The better half of the joke

[Eloi]

... is that evolutionists not only say that some animal species come from previous ones, but they also say that each plant species comes from another previous one (or that they used to say BEFORE)... This, after, according to them, plants stopped living in the water to start living on land... kind of like when fish ceasing to be aquatic to become semi-terrestrial amphibians ... or humans stopped living in caves to start building houses

Did you know this part of the story? It is never ending.

Do you think that the millions of years that the planet has existed are enough for so many SUPERDUPERULTRASLOW transformations that these scientists talk about?

[Clownboat]

I simply do not regard breeds as individual species.

Great to hear, because a breed is not a species. All breeds of dogs are included in the one species Canis familiaris.
So you did not address the actual question. We have millions of species on this planet. How did we get the millions of species (not breeds), on this planet in such a short amount of time?

See just beetles to start with. There are around 350,000 species (not breeds) of beetles. If Noah just had 2 beetles on the ark, imagine the super evolution that has taken place over the last thousands of years to get us from 1 species to 350,000. That's just beetles!

Genesis 7:2 stipulated the following to Noah: "Take with you seven pairs--male and female--of each animal I have approved for eating and for sacrifice, and take one pair of each of the others. And Genesis 6:20 says: “Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

Um, we know the story....

What I can tell you is that the various breeds of cats and dogs are mostly from the breeding efforts of humans over the last 300-400 years.

Again, you are confusing breeds and species. Yes, we have many breeds of dogs in the 1 species Canis familiaris.
How did we get the millions of species we see on this planet now and also in the fossil record? Again species, not breeds. Either Noah had millions of species on the ark, or super evolution took place after the flood. How can that be though, if you reject the mechanism that is evolution?

But Dog Kind are still Dog Kind. Cat kind are still Cat Kind. Horse Kind is still Horse Kind, etc...

I'll try my old creation speak...
We have millions of kinds of animals on this planet. Did Noah have millions of kinds on his ark, or do you believe in a form of super evolution that got us from the kinds he had to the millions of kinds we see now on the planet. Did he have 1 kind of beetle, or closer to 350,000 on the ark?

PS. Can you define what a 'kind' is?

Readers, the ignored question was: "Now please provide these areas you refer to (where fresh and salt water don't mix) and then explain what they have to do with a violent global flood allowing both fresh and salt water fishes and plants to survive in the same body of water."

I think we know why this question was dodged and the thread title comes to mind.

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

Your denial of taxonomy is noted.
Were you going to address my post by chance? I would be honored if you acknowledge the time I put in to it by responding to the points I made.

[LittleNipper]

I simply do not regard breeds as individual species.

Great to hear, because a breed is not a species. All breeds of dogs are included in the one species Canis familiaris.
So you did not address the actual question. We have millions of species on this planet. How did we get the millions of species (not breeds), on this planet in such a short amount of time?

See just beetles to start with. There are around 350,000 species (not breeds) of beetles. If Noah just had 2 beetles on the ark, imagine the super evolution that has taken place over the last thousands of years to get us from 1 species to 350,000. That's just beetles!

Genesis 7:2 stipulated the following to Noah: "Take with you seven pairs--male and female--of each animal I have approved for eating and for sacrifice, and take one pair of each of the others. And Genesis 6:20 says: “Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

Um, we know the story....

What I can tell you is that the various breeds of cats and dogs are mostly from the breeding efforts of humans over the last 300-400 years.

Again, you are confusing breeds and species. Yes, we have many breeds of dogs in the 1 species Canis familiaris.
How did we get the millions of species we see on this planet now and also in the fossil record? Again species, not breeds. Either Noah had millions of species on the ark, or super evolution took place after the flood. How can that be though, if you reject the mechanism that is evolution?

But Dog Kind are still Dog Kind. Cat kind are still Cat Kind. Horse Kind is still Horse Kind, etc...

I'll try my old creation speak...
We have millions of kinds of animals on this planet. Did Noah have millions of kinds on his ark, or do you believe in a form of super evolution that got us from the kinds he had to the millions of kinds we see now on the planet. Did he have 1 kind of beetle, or closer to 350,000 on the ark?

PS. Can you define what a 'kind' is?

