proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

False Scripturally since Angels are not made of flesh as the sons of God (prehistoric people) WERE. Gen 6:3 Jesus tells us that Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Also, the Angels who left their first estate (heaven) are held in chains under darkness until the Judgment. Jde 1:6

Chapter and verse on the giants from Gad? Amen?

Why did the Angels leave their first estate?

 

[Jimmy D]

Yet understanding dogs only give birth to dogs, you insist I accept some common ancestor of which none exist, gave birth to what became both human and chimpanzee. You know the reality but then propose the exact opposite.



All dogs came from the wolf, yes? Common descent, with only breeding.....



You missed the point.

"may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination "

Then posit despite no evidence that this is the reason.... Typical evolutionary PR hype....


I've never disagreed that what already exists can be written in a new format. That same DNA exists, it is nothing new, it was simply rewritten into a new format. Yet no evidence of this recombination event is observed......



Apparently you dont read too well.

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves

"Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East."

How can the small dog haplotype be closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves, if thayt halplotype does not exist in some form in those wolves?

As I have repeatedly said, what already exists may be written into a new format or enhanced by the quadrillionth mutation. Nothing here is inconsistent with that statement.

Apparently you dont understand what that haplotype being closely related to the same haplotype in middle eastern wolves means...... Taking it to mean it never existed in Middle Eastern wolves, because that is the concluson the PR people want you to come to. Yet if it never existed, there could be no close relationship to that halpotype in the Middle Eastern wolves. I understand common sense is beyound you, that all you can do is parrot what others tell ypou to believe, but learn to think for yourself. If it didnt alredy exist in some form in Middle Eastern wolves, that halpotype that is dominant in small dogs could not be closely related to the haplotype found in Middle Eastern wolves. In Middle Eastern wolves it may be recessive and not active, but exists already in a closely related form of the gene... Not that I expect an evolutionist to be able to distinguish the difference between mere dominance and recessiveness in genes.... Instead only able to parrot what they are told to say and unable to think for themselves....

LOL.

That's a nice quote from the study you've copied there, I think you accidentally left off the preceding sentence.....

The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs. Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East.

Yet understanding dogs only give birth to dogs, you insist I accept some common ancestor of which none exist, gave birth to what became both human and chimpanzee. You know the reality but then propose the exact opposite.



All dogs came from the wolf, yes? Common descent, with only breeding.....



You missed the point.

"may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination "

Then posit despite no evidence that this is the reason.... Typical evolutionary PR hype....


I've never disagreed that what already exists can be written in a new format. That same DNA exists, it is nothing new, it was simply rewritten into a new format. Yet no evidence of this recombination event is observed......



Apparently you dont read too well.

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves

"Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East."

How can the small dog haplotype be closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves, if thayt halplotype does not exist in some form in those wolves?

As I have repeatedly said, what already exists may be written into a new format or enhanced by the quadrillionth mutation. Nothing here is inconsistent with that statement.

Apparently you dont understand what that haplotype being closely related to the same haplotype in middle eastern wolves means...... Taking it to mean it never existed in Middle Eastern wolves, because that is the concluson the PR people want you to come to. Yet if it never existed, there could be no close relationship to that halpotype in the Middle Eastern wolves. I understand common sense is beyound you, that all you can do is parrot what others tell ypou to believe, but learn to think for yourself. If it didnt alredy exist in some form in Middle Eastern wolves, that halpotype that is dominant in small dogs could not be closely related to the haplotype found in Middle Eastern wolves. In Middle Eastern wolves it may be recessive and not active, but exists already in a closely related form of the gene... Not that I expect an evolutionist to be able to distinguish the difference between mere dominance and recessiveness in genes.... Instead only able to parrot what they are told to say and unable to think for themselves....

It appears that when you posted your quote from that paper you accidently missed off the preceding sentence...

The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs. Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East.


Reading on...

Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs.

So yes, the paper appears to confirm my assertion.

However, I have never claimed to be any sort of expert, may Tas could shed more light on it if you require further clarification as he is much more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Whatever excuse you need. Why dont you read what happened with an actual experiment of domestication of wild canines? Or would and actual study of the process invalidate your beliefs?

Trut Fox Study | Domestication | Dogs

You will find that only the mutation to the gene that affected hair color was involved. But I understand they need to bring evolution into the dog lineage somehow so will say anything. But then I havent been shown I can trust people to tell the truth about evolution when they refuse to admit the truth about finches......... You havent yet explained to me why finches that interbreed are separate species, while spiders are the same species because they interbreed? Without justification it just shows youll say anything to support their lies....

Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.

Thanks to evolution being a very gradual process, it is not uncommon for species A and species B to be able to breed, and species B and species C to be able to breed, but species A and species C cannot. Obviously, they can't all be labeled the same species, since not all of them can breed with each other. So we label all 3 as different species because that's the best we can do, really.

What must also be taken into consideration is whether or not the hybrid offspring have reduced survival and reproduction chance. In birds, it is not uncommon for the hybrid offspring to be perceived by the species of the parents as unattractive and undesirable for mating, making them as much genetic dead ends as an infertile hybrid would be.

 

[Aman777]

Why did the Angels leave their first estate?

To go with Satan. Rev 12:9 It's the same with many people today. They love the world instead of Jesus. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

Lets use the scientific definition.

An allele (/əˈliːl/) is a variant form of a given gene.

So what already exists is simply written into a different format.

What 'format' are you referring to?


Let's look at what YOU wrote:

"No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is."

Yet here you are now, after finally copy-pasting an actual definition, pretending to have known all along.

Typical.

Or can we say dominance and resessive?

I can say it - and even spell it correctly - and I also know that alleles are more than a dominant one and a recessive one. And so should you, since your own linked and quoted Wiki article lays it out.

I suggest you read beyond a few sentences.

In fact, since you are the expert, why don't you tell us all how alleles are formed, and what other means of interaction alleles have besides being dominant or recessive?

i mean, without googling it?

"In many cases, genotypic interactions between the two alleles at a locus can be described as leading to dominant or recessive,"

So that what was recessive becomes dominant, or dominant recessive, just shows that what already exists in the genome is used.

How does that happen? How does a dominant become recessive?

Surely you must have a creation science answer?


Is it copying errors? Or magical new DNA letters?

Thats like evolutionists claiming E coli processing citrus is new,

Sorry but... BWAAAHAHAHHAAAAA!!!!!

when all that happened was that gene became dominant, as E coli could always process citrus, even if not to the extent of being able to do so solely. Being the gene turned dominant - that already existed - it could then process citrus more efficiently.

The number is currently unknown at each loci. Since the number is unknown, it is unknown if one becomes dominant that already existed.

They just found two, even if it is the most reasearched next to blood types because of diseases.

Identification of two new alleles, IGHV3-23*04 and IGHJ6*04, and the complete sequence of the IGHV3-h pseudogene in the human immunoglobulin locus and their prevalences in Danish Caucasians

[/quote]

Where did those NEW ALLELES come from?

Oh - and please explain why you linked to a paper on immunoglobulin but referred to it as a blood type thing.

Apply your google smarts to this one - try real hard - type in "immunoglobulin".

and maybe - MAYBE - if you read some stuff, you know, beyond 2 sentences or so, you might find the answer I am actually asking about.

But I doubt it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All are subspecies (races) of the original African humans.

But that doesn't jive with your version of the bible tale, I'm sure. uh oh!

Of course not, Africans came from one of Noah's Sons. What race were Adam and Eve? No one knows, I expect they no longer exist in any form we would recognize as the races today.

"Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?"

No one has tried, try it and find out.

By your personally preferred definition. There is disagreement about it among biologists. You are picking one side because you think it props up your bible tales, not for any real biological reason.

No, because some understand the truth, that some obfuscate so they can name anything a species is their problem.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Are you saying these spiders are incorrectly classified?????

"Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?

Can parrots breed with emus?

If not, why not?"

So, are ALL BIRDS one 'Kind'? Or is it just Finches that are all one 'Kind'?

Read Leviticus which you quoted. It talks of multiple birds and yes bats, then says to each its own Kind. Such is why all finches produce only finches, bats produce only bats, owls only owls... Surely you can understand this much without your high priests telling you what to parrot? Do I have a problem if you want to classify an Ocelot as its own Kind? Not at all, except if it can mate with another then they are of the same Kind. But absence of known mating is another story.

After all, for 200+ years they believed those finches didnt interbreed.....

Can parrots and Emus interbreed - are they one species? Or not?

The Bible already told you, to each its own Kind. If they can interbreed they are the same Kind, if they cant then they are not.

I merely report what Online Bible sites tell me:

Without doing any research, just parrot, just like you only parrot what your online evolutionists tell you.


Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

or

Leviticus 11:13-19King James Version (KJV)

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
[/URL][/quote]
And were informed that several Kinds were listed......

