Ring species

[AV1611VET]

no evidence means your claim is the result of speculation on your part or from wherever you got your idea from.

[bible]Numbers 23:22[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 24:8[/bible]
[bible]Job 39:9-10[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 29:6[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 92:10[/bible]

I don't pick and choose what I believe.

As our motto states:

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

[bible]Numbers 23:22[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 24:8[/bible]
[bible]Job 39:9-10[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 29:6[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 92:10[/bible]

I don't pick and choose what I believe.

As our motto states:

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

the bible is not evidence it is often vastly inconsistent with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

the bible is not evidence it is often vastly inconsistent with reality.

Oh, It is, huh?

Like when It predicted the rebirth of Israel?

Or where It mentions the universe expanding?

(Or does Hubble have exclusive rights to that "discovery"?)

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Oh, It is, huh?

Like when It predicted the rebirth of Israel?

Or where It mentions the universe expanding?

(Or does Hubble have exclusive rights to that "discovery"?)

like all of genesis and the flood. the sun standing still. walking on water. water turning into wine. plagues of egypt. parting of the red sea.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Oh, It is, huh?

Like when It predicted the rebirth of Israel?

Or where It mentions the universe expanding?

(Or does Hubble have exclusive rights to that "discovery"?)

israel was recreated by christian britain who wanted to encourage prophecy. hubble gets credit for describing the phenomena which prove expansion. if the bible had pointed out universal expansion then scientists wouldnt have had to "re"discover it.

 

[godlessagnostic]

Oh, It is, huh?

Like when It predicted the rebirth of Israel?

Or where It mentions the universe expanding?

(Or does Hubble have exclusive rights to that "discovery"?)

People doing something because the Bible says so does not make it a true prophecy. The Isrealites wanted that land because the Bible says it's suppose to be given back to them. Plus it took what 3 to 4 thousand years. If time is infinite and you make a random prediction it has to come true eventually. And a vague prediction like this is bound to come true pretty quickly.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In defense of the bible on the matter of the unicorns:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07214&Version=kjv

 

[Baggins]

I think He did too --- either way, the first animal on the earth - (or in it, however you look at it) - was a whale.

No it wasn't, it was either a sponge or a vendobiont.

We find whales quite commonly in the geological record but not for over half a billion years after the first animals appear in teh geological record.

Such a time difference stretches the credibility of your claim beyond breaking point.

But when has reality ever stopped you believing something silly?

 

[NailsII]

[bible]Numbers 23:22[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 24:8[/bible]
[bible]Job 39:9-10[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 29:6[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 92:10[/bible]

I don't pick and choose what I believe.

As our motto states:

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

I think you are missing the point AV.
The bible is telling us there is a mythical creature called a unicorn, which apparantly is associated with strength if your quotes are anything to go by.
This is not evidence that a unicorn ever existed, in the same vein that this is not evidence that wizards and spells are real:

 

[Naraoia]

Gitt is saying that just because genetic information contains more base pairs doesn't make it more meaningful. He's saying that the value of 4 base pairs could be greater than the value of 4000 base pairs, as long as the 4000 are nonsense.

I understood the sentence, I just can't believe the original information theory really says that a random sequence contains the most information. But now I have a short info-theory tutorial downloaded, so I can see what it says for myself

 

[Naraoia]

CLICK HERE
​

Ok, AV, I'll rephrase the question. Can you (or anyone) provide a definition of "kind" that we, mere mortals, can use to decide which creatures belong to one kind and which don't?

 

[Naraoia]

That's actually true; the information content of a string is defined as the minimum amount of bits required to uniquely describe it. A random string is harder to define than an an ordered string or an English sentence and so it contains more information.

It's counterintuitive, but there is no metric for 'meaning'.

Wow. I wonder what that kind of information theory is good for.

 

[Naraoia]

It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

There's more of a chance in finding an ante-diluvian skeleton than there is finding an ante-diluvian unicorn.

You mean, unicorns didn't have skeletons?

