alwight
New member
I can assure you Stripe that your opinion is always valuable to me, what do you think defines a "kind"?:sheep:
Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Jose Fly
New member
The definition of "kind" you gave (organisms that share a common ancestry) is fine. But it's not very useful when, asked how we should determine what organisms share a common ancestry, your answer is ":idunno:".
Also, so far that's your definition for "kind". So when I'm conversing with you, I will go with that definition. But when I'm conversing with someone else I'm going to ask them what their definition of the term is. Given all the things you conflict with other creationists on, this approach is warranted.
No it never happens, or no you never said it doesn't happen?
Has any species ever gone extinct due solely to mutations?
If not, how can it be said that the mutated population is often less fit than the parent population? Mutations happen in every generation.
Jose Fly
New member
Put all this in context of 6days' "Biblical model of creation", where....
One breeding pair of each "kind" was taken aboard the ark, and after the flood, through a process of nothing but losses of fitness, reductions in "genetic information", and "corruption" of genomes, those breeding pairs rapidly gave rise to all the species that have since existed.
Oh, and nowhere in the genomes of any organisms do we see any evidence of this absurd bottleneck where Ne was reduced to 2.
Makes total sense, right? :chuckle:
Jose Fly
New member
And something else I wonder about. Hopefully one of our resident YEC's can clarify...
According to young-earth creationism, during the creation week God created organisms "according to their kinds". Does that mean God created a representative for each "kind" that later gave rise to all the different species, or did God create all the species in that week and just referred to them as "kinds"?
According to young-earth creationism, during the creation week God created organisms "according to their kinds". Does that mean God created a representative for each "kind" that later gave rise to all the different species, or did God create all the species in that week and just referred to them as "kinds"?
Greg Jennings
New member
But your definition of "kinds" requires all members of one kind, in this case the "bear kind", to be able to mate with one another, doesn't it?
Of course remember that pandas cannot breed with other bear species
Greg Jennings
New member
Please post a link to the article and the article itself so I and other can examine it, and we'll see if it matches up with what you say.
Greg Jennings
New member
It's a bear, and my definition of species (or more accurately, the one I'm borrowing from the scientific community) fits that perfectly.
However if it is a bear then your previous definition of "kinds" is incorrect
Greg Jennings
New member
The difference is that pandas ARE bears (unlike koalas), yet still cannot interbreed with other bear species. According to you and others here, species within any "kind" can diversify within that "kind" but they are always able to breed with each other.
Pandas are bears, yet unable to breed with other species within the bear "kind".
Greg Jennings
New member
That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean
Ahh yes.....I forgot that Christians are immune to cancer. Amazing
6days
New member
"Reproduction is inherently risky, in part because genomic replication can introduce new mutations that are usually deleterious toward fitness. This risk is especially severe for organisms whose genomes replicate “semi-conservatively,” e.g. viruses and bacteria, where no master copy of the genome is preserved. Lethal mutagenesis refers to extinction of populations due to an unbearably high mutation rate...."*username said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/
"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction"http://m.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken?
(dinosaur to bird belief)
6days
New member
Greg... are you trying for the title of strawman king?
I have NEVER claimed that.
gcthomas
New member
"Reproduction is inherently risky, in part because genomic replication can introduce new mutations that are usually deleterious toward fitness. This risk is especially severe for organisms whose genomes replicate “semi-conservatively,” e.g. viruses and bacteria, where no master copy of the genome is preserved. Lethal mutagenesis refers to extinction of populations due to an unbearably high mutation rate...."*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/
"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction"http://m.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken?
Huh?!
How can T Rex have mutated into birds AND gone extinct?
Doesn't extinct mean 'leaves no descendants' in your fantasy YEC world?
alwight
New member
The K-T extinction "mutation" perhaps?Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken?
lain:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken?
No, I hadn't heard that T-Rex went extinct solely because of mutations, or that T-Rex mutated into chickens. This is what I heard:
"The evolution of birds is thought to have begun in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs named Paraves." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
The K-T extinction "mutation" perhaps?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html
Speaking of which: Scientists gear up to drill into ‘ground zero’ of the impact that killed the dinosaurs
It will be very interesting to see what they find.
6days
New member
gcthomas said:
Hmm... good question. I guess it must be some of that magic bean stuff. Or, maybe I'm just mixing up my fairy tales?
Washington Post headline..."Dinosaurs aren’t really extinct (sorry, Jurassic Park)"
Or
"Extinction of the Dinosaur". http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/cretaceous4.html
Gc..... you are correct though... I get your point.
alwight
New member
If they find a tyranochicken fossil we may have a problem, it would of course need to be kept hidden from YECs at all costs so that evolutionists can keep their belief system intact.
6days
New member
KFC... original recipe
Greg Jennings
New member
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken?
Nope. Raptors are the ones thought to have evolved into birds. They had feathers, identical hip structure, and some smaller ones even had hollow-ish bones.
T-Rex I'm fairly certain is thought to be the last of its line.
It'd be nice if you just for once could represent something accurately