Coragyps

There you have it, folks! Noah had at a minimum one pair of each genus of currently extant animal life on board, and presumeably a few behemoths, leviathans, and unicorns as well. Does anyone have figures on how many genera there are? Ed, would you care to clarify once again how all the species of Mus or Passer arose since the Big Wet?

Oolon Colluphid

Coragyps: Sure there are lots, but they’re still mice and sparrows! Now, when a mouse gives birth to a capybara...

So Ed. A ‘kind’ is a genus, is it? Hmm, interesting.

I wonder whether Ed considers dolphins to be a single kind? I wonder because the family Delphinidae consists of 17 separate genera, and they all look like variations on a theme of dolphin to me.

African and Indian elephants (Loxodonta and Elephas) are separate kinds, are they Ed? And yet those two are only as genetically distinct as the African savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana and the forest elephant (L cyclotis are from each other. See http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/publ...hant/index.asp

Is the Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) a separate kind from the caracal (Caracal caracal)? And if one kind, what of something like the Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii) or the puma (Puma concolor)? How about rusty-spotted cats, servals, kokods, ocelots, snow leopards, jaguars, leopards and cheetahs, bobcats, fishing cats and Geoffroy’s cats...? How many kinds, Ed?

Are hyaenas and aardwolves one kind, or two?

Are foxes and wolves one kind, or two?

If I could be bothered, I could list a few hundred more examples.

Maybe Ed could explain...?

TTFN, DT

Oolon Colluphid

That’s easy, because IIRC, according to Ed the flood was millions of years ago. Or might have been: I don’t think we ever got him to be anything except vague on when it was. It was long enough ago for radical microevolution. Hence asking for a precise definition of ‘kinds’, and how he knows they’re immutable.

DT

Ed

Yes, but much harder to acquire the time or the inclination!

Quote:

lp: Xian apologists are now trying to claim credit for something they had long looked down upon -- the importance of natural law. Can anyone say "all things to all people"? Ed: Hardly, Christians were the first to articulate natural law in conjunction with experimental science, ever hear of Isaac Newton? lp: Look at the Middle Ages -- what saints were celebrated for was not understanding natural law and using that understanding to that advantage, but working miracles. And modern science is a revival of what some Greek philosophers had done.

No, the greeks excelled primarily in logical reasoning, but they never developed an ongoing systematic study of nature. This was only developed by Christians.

Quote:

lp: Except that the Bible nowhere gives a coherent theory of the occurrence of miracles. Ed: No, but we do know from the scriptures that they only rarely occur. lp: I don't know where the Bible gives any miracle-occurrence rate.

It doesnt but a careful reading of the scriptures will show you that God usually works using natural processes and laws.

Quote:

(why didn't the Church Fathers be big scientists? ...) lp: Except that improving science would have made possible improved technology -- and improved military and economic prowess. Ed: They considered such things of relatively little importance. lp: Very convenient.

Nevertheless true.

Quote:

LP: One can prove anything one wants to by redefining words. For example, one could "prove" that the Bible demonstrates evolution with the help of appropriate word definitions. Ed: Okay, go ahead I am all ears! lp: The Bible has several genealogies, which raises the question of why they are present. For the most part, they have neither entertainment nor dramatic nor edificatory value, so they must be present for some other reason. Could their presence be a hint that genealogies are an important property of our world? And indeed that is what we find; there is an abundance of evidence that all of the Earth's life can fit into a single genealogy, the "Tree of Life". For more, see the UCMP's site, or the more-technical Tree of Life site. So by this interpretation, the Bible tells us that evolution had happened, even if not in the most straightforward way.

Interesting, but a bit of a stretch.

Oolon Colluphid

Like, erm, natural selection?

DT

Oolon Colluphid

I’m still waiting, Ed. What’s your take on the kind = genus problem?

And please: how did you alight on the idea a kind is a genus? Because ‘baraminologists’ such as Kurt Wise think it’s near-enough the Linnaean level of family. Does your wildlife biology experience lead you to think he’s wrong? And why?

Cheers, DT

Ed

No, I meant relative to organisms without hard skeletons.

Doubting Didymus

Ed, I made that post well over a month ago. Are you a page behind the rest of us, or something?

theyeti

This is now the ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of this thread!!!

WHOOHOOO!



CONGRATULATIONS!!

Yeaayyy! Yeaayyy! The longest running thread in the history of E/C!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Ed, get a life.

theyeti

Doubting Didymus

Crimony! Look who's talking! How long did that take you?