Readers, the ignored question was: "Now please provide these areas you refer to (where fresh and salt water don't mix) and then explain what they have to do with a violent global flood allowing both fresh and salt water fishes and plants to survive in the same body of water."

I think we know why this question was dodged and the thread title comes to mind.

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

Your denial of taxonomy is noted.
Were you going to address my post by chance? I would be honored if you acknowledge the time I put in to it by responding to the points I made.

Again, if a suspected newly discovered species is found to be able to mate with a known species, then they are in fact one in the same kind. In the case of Noah and his 6 children (3 sons and 3 daughters-in-law), they had the full range of possible human development traits, such as the following: Light skin to very dark skin, blue eyes to deep dark eyes, 5 fingers and toes to 7, midget to giant, skinny to obese, hairy to hairless, etc... However, unless there is some biological damage, a very dark, tall, hairless individual can mate with a very light, short, hairy individual ------ and sire children. This is totally true of all the animals. Darwin noted that on the Galapagos Island were finches of various sizes and beak formations. And that the birds of a feather hung together. Darwin saw these as different species and evolution at work; however, years later when a hurricane decimated these islands and the finch populations it was soon discovered that the supposed various "species" began to intermate for need of mating and in fact procreated baby finches. So it became clear that the supposed many species of finches was actually one, and the same... Every individual of every species is in fact unique in some way or another, but that obviously doesn't make that individual a species unto itself.

[brunumb]

Darwin saw these as different species and evolution at work; however, years later when a hurricane decimated these islands and the finch populations it was soon discovered that the supposed various "species" began to intermate for need of mating and in fact procreated baby finches. So it became clear that the supposed many species of finches was actually one, and the same... Every individual of every species is in fact unique in some way or another, but that obviously doesn't make that individual a species unto itself.

What about finches mating with eagles, or ostriches, or toucans, or emus, or .......
How many different bird species were necessarily on the ark to produce the diversity we observe today? And all in a few thousand years!

[brunumb]

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

Is that the only criterion for classifying animals as the same species?
How do you think scientists have got things so wrong?

[Miles]

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

While this was the prevailing species definition until 50 years ago, and you're welcome to hold on to it as long as you wish, it did have its shortcomings and has been all but abandoned. Since then, and in an attempt to deal with these weaknesses and other issues, new species concepts have been put forward:

...............................Species Concepts
.....................Alternative Species Definitions

Biological Species Concept ( e g , Mayr, 1942,1963)
Isolation [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Recognition [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Evolutionary Species Concept (e.g., Wiley, 1978, 1981)
Ecological Species Concept (Van Valen, 1976)
Cohesion Species Concept (Templeton, 1989)
Phylogenetic Species Concept (e.g., Cracraft, 1983)
Phylogenetic species concept I (Panchen, 1992)
Phylogenetic species concept I I (Donoghue, 1985; Mishler, 1985)
Phylogenetic species concept I l l (Cracraft, 1983)
Genealogical Species Concept (Baum and Shaw,1995)
Phenetic Species Concept (Sokal and Crovello, 1970)
Genotypic Cluster [Species] Definition (Mallet, 1995)
source

.

[LittleNipper]

Darwin saw these as different species and evolution at work; however, years later when a hurricane decimated these islands and the finch populations it was soon discovered that the supposed various "species" began to intermate for need of mating and in fact procreated baby finches. So it became clear that the supposed many species of finches was actually one, and the same... Every individual of every species is in fact unique in some way or another, but that obviously doesn't make that individual a species unto itself.

What about finches mating with eagles, or ostriches, or toucans, or emus, or .......
How many different bird species were necessarily on the ark to produce the diversity we observe today? And all in a few thousand years!

There is no indication that there indication at in in the Bible that there were only a raven and a dove. That's not the point. The point is that the diversity among ravens, doves, eagles, ostriches, emus, etc., would be the end result of GOD's choices among the animals HE sent to Noah. Color, size and shape variations would originate with GOD's choices among the animal kingdom.

