Are they a new species?

On Jun 22, 9:39 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni... RemoveThis @marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 5:49 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni... RemoveThis @marionettespieger.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Mike Painter wrote:
> >>> ZilentKnight wrote:
> >>>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 21, 7:27 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni... RemoveThis @marionettespieger.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that
> >>>>>> eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than
> >>>>>> their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce
> >>>>>> often result from losses in gene function. For example, the
> >>>>>> dachshund's small size is caused by a failure of normal development
> >>>>>> of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism. While the word "species" is used
> >>>>>> frequently, it should be noted that
> >>>>>> this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the
> >>>>>> much more inclusive term "kind." Often, what scientists choose to
> >>>>>> call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation
> >>>>>> within a "kind," as the word is used in the Genesis account.
> >>>>>> pitbull-> dog.
> >>>>> What about when you breed two populations apart for so long that they
> >>>>> can no longer produce viable offspring together? Will Jesus use his
> >>>>> magic to reset their DNA or something?
> >>>> like the great dane and the chihuahua? which of the two is not a dog?
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
> >> read it before and quote to BudiKaka
>
> >> here something you may have missed
>
> >> Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
> >> It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into
> >> Species problem. (Discuss)
> >> The greenish warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.It is
> >> surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that
> >> applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among
> >> biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual
> >> species is called the species problem.
>
> >> Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a
> >> natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and
> >> whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring. Various parts of this
> >> definition are there to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
>
> >> Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating
> >> partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
> >> Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating
> >> but do not normally do so in the wild, for whatever reason.
> >> Animals whose offspring are normally sterile. For example, mules and
> >> hinnies have never (so far) produced further offspring when mated with a
> >> creature of the same type (a mule with a mule, or a hinny with a hinny).
>
> > Fortunately evolution does not hinge upon _any_ concept of species.
>
> Interesting.


You need a population (gene pool).
You need heritable traits (alleles).
Then evolution is the change in allele frequency over successive
generations.
Thus you also need mutation, reproduction, and selection.

No requirement for "species" or "kinds". Also, how do you apply a
definition of species contingent upon breeding viability to organisms
that reproduce asexually? AFAIK all definitions of species in biology
are conventional definitions used only for reasons of convenience.

It is Christian Creationism that says there is some impediment for a
species to evolve beyond a certain point. But they cannot tell you
what that impediment is, nor can they tell you where the dividing
lines are between their "kinds".
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

On Jun 23, 7:43 am, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni... DeleteThis @marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
> > You need a population (gene pool).
> > You need heritable traits (alleles).
> > Then evolution is the change in allele frequency over successive
> > generations.
> > Thus you also need mutation, reproduction, and selection.
>
> > No requirement for "species" or "kinds". Also, how do you apply a
> > definition of species contingent upon breeding viability to organisms
> > that reproduce asexually? AFAIK all definitions of species in biology
> > are conventional definitions used only for reasons of convenience.
>
> > It is Christian Creationism that says there is some impediment for a
> > species to evolve beyond a certain point. But they cannot tell you
> > what that impediment is, nor can they tell you where the dividing
> > lines are between their "kinds".
>
> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
> to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
> scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
> can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.


You're a liar.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

mymail RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:15:00 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotpainter RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> like the great dane and the chihuahua? which of the two is not a
>>> dog?
>
> The Chihuahua is the littlest of little rats and the Dane is the
> greatest of all dogs .

The Doberman is the greatest of all dogs after Cecil, who I had killed a
while back (sorry, put down, put to sleep, rank with gone to doggy heaven)

The great Dane is a very good dog but lacks greatness because of his long
tail.
His long whippy tail.
His long whippy tail that wraps around a male body even if he turns away.
His long whippy tail that wraps around a male body even if he turns away and
taps him not to lightly on his balls.
T'aint funny Magee.

Stop reading if you don't like dog stories.
A friends Dane was sleeping in a door way across from where I was sitting
one night. An earthquake that you could hear coming rolled by. The dog got
up and gave me that intense look that I've only seen when a dog is going
after something. 100% concentration.
He came across the room *at* me with that look, turned around and sat on my
lap with his feet planted firmly on the floor. I did mention he was a great
Dane right?
He looked around a bit but didn't move until the rolling had stopped and it
was safe.
I told him he should have stayed in the doorway.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

ZilentKnight wrote:
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> ZilentKnight wrote:
>>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>>> On Jun 21, 7:27 pm, ZilentKnight
>>>> <ZilentKni....TakeThisOut@marionettespieger.net> wrote:
>>>>> Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that
>>>>> eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than
>>>>> their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce
>>>>> often result from losses in gene function. For example, the
>>>>> dachshund's small size is caused by a failure of normal
>>>>> development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism. While the word
>>>>> "species" is used frequently, it should be noted that
>>>>> this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses
>>>>> the much more inclusive term "kind." Often, what scientists
>>>>> choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter
>>>>> of variation within a "kind," as the word is used in the Genesis
>>>>> account. pitbull-> dog.
>>>>
>>>> What about when you breed two populations apart for so long that
>>>> they can no longer produce viable offspring together? Will Jesus
>>>> use his magic to reset their DNA or something?
>>>>
>>> like the great dane and the chihuahua? which of the two is not a
>>> dog?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>>
>>
>
> read it before and quote to BudiKaka
>
> here something you may have missed.

"or as a result of deliberate human action. "

I missed nothing. The definition I left in covers your comment completely.

