Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

Couldn't resist pointing out some flaws in the logic1. Phenotypic change does not necessarily indicate any evolution at all, let along hyperevolution. All species have pre-evolved adaptability to changes in conditions. Consider the great increase in height / longevity of the Japanese population since WW2, which nobody would claim to be evolution but which would score high on the "darwins" (14 yo Japanese boys now are as heavy as adults at the end of WW2)Japanese Children Getting Bigger | Lifestyle Trends | Trends in Japan | Web Japan2. Where short term genetic adaptation occurs it is almost %100 through competition between variations in the gene pool in response to changes in the environment. Rapid strong selection pressures tend to "use up" genetic variation within the population, putting a final break on the "hyper-evolution", so in the long run evolution is constrained by the mutation rate no matter how strong the selection pressures (during a period of stability, variation builds back up to equilibrium).3. Paleontologists use average size of specimens when determining long term evolution trends. You wouldn't claim that because you found a small adult T-Rex fossil and a much larger one from 1 year later that T-Rex suddenly evolved bigger, because chance in plays a part in the individual life of each animal or group.4. The predator is also adapting to the guppies. At first, the abundant new food source benefits each predator roughly equally (boosting predator survival all round, little competitive pressure), but as the predator population maxes out and the guppies grow bigger to avoid being eaten, those predators able to eat the larger prey will be selected for. As this continues, the advantage of being a large guppy will eventually diminish and the guppies may shift back towards producing a high quantity of young and being smaller again.So much for hyper-evolution.

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".Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Wolves and Dogs can Hybridize - so they must be one 'Kind' according to your previous claims.Also Coyote and Jackals, Foxes claimed but unconfirmedThey have a "Canid interfertility chart" here :Canid hybrid - WikipediaEdited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Peg, you claim that all changes in Chromosome number are always detrimental, yet your individual "kinds" contain members with wildly varying numbers of chromosomes.Birds Range : 40 - 138 Chromosomes, but are all of the same "kind"They seem to have coped fine, how does this gel ?How many chromosomes can be found in a bird? - AnswersAlso Peg : your claim that mutations never ever occur is a worrying regression, making yourself sound stupider than before. It would make your proposed development of kinds into the range of known species completely impossible.Sexual reproduction inevitably reduces genetic variation, regardless of whether you believe in natural seleciton or not (only 50% of the DNA from your parents is in you, the other half is lost). Maintaining a continuous level of genetic diversity in the face of inevitable reduction requires mutation. Without it all species would end up as clones.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Peg, both experiments are in total agreement, there absolutely no conflict.In your quoted experiment, there was a pre-given population of e coli, some of which were phage resistant.In the other experiment, a single e coli was bred into a population. Changes in the DNA occured during breeding, giving a population just like the one in the first experiment, with the same results of some having phage resistance.Really, where's the discrepancy than an eight-year-old couldn't see past, and where do you think the phage-resitance came from in the first place for your quoted experiment ?If no mutation ever occurs, all the e coli should have been identical in both experiments from the start. You'd be almost completely alone on that one (plus you need hyper-mutation and hyper-selection to explain hyper-evolution after the flood, but it still wouldn't be enough, only direct genetic engineering from God could explain it)

Do we really need to spell everything out like talking to a young child ?now, tell me which thing i have wrong here ??I've numbered the points for simplicity1. god created distinct kinds.2. These kinds can never cross with other kinds3. you listed dog kind and wolf kind as seperate kinds4. point 3 contradicts point 2 and point 1, given that dogs and wolves can be crossed.5. Conclusion : dogs and wolves must be the same kind (canine kind).I also provided the wiki diagram on canine hybrids. All these must be a single kind (maybe not foxes though).

While were at it, why don't we start pointing out the veritable conga-line of critters that Adam had to personally name in Genesis? This list has to include all the kinds on the Ark plus any land or air creatures which didn't fit (dinosaurs, extinct mammals etc)How many critters ? And how long did it take to think up original names for each one?At 10000 kinds, and 60 seconds per critter it would have taken Adam a whole week without a break, you don't have a "well God got the animals to walk onto the Ark by themselves, so Noah could focus on other things" excuse here, Adam had to personally inspect each and every one.Don't get me started on how long it would have taken if kind = species, it'd take Adam 10 years nonstop just to do the 5,000,000 Beetles.Adam : "Goddamit, haven't I seen that one before??"
God : "No, I assure you this is a different one"Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

