reproductive barriers

[Mistermystery]

... Why did you use that piece of the bible? Why did you tear it out of context?
Why do you keep on raping the bible so much?

 

[JohnR7]

... Why did you use that piece of the bible? Why did you tear it out of context?
Why do you keep on raping the bible so much?

We are to "put on the new man". A part of the new man or the new creation we are to be in Christ includes right thinking, having the right attitude and so forth.
To equate our thinking with the garment we wear is just poetic license.

As far as "raping the bible", this is a christian forum, so do not be surprised if you run into christians here. As christians we are to be living, walking, talking examples of the Bible. Everything we say, think or do, is done within the guidelines of the Bible.

Some people think this is bondage in some way, but it is not. As Christian we have a freedom that the world can never know in the condition it is in. Even we are told that "creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Romans 8:21)

 

[theFijian]

In Heaven everyone will be of one mind and one accord. We will all be in agreement, because we will all have the mind of Christ and the thoughts of God. We will all be in agreement with each other, because we will all be in agreement with God. Even now we are all in the same family, the family of God. We have family relationships with each other, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son. Depending on our age and how mature we are as a christian.

There are plenty of aspects of Christianity on which I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters, does that invalidate Christianity John?

Andy

 

[Aron-Ra]

In Heaven everyone will be of one mind and one accord. We will all be in agreement, because we will all have the mind of Christ and the thoughts of God. We will all be in agreement with each other, because we will all be in agreement with God. Even now we are all in the same family, the family of God. We have family relationships with each other, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son. Depending on our age and how mature we are as a christian.

I know a few people who would agree with you, except in the most minor details:

In Nirvana everyone will be of one mind and one accord. We will all be in agreement, because we will all have the mind of Krsna and the thoughts of Vishnu. We will all be in agreement with each other, because we will all be in agreement with the God-head. Even now we are all in the same family, the family of God. We have family relationships with each other, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son. Depending on our age and how mature we are as a Hindu.

Now what happens when "we are all in agreement" but the god turns out to be a different one than we expected?

 

[lucaspa]

A while ago, the question was asked: "What is a kind". I said it is simply something that can reproduce itself. I just ran across a definition for a species and it is pretty much the same definition. Notice we are told that a species "are separated from each other by reproductive barriers".

The Biological Species Concept is indeed very similar to the definition you gave for "kind". Which means that evolution is proved because we have seen new species/kinds form in both the lab and the wild. One kind -- as you defined it -- does indeed change to another kind.

 

[lucaspa]

The problem with our definitions is that 1:00 and 12:00 are genetically-isolated with the very "reproductive barriers" that JohnR7 cited earlier. So they would be considered distinctly-separate species. But what about all the others in between? They would all be considered sub-species (or demes) or 1:00. 12:00 would be a daughter species of 1:00 even though it was directly descended from 11:00, itself a subspecies of 1:00. 11:00 wouldn't get proper credit except in a phylogenetic tree. A cladogram would list 2:00 thru 11:00 equally, (under the 1:00 creature) and 12:00 would be listed in the next group.

Aron-Ra, what you are missing is that any definition of species cannot be precise because evolution is true. If species transform to new and different species over the course of generations, there are always going to be examples in the gray areas. Are ring species one species or two? In this case the process of speciation is occurring geographically.

However, if you look at speciation in one location over time, you get the same problem. Since speciation requires hundreds of generations (either by Mayr or Gould; they are not that different), say 1,000 generations, you run up against the problem of exactly where you draw the line. At generation 500 are they one species and at generation 501 another species? Of course not. The change is so gradual that you can't draw the line with that type of precision.

So, all definitions of species are imprecise because evolution is true.

The point is that the definition of "kind" should be precise because supposely one kind cannot transform to another kind. The fact that creationists can't define "kind" is another admission that evolution is true and creationism is false.

 

[lucaspa]

Nope, I just accept evolutions definition that a species is something with "reproductive barriers". I will allow evolutionists to argue among themselves as to how all the details work out on that one. So, when you figure it out, you let us know.

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

What more would you like to have us "figure out", John?

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. This one shows that reproductive isolation happens as a result of natural selection for different environments.

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature. This study follows the changes in genome during hybrid speciation.