It's called science, something you deny except when you like it, as you do
with all your bible beliefs.

We would all like to hear the formal definition of the word "kind" as used
in the bible. Nobody seems able to do that.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
>
> You need a population (gene pool).
> You need heritable traits (alleles).
> Then evolution is the change in allele frequency over successive
> generations.
> Thus you also need mutation, reproduction, and selection.
>
> No requirement for "species" or "kinds". Also, how do you apply a
> definition of species contingent upon breeding viability to organisms
> that reproduce asexually? AFAIK all definitions of species in biology
> are conventional definitions used only for reasons of convenience.
>
> It is Christian Creationism that says there is some impediment for a
> species to evolve beyond a certain point. But they cannot tell you
> what that impediment is, nor can they tell you where the dividing
> lines are between their "kinds".
>

Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Chris H. Fleming wrote:

>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
>> to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
>> scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
>> can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>
>
> You're a liar.
>

Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
attacking the arguer and not the argument. It seem I know what I am
talking about, and you do not. No limits can be passed, no way to
advance evolution. The scientific method can demonstrate this.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

ZilentKnight wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
>>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good
>>> evidence as to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific
>>> method. What the scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are
>>> certain lines that can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>>
>>
>> You're a liar.
>>
>
> Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
> attacking the arguer and not the argument. It seem I know what I am
> talking about, and you do not. No limits can be passed, no way to
> advance evolution. The scientific method can demonstrate this.

Then give evidence that you understand the scientific method and know what a
theory is.

I know this is a stupid question because anybody who actually *understands*
what a theory is, would not argue against the theory of evolution any more
than a theory of gravity.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

ZilentKnight wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
>>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
>>> to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
>>> scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
>>> can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>>
>>
>> You're a liar.
>>
>
> Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
> attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Only to those who don't understand what Ad hominem means
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:37:43 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic RemoveThis @virgin.net> wrote:

>ZilentKnight wrote:
>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>
>>>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
>>>> to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
>>>> scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
>>>> can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're a liar.

<PIGGYBACKING>

>>
>> Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
>> attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Calling you a liar, Jabbers, is just a simple statement of fact.


>
>Only to those who don't understand what Ad hominem means
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

John Baker wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:37:43 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic DeleteThis @virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> ZilentKnight wrote:
>>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good evidence as
>>>>> to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific method. What the
>>>>> scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are certain lines that
>>>>> can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>>>>
>>>> You're a liar.
>
> <PIGGYBACKING>
>
>>> Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
>>> attacking the arguer and not the argument.
>
> Calling you a liar, Jabbers, is just a simple statement of fact.
>
>

to you everything is a fact. still waiting for toys under the tree is a
fact.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Mike Painter wrote:
> ZilentKnight wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> ZilentKnight wrote:
>>>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 21, 7:27 pm, ZilentKnight
>>>>> <ZilentKni... DeleteThis @marionettespieger.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that
>>>>>> eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than
>>>>>> their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce
>>>>>> often result from losses in gene function. For example, the
>>>>>> dachshund's small size is caused by a failure of normal
>>>>>> development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism. While the word
>>>>>> "species" is used frequently, it should be noted that
>>>>>> this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses
>>>>>> the much more inclusive term "kind." Often, what scientists
>>>>>> choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter
>>>>>> of variation within a "kind," as the word is used in the Genesis
>>>>>> account. pitbull-> dog.
>>>>> What about when you breed two populations apart for so long that
>>>>> they can no longer produce viable offspring together? Will Jesus
>>>>> use his magic to reset their DNA or something?
>>>>>
>>>> like the great dane and the chihuahua? which of the two is not a
>>>> dog?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>>>
>>>
>> read it before and quote to BudiKaka
>>
>> here something you may have missed.
>
> "or as a result of deliberate human action. "
>
> I missed nothing. The definition I left in covers your comment completely.
>
> It's called science, something you deny except when you like it, as you do
> with all your bible beliefs.
>
> We would all like to hear the formal definition of the word "kind" as used
> in the bible. Nobody seems able to do that.
>
>

Done it many time google -Jabriol Kinds-
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Mike Painter wrote:
> ZilentKnight wrote:
>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>
>>>> Creationism is bunk, However, what you describe, is not good
>>>> evidence as to mans origins because it does not pass the scientific
>>>> method. What the scientific does demonstrate as of today. there are
>>>> certain lines that can not be crossed. Not even with synthetic DNA.
>>>
>>> You're a liar.
>>>
>> Calling me a liar in the science community's is known as Ad hominem -
>> attacking the arguer and not the argument. It seem I know what I am
>> talking about, and you do not. No limits can be passed, no way to
>> advance evolution. The scientific method can demonstrate this.
>
> Then give evidence that you understand the scientific method and know what a
> theory is.
>

Done it many times before in this thread and others.

> I know this is a stupid question because anybody who actually *understands*
> what a theory is, would not argue against the theory of evolution any more
> than a theory of gravity.
>

No argument. What I argue against is how people use TOE and say this is
mans origin with out any demonstrable facts.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

ZilentRook wrote:
>>
>
> Done it many time google -Jabriol Kinds-

I dfid that and most of them just called you an idiot. Admittedly I didn't
check all 700 or so of them but nowhere did I find a definition of "kind",
much less one that is actually usable and does not change as the need
arises.
You would think it would be a simple thing to explain what a kind is.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species?