Originally posted by RJHindsThere are currently thought to be somewhere in the region of 8 million species of eukaryotes. If there were less than 8000 at the time of the flood and a lot of those went extinct at that time, where do you think all those new species came from?
No, and it does not say anything about the numbers of species on the Ark. That is pure speculation. So my speculation is that there were not that many species in existence at the time and hybernation or hybernation-like behavior at times played a part in perserving the animals during that year. 😏
Hint: you might want to look up a definition of species before answering this one. I wouldn't want you to make any more of an ass of yourself than is strictly necessary.
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerMy definition of a species is a variation of a Biblical kind. The variation of kinds resulting in many species is what Darwin saw on his island visit. These variations come about through the process Darwin detailed in his work called Origin of the Species and some through domesticating and cross breeding by man.
There are currently thought to be somewhere in the region of 8 million species of eukaryotes. If there were less than 8000 at the time of the flood and a lot of those went extinct at that time, where do you think all those new species came from?
Hint: you might want to look up a definition of species before answering this one. I wouldn't want you to make any more of an ass of yourself than is strictly necessary.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou will notice I didn't ask about your definition of a species. If you are going to use science to argue with scientists you need to use their terminology and their definitions. To do otherwise just invites mockery for your ignorance. Personally, I'd rather you continued making an ass of yourself because that is much more amusing.
My definition of a species is a variation of a Biblical kind. The variation of kinds resulting in many species is what Darwin saw on his island visit. These variations come about through the process Darwin detailed in his work called Origin of the Species and some through domesticating and cross breeding by man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VlTm47xnJE
Originally posted by KeplerWhat definition of species do you wish to use? What definition do your evil-lution scientists use? The following is the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on species:
You will notice I didn't ask about your definition of a species. If you are going to use science to argue with scientists you need to use their terminology and their definitions. To do otherwise just invites mockery for your ignorance. Personally, I'd rather you continued making an ass of yourself because that is much more amusing.
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's more like it. How would you fit that into the "kind" idea from the Bible? If the first definition is used, being able to interbreed and produce fertile young, each species is a kind.
What definition of species do you wish to use? What definition do your evil-lution scientists use? The following is the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on species:
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and pro ...[text shortened]... re used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
If we use that definition, it's as good as any other for our purposes I suspect, then how do you account for less than 8000 species pre-flood, less after, and yet a more than a thousandfold increase since then? Remember that using the definition you just gave kind=species so we have a huge increase in number of kinds since then. I doubt very much that you will say that God has been doing a crafty bit of creating since then and no biologist is going to admit that evolution would go that fast!
To be honest, I have no idea how, or even if, evolution works. The evidence I see could be just as easily explained by something or someone fiddling with the fauna and flora on this planet from time to time. My problem is that I know how long this has been going on for and it's definitely a lot longer than 6000 years no matter what it says in your holy book. To convince me otherwise you have to convince me that most of physics is wrong. That might take some doing considering how easy it is to test physical theories. Especially compared to how difficult it is to test evolution.
I doubt that you will make any meaningful effort in that direction though. I suspect your purpose here is not to save my soul or any other nonsense like that, but just to annoy.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsso you agree with the current scientific definition of species?
What definition of species do you wish to use? What definition do your evil-lution scientists use? The following is the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on species:
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and pro ...[text shortened]... re used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Originally posted by stellspalfieI believe species are variations within the Biblical kinds, with kinds being like the higher Family classification of todays classifications. It seems that the wikipedia definition is basically in agreement with that don't you think?
so you agree with the current scientific definition of species?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindswould you class bats as being a 'kind'? did they have a space on the ark or did they come later?
I believe species are variations within the Biblical kinds, with kinds being like the higher Family classification of todays classifications. It seems that the wikipedia definition is basically in agreement with that don't you think?
Originally posted by stellspalfieIn my opinion, bats are a kind all their own because for one reason there are a lot of species of bats and I don't believe they could be considered a species of some other kind.
would you class bats as being a 'kind'? did they have a space on the ark or did they come later?