Originally posted by catstormYOU SAY:
Different breeds of dog are not different species. Genuine evolution resulting in the production of new species (which breed successfully only within their species) has been observed and is now accepted as fact by all biologists, including creationists. Go to CreationWiki, speciation. The word 'kind' is not a.word used as a classification by biologists. Creationists themselves do not agree on what it means.
Different breeds of dog are not different species.
In that case natural selection can only produce different breeds of animals. It can not produce different species of animals, because both natural selection and selective breeding operate on the same reproductive process in animals.
Yes, I know "Kind" is not a classifiaction used by biologist, but it is used by God in the Holy Bible and that is what special creation is all about.
Natural selection does produce new species and Creation Science agrees with this in their own literature. Darwin's finches were different species, not because of their beaks, but because they were reproductively isolated. That is the definition of 'species' used by both creationists and evolutionists.
Originally posted by catstorm
Different breeds of dog are not different species. Genuine evolution resulting in the production of new species (which breed successfully only within their species) has been observed and is now accepted as fact by all biologists, including creationists. Go to CreationWiki, speciation. The word 'kind' is not a.word used as a classification by biologists. Creationists themselves do not agree on what it means.
CreationWiki is a free, online, wiki-based encyclopaedia written from what it calls a "uniquely creationist perspective". Although it contains a mixture of half truths, outright lies and deliberate distortions, its authors, sadly, hope it will be taken seriously.
It is unclear how the site's editors reconcile their belief in the ultimate authority of the Bible with their deliberate promotion of falsehoods and disinformation. Perhaps they have an updated edition of the Bible in which the Ninth Commandment now reads "Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor." or "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, except to promote thy religious beliefs and political agenda."
The site has hundreds of contributors, but the number of contributors who are "seriously active" is comparatively small, potentially limited to the founder, and one or two additional users.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CreationWiki
Originally posted by catstormIf natural selection produces new species then so does selective breeding of animals by humans. Human breeders reproductively isolate dogs too.
Natural selection does produce new species and Creation Science agrees with this in their own literature. Darwin's finches were different species, not because of their beaks, but because they were reproductively isolated. That is the definition of 'species' used by both creationists and evolutionists.
No, dog breeders have not produced any new species. That new species are formed in nature is a proven, observed fact which is disputed by no one. Are you dismissing CreationWiki, the official site of the Creation Science movement, based on the word of RationalWiki, a collection of rationalists, agnostics, atheists etc.? Are you saying that both the evolutionists and the creationists are wrong?
The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and every other creationist group I have seen all admit the formation of new species by Natural Selection.
Originally posted by catstormI dispute it.
No, dog breeders have not produced any new species. That new species are formed in nature is a proven, observed fact which is disputed by no one. Are you dismissing CreationWiki, the official site of the Creation Science movement, based on the word of RationalWiki, a collection of rationalists, agnostics, atheists etc.? Are you saying that both the evol ...[text shortened]... other creationist group I have seen all admit the formation of new species by Natural Selection.
I am dismissing CreationWiki for claiming to be the official site for Creation science. I only quoted RationalWiki for your enjoyment.
I am saying I believe I am right.
It all depends on the definition of words, such as breeds and species.
When I say that Darwin was right, I mean he was right about the formation of new species, which is admitted by all biologists, whether creationist or not. Creationists not only admit that speciation occurs, they rely on it to get all the animals on the Ark. RJHinds, if you have your own private definition of the word 'species', different from the one used by every biologist in the world, it will be very difficult to talk to you.
Originally posted by catstormSPECIES
When I say that Darwin was right, I mean he was right about the formation of new species, which is admitted by all biologists, whether creationist or not. Creationists not only admit that speciation occurs, they rely on it to get all the animals on the Ark. RJHinds, if you have your own private definition of the word 'species', different from the one used by every biologist in the world, it will be very difficult to talk to you.
noun, plural species.
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic. a.one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
I accept the above definitions for species.
Darwin's book never explained the origin of species. No creationist that I am aware of believes Darwin's finches and their changes in beaks explained anything about the Origin of Species.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou clearly lied when you claimed you had read it.
Darwin's book never explained the origin of species.
No creationist that I am aware of believes Darwin's finches and their changes in beaks explained anything about the Origin of Species.
So you accept that Darwins finches are related? You have just contradicted yourself without realizing it.