Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, OK, just a bit more piling on re: the Grant paper:
The very paper you quoted from indicated that it is continuous traits for which interbreeding is more 'important':
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
Do you know what a continuous trait is?
A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.
I strongly urge you to learn some basic genetics, re-think your fantasy claims, and re-formulate them as needed.
Well, OK, just a bit more piling on re: the Grant paper:
The very paper you quoted from indicated that it is continuous traits for which interbreeding is more 'important':
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
Do you know what a continuous trait is?
A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.
I strongly urge you to learn some basic genetics, re-think your fantasy claims, and re-formulate them as needed.
This sort of reply is why I generally ignore you. Toodles!
I wrote a lengthy refutation of this nonsense, but I've decided to go with the executive summary only: balderdash!Aman777 said: ↑
False, since there are only two kinds. Temporal and Immortal. His and Their kinds.
Some evols stick their heads in the sand. Some keep asking Creationists to tell us what "kinds" are. When we tell the bumpkins, they scream for a while, whine longer and then run away posting. "What are kinds?" Do you think little morons are capable of understanding that there are ONLY two kinds? I think they could.
Gen 1:25 And God (Trinity) made the beast of the earth after His (Jesus) kind, Gen 2:19 and cattle after Their (Trinity's) kind, Gen 1:21 and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (Jesus) kind: and God (Trinity) saw that it was good. (perfect)
Does the above verse, showing both kinds, make you feel a little silly?
I wrote a lengthy refutation of this nonsense, but I've decided to go with the executive summary only: balderdash!
There are on this forum some individuals who are very knowledgable about Scripture and I have learned some interesting things from them. I see no evidence that you fit into that category.What courage! Do all evols wish to remain as ignorant as you are about Scripture? Why don't you tell us about "kinds"? Is it because you cannot? Of course it is. God Bless you
-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are. I've heard people describe it as being as general as family to as specific as subspecies, with genus being generally the most common category compared to it by creationists.What courage! Do all evols wish to remain as ignorant as you are about Scripture? Why don't you tell us about "kinds"? Is it because you cannot? Of course it is. God Bless you
Would it matter?-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are.
Definition of 'kind' in a creationist biology book says ....kind (an originally created type of organism) They give the example of domestic dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes are all the same 'kind'.-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are. I've heard people describe it as being as general as family to as specific as subspecies, with genus being generally the most common category compared to it by creationists.
Not all scientists agree on the what should define a species. In recent years they have decided that the definition should be changed.-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are. I've heard people describe it as being as general as family to as specific as subspecies, with genus being generally the most common category compared to it by creationists.
Your own position on kinds - as befits your idiosyncratic nature - appears to be unique. As such it can probably be ignored and almost certainly should be.
-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are. I've heard people describe it as being as general as family to as specific as subspecies, with genus being generally the most common category compared to it by creationists.
Definition of 'kind' in a creationist biology book says ....kind (an originally created type of organism) They give the example of domestic dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes are all the same 'kind'.
These animals are in the same 'genus' and that is recognized by creationists but that is not what 'kind' means.
Kind means that that kind didn't evolve from any other originism.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.There are only two kinds. His (Jesus) kind which is temporary and subject to death and Their (Trinity) kind which is eternal. My words are in black.
Gen 1:25 And God (Trinity) made the beast of the earth after His kind, (the kind made subject to death by Jesus/Lord God Gen 2:19) and cattle after Their kind, (Trinity kind destined for Heaven Gen 1:21) and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His kind: (Jesus kind-temporary for mosquitoes and such) and God saw that it was good. (perfect-only God is perfect Mark 10:18) Amen?
Kind = GenusKind still has no defined scientific definition. Cattle alone are several different genera
No one who understands Scripture shares your views.Of course my view is unique. It's true Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically.
Most of your views are so filled with internal contradiction that no attempt to refute is necessary. In those intances where they are coherent enough to consider I have seen them refuted by many members on multiple occassions. You have blithely ignored these corrections and continue down a bizzare path of self-delusion. Empty assertions, void of evidential support, fool only one person - yourself.Many brave evols have tried and failed to refute my view but it looks like you're not one of them.
Grow up?Many brave evols have tried and failed to refute my view but it looks like you're not one of them. I don't blame you since the lies of evolism aren't worth the effort. Amen?
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
In Both verses 'his' is referring to the words, living creature, beast, everything the creepth, etc., not to God. The same is true for 'their' referring to cattle.
Kind still has no defined scientific definition. Cattle alone are several different genera
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?