tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4947168551918530120..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Darwin's statueLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26696411604719182602016-02-23T08:42:19.070-05:002016-02-23T08:42:19.070-05:00Just giving this a bump, because I think the quest...Just giving this a bump, because I think the question of ring species is a very crucial one if the idea of "kinds" is to be treated as a serious scientific concept. I hope Eric, Newbie or any other creationist who holds to this concept will be able to clarify.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68658809798025401122016-02-22T09:57:13.011-05:002016-02-22T09:57:13.011-05:00bwilson: Chromosome fusion doesn't prevent rep...bwilson: Chromosome fusion doesn't prevent reproduction; many populations have chromosome fusion polymorphisms.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17973290342196860522016-02-22T07:00:22.045-05:002016-02-22T07:00:22.045-05:00Here's a queston I've never heard a creati...Here's a queston I've never heard a creationist address: How does the concept of "kinds" apply to ring species? For instance, in the colour diagram in the upper right of the page linked below, where does one draw a line to demarcate one "kind" from another?<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species" rel="nofollow">Wkipedia: Ring Species</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91822841270423064202016-02-21T23:02:05.069-05:002016-02-21T23:02:05.069-05:00'Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat simi...'Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind."' Apologies for being rather gross, but is that hypothesis actually well enough tested that we can be confident it's true. Of course any chimp/human hybrid would be sterile (the chromosome fusion thing) but would it be inviable? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87649028031570190232016-02-21T20:43:29.631-05:002016-02-21T20:43:29.631-05:00"Hey, that went in the wrong spot."
Ver..."Hey, that went in the wrong spot."<br /><br />Very similar to a random mutation.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3342434862203478732016-02-21T20:37:53.595-05:002016-02-21T20:37:53.595-05:00Here is evolution at its full blast:
https://www....Here is evolution at its full blast:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtXby3twMmI<br /><br />LMAOJmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75809646014617895812016-02-21T20:31:33.197-05:002016-02-21T20:31:33.197-05:00Hey, that went in the wrong spot.Hey, that went in the wrong spot.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4200714233643814472016-02-21T20:30:36.861-05:002016-02-21T20:30:36.861-05:00Thanks, Newbie, for a fine example of cargo cult s...Thanks, Newbie, for a fine example of cargo cult science. Creationists put on white lab coats, talk in sciencey language, and hope that they will gain a rich reward of intellectual respectability cargo. No, John Frum is not coming back, no matter how many C-47s you assemble from bamboo or how many landing strips you clear off.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38534537089123330412016-02-21T18:54:26.937-05:002016-02-21T18:54:26.937-05:00The link:hereThe link:<a href="http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002611" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br /><br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80498894984909094142016-02-21T18:35:12.968-05:002016-02-21T18:35:12.968-05:00Part 2.
"Whereas specific created “kinds” m...Part 2. <br /><br /><i>"Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle genetically.<br /><br />Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges” between “kinds” are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds” without evolving into other “kinds.” The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds” during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.<br /><br />From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,” since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.<br /><br />Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds” emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their “kinds.” Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds” have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11."</i><br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3239607908307218402016-02-21T18:33:54.019-05:002016-02-21T18:33:54.019-05:00Eric,
