Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 301 (703246)
07-17-2013 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:18 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument.
The definition of which word? I can't tell what you're trying to be wrong about.
What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society.
My point being that facts about biology are more relevant to biology. This is not so much curious as obvious ... to people who aren't you.
Yes, my opinions are:
1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation ...
Well, the stupidity of that opinion has already been discussed on another thread. Let's move on, eh?
2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species ...
But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham.
Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask.
I did indeed. If only you would answer my question, instead of producing drivel like this:
In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here.
Don't you ever feel just a little ashamed of yourself?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 301 (703267)
07-17-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:55 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, but all this division does is isolate that new "species" in its genetically reduced condition so that it has no further direction to evolve in. The whole point of the idea of speciation within the context of the theory of evolution is that it is a stepping stone to further evolution, but genetically it is either very close to the end or has reached the end of all possibility of further evolution. This is the case with the cheetah, formed by a bottleneck but still characterized by the same kind of genetic situation speciation naturally produces. It can't interbreed with other cats and it also can't evolve new variations within its own population. If you want to call it a Species unto itself you only succeed in obscuring the fact that genetically it remains part of the Cat Species or Family.
What would obscure the facts is using the word "species" to mean family, when it doesn't. No-one in the world (except you) would call a pussy-cat the same species as a tiger. This is what we have the word "family" for.
Would it kill you to speak the same language as the rest of us?
(Your fantasies about genetics are, as we know, nonsense from beginning to end, but that seems to be beside the point. Could you at least try to be wrong about one thing at a time?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 301 (703301)
07-17-2013 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
07-17-2013 11:48 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, I do believe that all cats big and small are of the same Species or original created Kind. Therefore I can't use your nomenclature.
But that is not what "species" means.
Apparently you want to deny that evolution has produced new families. So, here's an idea, you could say: "I deny that evolution has produced new families". Instead, your plan is to go about saying that evolution has produced no new species, while also demanding that the word "species" should be redefined to mean family.
This is moronic even for you. Why not just say what you mean in the English language as it exists?
If you wanted to say you had a pet cat, would you go around saying that you had a pet elephant and demanding that the word "elephant" should be redefined to mean cat?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 235 of 301 (703302)
07-17-2013 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
07-17-2013 12:06 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
It's of course hard to produce evidence for this ...
Well, of course it is, 'cos it's not true.
It is, however, possible to produce evidence for the exact opposite. Remember how I did that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 12:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 238 of 301 (703308)
07-17-2013 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
07-17-2013 10:52 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
They are formed from a split off a larger population. The smaller population cannot possibly have more genetic material than the larger. It takes the reduction or loss of alleles for the former characteristics for the allleles for the new characteristics to increase, and often the former disappear from the population altogether if the population is appreciably smaller than the original.
Meanwhile, back in reality ...
Does it not disturb you at all that the things you imagine happening are the exact opposite of the things we observe happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 10:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 241 of 301 (703326)
07-18-2013 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Tangle
07-18-2013 5:03 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
We know (sic) that ravens and doves were on the boat - did they contain the genome for ostriches, robins and kiwis too?
Could be. We know, after all, that evolution goes really really fast so long as creationists approve of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2013 5:03 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024