|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2004 : 19:09:38
|
quote:
All interfertile varieties of any animl are just one Genesis "kind"
From: 'Reasoning from the scriptures' Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania - 1985, 1989.
So with this in mind, can anyone calculate a figure for the number of kinds on the ark?
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2004 : 19:31:03 [Permalink]
|
At least a million, just in insects.
And, of course, we've got examples of plants and animals in just the last 100 years going through modification which left them unable to breed with the original species, showing that the above definition of "kind" fails to describe the facts as they are known. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 21:48:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
just the last 100 years going through modification which left them unable to breed with the original species
As you would say to me, where is your proof?
Sure its not logical to have all the animals going on the ark, but since God in not a created being it could happen... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 22:04:32 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
As you would say to me, where is your proof?
We've shown it to you already. You either ignored it or were careless and missed it. Either way, I am not feeling compelled to link to it again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 08:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Well, I am:
"In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species."
"In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County, Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany 60, pp. 545-553)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)"
Both are from http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
Verlch, how is it that you think you can ask us for sources but we can't ask you? (well, we can ask you, its just that you won't provide them). |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 12:24:21 [Permalink]
|
I wonder how verlich will respond to your post, Ricky.
I think he will either:
A. Point out that women hate him.
-or-
B. Point out that there have been no petrified trees found that are over 2000 years old.
I am on the edge of my seat, in anticipation!!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 14:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
just the last 100 years going through modification which left them unable to breed with the original species
As you would say to me, where is your proof?
The London Subway Mosquito.
When the subway was built, mosquitoes followed people down there. They learned to live in the artificial light, and learned that food (humans and other mammals rather than their previous source: birds) were readily available.
After a hundred years of living separated from their surface "cousins" they have evolved different feeding and mating habits. These habits separated them enough to let genetics evolve them to a separate species.
They can not interbreed anymore.
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/25/2004 15:00:07 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 17:24:26 [Permalink]
|
| Mab, there have been numerous examples of evolution at work provided for verlch. He doesn't care, he just hides behind his wall of invincible ignorance and tosses off more rediculous assertions when confronted by proof that evolution occurs. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 19:41:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Well, I am:
"In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species."
"In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County, Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany 60, pp. 545-553)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)"
Both are from http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
Verlch, how is it that you think you can ask us for sources but we can't ask you? (well, we can ask you, its just that you won't provide them).
I am not impressed...that is plants! Not animals. They are probubly within the same kind.
quote:
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
After its kind! Sure you can gentically cross things up, but expect to see imperfections right away!!! Genetic mutations!
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html" target="_blank"> br / http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 19:46:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
just the last 100 years going through modification which left them unable to breed with the original species
As you would say to me, where is your proof?
The London Subway Mosquito.
When the subway was built, mosquitoes followed people down there. They learned to live in the artificial light, and learned that food (humans and other mammals rather than their previous source: birds) were readily available.
After a hundred years of living separated from their surface "cousins" they have evolved different feeding and mating habits. These habits separated them enough to let genetics evolve them to a separate species.
They can not interbreed anymore.
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
This is a fine example of micro changes....It would be nice to observe this, and to try and test the outcome.
We still have not seen a new macro changed beast of the feild. We still do not know how germs transformed into fish, and then transformed into humans.
I'm not trying to make anybody dislike me more, but its just a thought I had as I finished a rather large job and went home...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 06/25/2004 19:57:39 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 21:08:26 [Permalink]
|
"I am not impressed...that is plants! Not animals. They are probubly within the same kind."
Although I don't see the difference, I will give you animals too. Oh, and btw, this only shows that you only ask for sources, but don't read them. The link I provided also had these in it, and in the exact same location as the plants. Why do you ask for sources if your not going to read them?
"Mammals:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)
Birds:
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch- species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new phenotype never observed before, made manifest i n just a few years time.
Insects:
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B. Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117- 124.
Tropical fish:
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
The authors of a recent paper put this to the test by studying the Atlantic silverside fish Menidia menidia . This fish has an unusual life cycle in that, during the early months of the year mostly female offspring are produced. In the summer months mostly males are produced. The bias in the sex of the offspring is induced by the water temperature. Female offspring are produced while the water is cold, males while it is warm. The sex ratio across the whole year balances out to 0.5. This sex bias is caused by temperature dependent sex determination, not temperature dependent sex mortality. In other words cold water makes baby female fish form, it doesn't kill male baby fish. The same embryo could be male or female depending on the temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not influence the sex ratio in this species.)
