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.
If all evidence points to this assertion, how can i falsify it which is what you originally asked.
You don’t find refusal to fix mistakes to be a strength? Then why do you always refuse to fix your mistakes?Neither is calling finches separate species based on the belief of reproductive isolation, findiing out they aint, and refusing to correct it.....
whos dodging now? Your own scientific definition of species and subspecies specifically states interbreeding. So I ask what hybridization? If they are interbreeding they are the same species. Whats fuzzy is your refusal to accept what the deffinitions say.When I talk about fuzzy barriers, I'm talking about relative levels of reproductive fertility. For example, things like ring species, hybridization, etc. Species barriers in nature are not completely rigid.
Actually, they don't agree. I've seen creationists invoke the "kind" definition at all sorts of different levels from domains all the way to subspecies. For example, I've seen creationists treat "kind" as analogous to "genus" in taxonomy. Which would imply several different "cat" kinds. Yet I've seen other creationists claim the entire Felidae family as a single kind.
You guys need to sort out your ideas first, then come back when you've got it figured out.
evry evidence does. Name one that doesn't and we will discuss your error.I originally asked you to support the assertion, not falsify it (unless there was a typo in my post). You guys keep asserting the same thing over and over, but never offer any support for your contentions.
Name one and ill fix it....You don’t find refusal to fix mistakes to be a strength? Then why do you always refuse to fix your mistakes?
whos dodging now? Your own scientific definition of species and subspecies specifically states interbreeding. So I ask what hybridization? If they are interbreeding they are the same species. Whats fuzzy is your refusal to accept what the deffinitions say.
Like biologists all agreeing on species? When they got it figured out you come back. Thats why you have a species problem because no one can really agree. You all never think that argument to its conclussion when you apply it to creationists.
evry evidence does.
That’s been our whole discussion, hasn’t it? How about the most recent where you claimed scientists didn’t separate humans taxonomically the same way they separate all other animals? I showed you wrong there, conclusively. Will you admit that?Name one and ill fix it....
Which has always been my point. You see Husky mating with Mastiff to create the new variation of Chinook, then ignore this when it comes to those fosils and propose it happens by mutation, even if mutation has never changed a Husky or Mastiff into anything else..... But you keep avoiding the point being made and trying to make it into something else.....There are multiple species concepts and not all are based on interbreeding (esp when it comes asexual species or fossil species). And by fuzzy barriers, I'm talking about the simple fact that you don't always see perfectly rigid lines with respect to reproductive isolation and the ability to interbreed in nature.
Except read how subspecies come into being under your own theory, then lts talk of those ring species being separate species or not.Again, ring species are a perfect example of "fuzzy" species barriers: Ring species - Wikipedia
Again, creationists are the ones asserting that "kind" is a strict biological reality in nature. Far more so than the species concepts used by biologists.
The fact that creationist definitions of "kind" are so wildly divergent speaks volumes of what an utterly useless concept it is.
And I asked you how we differentiate between the same subspecies of Asian and African?That’s been our whole discussion, hasn’t it? How about the most recent where you claimed scientists didn’t separate humans taxonomically the same way they separate all other animals? I showed you wrong there, conclusively. Will you admit that?
Because besides your "fuzzy" excuses, they are impassible barriers. Ill ask again, have you seen a Husky or Mastiff evolve into anything? But you have seen them create a Chinook by interbreeding, yes? Then why not apply the observational evidence to those new forms in the fossil record?
And I answered, there is no formal taxonomic distinction. Maybe you should scroll back and take the time to realize your mistake. I’ll wait.And I asked you how we differentiate between the same subspecies of Asian and African?
So if we would apply the same to bears then we could say they are one subspecies with informal racial designations? Ahh, but then youll argue no, they are separate subspecies and species, even if they interbreed. Its not the informal classification I disagree with, but as I stated their refusal to classify us as they do the rest of the animal kingdom, to which your posts only prove me correct, since all the other animals have formal subspecie or specie designations.... each distinct one its own classification..... but not humans, just as i claimed from the begining and you simply in your zeal to prove me wrong, proved me correct.And I answered, there is no formal taxonomic distinction. Maybe you should scroll back and take the time to realize your mistake. I’ll wait.
I did, you just kept making excuses on ignoring that no new race, breed, subspecies, whatever you want to call them has come about from mutation, but only from interbreeding. Just as those ring species. Subspecies come about from changes in the environment, exactly the cause you claim makes ring species separate species. So I dont think they are separate species at all, just again, more mistakes in classification in order to support the false belief in speciation. Its like those finches. Mistakes in classification people refuse to correcxt because to do so would dissolve their claims of speciation.We've already had this discussion. Go back about 50 posts or so and re-read some of my prior responses. I'm tired of repeating myself.