Sorry, I forgot - all creationists on the internet, in addition to being experts in all areas of science, are also bible scholars.

Thats why you still believe in evolution, you dont research.... just parrot.

Please forgive my oversight.

You are forgiven your trespass against me. Cant help with your sins.

But I have a question - if the bible writers meant 'flying creature' - why no mention of flying squirrels? Phalangers? Sugar gliders? Flying insects?

because you stopped after you thought you had won and missed the next verse which mentioned winged insects.....

Leviticus 11 Interlinear Bible

Strong's Hebrew: 5775. עוֹף (oph) -- flying creatures
Strong's Hebrew: 8318. שָׁ֫רֶץ (sherets) -- swarmers, swarming things
"sherets: swarmers, swarming things"

As for squirils, why would they be included in flying creatures since they dont actually fly? Sure we call them flying squirrels, but in reality they dont fly at all.

Any more irrelevant strawmen?

Defining speciation

Have you observed a subkind being produced?

Why yes I have. Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind. But you dont follow your own deffinitions.

"A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species."

But with your problem in defining species, I can see where you would be even more confused about subspecies.

Read the definition, see if you can figure out the ones I have given you, even if they cant bring themselves to call them such.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

"a :a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs"

Certainly you can figure it out since I have to repeat them in almost every post. Fits it to a T, they just refuse to follow their own definition. Nothing new there.

What about this creationist with a doctorate:

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

You wont mind showing me a common ancestor that split would you?​

What do you know that he doesn't?

That Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.....

Do we need to go over the empirical evidence all over again?

Here you go:

"There was no plan to have so many similar Kinds. There is only one Kind of canidae. The reason they contain such variability built into the genome is surviveability. What disease may decimate one subspecies may not affect them all. What genetic degradation leading to a dead end that affects one may not affect them all....


From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format."

but


"African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species."


So.... How did we get all this variation from some mythological "created Kind"?

As far as I am aware, the Asian and African contain different formats of genomes do they not? So what is your problem?

All dogs came from one wolf gene.

Now someone tried the creation of new genes routine, but then I had to show them where this same gene was closely related to an existing gene in wolves, even when they claimed it didnt exist in wolves. But dominance and recessive is probably beyound your comprehension as well, since you cant understand how when an Asian mates with an African we might get a new race......

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.

Thanks to evolution being a very gradual process, it is not uncommon for species A and species B to be able to breed, and species B and species C to be able to breed, but species A and species C cannot. Obviously, they can't all be labeled the same species, since not all of them can breed with each other. So we label all 3 as different species because that's the best we can do, really.

What must also be taken into consideration is whether or not the hybrid offspring have reduced survival and reproduction chance. In birds, it is not uncommon for the hybrid offspring to be perceived by the species of the parents as unattractive and undesirable for mating, making them as much genetic dead ends as an infertile hybrid would be.

That's a great explanation Sarah.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What 'format' are you referring to?


Let's look at what YOU wrote:

"No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is."

Yet here you are now, after finally copy-pasting an actual definition, pretending to have known all along.

Typical.

"A gene (from ancient Greek: γόνος, gonos, offspring, procreation) is a locus (or region) of DNA"

I'd call that a very small portion of the DNA, since an allele is a given variant of a gene, not the entire DNA strand. Sad, sad, sad that that was your best attempt.....

I can say it - and even spell it correctly - and I also know that alleles are more than a dominant one and a recessive one. And so should you, since your own linked and quoted Wiki article lays it out.

Do you understand dominance and recessive? I dont think you do.

 

[Aman777]

You have no god to offer so its alleged word is worth nothing. Sorry.

Sure I do and you cannot explain HOW any man could have possibly authored Genesis chapter one. In fact, you haven't been able to tell us HOW anyone at the time, knew and correctly wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was brought forth from WATER as Gen 1:21 clearly states. It took scientists until last year to confirm what God told us more than 3k years ago. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...

Godless men CHANGED the fact that all life came from water, into a godless scientific term and labeled it "natural". This has confused many naive worshipers of changeable Science. Sorry, but you were probably brain washed as a child. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.

Thanks to evolution being a very gradual process, it is not uncommon for species A and species B to be able to breed, and species B and species C to be able to breed, but species A and species C cannot. Obviously, they can't all be labeled the same species, since not all of them can breed with each other. So we label all 3 as different species because that's the best we can do, really.

What must also be taken into consideration is whether or not the hybrid offspring have reduced survival and reproduction chance. In birds, it is not uncommon for the hybrid offspring to be perceived by the species of the parents as unattractive and undesirable for mating, making them as much genetic dead ends as an infertile hybrid would be.

