Are they a new species?

ZilentCastle wrote:
>>> If they are reproducing, they have offspring they are fertile.
>>
>> So, animals that can mate and have offspring that are infertile, are
>> different kinds
>
> can they reroduce among themselves?

No, that's what infertile means.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight.RemoveThis@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:ZPDei.4368$lY5.231@trnddc07...
> 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.

Various kinds of dogs are breeds. Not different species. When the Hebrews
said KIND, they meant breed. Speaking of the Bible, heh, the Israelites
were NEVER supposed to intermarry with Moabites and such people realted to
Canaantes due to the curse on Ham's son (and we all know what that is, the
Talmud explains it.) If they intermarried with such people, their
descendents could NEVER sit befor the thrown of God. That is what it says -
PERIOD. Even with Isaac - God didn't even regard his biological first son
from Egyptian woman as his son. Jacob, instead, is regarded as the ONLY
son - and the only inheritor. He was ordered by God to cast away the
Egyptian and her son Ishmael. The Old Testament is extremely
segregationist. Extremely so. And yes, they regarded those other people as
ANOTHER KIND.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

"ZilentRook" <ZilentRookt DeleteThis @marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:oWdfi.1574$yp.1467@trnddc08...
> 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.
>>
Evolution IS a theory, but it is an advanced biological theory. One must
know advanced biology to understand it! There is no simplifying it. Not if
you want the real deal.

Then again, the PC version of pop evolution is also bullshit, AS bullshit as
the extreme creationists 5000 year old earth nonsense. Laughable - except
that the PC pop version of evolution is DOGMA - the same as religion.

REAL evolutionary theory supports genocide, species replacement by any
means, etc. Advancement of one clade over another - and etc. It's
completely politically INcorrect.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Comm wrote:
> "ZilentRook" <ZilentRookt.DeleteThis@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
> news:oWdfi.1574$yp.1467@trnddc08...
>> 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.

Depends on how you define "facts".
Do you believe in chemistry or physics?
Show me the "facts".

If I tell you precisely wharn and where Mars will appear on the horizon is
this such a "fact".
I can do it in two different ways are both methods "facts"?

What if, as in fact they do, one method is based on one theory and one on
another theory?


>>>
> Evolution IS a theory, but it is an advanced biological theory. One
> must know advanced biology to understand it! There is no simplifying
> it. Not if you want the real deal.
>
> Then again, the PC version of pop evolution is also bullshit, AS
> bullshit as the extreme creationists 5000 year old earth nonsense.
> Laughable - except that the PC pop version of evolution is DOGMA -
> the same as religion.
> REAL evolutionary theory supports genocide, species replacement by any
> means, etc. Advancement of one clade over another - and etc. It's
> completely politically INcorrect.

Tell us how "REAL" evolutionary theory supports such things.
Please don't tell us that it's becaue of "Survival of the fittest" and to
fully define genocide and give exmples of where it occurs in nature.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

In article <oCzgi.4391$vi5.3396@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Comm wrote:
> > "ZilentRook" <ZilentRookt DeleteThis @marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
> > news:oWdfi.1574$yp.1467@trnddc08...
> >> 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.
>
> Depends on how you define "facts".
> Do you believe in chemistry or physics?
> Show me the "facts".
>
> If I tell you precisely wharn and where Mars will appear on the horizon is
> this such a "fact".
> I can do it in two different ways are both methods "facts"?
>
> What if, as in fact they do, one method is based on one theory and one on
> another theory?
>
>
> >>>
> > Evolution IS a theory, but it is an advanced biological theory. One
> > must know advanced biology to understand it! There is no simplifying
> > it. Not if you want the real deal.
> >
> > Then again, the PC version of pop evolution is also bullshit, AS
> > bullshit as the extreme creationists 5000 year old earth nonsense.
> > Laughable - except that the PC pop version of evolution is DOGMA -
> > the same as religion.
> > REAL evolutionary theory supports genocide, species replacement by any
> > means, etc. Advancement of one clade over another - and etc. It's
> > completely politically INcorrect.
>
> Tell us how "REAL" evolutionary theory supports such things.
> Please don't tell us that it's becaue of "Survival of the fittest" and to
> fully define genocide and give exmples of where it occurs in nature.

