Genesis Genetics, revisited

[Jimmy D]

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.

Stop ignoring the Grant's paper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Hmm, you mean continuously varying traits, just like mutation, except two to three orders of magnitude greater?

If mutation created new information, the link to past traits would be lost and so your claim to continued ancestry would be null and void. Are you now preaching for nullification of past ancestral forms, such has already been done by the overturning of the Tree of life????

If a new trait replaces the old, then that is where the line stops, you can no longer trace back from that point. There would be no linkage to the previous trait, unless it was a continuously varying trait.

Which in reality is exactly what even a mutation is. I'll spell it out slowly so I don't loose you here.

Mutations are copy errors. They take WHAT ALREADY EXISTS and simply vary the existing trait. Nothing new was created. What existed was re-purposed to a new use. Mutations can only change what already exists. It does the exact same thing as mating does, just two to three orders of magnitude less effectively. It varied the existing trait, it did not produce anything new, but only changed the order of what already existed in the way it was written. Just as what occurs during mating, when two separate chromosomes are recombined in a unique way, just at more than one location. In fact the mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater because new genetic information is added from a separate host that did not exist in the other.

Your arguments are null and void, and you refuse to accept the fact that a mutation is a copy error. It simply rearranges what already exists. Nothing new is created in either process. Both do exactly the same thing, one simply to a greater number of loci simultaneously.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
False, since there are only two kinds. Temporal and Immortal. His and Their kinds.

This sort of reply is why I generally ignore you. Toodles!

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?

 

[Ophiolite]

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!

 

[Aman777]

I wrote a lengthy refutation of this nonsense, but I've decided to go with the executive summary only: balderdash!

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

 

[Ophiolite]

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

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.

Your arguments are silly, your theses fatuous. It is not my place to define "kinds". It generally seems it is not the place of Creationists either, since I have yet to see a settled position on the matter from any of them. 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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- kinds isn't a scientific term, and even creationists don't agree on what kinds are.

Would it matter?

 

[Hank77]

-_- 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.

 

[Hank77]

-_- 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.
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/april/2-species-stuck-in-neutral
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...volution-darwin-finches-beaks-genome-science/

Are the differences in the ground flinches enough to classify them as 13 different species? Wolves and jackals are very different but are not considered different species.

This new finch population is sufficiently different in form and habits to the native birds, as to be marked out as a new species, and individuals from the different populations don't interbreed.

Prof Butlin told the BBC that people working on speciation credit the Grant professors with altering our understanding of rapid evolutionary change in the field.

In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.

"We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin. What he says is more interesting is understanding the role that hybridisation can have in the process of creating new species, which is why this observation of Galapagos finches is so important.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

 

[Aman777]

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.

Of course my view is unique. It's true Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically. 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?

 

[Aman777]

-_- 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.

It's because God hid His scientific Truth in Genesis 1 to be found by the people of the last days. This insures that only by Faith can one come to know God...BUT...in the last days, things are changed and God reveals His Truth upon "ALL flesh" and I think it's through the discoveries of Science since atheists, agnostics and evols are all made of flesh. Can you tell me another way the following verse can be true?

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:

 

[Aman777]

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.

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?

 

[Hank77]

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?

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.

Here are the same verses in Young's Literal Translation

Gen 1:24 And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so.
Gen 1:25 And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that it is good.

 

[Brightmoon]

Kind still has no defined scientific definition. Cattle alone are several different genera

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind still has no defined scientific definition. Cattle alone are several different genera

Kind = Genus

From the online etymology dictionary:

Genus: (Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin,"

 

[Speedwell]

Since a workable definition is so hard to pin down, a reasonable person might conclude that the author of Genesis did not intend to establish an immutable divine taxonomy by the use of the word "kind." Indeed, the context in which it occurs suggests that it is a non-specific collective.

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course my view is unique. It's true Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically.

No one who understands Scripture shares your views.
No one who has scientific training endorses your views.
No one with a sound background in history agrees with your views.

Many brave evols have tried and failed to refute my view but it looks like you're not one of them.

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. I don't blame you since the lies of evolism aren't worth the effort. Amen?

Grow up?

Edit: corrected spelling of fool

 

[Aman777]

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.

Thanks for letting us know that your interpretation is the SAME as that of ancient men who lived more than 3k years ago. God told us that they could NOT understand Scripture and yet you still follow them. Jer 4:22 Don't you know that you live today in the last days before Jesus returns? ONLY Christians of the last days can understand Genesis One, in which is hidden God's scientific Truth. You won't find it in the religion of ancient men. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Kind still has no defined scientific definition. Cattle alone are several different genera

Good. I don't trust scientist's changeable definitions since God's definitions don't have to change. Cattle are "Their/Trinity" kind since they were created by God the Trinity which means they are destined for Heaven. Genesis 1:21 Genesis 1:28

His kinds, the kinds made subject to death by Jesus/Lord God, from the air dust and water contaminated with death, are always temporal unless they are "created" by the Trinity. These creatures were made from the ground on the 6th Day Genesis 2:19 and named by Adam.

Since there are only two kinds, temporary and eternal, most people get frustrated trying to get Scripture to identify every kind of living creature. Amen?