The authors captured hundreds of these fish and maintained them in aquaria for five to six years. Some aquaria were maintained at low temperatures, others at high temperatures. In the low temp aquaria, the populations began with mostly females. The sex ratio, for example, in one low temp tank was 0.70 (70% female) In the high temperature aquaria, the populations began with mostly males. In one of the low tanks the sex ratio was 0.18. Both of these, given the population sizes, are significantly different than 0.50.
As the experiment progressed, the sex ratios changed from the highly skewed initial conditions. In all the populations the sex ratios converged on 0.5. The trajectory of the sex ratios converging on 0.5 differed between many of the tanks. In one tank, the next and all subsequent generations were at an 0.5 sex ration. In another, it slowly converged upon 0.5. In yet another it reached 0.5, then overshot slightly, then returned. This indicates that a sex ratio of 0.5 is somehow adaptive be cause the fish evolved from a skewed ratio to a balanced ratio. Since chromosome assortment does not determine sex in these fish (temperature does), the only explanation for their convergence to 0.5 is natural selection favoured fish that produced an abnormal amount of the minority sex. (If males are lacking, any fish that produces male fish will contribute more than average to the gene pool).
This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool."
(same source as my pervious post)
"This is a fine example of micro changes....It would be nice to observe this, and to try and test the outcome.
We still have not seen a new macro changed beast of the feild. We still do not know how germs transformed into fish, and then transformed into humans." - verlch
What is a micro change and what is a macro change? Where is the line? How do several micro changes not make up 1 macro change? Why can the DNA only change to have a micro change, but not macro? Where is the limit to how much the DNA can change? How does this limit work?
I would post more questions, but these probably won't get answered so there is no reason to. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 21:08:28 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
I am not impressed...that is plants! Not animals. They are probubly within the same kind.
Doesn't matter whether it impresses you or not, the evidence is plain. As Ricky quoted:...This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species. Emphasis mine. That you refuse to acknowledge this as a counter-example to the definition of "kind" cited in the original post to this thread means you're either dogmatically refusing to see it, or you're an idiot. Take your pick, since in either case you're a lost cause.quote:
This is a fine example of micro changes....It would be nice to observe this, and to try and test the outcome.
You can observe it, and test it, simply by going to London. How much more do you need?quote:
We still have not seen a new macro changed beast of the feild.
Since you refuse to use the definition of "macroevolution" used by both creationists and scientists, your demands to see it are futile, and not worth responding to. Your own personal definition runs counter to evolutionary claims, so why should "evolutionists" have to supply it? It's like asking the ice cream man to install your new hardwood floor.quote:
We still do not know how germs transformed into fish, and then transformed into humans.
No, but we do know that a human uterine cell has transformed into a germ. How's that for speciation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 21:39:42 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Wow, 2 seconds off.
Geez, I didn't even look back to notice that until I happened to see that mine wasn't the last post here anymore. A closer "simupost" is unlikely to happen. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 23:58:23 [Permalink]
|
I'm psychic!
quote:
posted by Dude:
Mab, there have been numerous examples of evolution at work provided for verlch. He(verlch) doesn't care, he just hides behind his wall of invincible ignorance and tosses off more rediculous assertions when confronted by proof that evolution occurs.
Read verlch's last couple posts for proof of my awesome powers! |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 12:50:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I'm psychic!
quote:
posted by Dude:
Mab, there have been numerous examples of evolution at work provided for verlch. He(verlch) doesn't care, he just hides behind his wall of invincible ignorance and tosses off more rediculous assertions when confronted by proof that evolution occurs.
Read verlch's last couple posts for proof of my awesome powers!
In your minds that are encased in your skulls and attached to your spinal cord that runs your whole bodies.
What is mother natures purpose in creating trillions of species on earth? why not just create man, and have him walk about aimlessly, what is the purpose of all the other beasts of the field? In your eyes, that are attached to your skull so you can see, why do you think mother nature created death? Why would mother nature spend all that time evolving something and allow it to die?
If mother nature developed ways to live off of oxygen, that germs created, develope lungs and the such, why didn't it make us like off of Carbon instead of oxygen. Since there is more of it in the atmosphere?
Why do we have to eat? And who set all these rules? What are the chances of us.
1. Living off the soil.
2. Drinking the water off the earth to survive.
3. Breathing the 'breath of life' oxygen all over the planet.
All this we need in our bodies!!! That seems like an aweful lot of chances to exist without a creator!!! How come woman evolved different than man? Ok man evolves, than woman right along but different? Now you open a whole different can of worms!!! Evolving of a womans breasts, and uterus that developes man children!!! And to top it off if she takes care of herself she is 'Hot'. How did mother nature make something attractive that came from a 'fish?' With no resemance of fish or aquatic life, none what so ever!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
