[voltaire]

Exactly what you'd expect if evolution gradually caused......

That applies to everything under the sun with you guys. No matter what happens, it is exactly what you would expect if evolution caused...(blank). Evolution predicts anything and everything.

[The Barbarian]

The real world is kinda messy. And the fact that there are all sorts of half-species and quarter-species, and three-quarter species is precisely what you would see, if evolution is a fact. If you're a creationist, you need to come up with some explanation as to why things don't fit the nice neat "kinds" supposed by creationist faith.
Exactly what you'd expect if evolution gradually caused......

That applies to everything under the sun with you guys.

I'm not going to allow you that excuse. We spend a huge amount of time here, correcting you on what evolution is not. Not abiogeneis, not Big Bang, not entirely new genomes, etc.

You guys want it both ways. Fact remains. If new species gradually evolve, you would expect to see the messiness that you and Stipe are concerned about.

No matter what happens, it is exactly what you would expect if evolution caused...(blank). Evolution predicts anything and everything.

Nice try, but you're not going to be able to use that one. For example, if everything was nice and neat as Stipe wishes is was, that would be evidence against evolution.

[The Barbarian]

More twisting and obvious obfuscation. You don't address any of my points in a straightforward manner.

You tried a fast one, and you got burned. Learn from it.

On top of that, you had to be hateful again when you said that everyone here knows what a subspecies is.

I said I thought everyone did. It's time for you to grow a thicker skin if you want anyone to take you seriously.

It is obvious that the evolutionists have their definition and the creationists have theirs. We are trying to get you guys to come out and clearly state what it is.

I provided one, and I get a screech of anger from you. C'mon.

Can you not see that? Of course not, you would rather play games wouldn't you? To us, you guys are contradictory and subjective and make the rules up as you go. We are trying to nail you down so that you won't waver on your statements. Your game playing only serves to add to the confusion. Obviously, you are not here to add understanding; you are here to mock and ridicule and cause confusion. Is there any wonder most people cannot stand you?

I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.

(back to the issue)

It's pretty clear, even to most creationists, that Neandertals were separated longer and more effectively from other humans, than any human population living today. And if you look at the genomes of humans and Neandertals, that's what you'd expect.

I'm not sure if you're angry or not about the fact that we don't have any biological human races today. But that's the reality we have. There is more variation within any possible "race" you you might draw, than there is between "races." On the other hand, there is more variation between Neandertals and antomically modern humans than there is within each group.

And that settles it from a scientific POV. Like it or not, there it is.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Yes, but I am still fuzzy about something. I now know that the determination of a new subspecies is subjective. A new species used to be a sub population of another species. What are the factors that determine when a sub population can officially be called a species? I could also ask if a subpopulation is the same thing as a subspecies.

To my knowledge, subspecies are often defined as a population of organisms that are similar enough to interbreed but different enough to be distinguished from other such populations. Bengal vs. Siberian tigers are a great examples. But some subspecies are defined by very tiny distinctions. Other times you can have populations that look almost identical but are actually two different species (i.e. don't interbreed).

That applies to everything under the sun with you guys. No matter what happens, it is exactly what you would expect if evolution caused...(blank). Evolution predicts anything and everything.

Not true. I've explained multiple times, plausible data that would indicate recent special creation would look like. Since recent special creation from scratch isn't what happened, of course nothing will match any prediction made from that point of view.

It's like you're upset that everything matches the theory of gravitation. What exactly do you expect us to do when the theory accurately describes reality? It's a theory BECAUSE it explains data from multiple sources.

There is no strict classification scheme for determining what is and isn't a new species.

No and nor can there be despite Stripe's insistence there is (and utter failure to actually use his definition on a real world example).

Interbreeding isn't even the only definition that is used. It works rather well with animals since they mostly reproduce sexually. It doesn't work so well with plants since many plants can have very wide crosses (between genera even) and if we defined species that way it would be totally useless.

Organisms that don't reproduce sexually at all can't use interbreeding as a basis either. (Oops I guess Stripe's idea fails again!) For example, bacteria reproduce only asexually. They are usually defined as species by microbiologists based on DNA : DNA cross hybridization of 70% or greater. If we used that definition for other organisms, all eukaryotes would be one species!

Defining species is messy for precisely the reasons Frayed Knot has mentioned. If there were obvious boxes that everything fit into, that would be clear evidence for recent de-novo creation of all organisms.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

What Stripe says is:
regardless of how much difficulty we might face in applying a classification system, "Kind" is well defined and rock solid. There is no room for equivocation on what might be or might not be included in a kind given all knowledge. "Species", however, leaves plenty of room for argument and disagreement.

Asserting something as fact does not make it so when you have no supporting evidence.

In fact this idea of "kinds" has been reviewed by scientists and found to be none of the things Stripe has claimed.

Apart from being able to tell you that lions and tigers are the same kind.

How did you make that determination? What else belongs in this "kind"? Do leopards? How about cheetahs? Pumas? Housecats? Otters?

I can tell you exactly what groups these belong in and why. You can do neither.

Yes.

Then you agree with me that your definition is far inferior to species since species is used by everyone and "kind" is used by essentially no-one.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

You tried a fast one, and you got burned. Learn from it.



I said I thought everyone did. It's time for you to grow a thicker skin if you want anyone to take you seriously.



I provided one, and I get a screech of anger from you. C'mon.



I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.

(back to the issue)

It's pretty clear, even to most creationists, that Neandertals were separated longer and more effectively from other humans, than any human population living today. And if you look at the genomes of humans and Neandertals, that's what you'd expect.

I'm not sure if you're angry or not about the fact that we don't have any biological human races today. But that's the reality we have. There is more variation within any possible "race" you you might draw, than there is between "races." On the other hand, there is more variation between Neandertals and antomically modern humans than there is within each group.

