Characteristics

[Armoured]

You know, there's stuff inside the things, too. Two organisms can look very similar, but be very different in their underlying structure. A sugar glider looks a lot like a squirrel, and if you just compared pictures, you would assume it was that...but it's not. It's not even close to being a squirrel.

What do you do, then?

Sharks and dolphins. Therefore evolution is false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loss of species and variation isn't a positive thing for evolution.

That doesn't even make sense. Evolution does not have feelings or goals.

It isn't a problem for speciation with the survivors however, which acts on characteristics already programmed in.

Prove that organisms have characteristics already programmed in.

I like how you are trying to twist it around and muddle things. There is no such thing as a transitional between an antelope and an antelope. Or a wolf and a dog. Or a crow and a pigeon. Just variation within the species.

So you are saying that one day a wolf just gave birth to a chihuahua? Really?

I think you have just proven that you have no business talking about biology.

Also, how do you determine if an individual organism is a wolf or not? Tell us how you do it?

 

[EternalDragon]

That doesn't even make sense. Evolution does not have feelings or goals.

Prove that organisms have characteristics already programmed in.

Well, science says "We don't know yet". Here is my answer:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

So you are saying that one day a wolf just gave birth to a chihuahua? Really?

I think you have just proven that you have no business talking about biology.

Also, how do you determine if an individual organism is a wolf or not? Tell us how you do it?

A dog is a Canis lupus familiaris. A wolf is a Canis lupus. That is your scientists classification of those animals. So there you have it.

But according to you everything is in a nested hierarchy and shares a common ancestry so it really doesn't matter if we can tell them apart or not.

Personally I would go with the bible and say that fish are one kind of animal, cattle are another, dinosaurs are another, humans are another, birds are another, insects are another, etc. Which exhibited some speciation along the way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, science says "We don't know yet". Here is my answer:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


A dog is a Canis lupus familiaris. A wolf is a Canis lupus. That is your scientists classification of those animals. So there you have it.

But according to you everything is in a nested hierarchy and shares a common ancestry so it really doesn't matter if we can tell them apart or not.

Personally I would go with the bible and say that fish are one kind of animal, cattle are another, dinosaurs are another, humans are another, birds are another, insects are another, etc. Which exhibited some speciation along the way.

But the bible counts whales as a fish, which they aren't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, science says "We don't know yet". Here is my answer:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Evidence that any of this is true?

A dog is a Canis lupus familiaris. A wolf is a Canis lupus. That is your scientists classification of those animals. So there you have it.

How do you determine if a dead animal belongs to Canis lupus or not? Remember, you can't use similarities.

But according to you everything is in a nested hierarchy and shares a common ancestry so it really doesn't matter if we can tell them apart or not.

Huh? You have separate species in nested hierarchies.

Personally I would go with the bible and say that fish are one kind of animal, cattle are another, dinosaurs are another, humans are another, birds are another, insects are another, etc. Which exhibited some speciation along the way.

How do you decide if a dead organism belongs to any of those categories without using similarities?

 

[EternalDragon]

Evidence that any of this is true?

How do you determine if a dead animal belongs to Canis lupus or not? Remember, you can't use similarities.

Huh? You have separate species in nested hierarchies.

How do you decide if a dead organism belongs to any of those categories without using similarities?

You would obviously have to make assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

You would obviously have to make assumptions.

What assumptions?

 

[EternalDragon]

What assumptions?

The ones you asked about in your previous post. Is this like
Groundhog Day where you keep asking me the same questions?

 

[Loudmouth]

The ones you asked about in your previous post. Is this like
Groundhog Day where you keep asking me the same questions?

Name the assumptions.

 

[lasthero]

Personally I would go with the bible and say that fish are one kind of animal

All fish? All of them? Because that's a pretty wide range.

Personally I would go with the bible and say that fish are one kind of animal, cattle are another, dinosaurs are another, humans are another, birds are another, insects are another, etc.

See, the problem here is that you're inconsistent as all get out. Insects are the same kind? There are millions of insect species. There are way more differences between, say, an ant and a praying mantis than a bird and theropod dinosaur, so how can you say that insects are all one kind, but dinosaurs and birds aren't? How are you coming to these conclusions?

If you don't have any clue what 'kind' means, fine, but stop pretending like you do, because it's painfully obvious you don't.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But the bible counts whales as a fish, which they aren't.

Please bear in mind that Linnaeus had not yet completed his work on the classification of species when the old testament was written.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please bear in mind that Linnaeus had not yet completed his work on the classification of species when the old testament was written.

Doesn't excuse all the biology fails in the bible.

 

[OllieFranz]

Doesn't excuse all the biology fails in the bible.

I'm sorry, Sarah, but in this instance I have to agree with the other side. Linnaean taxonomy is only one man-made way of organizing lots of unrelated facts about lots of unrelated traits in lots of unrelated (or so distantly related as to be functionally meaningless) organisms. It is already being replaced by the nested hierarchies of Cladism.

In the case of whales, and bats, the classification system used in the Bible is not recorded in full, but it is clear that the category names are not the simple "fish" or "birds" that translate them, but rather something more along the lines "sea creatures," or "flying things."

There are passages that do call into question their compatability with science, but these are not them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm sorry, Sarah, but in this instance I have to agree with the other side. Linnaean taxonomy is only one man-made way of organizing lots of unrelated facts about lots of unrelated traits in lots of unrelated (or so distantly related as to be functionally meaningless) organisms. It is already being replaced by the nested hierarchies of Cladism.

In the case of whales, and bats, the classification system used in the Bible is not recorded in full, but it is clear that the category names are not the simple "fish" or "birds" that translate them, but rather something more along the lines "sea creatures," or "flying things."

There are passages that do call into question their compatibility with science, but these are not them.

I was actually agreeing that categories aren't a flaw in the bible as far as biology goes. Although, I guess I could have made that more clear. I should have said "that the bible doesn't categorize life as we do today might not be an issue, but it doesn't excuse the many other biology fails in the bible".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I was actually agreeing that categories aren't a flaw in the bible as far as biology goes. Although, I guess I could have made that more clear. I should have said "that the bible doesn't categorize life as we do today might not be an issue, but it doesn't excuse the many other biology fails in the bible".

Well, we can go along with that, after all, grasshoppers do have six legs instead of four.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, we can go along with that, after all, grasshoppers do have six legs instead of four.

And women don't have worse bleeding after giving birth to girls than they do giving birth to boys. And many other things.

 

[EternalDragon]

Well, we can go along with that, after all, grasshoppers do have six legs instead of four.

They do only have four legs for moving. And two specialized limbs for jumping. The bible is quite accurate. Your statement above in incorrect.

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22).

 

[PsychoSarah]

They do only have four legs for moving. And two specialized limbs for jumping. The bible is quite accurate. Your statement above in incorrect.

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22).

Pretty sure plenty of beetles don't leap.

 

[Armoured]

They do only have four legs for moving. And two specialized limbs for jumping. The bible is quite accurate. Your statement above in incorrect.

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22).

...so it's your contention that the rearmost limbs of grasshoppers aren't legs?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Doesn't excuse all the biology fails in the bible.

What does it mean that there are biology fails exactly when you don't believe that truth really exists?