 

[LittleNipper]

A Challenge for Creationists! (I like this word challenge)

Since LittleNipper consistently ignored this question in another thread, I thought I'd give it a whole thread of its own. I'm hoping that some creationist will drop by and give their thoughts.

THE FACTS

Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander native to western North America. Its distribution forms a ring around the Great Central Valley of California; the salamanders are not found inside the valley itself.

If we start from the southern end of the valley and follow it north and then south again on the other side, we encounter several subspecies of Ensatina salamanders. These overlap in distribution and interbreed with their neighbours. Furthermore, their appearance shows a gradual increase in the degree and regularity of patterning from simple brownish unpatterned E. e. eschscholzi to bright orange-and-black banded E. e. klauberi.

With the klauberi subspecies we arrive back to our starting point. Klauberi and eschscholzi overlap but do not interbreed, and they look very distinct. They are clearly different species. Yet they are connected by a continuum of more or less transitional forms that are perfectly capable of interbreeding with their neighbours.

THE CHALLENGE

Therefore I ask the creationists who are willing to take up the challenge:

(1) How many species is Ensatina eschscholzi? Why?

(2) If it is more than one, where does the boundary between the species exist?

(3) How do you explain ring species such as Ensatina in terms of creationism? "Goddidit" and "just because" are not sufficient explanations.

If they interbeed, then they are not a separate species. If any species interbeeds and produces fertile offspring then the supposed species or subdivision was nothing more than a variation within a kind.

 

[Naraoia]

If they interbeed, then they are not a separate species. If any species interbeeds and produces fertile offspring then the supposed species or subdivision was nothing more than a variation within a kind.

Problem is, the two subspecies at one end of the ring DON'T interbreed. It's somewhat like a mathematical equation going a = b = c = d = e... and then stating that a =/= e. But I appreciate that you've replied.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, AV, I'll rephrase the question. Can you (or anyone) provide a definition of "kind" that we, mere mortals, can use to decide which creatures belong to one kind and which don't?

It's easy, Naraoia --- just look at the animal that is at the top of the taxon for any given species.

Take a dog, for instance. Find it on the taxon list, then look up until you see the first entry for its genera*, and there you go.

If you want to see the oldest living kind in existence, look no further than the mirror.

Humankind has not changed for 6100 years.

*Which, I believe, is a coyote.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's easy, Naraoia --- just look at the animal that is at the top of the taxon for any given species.

For any given species, the organism at the highest taxon is the first species of organisms that formed via abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection.
However, you disagree with this theory, so your definition is flawed until we clarify this problem.

Take a dog, for instance. Find it on the taxon list, then look up until you see the first entry for its genera*, and there you go.

Why genera? Why not its phylum? Or its domain?

If you want to see the oldest living kind in existence, look no further than the mirror.

Humankind has not changed for 6100 years.

Can you verify this?

 

[LittleNipper]

Problem is, the two subspecies at one end of the ring DON'T interbreed. It's somewhat like a mathematical equation going a = b = c = d = e... and then stating that a =/= e. But I appreciate that you've replied.

So, I would not marry a black 400 pound woman with a big nose. That doesn't mean that she might not turn on some male counterpart. That doesn't make her a different species, just a turnoff for me. And if the saving of mankind was depending on my co-operation, well, my guess is that would be the end of humanity.......

 

[AV1611VET]

For any given species, the organism at the highest taxon is the first species of organisms that formed via abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection.
However, you disagree with this theory, so your definition is flawed until we clarify this problem.

I'm not going to debate with you guys using atheistic terminology.

Why genera? Why not its phylum? Or its domain?

To be honest, I'll agree with anything, as long as it doesn't disagree with the Bible. If I say, "Okay, it's 'phylum,'" and that leads to a conclusion that contradicts the Scriptures, then I'll have to backtrack.

Can you verify this?

No --- that's not my specialty --- Creation and the Flood are.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

For any given species, the organism at the highest taxon is the first species of organisms that formed via abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection.
However, you disagree with this theory, so your definition is flawed until we clarify this problem.

I'm not going to debate with you guys using atheistic terminology.

you seem to have confused the word atheistic and scientific.