Just as long as only what you believe is enforced on others through the school system, correct?
I did, you just kept making excuses on ignoring that no new race, breed, subspecies, whatever you want to call them has come about from mutation, but only from interbreeding.
Or common design.It's more complicated than that. When we look at evidence for common ancestry, we're really looking at patterns of observations of things that should hold true if common ancestry were true.
No different than if I create each separately using the same basic genetic building blocks.Take phylogenetic tree construction as an example. A phylogenetic tree is a hierarchy of ancestral relationships predicated on shared ancestry. The tree implies two things: 1) that branched groups of organisms once evolved from a common gene pool; a common genome if you will. And 2), that the divergence between populations is primarily a result of hereditary descent with modification (i.e. mutations).
Or the shared common genetic traces from using the same basic common genetic material.If I take a particular gene homologous to a bunch of species, I can construct a phylogenetic tree based on the individual genetic sequences for that gene. The results is a tree which shows a nested hierarchy of presumed ancestral descent of that particular gene. The nesting basically shows the ancestral relationships of the respective species groups.
Or reinforces they were created from the same basic building blocks.Then if I take a second gene, I can do the same and generate another tree. If that second tree shows convergence with the first tree, then it reinforces those ancestral relationships.
Or shared the same basic building blocks from the beginning, even if each was created separately.Then I do that again with a third gene, or some other sequences of genetic code (i.e. ERV insertions) or morphological characteristics, or whatever. If I continue to converge on approximately the same tree, it reinforces the pattern that we would expect to observe if those species shared common ancestry.*
Why? Would you not use the same basic engineering to build all cars, or would you go Willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern? So you want me to believe that a being that created the universe with such order we can describe it mathematically, would do things Willy nilly as you put it when He came to life? I see no reason to accept such absurd claims, any more than you would believe an engineer would build bridges Willy nilly.Now, if an intelligent creator was engineering organisms separately, they would not be operating under the same constraints (i.e. common ancestral genomes and hereditary descent). They could mix 'n match different genes or other genetic sequences willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern. So doing phylogenetic tree reconstruction under those circumstances, I would expect trees to diverge wildly.
If you make the universe to operate under certain constraints, would you then not create life to operate under those constraints? Engineers build a bridge with force, gravity, wind, etc in mind. Why would you expect God to create life that was not fit to live on earth, but Willy nilly?This is why when creationists claim that such observed patterns are really evidence for common design, all they are really saying is that the creator was operating under constraints we would expect if organisms shared common ancestry via hereditary descent. In effect, the creator made life to have the appearance of evolution.
Quite a few implicit assumptions. Starting with your belief a creator must create life suited to this earth Willy nilly. But being you believe life happened Willy nilly (random) and proceeds Willy nilly (random mutations) I can understand why you think a being of order would do that.(* In practice things are admittedly a little fuzzier. For example, constructing gene phylogenies technically shows ancestral evolution of the specific gene which may not be completely in line with species divergence. As well, there are also mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer which can violate ancestral hierarchies. And of course like any statistical approach, there are going to be implicit assumptions and error margins associated with the output. All that said, we never do observe anything with respect to these reconstructions which would blatantly point to independent design.)
Agreed, that’s why they faked the pilt down man evidence during the trial to get creation removed. Envious.Envy is an ugly thing, my friend.
Informally. The differences between them aren't great enough to merit a formal distinction.Neither are those finches.
Nope, never said that. Said they had Asian and African characteristics. But how quickly you forget the lessons dogs teach you. Over 100 breeds of dogs from two wolf stock from interbreeding. Just amazing how you all can never seem to remember that.1) Interbreeding with whom? According to the myth, they were the last humans left on Earth.
2) So you do admit that Asians and Africans came from non-Asians and non-Africans. You just think those people were Noah's family. So you can't be out here claiming Asians only breed Asians because you yourself admit that Asians were bred by non-Asians.
Sorry, too inbred, just as I can’t get anything from a Husky but a Husky after all this time of inbreeding for select characteristics.With a boat and some paperwork you can get an Asian to give birth to an American, so I don't know what you're talking about here.
You haven’t? Are you sure? Are you not aware half the chromosomes come from the male and half from the female? Your idea of empericial evidence needs checked.Well, I just haven't seen the empirical evidence suggesting this is the case. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Or common design.
Why? Would you not use the same basic engineering to build all cars, or would you go Willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern?
If you make the universe to operate under certain constraints, would you then not create life to operate under those constraints? Engineers build a bridge with force, gravity, wind, etc in mind. Why would you expect God to create life that was not fit to live on earth, but Willy nilly?
But being you believe life happened Willy nilly (random) and proceeds Willy nilly (random mutations) I can understand why you think a being of order would do that.
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?