Then perhaps you could explain since you understand all the complexities, why spiders are the same species because they interbreed, but finches are not? Those spiders were classified as a separate species until they were found to be interbreeding, then it was corrected.

No its not the best you can do, If A breeds with B and B breeds with C but you havent observed C breed with A, you dont name them separate species. They are the same exact species. Until you find valid scientific data to confirm they are not. I am waiting for your valid scientific reason?

You all seem to understand this when it comes to dogs, but then loose your way because you have this need to prove speciation where none exists.

Without your incorrect classifications and your obfuscation about what a species is, your theory would fall apart. They know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Your entire theory rests on a definition you cant even define or stick to from one creature to the next. Its totally useless as an indicator of anything. Thye word species no longer means anything, since anything can be called a species for whatever reason one chooses.

An utterly useless designation with no meaning whatsover. This is what you rely on to prove your theory, which makes the theory just as useless.

What ambiguity did you not find in spiders interbreeding that you found in finches interbreeding, when the only difference was appearance? What keeps biologists from naming dogs as separate species, besides the fact that their ancestory is known and they know to do so would be a joke?

What are your scientific reason for calling finches that interbreed separate species. I want that reason in your words, what you accept. Then I'll show you you dont really believe what you just claimed. I already know the reason they claim, but I am going to prove to you that you wont accept that very reason as soon as you give it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's a great explanation Sarah.

Thats obfuscation to avoid the truth of mistaken classifications. Telling oneself s excuses to avoid confronting the truth.

Ill ask you the same thing. What is the scientific reason, in your own words, for accepting finches that interbreed before their eyes a separate species?

 

[Skreeper]

Says the person that wants correlation to imply evolution......

You must be confused, I never said such a thing.

 

[tas8831]

Given the exposure of how you operate by jimmy d, this is the last long response to you I will waste the time to produce.

Of course not, Africans came from one of Noah's Sons.

Question begging and contrary to available real evidence.

There is no evidence that Noah even existed - and you've yet to explain the mechanism by which extra alleles can be ignored by cells, as would be necessary given your evidence-free assertions.

What race were Adam and Eve? No one knows, I expect they no longer exist in any form we would recognize as the races today.

More question begging.

What is the evidence that Adam and eve even existed?

"Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?"

No one has tried, try it and find out.

so clever, so astute.

Funny - the last time I asked you trotted out some totally irrelevant nonsense about cheetahs and pumas and declared victory.

I guess those of us that have relevant educations and backgrounds will just have to ask the same questions - along with repeated explanations of what we are actually asking - 3-5 times before the local creationist experts on all science and bible scholarship will be able and honest enough to address it.

No, because some understand the truth, that some obfuscate so they can name anything a species is their problem.

Like I said - you pick one side because you think you can spin it to your advantage.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Are you saying these spiders are incorrectly classified?????

Cool - pasting the same irrelevance. So precious.

Read Leviticus which you quoted.

I did. several different versions (odd how the 1 true and accurate history of God and the world comes in so many different versions...).

It talks of multiple birds and yes bats, then says to each its own Kind. Such is why all finches produce only finches, bats produce only bats, owls only owls... Surely you can understand this much without your high priests telling you what to parrot?

Most ironic.

I CAN understand that the sections starts off with lists of birds and ends by including bats.

I know that because this is silly, apologists go to great lengths to try to find ways out of this embarrassment, but it just makes them look even more silly.

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that the people that wrote the bible were just men from the middle east that had very primitive understandings of the world around them?

Do I have a problem if you want to classify an Ocelot as its own Kind? Not at all, except if it can mate with another then they are of the same Kind. But absence of known mating is another story.

I do not want to classify anything as a "Kind". That is YOU.

I am asking if they are their own kind or not, and since that is your ancient mythological premise, YOU should know.

isn't it funny - you have this 'wait and see' attitude when you cannot address what should be a straightforward issue premised on your beliefs, yet when someone cannot show the bones of the LCA for humans and chimps you cry foul.

Creationists are nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical!

After all, for 200+ years they believed those finches didnt interbreed.....

Evidence please.

Oh - and I have to ask if you actually read the paper that you have referred to, you know, the 'DNA evidence' one?
Because if you did, and you actually understood it, you would not be saying that all of the finches are one species, and you would not be saying that hybridization is the only way to get new species.

