THAT'S. NOT. POSSIBLE.
According to whom?
well, there are these people who we shall call "creationists" who believe that a superbeing of ultimate power created not only everything else, but also the very earth you're walking on, and all plants and animals upon it, in the seas or in the air.
these people don't believe in a secular theory called "the theory of evolution" because, they say, their god created all the kinds of animals in the same general time-frame that he created everythign else (generally called a week, although god slacked off on the last day, so six days, really).
These people, the creationists, don't believe that things can change significantly - that everything that was created way back when was created as a specific type they call simply a "kind", and they firmly disbelieve it is possible in any way, shape or form for these "kinds" to change (because, they say, that would be called "evolution").
They say, therefore, that whatever WAS a dog, will always be a dog, and whatever WAS a wolf, will always produce a wolf - that these two types of animals, these two "kinds" are forever and always separate and distinct.
It's really a core, core part of their belief system (irrespective of anything called "evidence" that the godless heathens and pagans can produce using their evil system of belief called "the scientific method") - things don't change because god made kinds as they were, evolution can't hasn't and won't ever happen ("microevolution" notwithstanding, which can account for hair colour or size or other small, minor and insignificant changes).
Now, silly me, I thought you were a creationist who believed that god made kinds as set, specific, unchanging Kinds (dogs always make dogs, you said - and wolves always make wolves) and that evolution therefore cannot ever happen through any known mechanism.
Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS?
As, and I'll ask you once again to answer the darned question, WHAT IS THE OFFSPRING OF A WOLF AND A DOG?
IS IT A WOLF?
IS IT A DOG?
IS IT A NEW KIND?
it must be a, b or c.
Pick one. answer the question. do not bring up any other strawmen until you have.
Edited by greyseal, : minor edit, Im sure I missed a few spelling mistakes...
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 4:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 8:44 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 281 of 425 (541247)
01-01-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by jasonlang
01-01-2010 6:40 PM


the bits that are rubbish in the excerpt
ICANT, refrain from commenting on my reply here until you've covered everything else please - ignoring questions you don't like rather than saying "oops, sorry, I was wrong" is worse than bad form, it is cowardly.
jasonlang writes:
Jonathan Sarfati writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:
Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-wayhybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.
Now, which parts of the above excerpt are rubbish, and why?
I'll say what I don't like - it's the non-exclusivity of it all.
if it CAN "hybridize" it's the same "kind" (great, tell us what we don't know - dogs and wolves are very closely related, so close that they're the same species).
if it CAN'T "hybridize" it might NOT be the same "kind"
wow, gee. that's two sentences saying nothing about what is or is not a "kind" - for this to be in any way, shape or form useful beyond posing or to placate those capable of rectal-cranial inversions you need to shut out that pesky, massively oversized hole in the theory about what is NOT a kind and why.
if you postulate "sparrows and ostriches look pretty similar...they could be the same kind", using your very, very lax "is/isn't" then you could easily say that, well, a sparrow is a proto-ostrich that got really small and can still fly through "degeneration" (i.e. it's size is a bad mutation, obviously).
You could also very easily say that an ostrich is a degenerate proto-sparrow because it's gotten too big to fly, it's wings shrunk and now it has to run on the ground.
the problem there is that this "kind" theory (if that's the core of it) is...less than adequate. it is essentially unfalsifiable, untestable, non-decisive and therefore utterly useless.
is a dog/wolf a mutated bear that just got smaller and oddly-shaped?
is an elephant a mutated crocodile that just grew too big?
...you do realise I'm taking the piss to highlight the fact that this "theory" can be taken apart by a ten year old armed with a good book on taxonomy?
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 6:40 PM jasonlang has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 294 of 425 (541285)
01-02-2010 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
01-01-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS?
Yes except I think I refered to the offspring as hybrids.
...
IS IT A WOLF? NO
IS IT A DOG? NO
IS IT A NEW KIND? NO
IT IS HALF WOLF AND HALF DOG. THAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.
If you take these half breeds and breed them to half breeds and continue to do so you can blurr the lines until they almost disappear competely. There will be thousands of hybrids created in the process.
But they will all be a hybrid of a wolf and dog cross.
And the dog and the wolf will still exist.
I'm really, really disappointed with that answer, because it is a complete and total copout.
you tell me that wolves and dogs are distinct kinds, yet they can interbreed.
you also tell me that they'll always be a non-kind animal you call a "hybrid" (something never mentioned in the bible).
you accept animals can change - apparently to quite a large degree although you're unhappy with falabella's and shire horses all being the same "kind" equally as much as you dislike wolves and dogs being the same kind - yet you don't see the problem with calling a chihuahuah (sp?) and a great dane both "dogs" despite the fact there's a real problem with breeding them "naturally".
so you accept no real limits on inter-Kind relationships (i.e. if it happens, it happens), you obviously don't have a problem with animals going extinct (or are you seriously telling me that dinosaurs never existed? I don't care WHEN you think they existed...) despite the fact you said that "there will always be dogs" and "dogs will always make dogs" - both of which are obviously lies from what you've already said you believe in.
let's play a little game:
dogs and wolves interbreed somewhere, and create a viable breeding population of dog-wolf/wolf-dog hybrids which are neither dog nor wolf.
some big McGuffin happens to all the wolves and all the dogs, same as the dinosaurs - boom, no more dogs or wolves.
but magically we still have the hybrids.
you can accept change in a population, so imagine these hybrids change again - some get bigger, some get smaller and bam! you've got something like the great dane and chihuahuah problem.
now, a creationist very much like yourself, but two thousand years later sees this succession of micro-evolutionary occurences and says what?
Step forward now, be brave, what would he say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 8:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 12:11 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 295 of 425 (541286)
01-02-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
01-01-2010 8:58 PM


Re: Summary
coyote writes:
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs.
Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary.
Oh I agree, it was just a good opportunity to see how far a creationist can put their foot in their mouth and still claim they don't taste the sole.
"kinds" are entirely religious, and not only that but MUST bow down to the scriptures in any and all cases, even when the answer is nonsensical and self-contradictory (as in the case of ICANT and his inability to understand the difference between hybrids, "micro-evolution" and the change he says he is very much used to a what is, essentially, exactly what science is telling us happens).
the IDiots who would have us all listen to their badly-thought-out sad and pathetic excuses for what passes for "creation science" theories haven't done the first bit of work to make sure any of what they propose to teach even passes the first hurdle of being self-consistent a theory before it gets anywhere near being tested in the field.
not only is it not self-consistent, it is a swiss-cheese escher painting, and suggesting it has any merit whatsoever just sandpapers my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2010 8:58 PM Coyote 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