And that settles it from a scientific POV. Like it or not, there it is.

You are the only one who gets me angry. I calm down the moment I stop reading your crap. I get angry again the moment I start reading your crap. I'm not going to respond to you again until you know how to debate and argue in a reasonable manner.

[voltaire]

I am more confused than I was before with what is and isn't a new species. Can you see why people don't believe in evolution now? It should be straightforward and it isn't.

Originally Posted by alateone

Defining species is messy for precisely the reasons Frayed Knot has mentioned. If there were obvious boxes that everything fit into, that would be clear evidence for recent de-novo creation of all organisms.

Why is that?

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I am more confused than I was before with what is and isn't a new species. Can you see why people don't believe in evolution now? It should be straightforward and it isn't.

Why should species be straightforward? If evolution is true, all organisms are constantly in flux. A species is simply a population that happens to be distinct from some other populations at a particular point in time. Biology is not straightforward, in general. That would be math. :P

Why is that?

If there were groups of organisms that had no evolutionary connection to other groups (say cats and dogs), that would be the "orchard model" with separate trees for particular kinds. But we don't see that, we see a pattern of connectivity between larger groups of organisms that creationists assert cannot have shared a common ancestor.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
I'm thinking, when you calm down, you're going to be embarrassed by that one. Or maybe not. But any rational person would be. Even if things are going badly for you, never let yourself get so hacked you can't think.

You are the only one who gets me angry. I calm down the moment I stop reading your crap.

I avoid people like that. Life's too short to go around angry.

I get angry again the moment I start reading your crap. I'm not going to respond to you again until you know how to debate and argue in a reasonable manner.

Well, that might solve the problem.

(back to the issue)

Here's something that might help with the human/Neandertral issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_Id...eature=related

I am more confused than I was before with what is and isn't a new species.

First, understand that "species" is a difficult concept, because it's about something that involves transformation. The process of speciation is typically very slow in human terms and subject to some interpretation. It's clear enough that a population that cannot breed at all with the original population is a species (since there is complete reproductive isolation). However, what of species that might reproduce (and will, in unusual circumstances) such as grizzly bears and polar bears?

What about ring species or species clines? The populations at the extremes of the ring may be completely reproductively isolated, but gene flow continues through intermediate populations. The leopard frog in North America is like that. The extinction of the intermediate populations would produce a speciation event, as that would case reproductive isolation; the two populations remaining could not reproduce under any circumstances.

Can you see why people don't believe in evolution now?

Yep. Welcome to biology. It's not nice and neat and orderly, because life isn't.

It should be straightforward and it isn't.

You'll have to take that up with Him. I'm just learning how He did it.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Asserting something as fact does not make it so when you have no supporting evidence.

Pays not to post things that are obviously not true.

In fact this idea of "kinds" has been reviewed by scientists and found to be none of the things Stripe has claimed.

Our struggles to classify animals due to lack of knowledge does not change the nature of the definitions we use.

How did you make that determination?

Try reading.

I can tell you exactly what groups these belong in and why. You can do neither.

Pays not to post things that are patently untrue.

Then you agree with me that your definition is far inferior to species since species is used by everyone and "kind" is used by essentially no-one.

Evolutionists - begging the question since 1882.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Why should species be straightforward? If evolution is true, all organisms are constantly in flux. A species is simply a population that happens to be distinct from some other populations at a particular point in time. Biology is not straightforward, in general. That would be math. :P

Using definitions that assume the truth of your religion is no way to do science.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Using definitions that assume the truth of your religion is no way to do science.

Again, that would be you.

Didn't read my link did you? You assume specially created kinds (aka holobaramins) exist when there is no evidence to say they do.

Failure to Qualify as a Scientific Hypothesis Friar states that: "The goal of baraminology is to characterize holobaramins." The goal then, is to identify Biblical "kinds" and to describe all of the organisms comprising them. So creationists begin with the assumption that "kinds" exist, in light of scientific evidence to the contrary. They have not tested – nor do they ever intend to test – the question of whether holobaramins actually exist. In fact, Friar deliberately avoids listing the assumptions of their model entirely. The reason is obvious when you read the "guidelines" for practicing bariminology: "Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations." So scripture tells them that "kinds" exist, and they have only to describe them. This is a critical piece of information – it means that they will never, ever admit that "kinds" do not exist. Ever. This is contrary to the way science is conducted – a scientific theory or hypothesis must be potentially falsifiable. That is, there must be a test or tests that, if confirmed, would deny the validity of the hypothesis or theory, and scientists must be willing to part with hypotheses if enough evidence exists that rejects them. In phylogenetic analysis, tree building methods are judged based on, among other criteria, how well they perform when assumptions are violated and whether they alert us when assumptions are violated (Penny et al. 1992) But creationists have no intention of ever testing the vital assumption that "kinds" exist, and since scripture has priority over all other considerations, it is evident that they would dismiss any evidences suggesting that "kinds" do not exist.

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You are the only one who gets me angry.

I have a visitors comment from you that says different.

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Our struggles to classify animals due to lack of knowledge does not change the nature of the definitions we use.

And you've probably never seen a unicorn either, but we have a really great definition of all the characteristics a unicorn would have. Perhaps unicorns are real too.

[OMEGA]

Lucifer was given the job along with his many Angel Scientists

to genetically Engineer Mankind and animals. He realized that they

would eventually be more important than he was and he destroyed

all the Life on this planet by causing a moon of Mars to hit Mars and

cause its Asteroids to come down and hit the Earth and make Oceans

and push up Mountains. God went to another planet and developed

Humans and animals and came back and put them on the Earth.

Here is one of the amazing birds that God created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y