Big Creationist Super Circus, er, Conference!

[Wally]

Back to the OP - I bet they could have held this in 1992 and much of the content would be just the same.

Or 1692.

[pancreasman]

Why is a fish key OK and some other key not OK? What is the underlying principle? All you have done is to assert 'Here is a key which identifies species.' I do the same and you say - 'No , your's doesn't identify species.'

The underlying principle of your key is that we can identify species by looking at similarities and differences. Unless you can show another underlying principle then you have to accept all keys that identify similarities and differences.

The way to approach this issue is to answer the general question - Two islands, take a sample animal from each island. How can we tell if they are the same species? The only answer can be 'If we can identify some character which relates to the interbreeding ability-thingy.' No such character exists. Any test you come up with will ignore the central tenet of Species - the interbreeding thingy.

Magellan

Given that you are the only person, YEC, sane Christian or non-Christian who thinks anything like this, I choose to conclude this conversation. There are other questions in other threads I have put to you that you choose to ignore.

I hereby award myself this prize and promise not to do it again.

beat-a-dead-horse.jpg

[phank]

Clownie is actually following a long-standing and honored creationist tradition here:

Creationist: PRATT0
Sane person: Careful detailed refutation.
Creationist: PRATT1
Sane person: Careful detailed refutation.
Creationist: PRATT2
Sane person: Careful detailed refutation.

Delay of usually months....

Creationist: PRATT0

What clownie doesn't quite have down yet is the length of time appropriate to let the careful refutations fall off the leaderboard, and for new suckers to arrive and provide the same careful refutations. Less than a week is NOT long enough -- even those with short term memory issues can still remember the refutatios.

[magellan004]

Given that you are the only person, YEC, sane Christian or non-Christian who thinks anything like this, I choose to conclude this conversation. There are other questions in other threads I have put to you that you choose to ignore.

I hereby award myself this prize and promise not to do it again.

beat-a-dead-horse.jpg

Wow - another dummy spit from Pancreasman.
Biological classification existed long before 'Species'. Your keys work equally well without an assumption of relatedness or interbreeding ability. Phank said 'your key is not invalid but neither is it dispositive.'


By the way - you keep complaining about me, dismissing me, complaining that I don't respond then vowing to never 'do it again'. I don't know whether I'm Arthur or Martha.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Your fish key is based on physical differences and similarities. To be consistent you must then accept other keys based on similarities and differences. Here is an example:

Attachment 78420

If species can be determined based on fin shape then species can be determined by skin colour.

Magellan

You may do further research by comparing the DNA, or place the animals from the two locations together in a suitable environment and see if the population continues to produce successful generations.

[pancreasman]

Wow - another dummy spit from Pancreasman.
Biological classification existed long before 'Species'. Your keys work equally well without an assumption of relatedness or interbreeding ability. Phank said 'your key is not invalid but neither is it dispositive.'


By the way - you keep complaining about me, dismissing me, complaining that I don't respond then vowing to never 'do it again'. I don't know whether I'm Arthur or Martha.

Magellan

Not sure how you read 'dummy spit'. Do you disagree nobody else on the YEC side is concerned with this issue?

And BTW, you're Martha.

[magellan004]

You may do further research by comparing the DNA, or place the animals from the two locations together in a suitable environment and see if the population continues to produce successful generations.

Comaparing DNA tells us nothing about species. It tells us whether two animals are similar.
If you put two groups of animals together (that were already reproducing) of course they will continue to reproduce. Do you think Mrs Rhinocerous will say to her mate 'Not tonight Dear, those new Giraffe neighbours put me off with all their noise.'?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Comaparing DNA tells us nothing about species. It tells us whether two animals are similar.
If you put two groups of animals together (that were already reproducing) of course they will continue to reproduce. Do you think Mrs Rhinocerous will say to her mate 'Not tonight Dear, those new Giraffe neighbours put me off with all their noise.'?

Magellan

If the DNA is the same, they are the same species. You asked how to determine if two separate populations are the same species. I gave the answer.

Mrs. Rhinocerous will say no, if Mr. whatever is an imposter and not the same species. Organisms of the same species will successfully produce generations of populations of the same species. Remember we are dealing with populations here, not individuals.

[magellan004]

If the DNA is the same, they are the same species. You asked how to determine if two separate populations are the same species. I gave the answer.

As far as I am aware, only in rare twins is the DNA of two people the same. If that is true then 99.999999% of people are all from different species - a species of one.

*
Mrs. Rhinocerous will say no, if Mr. whatever is an imposter and not the same species. Organisms of the same species will successfully produce generations of populations of the same species. Remember we are dealing with populations here, not individuals.

The scenario was - take a sample of animals from Island A and a sample from Island B. If Island A animals were happily reproducing before they were combined with Island B animals (in suitable conditions - as you say) then there is no reason they will not all go on happily reproducing.


I don't think you are thinking through the practicalities. Yes we all hear about 'populations' changing in some mysterious ways over time. But when it come to being scientific about this stuff these vague concepts are anything but testable.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

As far as I am aware, only in rare twins is the DNA of two people the same. If that is true then 99.999999% of people are all from different species - a species of one.

Please get educated, and understand the concept of 'sameness' within the range of the 'species.' The DNA within a species are the same to the point of being able to reproduce. Natural variation within a species is accepted.

