Zerinus - Do you believe there was death before Adam's fall?

[_zerinus]

Your wording is interesting. You speak of mosquito "populations" and "genres". How is a genre of mosquito different from a species of mosquito? Does a population of mosquito represent multiple species of mosquito and multiple genres? Are you trying to tell us that mosquito is the species?

They belong to the same species if they can interbreed among themselves, otherwise they are not. That is the scientific definition.

zerinus, there are 3,000 species of mosquitoes! . . .

Which is beside the point.

Okay, if you hadn't guessed it yet, I know of one example where a given species has jumped to become a different species, it's the very example you gave.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11 ... es-062916/

In one example of manmade evolution, the standard house mosquito has adapted to the ecosystem of the subway system in London and established a subterranean population. Now known as the ‘London Underground mosquito’, it can't interbreed with its surface counterpart and is essentially regarded as a new species.

There are reasons to doubt that conclusion. More investigation is required to establish that that is the case. Have they really (biologically) become different species, or are they just reluctant to mate? If they mated, would they produce a fertile offspring, or wouldn't they? Did they really originate from the same stock, or were they different species from the start? A far as I know, none of this has been properly investigated.

Be honest. When you wrote that essay, you believed that title Mosquito equates to a single species, correct?

Incorrect.

The Mosquito species? That would be very consistent with what you wrote. Among the Mosquito species, there are mutations and some populations are stronger and others weaker, these are genres, and then various populations are made up genres but they are all mosquitoes and can have wild mosquito sex with each other.

Did you take biology in school? Do you remember "Kingdom, phylum, class, order..."

Your assignment for today is to determine just what the word "mosquito" means in reference to this chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

I suggest you cut the crap out of it.

[Guest]

Zarinus, there are 3,000 species of mosquitoes!

Right you are, Dean Robbers. By the time we get to butterflies, there are some 17,000 species.

Don't even get me started on moths. There are some 11,000 species of moths in the US alone, and more than 160,000 species worldwide.

And it gets worse still. It has been said that, "The creator has an inordinate fondness for beetles."* If so, it has resulted in some 350,000 different species of those creatures.

Poor Noah.

_________________

*A sentiment often attributed to Charles Darwin, but probably first expressed by J.B.S. Haldane (if not apocryphal).

[_DrW]

The questions are not intended to 'prove' evolution. They are intended to determine your understanding, or lack thereof, regarding a few basic scientific findings on which a rational discussions of natural selection and evolution could be based.

The argument is about evolution, not my understanding of anything. I am not remotely interested in demonstrating to anybody my understanding of anything.

-- which is pretty obvious at this point.

[_Gadianton]

If they mated, would they produce a fertile offspring, or wouldn't they?

When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation

Yep, and according to your own blog, that's checkmate.

A far as I know, none of this has been properly investigated

As far as you know doesn't mean much when you aren't actually trying to know more. why would you be aware of how deeply any scientific matter has been investigated?

there are lots of examples like the mosquitoes. Some really interesting fish examples. The problem is that no matter how strong the evidence, what you'll say is that the original population wasn't documented well enough to say for sure they came from the same original species. that's going to be your ultimate excuse for any example.

700,000 beetles on the ark, Zerinus. lol.

[_I have a question]

If they mated, would they produce a fertile offspring, or wouldn't they?

When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation

Yep, and according to your own blog, that's checkmate.

A far as I know, none of this has been properly investigated

As far as you know doesn't mean much when you aren't actually trying to know more. why would you be aware of how deeply any scientific matter has been investigated?

there are lots of examples like the mosquitoes. Some really interesting fish examples. The problem is that no matter how strong the evidence, what you'll say is that the original population wasn't documented well enough to say for sure they came from the same original species. that's going to be your ultimate excuse for any example.

700,000 beetles on the ark, Zerinus. lol.

An excellent point Sir, as usual.

If one refuses to accept evolution, then one cannot simultaneously believe in a literal global flood c2,300 BCE, from which the only surviving species were on the ark. I too would like to hear zerinus’ position on the story of Noah in context of his disbelief in evolution.

Zerinus?

[_zerinus]

If they mated, would they produce a fertile offspring, or wouldn't they?

When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation

Yep, and according to your own blog, that's checkmate.

A far as I know, none of this has been properly investigated

As far as you know doesn't mean much when you aren't actually trying to know more. why would you be aware of how deeply any scientific matter has been investigated?

there are lots of examples like the mosquitoes. Some really interesting fish examples. The problem is that no matter how strong the evidence, what you'll say is that the original population wasn't documented well enough to say for sure they came from the same original species. that's going to be your ultimate excuse for any example.

700,000 beetles on the ark, Zerinus. lol.

