I didn't classify anything.
I never made any such claims.
You can put words in my mouth and argue against that all you like. Little weird, though.
Sigh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
Upvote
0
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.
But you just showed instead that you classify things willy-nilly.
You have no rationalization to make any other claims
Does not need to be written - it is an express implication.
If we can not use dogs to determine evolution because man caused it, then we can not use laboratory experiments in which man caused the results thereof.
Your claims are contradictory in both cases and so can reasonably be ignored as having any validity.
That's just it. It does not matter if it's intentional or accidental - only the time-frame of when matters.
Whether two groups of peoples choose to come together and mate - or nature forces them together and they mate - the end result is the same. One simply happens on a different time-frame than the other. Which is why dogs show you the natural and distinct variation that can occur in infraspacific taxa. I don't really care if you want to call them "breeds, races, hybrids, subspecies, formae, subvarieties or varieties, or whatever term you want to apply on any given day to that infraspecific taxa.
"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."
Which still does not excuse you from thinking that birds, dogs, cats or whatever that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes - can even be remotely thought of as separate species. Unless of course we all pretend species is not defined as just that.
So this is your chance to prove that we should accept their (and apparently your) classifications of anything. So link to your "scientific definition" of species - and lets see if your their claims hold up to their own definitions.
I want to know your scientific reason for believing that birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species?
I didn't classify anything.
I never made any such claims.
You can put words in my mouth and argue against that all you like. Little weird, though.
Sigh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
So "breed" is your scientific definition of species??????
"A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species"
Or did you mean race?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
"Races may be genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species"
So whether you choose to call the same thing different names is irrelevant. Race is used to distinguish those populations of the same species - as is breeds. Names change the meanings not one bit. All are infraspecific taxa of the species.
Your strawmen are useless. I expect the ad-hominem attacks will arrive shortly. The "sigh" put upon me routine works not at all either but in your own mind.
Which is why you patently avoided what I asked for. Your scientific reason for believing birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species? I understand your entire belief system is wrapped up into that subject and is why you avoid it, but until you are willing to admit you have no scientific claim to make any claims about species because you wont accept the scientific definition you claim to follow. It's all rather pointless.
It is an evidence for Creationism because Creationism supports the Law. Some theories do not.
Created - Creation - by a Creator intelligent & organized
You haven't provided any positive evidence that this is the case, you have only provided assertions that this is the case.
EDIT:
You have never observed an Asian or African mutate into anything let alone into an Afro-Asian, nor a Husky or Mastiff mutate into anything, let alone into a Chinook. Why must we then pretend it happened that way in the past, instead of fitting the fossil record to our observations of the present?
You need to go and learn what the Theory of Evolution actually says.
What does it actually say?
It certainly doesn't say you can observe a dog turning into a fish. Quite the opposite in fact.
You can start by reading Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.
OK......I've seen lots and lots of stuff presented as/deemed to be intermediary forms...but none of them "proves" evolution to me. There are other explanations.
I mean, you do know that honest evolutionists (not internet groupies, but actual published and peer reviewed authors) have posited this as a problem, right? I'm not making this up.
There's plenty of dogma in science, surely you have to be prepared to admit that. It's known that often science has claimed something as "true" without sufficient evidence. Physics was declared finished in 1903 and again in 1928. Up until the the '60s some scientists said nothing could be smaller than particles. Paleontologists taught stuff for years that was plain wrong. Right now there are plenty of dogmas- that will change.
What really bugs me is this constant appeal to "knowledge" that somehow only evolutionists are privy to and only they understand. Everyone else is "ignorant". Really does nothing but make me lose respect for the person making that appeal.
There is a phenomenon in religion that is parallel to this kind of thing. Every dogmatic system in any given religion is internally consistent. So, for people that study Lutheranism for example, everything fits nicely into that box and it all works perfectly in the box. People with other points of view (eg. Reformed) can point to holes in that system but ultimately they will be told they are ignorant or just misunderstand the "truth". The evolution debate fits perfectly here. Evolution works perfectly (for internet groupies especially) because they understand the tight, neat consistent system. The trouble is that it is only consistent internally. Ask them to fill in the large gaps and they either admit there's more work to do or they play the "you're ignorant" card- which is maxed out. The line of credit on that card is kaput.
Understand this: evolutionary theory is not intellectually beyond the means of a high school kid. Some of the most ordinary minds I have encountered are very well qualified evolution adherents with science degrees. I'm not that impressed when someone with an internally consistent system can't handle critique from an outsider without playing the "you're just too dumb" card. It's best to not be like Dawkins who is so in love with human knowledge (especially his own) that it is really the only thing that matters to him. A fertile mind might be impressive to hear from but it could be just full of fertilizer.
Please, that was a request for honesty on your part too. And I did not "call" you anything. I pointed out what your actions were. There is an important difference between the two.OK...so thus far you've called me ignorant and a fool. Hmm. Noted.
Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.Well, that's not an answer, that's evasion.
Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) does have some life form from long ago (unknown) 'turning into' a pine tree and human though. And a fish. And an elephant. And a coconut. Etc.
Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.
You don't seem to understand the process which Darwinism claims produced those life forms isn't based on anything but guesses and suppositions.And yes, the distant ancestors of ancient life did eventually evolve into different forms of life. You don't seem to understand that that is a one way trip. There is no "evolving back".
No, it was a 'go look at this' type of response which is so typical from Darwinists.
It sincerely wasn't that kind of post. You are just looking through the lens of a creationist, where everything can be explained by one word: "Magic". The Theory of Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and certainly can't be adequately explained in a post on a Christian forum.
Learning the TOE will require a sincere effort on your part. Before I spend my time trying to help you learn it, I need to know if you willing to put in that effort.
Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.
And yes, the distant ancestors of ancient life did eventually evolve into different forms of life. You don't seem to understand that that is a one way trip. There is no "evolving back".
Again you misunderstand. It's not "my view" of evolution. It is a Theory which is the basis of modern biology, one that is used as the basis for much of our modern pharmacy, one that is used by literally tens of thousands of scientists every day.If you're having a problem stating what your view of evolution is, simply say so.
You can keep repeating that error, but no one will take you seriously. Perhaps if you learned what scientific evidence is you might be able to understand the theory of evolution.No, it was a 'go look at this' type of response which is so typical from Darwinists.
You don't seem to understand the process which Darwinism claims produced those life forms isn't based on anything but guesses and suppositions.
Again you misunderstand. It's not "my view" of evolution. It is a Theory which is the basis of modern biology, one that is used as the basis for much of our modern pharmacy, one that is used by literally tens of thousands of scientists every day.
You should consider learning about the TOE before posting again. If someone was making posts about why calculus doesn't work, and they freely admitted they don't know how to add two numbers together, what would you think? That's exactly what you are doing.
You can keep repeating that error, but no one will take you seriously. Perhaps if you learned what scientific evidence is you might be able to understand the theory of evolution.
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?