[LittleNipper]

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

While this was the prevailing species definition until 50 years ago, and you're welcome to hold on to it as long as you wish, it did have its shortcomings and has been all but abandoned. Since then, and in an attempt to deal with these weaknesses and other issues, new species concepts have been put forward:

...............................Species Concepts
.....................Alternative Species Definitions

Biological Species Concept ( e g , Mayr, 1942,1963)
Isolation [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Recognition [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Evolutionary Species Concept (e.g., Wiley, 1978, 1981)
Ecological Species Concept (Van Valen, 1976)
Cohesion Species Concept (Templeton, 1989)
Phylogenetic Species Concept (e.g., Cracraft, 1983)
Phylogenetic species concept I (Panchen, 1992)
Phylogenetic species concept I I (Donoghue, 1985; Mishler, 1985)
Phylogenetic species concept I l l (Cracraft, 1983)
Genealogical Species Concept (Baum and Shaw,1995)
Phenetic Species Concept (Sokal and Crovello, 1970)
Genotypic Cluster [Species] Definition (Mallet, 1995)
source

.

And why should I "change to accept some new definition ". I don't need any excuses.

[Miles]

I personally do not hold that most of what scientists regard as different species actually are. Any animal that can mate with another are of the same kind or species.

While this was the prevailing species definition until 50 years ago, and you're welcome to hold on to it as long as you wish, it did have its shortcomings and has been all but abandoned. Since then, and in an attempt to deal with these weaknesses and other issues, new species concepts have been put forward:

...............................Species Concepts
.....................Alternative Species Definitions

Biological Species Concept ( e g , Mayr, 1942,1963)
Isolation [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Recognition [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985)
Evolutionary Species Concept (e.g., Wiley, 1978, 1981)
Ecological Species Concept (Van Valen, 1976)
Cohesion Species Concept (Templeton, 1989)
Phylogenetic Species Concept (e.g., Cracraft, 1983)
Phylogenetic species concept I (Panchen, 1992)
Phylogenetic species concept I I (Donoghue, 1985; Mishler, 1985)
Phylogenetic species concept I l l (Cracraft, 1983)
Genealogical Species Concept (Baum and Shaw,1995)
Phenetic Species Concept (Sokal and Crovello, 1970)
Genotypic Cluster [Species] Definition (Mallet, 1995)
source

.

And why should I "change to accept some new definition ". I don't need any excuses.

And there was no "should" urging you to. Like I said, "you're welcome to hold on to it (the outdated concept of species) as long as you wish." I see no need to step out of character for me or the findings of science.---ever


.

[brunumb]

Darwin saw these as different species and evolution at work; however, years later when a hurricane decimated these islands and the finch populations it was soon discovered that the supposed various "species" began to intermate for need of mating and in fact procreated baby finches. So it became clear that the supposed many species of finches was actually one, and the same... Every individual of every species is in fact unique in some way or another, but that obviously doesn't make that individual a species unto itself.

What about finches mating with eagles, or ostriches, or toucans, or emus, or .......
How many different bird species were necessarily on the ark to produce the diversity we observe today? And all in a few thousand years!

There is no indication that there indication at in in the Bible that there were only a raven and a dove. That's not the point. The point is that the diversity among ravens, doves, eagles, ostriches, emus, etc., would be the end result of GOD's choices among the animals HE sent to Noah. Color, size and shape variations would originate with GOD's choices among the animal kingdom.

Your response is not clear and explains nothing. The few birds I listed could not interbreed and produce viable offspring. They are just the tip of the iceberg in bird diversity. That means that there would need to be many thousands of bird 'kinds' aboard the ark in order to account for what we now observe just a few thousand years later. Please give a more definitive explanation regarding what was aboard the ark and how they subsequently produced the current bird population.

[Clownboat]

Your response is not clear and explains nothing. The few birds I listed could not interbreed and produce viable offspring. They are just the tip of the iceberg in bird diversity. That means that there would need to be many thousands of bird 'kinds' aboard the ark in order to account for what we now observe just a few thousand years later. Please give a more definitive explanation regarding what was aboard the ark and how they subsequently produced the current bird population.

As I have said from the start... evolution is being rejected in place of super evolution.
Populations of animals cannot change over long periods of time, only over short periods and at an extremely advanced pace. Super Evolution!