The scenario was - take a sample of animals from Island A and a sample from Island B. If Island A animals were happily reproducing before they were combined with Island B animals (in suitable conditions - as you say) then there is no reason they will not all go on happily reproducing.

If they are the same species, this would be true. If they are not the same species they would not. Thank you for some basic understanding of this test to determine if they are the same species.

I don't think you are thinking through the practicalities. Yes we all hear about 'populations' changing in some mysterious ways over time. But when it come to being scientific about this stuff these vague concepts are anything but testable.

There is nothing mysterious about 'genetic drift,' changing over time, and the genetic diversity within species, varieties and subspecies. There is abundant research that demonstrates this. You just choose to remain voluntarily ignorant of the science of genetics and evolution, because of a religious agenda.

[magellan004]

Please get educated, and understand the concept of 'sameness' within the range of the 'species.' The DNA within a species are the same to the point of being able to reproduce. Natural variation within a species is accepted.

Good on you for fighting a rear-guard action. The others have realised it's hopeless to try to come up with a test of Species. You said the test was if DNA is 'the same'. Now you say 'If similar.' How many times have you heard how similar Chimp DNA is to ours?

If they are the same species, this would be true. If they are not the same species they would not. Thank you for some basic understanding of this test to determine if they are the same species.

SO many people disagree with you (about reproduction. ) Every one has their own personal version of Species - Why? because it's a vague , unscientific notion. You have no way of knowing whether A can interbreed with B in an evolution sense.

There is nothing mysterious about 'genetic drift,' changing over time, and the genetic diversity within species, varieties and subspecies. There is abundant research that demonstrates this. You just choose to remain voluntarily ignorant of the science of genetics and evolution, because of a religious agenda.

Of course there is something mysterious. It can't be measured!
Others gave up. Pancreasman thought the test was 'Consult a chart.' You just revert to waffley concepts. I was asking if there was something measurable, testable. There isn't.

Yes Chimps and Humans share 98% of DNA therefore evolution is a fact. Go figure.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Good on you for fighting a rear-guard action. The others have realised it's hopeless to try to come up with a test of Species. You said the test was if DNA is 'the same'. Now you say 'If similar.' How many times have you heard how similar Chimp DNA is to ours?

Please do not be a jerk and read my posts and respond correctly. I did not say similar. Chimpanzees and Humans have similar DNA not the same. The same concerning DNA and the criteria of species is that the gene sequences match. Animals like chimps and humans are different species, because their gene sequences and numbers do not match.

SO many people disagree with you (about reproduction. ) Every one has their own personal version of Species - Why? because it's a vague , unscientific notion. You have no way of knowing whether A can interbreed with B in an evolution sense.

Many people may disagree about reproduction or personal view of species, but no, scientists have no problem understanding populations, species and what represents reproduction.

Yes, bakers, butchers and candlestick makers may have their own personal notions of what defines a species, but scientists have no problem with defining species. I gave you accepted criteria and peramiters for species that can be tested and you continue to play duck, bob and weave and misrepresenting my posts There is abundant research understand the DNA and the genetics of what we define as species.

Of course there is something mysterious. It can't be measured!
Others gave up. Pancreasman thought the test was 'Consult a chart.' You just revert to waffley concepts. I was asking if there was something measurable, testable. There isn't.

I gave criteria and testable preameters for species and you have been consistently ignoring them.

quote] Yes Chimps and Humans share 98% of DNA therefore evolution is a fact. Go figure. [/quote]

Go figure mags, 98% similar does not qualify as the same species, many closely related species of the world have 99 to 98% 'similar' DNA, but the DNA does not match and cannot consistently reproduce.

Magellan[/QUOTE]

[lao tzu]

Ok, so now everyone in this thread - Sam, Tiggy, Jorge, Rogue, me, Chuck D, technomage, Quantum_Dragon and anyone I've missed - agrees that the Theory of Evolution does not include the origin of the first life or the common ancestor.

Well, actually ...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

... he may not hit it hard, but it is included in OTOOS. Edition 1 does not include the word "Creator" but all later editions do.

[Jorge]

Ok, so now everyone in this thread - Sam, Tiggy, Jorge, Rogue, me, Chuck D, technomage, Quantum_Dragon and anyone I've missed - agrees that the Theory of Evolution does not include the origin of the first life or the common ancestor.

So where's the "huge - and growing - body of evidence that discredits the ToE"?

Or perhaps Jorge's "bite" is like being savaged by a dead anteater.

Roy

************************************************************************



IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: How many freagin' times must I repeat myself?
I agree that 'evolution' does not include the origin of the first life or the
common ancestor. But I do NOT agree that 'Evolution' does not include
those things. In fact, 'Evolution' MUST include those things - it has no
other choice.

The "huge and growing body of evidence" discredits BOTH 'evolution' and
'Evolution'. That evidence is in information theory, thermodynamics and
genetics. Sorry but that's all I have time for and, besides, from experience
I know that I'd likely be wasting my time so no big deal. Perhaps later ...

Jorge

[rogue06]

Well, actually ...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

... he may not hit it hard, but it is included in OTOOS. Edition 1 does not include the word "Creator" but all later editions do.

Still doesn't seem to be part of the ToE but rather merely an aside comment at the conclusion of the book.