I don't wish to be argumentative. Hitler honestly believed that he was
doing the world a favor by eliminating (murdering) all people that were
members of what Hitler considered to be inferior races--such as Jews. This
would be similar to selective breeding--which is used to produce superior
breeds of horses, dogs, cats and cattle. It's also related to survival of
the fittest. Hitler wanted to create a master race of people. He believed
the master race of people would be produced much quicker if he helped the
process along by killing everybody that was not part of the superior race
of people.
Jason
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Jason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Depends on how you define "facts".
>> Do you believe in chemistry or physics?
>> Show me the "facts".
>>
>> If I tell you precisely wharn and where Mars will appear on the
>> horizon is this such a "fact".
>> I can do it in two different ways are both methods "facts"?
>>
>> What if, as in fact they do, one method is based on one theory and
>> one on another theory?
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>> Evolution IS a theory, but it is an advanced biological theory. One
>>> must know advanced biology to understand it! There is no
>>> simplifying it. Not if you want the real deal.
>>>
>>> Then again, the PC version of pop evolution is also bullshit, AS
>>> bullshit as the extreme creationists 5000 year old earth nonsense.
>>> Laughable - except that the PC pop version of evolution is DOGMA -
>>> the same as religion.
>>> REAL evolutionary theory supports genocide, species replacement by
>>> any means, etc. Advancement of one clade over another - and etc.
>>> It's completely politically INcorrect.
>>
>> Tell us how "REAL" evolutionary theory supports such things.
>> Please don't tell us that it's becaue of "Survival of the fittest"
>> and to fully define genocide and give exmples of where it occurs in
>> nature.
>
> I don't wish to be argumentative. Hitler honestly believed that he
> was doing the world a favor by eliminating (murdering) all people
> that were members of what Hitler considered to be inferior
> races--such as Jews. This would be similar to selective
> breeding--which is used to produce superior breeds of horses, dogs,
> cats and cattle. It's also related to survival of the fittest. Hitler
> wanted to create a master race of people. He believed the master race
> of people would be produced much quicker if he helped the process
> along by killing everybody that was not part of the superior race of
> people.
> Jason

So what does the believe of a non scientist have to do with your claim that
evolution supports genocide or that only people with advanced degrees can
understand it?
If a person believes the earth is flat does that mean the earth is flat, or
is it only flat if Somebody famous believes it.

Then answer those questions about "facts".
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

Hello, please see inside.

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eolhi.9497$c06.2198@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Jason wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Depends on how you define "facts".
>>> Do you believe in chemistry or physics?
>>> Show me the "facts".
>>>
>>> If I tell you precisely wharn and where Mars will appear on the
>>> horizon is this such a "fact".
>>> I can do it in two different ways are both methods "facts"?
>>>
>>> What if, as in fact they do, one method is based on one theory and
>>> one on another theory?
>>>
>>>
quote
>>>> Evolution IS a theory, but it is an advanced biological theory. One
>>>> must know advanced biology to understand it! There is no
>>>> simplifying it. Not if you want the real deal.
unquote

I said that " " (Comm).
>>>>
>>>> Then again, the PC version of pop evolution is also bullshit, AS
>>>> bullshit as the extreme creationists 5000 year old earth nonsense.
>>>> Laughable - except that the PC pop version of evolution is DOGMA -
>>>> the same as religion.
>>>> REAL evolutionary theory supports genocide, species replacement by
>>>> any means, etc. Advancement of one clade over another - and etc.
>>>> It's completely politically INcorrect.

I also said that (Comm).
>>>
>>> Tell us how "REAL" evolutionary theory supports such things.
>>> Please don't tell us that it's becaue of "Survival of the fittest"
>>> and to fully define genocide and give exmples of where it occurs in
>>> nature.

Habitat tracking. That is replacement (of what species are there) by any
means necessary. Real evolution is about COMPETITION, not just some
cooperation. Such things have happened throughout time, again and again.
Niles Eldredge gives plenty of examples of "habitat tracking." Read his
book. What MAY have happened to Neandertal when he met H. sapiens is an
example of it. Whether he perished by mixing (and hence vanishing) or being
outcompeted, or killed - it doesn't matter. Neandertal is GONE.
>>
>> I don't wish to be argumentative. Hitler honestly believed that he
>> was doing the world a favor by eliminating (murdering) all people
>> that were members of what Hitler considered to be inferior
>> races--such as Jews.

You are in error. Hitler in no way thought Jews were inferior. On the
contrary. They were perceived as a THREAT, a very intelligent and cunning
threat - and considering what Hitler knew damned well about the Bolshevik
Revolution and what happened there (Churchill also knew this, as did Wilson,
Jewish Newspapers put it on their own front pages - hell, everyone knew it,
it was common knowledge) - he was quite justified in feeling that they were
a threat. Sure, not all of them were, but did Hitler ever bother to ASK?
Probably not. Heh. So it went. Jews did that because Christians were a
threat, not just when they were religious, but even during the post
enlightenment. They treated Jews badly. Jews got even. Hitler got even.
And so on. That's an example, though, of resource competition.

