tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post8083056856542726021..comments2023-02-07T00:13:54.857-08:00Comments on of trees, birds and other things: Part 2: do you believe in evidence?Jarrodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-77858943330495774972012-01-04T00:12:26.334-08:002012-01-04T00:12:26.334-08:00Neither can I, it all sounds plausible.
I mean i...Neither can I, it all sounds plausible. <br /><br />I mean if I were going to <i>try</i> to quibble, I guess I would start by figuring 8000 genera could only possibly include vertebrates, leaving me wondering where all the plants and insects come from if they weren't on board. And all the freshwater fishes that aren't in marine genera. And also how 8 people fed individualised diets to 16,000 animals every day for a year. And where all the food was stored, including fresh meat for the carnivores. And where they got enough freshwater from to quench 16,000 animals. And how they got the temperature right for both polar bears and tree frogs at the same time. And where the genetic diversity to speciate and propensity to reproduce to current numbers comes from. And how the geographic distributions of species is meant to make sense. <br /><br />But I'd probably be mistaken.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-63235459667229405122012-01-03T23:54:45.251-08:002012-01-03T23:54:45.251-08:00Just a brief look at PanTHERIA and see that in tha...Just a brief look at PanTHERIA and see that in that database of extant and recently extinct mammals there are over 1000 genera. I suspect that their generous count of 8000 might be a slight underestimate. Jus' sayin.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-62665380918726364072012-01-03T23:42:24.678-08:002012-01-03T23:42:24.678-08:00Indeed you are correct Paul. According to them one...Indeed you are correct Paul. According to them one of each genus was on the Ark. This is what they say "The number of genera today, plus extinct genera adds up to around 8000 at a generous count, which means that around 16,000 individuals were needed on the ark." Easy. I can't argue with that logic.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-15170791422247896802012-01-03T23:07:42.987-08:002012-01-03T23:07:42.987-08:00Wow - they think kind = genus! Their limits on spe...Wow - they think kind = genus! Their limits on speciation should be quite easy to debunk then. I assume one of each genus was on board the Ark then...<br /><br />Easy to debunk as that might be, it's not quite as easy as their statement above that <i>"[t]hese processes are all re-arrangements, frequency shifts, and net losses of genetic information which is already present"</i> which is truly one of the silliest things I've heard, considering we can effectively observe de novo mutations occur in everything from bacteria to humans.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-39696394768930554192012-01-03T14:40:52.289-08:002012-01-03T14:40:52.289-08:00Absolutely bang on the money regarding their agree...Absolutely bang on the money regarding their agreement with evolutionary theory. natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, and adaptive radiation are fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory. Then as you say they make up some arbitrary classification 'kind' which is meaningless in the context. Hilariously there is a definition for 'kind' provided further into the statement:The Biblical term “kind” is roughly equivalent to what biologists today call genera. I will do another post on this soon (read: later) but it is total bollocks. They call dogs a kind. However, even true dogs (excluding foxes which they would undoubtedly call dogs) consist of about nine extant genera and there are many more extinct genera.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-68729396857532259762012-01-03T02:08:50.517-08:002012-01-03T02:08:50.517-08:00I find it strange that Christians believe that the...I find it strange that Christians believe that the laws of physics were specifically fine tuned for life and yet at the same time believe that we are alone in the universe. If the universe is so "fine tuned" for life, why aren't we seeing aliens on every planet. I hear Jupiter isn't that great for camp fires.<br /><br />Their last paragraph just baffles me. First it sounds like they completely agree with the evolutionary theory: "In the area of biology we believe in natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, and adaptive radiation."<br />In the next sentence they completely nullify that: "We believe that God has designed these processes to enable living things to change *slightly*, *within their kind*, to enhance population health in new or changing environments."<br />Ok, so it's clear that they only want to pretend to understand science. Living things don't change *slightly*, they change drastically over large periods of time. Like hippopotamus-whale drastically. And what is the ambiguous "kind" that they talk of? It's a different species yet the same kind?!?!<br />And how do they propose that species only change slightly. Does each gene know how much it has changed over the last thousand years and then magically conclude: "Hey that's enough change for now, we better turn around. God won't be happy if we change into a different kind"<br />And last but not least "to enhance population health".<br />Who's health is God looking after when bacteria evolve to become more resistant to antibiotics.<br />Seems it's a very cruel and inefficient God that they are trying to advocate.<br /><br />That's my 2c as a non-biologist.<br />Let me know what I got wrong :)Picohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05135526323336854678noreply@blogger.com