I am guessing that there is a difference between the kind of genetic mutations and variations that is possible among lower life forms like insects, worms, germs, or viruses; and higher life forms like cats, dogs, Giraffes, or mankind. Did Noah's ark carry every known virus, germ, insect, and earthworm on the planet? I doubt it! So where did they come from? No idea! Some of them may have survived the Flood naturally, and others may have been generated by God subsequently in his own ways and for his own purposes.

[_Lemmie]

I am guessing....

[_Gadianton]

I am guessing that there is a difference between the kind of genetic mutations and variations that is possible among lower life forms like insects, worms, germs, or viruses;

What does that mean exactly? that it's possible for insects and viruses to evolve, but not animals?

there is a difference. insects have shorter life spans and so there is a greater chance of being around to see a new species arise and falsifying your religious beliefs.

Imagine a single species of mosquitoes. take half of the population and transport them thousands of miles away to a different climate. many die. the few that live are genetically different and breed. these are better adapted to feed on the blood of animals in the new area and live in that climate. Now spray with pesticide. A few live. the offspring are a little more different. these are real physiological differences that make them resistant. now keep changing the ecology beneath this population of mosquitoes, and it seems like you're willing to admit real physiological changes in wings, color, internal structures, and pretty much anything, you even concede great difficulty in mating, except you draw a hard line in the sand right when you get to a certain point in the reproduction process. God has placed that off limits to change.

and higher life forms like cats, dogs, Giraffes, or mankind. Did Noah's ark carry every known virus, germ, insect, and earthworm on the planet? I doubt it! So where did they come from? No idea! Some of them may have survived the Flood naturally, and others may have been generated by God subsequently in his own ways and for his own purposes.

they survived the flood when God said he killed every living thing? are you calling God a liar? Viruses, perhaps, as I don't think viruses are technically considered life. But beetles are alive.

The path you're going down is that when discovering a variety of different species within a family of fish that live in very different waters physically isolated from each other, requiring physiological differences to thrive in those waters that genes change to adapt to, that God created each of those species separately, and for his "own purposes" that have nothing to do with ecology. It's just an alarming coincidence that the species variety also happened to be physiologically suited for the ecology.

why is it, Zarinus, that different species of salmon are usually not found in the same place?

[_SteelHead]

I am guessing that there is a difference between the kind of genetic mutations and variations that is possible among lower life forms like insects, worms, germs, or viruses;

What does that mean exactly? that it's possible for insects and viruses to evolve, but not animals?

there is a difference. insects have shorter life spans and so there is a greater chance of being around to see a new species arise and falsifying your religious beliefs.

Imagine a single species of mosquitoes. take half of the population and transport them thousands of miles away to a different climate. many die. the few that live are genetically different and breed. these are better adapted to feed on the blood of animals in the new area and live in that climate. Now spray with pesticide. A few live. the offspring are a little more different. these are real physiological differences that make them resistant. now keep changing the ecology beneath this population of mosquitoes, and it seems like you're willing to admit real physiological changes in wings, color, internal structures, and pretty much anything, you even concede great difficulty in mating, except you draw a hard line in the sand right when you get to a certain point in the reproduction process. God has placed that off limits to change.

and higher life forms like cats, dogs, Giraffes, or mankind. Did Noah's ark carry every known virus, germ, insect, and earthworm on the planet? I doubt it! So where did they come from? No idea! Some of them may have survived the Flood naturally, and others may have been generated by God subsequently in his own ways and for his own purposes.

they survived the flood when God said he killed every living thing? are you calling God a liar? Viruses, perhaps, as I don't think viruses are technically considered life. But beetles are alive.

The path you're going down is that when discovering a variety of different species within a family of fish that live in very different waters physically isolated from each other, requiring physiological differences to thrive in those waters that genes change to adapt to, that God created each of those species separately, and for his "own purposes" that have nothing to do with ecology. It's just an alarming coincidence that the species variety also happened to be physiologically suited for the ecology.

why is it, zerinus, that different species of salmon are usually not found in the same place?

Well, same place at the same time. Different species of salmon will utilize the same waterways and spawning habitat, but they do it at different times of the year.

[_Gadianton]

the interesting thing to me is that z's brand of creationism is far more strict than what I recall encountering with creationists and until I read his paper i misunderstood his comments here. I've never seen the line drawn at "species". In ID, the line is drawn at certain "complex features" and presumably mainy species could share those features and so evolution might be permitted within a family. This seems to be the reasoning of ark literalists, who need to limit the number of animals on the ark. They then argue that after the ark landed, speciation could happen fast enough to account for what we see today. Thus, Christian fundamentalists are at greater odds with z than atheists are. But z also believes the ark, but apparently hadn't thought about how it would constrain his beliefs on evolution, and now he must throw out one or the other. Checkmate.

Ultimately, z is probably right that to be consistent, ID must draw the line at the species level. I think it was either EA or the dude who pointed out that IC systems like blood clotting have variations between related species, and so allowing speciation at all is a slippery slope to allowing the gradual development of IC systems in general.

But that requires abandoning the ark once and for all.