The Bible already told you, to each its own Kind. If they can interbreed they are the same Kind, if they cant then they are not.

Where does the bible say this?

I note that you are trying very hard not to commit to an answer to these straightforward questions.

It seems that your answers would be, if you had the courage of your convictions to actually answer, totally arbitrary.


Why is there a separate ostrich kind? Aren't ostriches birds?

One of the other creationists on here claimed that Kind=Species. You boys had ought to get on the same page so you give the same arbitrary and ambiguous answers.

Without doing any research, just parrot, just like you only parrot what your online evolutionists tell you.

I don't know what an online evolutionist is, and I parroted nothing about bats=birds - I simply looked it up and provided the quotes from the bible.

Thats why you still believe in evolution, you dont research.... just parrot.

Actually, I did graduate and post-graduate level research on evolution. I learned what an allele actually is about 30 years ago.

You are forgiven your trespass against me. Cant help with your sins.

Sin is a made-up concept to keep the little people in line.

because you stopped after you thought you had won and missed the next verse which mentioned winged insects.....

But they are flying creatures? Why the arbitrary designations?

As for squirils, why would they be included in flying creatures since they dont actually fly? Sure we call them flying squirrels, but in reality they dont fly at all.

Not all birds fly, either.


Funny - no mention in the bible of penguins, come to think of it.

I guess God didn't bother to tell the Israelites about everything. But shouldn't Noah have considered such critters remarkable?

Hmm... such a mystery.

Any more irrelevant strawmen?

Waiting for you to write those.

"No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is."

Still cracks me up.

Why yes I have. Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind. But you dont follow your own deffinitions.

Wait - I asked if YOU had OBSERVED them - you know, how you ask us if we have 'observed' speciation?

Tell me all about what event you OBSERVED in which a created Kind spawned a subkind.

Are you now also saying that Kind=Species?

Yes, you are, that is YOUR definition:

"Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind."


I don't have a definition of subkind, because you've yet to tell us what a Kind is and how you know - according to Leviticus, at least by the idiosyncratic interpretation you employ - apparently Ravens are a Kind, but apparently Vultures and Kites also form a Kind, so what do I know (or care) about the musings of ancient numerologists.

"A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding ...."

But with your problem in defining species, I can see where you would be even more confused about subspecies.

But I asked about subKind, not subspecies. That you keep trying to turn this around on me is just another example of dishonest creationist tactics.

But now that you have equated Kind with Species, you have really made it very difficult - more difficult than usual - to consider the tale of Noah to be plausible.

There are, after all, MILLIONS of species - an impossible task for 4 inbreeding pairs of elderly people to take care of.

That Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.....

Do we need to go over the empirical evidence all over again?

You don't seem to understand what 'empirical evidence' is, and no, your repetitious litany of who breeds with who is not evidence, nor is it relevant.

And so awesome how you totally think that you - a person that just found out by googling today what an "allele" is (and how to spell it) - know more than a creationist with a doctorate, and one who recently headed up the Baraminology Research Group - a bunch of creationists with PhDs that were studying creationist taxonomy and systematics.

The hubris of the internet creationist is repulsive.

As far as I am aware, the Asian and African contain different formats of genomes do they not? So what is your problem?

I have no idea what a genome "format" is. What on earth are you talking about?

All dogs came from one wolf gene.

JUST ONE GENE????? REALLY?????

And you wonder why we laugh at this kind of 'folk' science?

Now someone tried the creation of new genes routine, but then I had to show them where this same gene was closely related to an existing gene in wolves, even when they claimed it didnt exist in wolves. But dominance and recessive is probably beyound your comprehension as well, since you cant understand how when an Asian mates with an African we might get a new race......

You are amazing.

Most excellent example of a humble Christian.

You have written:

"There is only one Kind of canidae."

and also:

"Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind."


"Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format."

"African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species."


So.... How did we get all this variation from some mythological "created Kind"?

How did one of Noah's sons and his wife mate and somehow at some point an Asian emerged?

Or an aborigine? Or an Inuit?


According to you, a Kind=species, and subKinds arise via hybridization.

So just how many races were Noah and his kids and their wives?


How many alleles does it take to produce a new subkind, and how do you know?

How do alleles arise in your fantasy genetics? And provide examples - empirical evidence - please.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thats obfuscation to avoid the truth of mistaken classifications. Telling oneself s excuses to avoid confronting the truth.

Ill ask you the same thing. What is the scientific reason, in your own words, for accepting finches that interbreed before their eyes a separate species?