Here is the entire essay on KINDS. The quot...Eric,<br /><br />Here is the entire essay on KINDS. The quoted scriptures do not refer to any particular Bible, so you are welcomed to look them up in your Bible or any other Bible. <br /><br />Part 1.<br /><br /><i>"he creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.<br /><br />The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.<br /><br />In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”<br /><br />Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”<br /><br />From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”<br /><br />Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true."</i>Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65450478110410943232016-02-21T11:25:08.241-05:002016-02-21T11:25:08.241-05:00That couldn’t be it. Random DNA replication errors...<i>That couldn’t be it. Random DNA replication errors in an unguided process can’t anticipate future needs. That said, there are examples of evolutionists who succumbed to idea of mutations being saved up for a rainy day. It’s pretty easy to see why.</i><br /><br />Yeah right. I didn't say anything about anticipating future need. But your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound it isn't really worth correcting the two major misconceptions (one of them arising from plain dishonesty) in the above statement.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51671173041706628762016-02-21T11:10:00.371-05:002016-02-21T11:10:00.371-05:00SRM,
“As for why humans developed a prominent chi...SRM,<br /><br />“As for why humans developed a prominent chin, who knows? It might be chance or might be related to speech development.”<br /><br />That couldn’t be it. Random DNA replication errors in an unguided process can’t anticipate future needs. That said, there are examples of evolutionists who succumbed to idea of mutations being saved up for a rainy day. It’s pretty easy to see why.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56940902513437682322016-02-21T10:58:54.188-05:002016-02-21T10:58:54.188-05:00Species is conceptually defined as breeding popula...Species is conceptually defined as breeding populations. There was that definition about whether they can cross and produce viable and fertile offspring, but that has proven quite hard a definition, since people don't actually go trying to see which populations can breed with which other populations. The problem, though, for defining species, is precisely that evolution often makes it hard to have a clear cut-off line. Of course there's also the little problem that not every organism reproduces sexually.<br /><br />I get it that you thought this problem puts scientists "at the same level" as creationists who cannot define "kind." Your problem, though, is that your god supposedly created each "kind" separately, which should give you no trouble distinguishing between "kinds." Since that's not the case, you have to admit to some level of evolution, trying hard to ignore that quite often your definitions for kinds allows for humans, chimps, gorillas, and even orang-utans to be a single "kind." Except that you don't care about consistency. In the end a "kind" is whatever you want, as long as humans don't mix with anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47792014806294654962016-02-21T10:48:02.292-05:002016-02-21T10:48:02.292-05:00If biology make sense, you shouldn't be threat...<i>If biology make sense, you shouldn't be threaten by biblical statements, should you?</i><br /><br />No one, dummy, I repeat, no one is <i>threatened</i> by biblical statements save those who have been put to death on their basis.<br /><br />And the chin again? Why don't you compare the skull of a bulldog with that of a german shepherd if you want to see the power of selection for variable traits. That is, if you even believe that these two dogs arose from a common ancestor.<br /><br />As for why humans developed a prominent chin, who knows? It might be chance or might be related to speech development. Understanding evolution doesn't depend upon knowing why every morphological feature developed.<br /><br />What is your answer for the presence of a chin - please don't say it is because god has a chin and he created us in his image...brother. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48009324760440328622016-02-21T08:54:48.721-05:002016-02-21T08:54:48.721-05:00Newbie,
Can you point in my bible where exactly a...Newbie,<br /><br />Can you point in my bible where exactly are the "hints" to what the biblical kinds might be?<br /><br />I might agree with some of your claims but I'm not sure I will find evidence for it in my bible lolJmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89186406604679940592016-02-21T08:50:38.585-05:002016-02-21T08:50:38.585-05:00SRM,
If biology make sense, you shouldn't be ...SRM,<br /><br />If biology make sense, you shouldn't be threaten by biblical statements, should you?<br /><br />If evolution is true as well as common descent, I'm sure evolutionists will make some sense as to why they have chins and their ancestors as well as chimps, gorillas and the like don't beyond just claiming that chins must have evolved somehow lolJmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83780563711929878582016-02-21T08:43:47.371-05:002016-02-21T08:43:47.371-05:00Correction!!!