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
These studies show that reproductive isolation can be a target of natural selection. IOW, natural selection selects for reproductive isolation.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra, what you are missing is that any definition of species cannot be precise because evolution is true. If species transform to new and different species over the course of generations, there are always going to be examples in the gray areas. Are ring species one species or two? ...The change is so gradual that you can't draw the line with that type of precision.

I didn't think I was missing that. In fact, my confusing discussion was meant to explain that. The only illusion of precision I allude to is classification in a cladogram as opposed to a phylogenetic tree.

 

[JohnR7]

There are plenty of aspects of Christianity on which I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters, does that invalidate Christianity John?

Being of one mind comes with maturity and perfection.
If people are not in agreement, it just means they need to grow up.

 

[The Bellman]

Being of one mind comes with maturity and perfection.
If people are not in agreement, it just means they need to grow up.

You mean if people are not in agreement with YOU, right? Looks like your pride is getting in the way again.

 

[JohnR7]

fact that creationists can't define "kind" is another admission that evolution is true and creationism is false.

Evolution is false, not creationism. What little bit of truth that keep a whole pack of lies afloat will all come crashing down one of these days.

If a species is determined by reproductive barriors, then there really is no difference between a species and a biblical kind.

 

[The Bellman]

Evolution is false, not creationism. What little bit of truth that keep a whole pack of lies afloat will all come crashing down one of these days.

If a species is determined by reproductive barriors, then there really is no difference between a species and a biblical kind.

Evolution is fact, as even creationist organisations agree.

Creationism is false and has been disproven any number of times. It is only believed by those whose religious desire manages to blind them.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Evolution is false, not creationism.

Put up, or shut up.

If a species is determined by reproductive barriors, then there really is no difference between a species and a biblical kind.

If kind = species, then your own defense of creationism fails and evolution is therefore true because the evolution of new species does occur (and thus the evolution of new kinds), as has been pointed out to you too many times to count.

 

[JohnR7]

Now what happens when "we are all in agreement" but the god turns out to be a different one than we expected?

"When" the time comes, I guess you will just have to deal with it.
It could be a good time to convert to the truth and the true God who created the Heavens and the Earth.

 

[JohnR7]

Put up, or shut up.

Put up with what? Your arogance. I produce evidence and proof all the time.
But your going to have to open up your blind eyes to see it, your going to have to take your fingers out of your deaf ears to hear the truth.

 

[JohnR7]

evolution is therefore true because the evolution of new species does occur (and thus the evolution of new kinds), as has been pointed out to you too many times to count.

Oh, you can point it out, I can point out the theory that the moon is made out of blue cheeze also, but that does not make it true.
There is just no evidence that one species can change into another. Fabrications, but no real evidence.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Put up with what? Your arogance.

Unwarranted personal attack.

I produce evidence and proof all the time.

A bald faced lie.

But your going to have to open up your blind eyes to see it, your going to have to take your fingers out of your deaf ears to hear the truth.

Unwarranted personal attack.


Par for the course when it comes to lying and trolling including the fact that he neglected the meat of the post.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Oh, you can point it out, I can point out the theory that the moon is made out of blue cheeze also, but that does not make it true.
There is just no evidence that one species can change into another. Fabrications, but no real evidence.

Then you have a lot of work to do to prove that scientists are deliberately promoting "fabrications" in each instance they show that speciation occurs or else I'll just count that as another lie on your part.

lucaspa has already done the subject to death:
http://www.christianforums.com/t79954

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution is fact, as even creationist organisations agree.

It depends on what you mean by evolution. If you define evolution as change, then I do not think anyone will deny that we live in a changing world.
But if you say that evolution means one species changed into another species, then your evolutionary theory is false.

Creationism is false and has been disproven any number of times. It is only believed by those whose religious desire manages to blind them.

We are spinning our wheels here, because you do not even know what creationism is, so you have no idea if it is true or false.

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, you can point it out, I can point out the theory that the moon is made out of blue cheeze also, but that does not make it true.
There is just no evidence that one species can change into another. Fabrications, but no real evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

Now, it is up to you to show all those observations are "fabrications". John, it is always dangerous to use "there is just no evidence" argument. Most often, it is the Argument from Ignorance. The evidence does exist but you are unaware of it. That's the case here.