Hey, if you can't accept the same definition everyone else does that's up to you mate. Who cares?

Maybe you could call 'em subspecies if you care to create a new taxonomic nomenclature for them... Geospiza Justatruthseeker Fortis, Geospiza Justatruthseeker Parvula etc.

I can't really see it catching on to be honest......



Good day to you and I wish you luck in overturning the taxonomic system.

 

[gaara4158]

Sure I do and you cannot explain HOW any man could have possibly authored Genesis chapter one. In fact, you haven't been able to tell us HOW anyone at the time, knew and correctly wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was brought forth from WATER as Gen 1:21 clearly states. It took scientists until last year to confirm what God told us more than 3k years ago. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...

Godless men CHANGED the fact that all life came from water, into a godless scientific term and labeled it "natural". This has confused many naive worshipers of changeable Science. Sorry, but you were probably brain washed as a child. Amen?

Until you can show him to me, you have no god, only empty claims. Anybody can write anything and anyone can interpret it however they want. Just cut to the chase and provide your god.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To the originator of the theory, but of course thats unimportant now to evolutionists, lack of related intermediaries is what constituted a new species.

"Independently of blending from intercrossing, the complete absence, in a well-investigated region, of varieties linking together any two closely-allied forms, is probably the most important of all the criterions of their specific distinctness”."

Hence Darwin would have understood a bat was not the same species as a heron, which some on here seem to have a problem understanding.

Now of course Darwin believed that the finches were reproductively isolated, and hence no intercrossing existed between them. That he called them separate species is understandable, even if the region was not well-investigated. So his jumping to conclusions was unfounded, but understandable.

But it has been well-investigated now, even with DNA testing showing there was always intercrossing occurring. His mistake was justified, albeit premature before it had been well-investigated. Your excuse for continuing the mistake? Neither justified nor scientifically backed. Simply a need to uphold his mistakes because he named them such and used them as the prime example of living speciation which would be lost if corrected as they should be.

 

[tas8831]

"A gene (from ancient Greek: γόνος, gonos, offspring, procreation) is a locus (or region) of DNA"

I'd call that a very small portion of the DNA, since an allele is a given variant of a gene, not the entire DNA strand. Sad, sad, sad that that was your best attempt.....

Sad sad sad that upon googling, you want us to believe that when you wrote this child-like, naive nonsense:

A mutation resulting in a DNA sequence that is a new allele is by definition a new DNA sequence.

Or to use your own words, "a new order of what already exists" is a new DNA sequence.

No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is.

that you REALLY knew and meant:

"an allele is a given variant of a gene"

Nobody is going to buy that scam, especially given your track record.

Do you understand dominance and recessive? I dont think you do.

Yes, i do.

Do you understand incomplete dominance? Codominance? Pleiotropy?

Or even, really, what an allele IS? sure, as of a few hours ago, you googled allele to learn what it is and you can copy-paste the definition, but how does a variant of a gene come to be?

 

[tas8831]

Hey, if you can't accept the same definition everyone else does that's up to you mate. Who cares?

Maybe you could call 'em subspecies if you care to create a new taxonomic nomenclature for them... Geospiza Justatruthseeker Fortis, Geospiza Justatruthseeker Parvula etc.

I can't really see it catching on to be honest......



Good day to you and I wish you luck in overturning the taxonomic system.

He'd call them subKinds - and now we know that according to justa, Kind=Species. and since Noah took pairs or 7 pairs of Kinds on the ark, then Noah had to take MILLIONS of pairs or 7 pairs onto the ark.

Justa justa sunk the ark.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, if you can't accept the same definition everyone else does that's up to you mate. Who cares?

I accept the definition everyone else does. Oh you mean those that refuse to accept the scientific definition.

Definition of SPECIES

"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,"

species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"biology a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

Species - Biology-Online Dictionary

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Which covers your A, B, C problem that was never a problem.

Defining a species

"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions."

species | Definition of species in English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

Hmmm, I dont seem to be the one having the problem of accepting the scientific definition of species that everyone else does. Seems to be just those on here and those wanting to obfuscate what a species is that have the problem of accepting what all the literature says a species is. Funny how refusing to follow science is the claim by evolutionists to creationists, yet in the end it always seems it is the evolutionists that cant follow the science definitions.

And you cant avoid the question. What is your scientific reason for calling finches separate species? In your own words, or are you afraid when you give your reason Ill show you that you dont really believe that?

 

[tas8831]

Why did the Angels leave their first estate?

The Angel Kind?