pseudo genes-should be-orphan genes...Correction!!!<br /><br /><b>pseudo genes</b>-should be-<b>orphan genes</b><br /><br />Diogenes,<br /><br />I've told you that there is no clear definition of kind from a biblical point of view just like there is no clear definition of life from scientific point of view. <br /><br />If you really what to debate the origins of life, you'd better start with making sure that some people in the audience agree with your definition of life or you are going to get stuck on this issue alone ;-)Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61738717229575679372016-02-20T22:19:04.929-05:002016-02-20T22:19:04.929-05:00Eric writes: WHY DOES homo sapience have a chin an...Eric writes: <i>WHY DOES homo sapience have a chin and chimps don't? How did it evolve? Why did it evolve in the first place?</i><br /><br />So that the humans who wrote the bible would have something to scratch while thinking about what to write next.<br /><br />Seriously... trying to make sense of biology using the bible as a guide? Is this the year 1500 or what? What an embarrassment to the human intellect.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23611029640213981472016-02-20T18:05:10.050-05:002016-02-20T18:05:10.050-05:00Although the Bible actually provides some hints as...Although the Bible actually provides some hints as to what the KINDS might be and where the division between them might constituted, I don’t believe any Bible expert can provide the clear-cut definition of KIND based solely on the Bible. <br /><br />Here is just one key point (possibly of many more) that gives us a clue as to what KIND might mean in biblical sense;<br /><br /><br /><i>“The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.”</i><br /><br />Another point;<br /><br /><i>”. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”</i><br /><br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14445731279116110382016-02-20T11:44:55.716-05:002016-02-20T11:44:55.716-05:00You're posting in the wrong thread, again, Bil...You're posting in the wrong thread, again, Bill Cole.<br /><br />Have you decided whether to take me up on my offer to carry out an experiment on your brain to determine if consciousness is "natural"? I realize admit I might be taking a chance there. Hitting you very hard on the head with a baseball bat might not actually have any discernible effect in your case.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40861130757741704612016-02-20T10:11:14.224-05:002016-02-20T10:11:14.224-05:00And stop givinge examples of alleged "kinds&q...And stop givinge examples of alleged "kinds". Examples are not a definition. Prove that kinds exist.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42943751128466963612016-02-20T10:09:45.850-05:002016-02-20T10:09:45.850-05:00I asked Eric to define 'kind' and of cours...I asked Eric to define 'kind' and of course he did not even try. I pointed out that creationists respond with examples, "dogs and cats are different kinds", but examples are not a definition.<br /><br />So he responds that dog/wolf/coyote mix is proof of evolution within kinds. Nope, because "kinds" don't exist. He'd might as well call it evolution within garzaplexes.<br /><br />And then there's this treasure:<br /><br /><i>You know very well there are many "novel genes" you call the pseudo genes, that you can't account for, between the last blah blah blah and homo sapiens?</i><br /><br />Jesus.<br /><br />1. "Novel genes" are not pseudo genes. Pseudo genes are typically shared by related species. E.g. humans and chimps share pseudogenes for olfaction and vitamin C synthesis that were broken long ago in a mutual ancestor. "Novel genes" allegedly appearing in humans but not chimps are a whole other subject.<br /><br /> 2. There are different estimates of the number of "novel" genes in humans, but generally the number is small. Some of the "novel" genes are short bits of non-coding RNA genes that are transcribed into short bits of functional RNA. Short bits can be created by random mutation. <br /><br />3. There are ORFans which are mostly not really genes, just candidates. Is that what you meant? God only knows.<br /><br />4. There may also be longer "de novo" bits including genes that code for protein and whose origin in non-coding DNA can be traced. But current research indicates that "de novo" protein coding genes originate from non-coding DNA more often than was previously thought. Functional protein-coding sequences are rare, but not as rare as we once thought.<br /><br />Your writing is terribly garbled. You're trying to use jargon but you don't know what the jargon means. If you need to make claims about "de novo genes", please cite actual scientific articles so I can read professional writing by people who know what the jargon means.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36617906692639145662016-02-20T09:09:26.291-05:002016-02-20T09:09:26.291-05:00@dio If they are defined by structure, what's ...@dio If they are defined by structure, what's the definition? How is a human not the same 'kind' as a chimp or an Australopithecus? <br /><br />Define ''species''. Topgooszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460155425551195039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1803188927175378812016-02-20T06:53:34.805-05:002016-02-20T06:53:34.805-05:00"if the explanation is complicated, you don&#...<i>"if the explanation is complicated, you don't understand it. "</i><br /><br />Thank you for making your encephalitic subnormality all the more obvious. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.com