The Death of Darwinism

Originally posted by C Hess
Imagine a chain, where every link is slightly different from every other. Now the first and last link in the chain don't match at all, but every other link in the chain still matches the links it's connected to.

Now, think of each link as a population of a given species (like the famous salamander in california). Every population can interbreed with the ne ...[text shortened]... there are such genetic differences between more than just two populations to call it a "chain".

I was in a bit of hurry writing that. Of course the post should end with:

...there are such genetic differences between more than just two populations that we can't call it a "chain".

Originally posted by C Hess
I was in a bit of hurry writing that. Of course the post should end with:

...there are such genetic differences between more than just two populations that we can't call it a "chain".

I believe the idea is that they are trying to determine what makes a different species or different kind, right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe the idea is that they are trying to determine what makes a different species or different kind, right?

I believe you're not paying attention. If two populations of salamanders (for instance) can't or won't reproduce because the genetic differences between them are too big (ring species or not), you have observed speciation. They can only drift further apart from there on, since they won't exchange genetic material (no gene flow between them).

Kind? I don't know what a kind is. That has yet to be defined scientifically so that we can determine if "kind" is a useful taxon.

Originally posted by C Hess
I believe you're not paying attention. If two populations of salamanders (for instance) can't or won't reproduce because the genetic differences between them are too big (ring species or not), you have observed speciation. They can only drift further apart from there on, since they won't exchange genetic material (no gene flow between them).

Kind? I don't ...[text shortened]... That has yet to be defined scientifically so that we can determine if "kind" is a useful taxon.

Don't worry, he will never let it be defined in a way that can be refuted scientifically, he will move the goalpost as soon as you call him on it.

Originally posted by C Hess
I believe you're not paying attention. If two populations of salamanders (for instance) can't or won't reproduce because the genetic differences between them are too big (ring species or not), you have observed speciation. They can only drift further apart from there on, since they won't exchange genetic material (no gene flow between them).

Kind? I don't ...[text shortened]... That has yet to be defined scientifically so that we can determine if "kind" is a useful taxon.

Kinds are those different creatures originally made by God to reproduce after there own kind. A creature that can no longer reproduce does not make it a different kind than its mother. It just means that it has a defect that makes it unable to reproduce after its own kind.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Kinds are those different creatures originally made by God to reproduce after there own kind. A creature that can no longer reproduce does not make it a different kind than its mother. It just means that it has a defect that makes it unable to reproduce after its own kind.

HA! Got you!

You're saying that living things only reproduce within their own kind. If we have two populations of salamanders, and within those populations the salamanders reproduce just fine, then clearly they're not defective. But, when individuals from one population meet individuals from the other, they can't or won't reproduce. That, by your definition, means they're no longer the same kind, as they're only supposed to reproduce within their own kinds.

This all means that you've now witnessed macro-evolution. Welcome to the evolution camp. The drinks are over there. Cheers! 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
HA! Got you!

You're saying that living things only reproduce within their own kind. If we have two populations of salamanders, and within those populations the salamanders reproduce just fine, then clearly they're not defective. But, when individuals from one population meet individuals from the other, they can't or won't reproduce. That, by your definitio ...[text shortened]... witnessed macro-evolution. Welcome to the evolution camp. The drinks are over there. Cheers! 😏

No. You are not understanding me. It is true that I believe living things only reproduce their own kind. A dog will not reproduce a cat because they are different kinds or species.

If a Chihuahua does not reproduce with a Great Dane it does not mean they are different species or kinds of animals, but only different breeds of dog. They are still dogs of the canine species or kind of animals. But if a female Great Dane is unable to reproduce with a male Great Dane, then there is probably a defect in the reproductive system, but they are still dogs of the canine kind or species of animals.

It is the same way with the salamanders. They do not cease to be salamanders because they fail to reproduce. However, salamanders and frogs are different species or kinds because a salamander will never reproduce with a frog.

Does that help you understand?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. You are not understanding me. It is true that I believe living things only reproduce their own kind. A dog will not reproduce a cat because they are different kinds or species.

If a Chihuahua does not reproduce with a Great Dane it does not mean they are different species or kinds of animals, but only different breeds of dog. They are still dogs o ...[text shortened]... r kinds because a salamander will never reproduce with a frog.

Does that help you understand?

I understand that you don't understand. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
I understand that you don't understand. 😏

Very well then.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Very well then.

If you say so.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A dog will not reproduce a cat because they are different kinds or species.

How did you come to know that a dog and a cat are different kinds?
Where in the Bible does it say dogs and cats were created separately? How do you know they aren't both descended from the same original creation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How did you come to know that a dog and a cat are different kinds?
Where in the Bible does it say dogs and cats were created separately? How do you know they aren't both descended from the same original creation?

Because I know kung fu and a little science too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because I know kung fu and a little science too.

Little being the key word there, I think.

Originally posted by C Hess
Little being the key word there, I think.

... and an exaggeration.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because I know kung fu and a little science too.

So in other words, you ASSUMED and made an ASS out of YOU and the MEDiterranean.