This would be similar to selective
>> breeding--which is used to produce superior breeds of horses, dogs,
>> cats and cattle.

Hebrews of the OT practiced that - eugenics. It served them quite well,
btw. There is nothing wrong with eugenics. China practices that.
Encourage healthy births. Discourage unhealthy births. That common sense.

> It's also related to survival of the fittest.

Uh, no. Jews were more fit in terms of intelligence than Germans were -
hence they were perceived as a threat.

Hitler
>> wanted to create a master race of people. He believed the master race
>> of people would be produced much quicker if he helped the process
>> along by killing everybody that was not part of the superior race of
>> people.

Hitler may have called it a master race, but he wanted to basically keep
Europe European. That's ok - Europe SHOULD be European and not lose their
culture, language, civilization. Anything that is a real threat to that -
SHOULD be made to get out - and right now if Europeans don't do that, they
WILL go extinct. Their culture will be gone, as will their fruits (Western
Civ). I'm not one of them, btw, but I surely do LIKE their civilization and
would hate to see it gone.

>> Jason
>
> So what does the believe of a non scientist have to do with your claim
> that evolution supports genocide or that only people with advanced degrees
> can understand it?
> If a person believes the earth is flat does that mean the earth is flat,
> or is it only flat if Somebody famous believes it.

Evolution is filled with habitat tracking examples, time and time again.
One group rises up - another group falls or goes extinct. That's just the
way it is. 98% of all species that existed here went extinct. Do you
imagine that all happened due to the climate or something? Heh - NO.
Diversity exists because (in people) people developed apart from each
other - they BECAME diverse, variations came about that way. Why destroy
this? Why try to destroy the variations and make one big mush?
>
> Then answer those questions about "facts".

Pop versions of evolution tend to push a very PC agenda - which is not
backed by evolution AT ALL. Even the title of Darwin's book isn't PC, LMAO.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species? 

On Jun 23, 11:57 am, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni....DeleteThis@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:

> >> ...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.

You are highly mistaken in a way that suggests that you are
intentionally misleading the reader. I present the following evidence
for my comment.

There has not been any barrier to mutation that has been formally
described that prevents any of the changes associated with evolution,
even with what Creationists call macroevolution. If you know what you
are talking about,
please give us a citation. Your statement, "No limits can be passed,
no way to advance evolution," is false since there has never been a
scientific description of such limit. Then you state, "the scientific
method can demonstrate this," when no scientific claim has been made.
You made a fuzzy comment about the scientific certainty of "limits"
when you yourself do not know what they are.

Your statement about "even with synthetic DNA" is doubly
misleading since there are no lines to be crossed with or without
synthesis. If a line isn't defined, it can't be crossed regardless of
the type of DNA being used. Therefore, "synthetic DNA" is a out of
sequence. It is just sand in the eyes for your polemic argument. The
"synthetic DNA" statement appears to be a falsehood intentionally
designed to make it appear like you actually looked something up, or
maybe tried to do some experiments yourself. If I am wrong, describe
to me how "synthetic DNA" is different from "natural DNA" in your
argument.

You are emphatically asserting the existence in scientific
literature of a barriers in DNA mutation that you never read about.
Then you make the statement, "I seem to know what I am talking about,
and you do not." This is an ad hominem statement. The sum of two ad
hominem arguments do not make one logical argument.

It is apparent that you know how to use a computer, and
appear to have mastered the internet sufficiently to communicate to
this newsgroup. You read and write coherent sentences, which to some
extent show proper spelling and grammar. Therefore, you know how to
search for scientific studies that define and quantify such "limits."
You imply that there are many such studies. I suspect when you have
done such a search, you will come up with none.

I just want to give one concrete example of a scientific
statement. A scientific statement about limits is one like, "The
development of feathers requires a change in DNA at locus 1 as opposed
to locus 2 in our diagram, and we have shown on physical grounds that
no such mutation can possibly take place if the mutation occurred by
the following physical mechanisms. In previous studies (see references
1-4), we have provided an a large set of such forbidden mutations.
Given that most major transitions in evolution require a mutation in
this set, as shown in reference 10, we present the theory that no
major transition in evolution is possible." There are other
statements that I consider scientific, but you get the idea.
 >> Stay informed about: Are they a new species?