I think maybe my sloppy terminology of "pre-evolved adaptability " wasn't the best expression, and caused some confusion as to my meaning. Let me clarify the thinking behind my statement.By "pre-evolved" i meant inherited genetic traits, and by "adaptability" i mean "mechanisms for individual phenotypic change in response to environmental change".In the case of the guppies there could conceivably be a mechanism whereby the presence of predators causes increased stress hormones, which causes more eggs to be produced, in the same way that stress causes some plants to produce more seed.So, my assertion would now read : "existing creatures possess inherited genetic traits which enhance phenotypic (non-genetic) adaptation to varying individual circumstances."I don't think this is controversial at all.

You do realize by postulating a separate creation for both Wolves and Dogs you are not only saying you know better than science, you're also saying you know better than the Baraminologists who study this for a living. So there were two wolves, and two dogs and two jackals and two coyotes on the Ark ??Two animals "doing what comes naturally" is defintely NOT "human intervention". Wolves and dogs could plausibly be referred to as a single species, as their offspring seems 100% viable.If you think lions and housecats are the same Baramin, how on Earth are dogs and wolves seperate ? There's no way in hell little tabby's gonna mate with a lion, artificial insemination or not, but you claim they're all the same.EDIT : btw look at the DNA results from testing dogs, several lines including the German Shephard have MORE in common with wolf DNA than they have in common with the line including Golden Retrivers/Labradors, so is s German shepherd a Wolf or a Dog ?? : Domestication of the dog - WikipediaI'm sure you weren't aware of patting a pet wolf last time you visited a friend who had a German ShepardEdited by jasonlang, : Added further source / detailEdited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

ICANT wrote: ICANTS (universal, unquestionable) kind rule : Two Chihuahua's never produce a baby Rottweiler
Two Rottweiler's never produce a baby ChihuahuaSo Rottweiler and Chihuahua must be separate Kinds due to the universal rule you uncovered.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Fair enough, but you're deliberately avoiding my QUESTION and pretending that a point I stated as a tautology is the question : that you believe you know better than science is not in doubt.So to restate :how come you know so much better than all the expert CHRISTIAN Baraminologists who spend their whole career putting this stuff together, they have dog/wolf as a single Baramin (I will be annoyed if you dredge the literature for that one-in-a-million Baraminologist who just happens to concur with you on this).BTW they believe in the Bible every bit as much as you do, and, I imagine, know it in much more detail :http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology Now, which parts of the above excerpt are rubbish, and why?PS : Sorry about the cat/lion thing, I checked, it was something Peg said, not you, it's been a long thread.AND JUST FOR FUN EVERYBODY :Not a valid community | | Fandom Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Now you're going on about a Young Earth which is completely off-topic. Wouldn't it be better to not reply at all than to reply that you refuse to reply ? My point in presenting the standard creationist kinds definition was to show you how far your definitions so far in this forum have been lacking, compared to a definition which most evolutionists already think is sucky.see my post #272 which you have not responded to.Give me a criteria by which rottweiler and chihuahua are the same kind, but which separates rottweilers and chihuahuas from wolves. 'Dog' is just a name after all so the names people use don't count. Remember if noone had seen a wolf before, we'd just think they were a type of dog.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

ICANT wrote: very silly statement ! And ignoring the link I gave previously which state genetic proves the German Shepherd is MORE WOLF THAN DOGBut i have a more interesting observation : how did a pair of Three Toed Sloths get from south america to the middle east then back again ?Research Data :Rio -> Cairo is 9882.81 km in a straight line.The max age of a sloth is 30-40 years : "Sloths live 10 to 12 years in the wild and up to 31 years in captivity.". Giving the benefit of the doubt assume the super-sloths lived 40 years.Top ground speed of a Sloth = 5ft/min = 90 m / hr
Sloths sleep 15 hrs/dayMax travel = 90 m * 9 hrs= 0.81 km/day.So, 12201 days to get to Noah, or 33.4 years, assuming the sloths don't need extra time to forage for food.Sloths live in trees, and on the ground walk by dragging themselves by their hands. I doubt sloths travelling constant every day by dragging themselves along by their fingers would have lived the full lifespan.After the flood, the sloths would definitely have been too old to breed, or make the journey back to South America, so this was a multi-generational effort it seems (and decades in the planning).Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.