There are 38 species in the genus Mus (i.e. mice). There are 18 species of Darwin’s finches.
Besides, I thought YEC’s all accepted speciation nowadays. Otherwise, you would need to put 1,400 species of bats on the ark, and that’s just bats.
No one is claiming this is speciation. At least in extant species, a species is a population that interbreeds, so a species is defined by gene flow.
There is no difference in the different colour fur in mice and different colur skin in humans…so now the claim is that whites and blacks evolved “along” the evolutionary timeline?
I will again cite a well known illustration for this found in textbooks on the subject
The illustrations above highlight how ridiculous it is that you can happliy cite mice with different fur colur and not correlate that with skin colour in humans and racism and that this falsifies the evolutionary claim mutations in mice are part of the darwinian evolutionary timeline in the race for survival of the fittest.
Whether we are willing to accept it or not, the physical and philosophical are both inescapable life realities/truths. When they do not align, our faith in whatever world view is very very unsteady and easily fractured
What are you on about? How is it racist to point out environmental pressures that select for different skin or fur colors in different populations?
In humans there are two environmental pressures related to skin color: vitamin D production and UV protection. Melanin protects against UV damage to DNA, but it also reduces vitamin D production. Nearer the equator, darker skin is selected for because even with dark skin there is ample sunlight to produce the needed levels of vitamin D. Nearer the poles where there is less sunlight lower levels of melanin are selected for because darker skin results in vitamin D levels that are hazardous. We can see this in a map of skin color for indigenous populations.
Again, how is any of this racist? Racism is about how we value people as humans, and how we treat them.
Google AI says new “SPECIES”
Its unfortunate individuals ignore that correlation…its just as inconsistent as the conspiracy that COVID shots or any imunanisation for that matter is bad for humans (for whatever reason). However many of those same naysayers dont think twoce about getting shots for their animals.
I am able to make these correlations partially because from earthmoving and construction experience over many years. I understand that a house with poor foundations develops an ever worsening array of problems higher up (cracks in walls/ceilings, doors binding up on jams, crack floor tiles etc)…when i take those same fundamental principles and apply then to the theological constuction of biblocal doctrine and faith, real lifes experiences that i can test right now prove ive got the correct understanding.
Given men have already interpreted Gods word for us and put it in human language (bible), and these numerous bible writers say the same things regarding biblical historical claims (such as creation, the flood, sodom/gomorah, incarnation/death/resrrection/ascention of Christ), all i have to be able to do is read Gods word in normal language and i can know what i read is true and accurate.
I believe God has physically and spiritually protected His word from chinese whispers (spiritually via the still small voice Elijah heard in the cave)
None of that is relevant…you have missed the original dilemma and correlation…the philosophical dilemma preceeds the method you have proposed there…youve already gone past it without even knowing.
And do the same to the text of the scriptures!
Did you know this was actually debated on occasion? One rabbi I read argued that three was the minimum number of hairs for claiming to have a beard; another argued that there must be enough to obscure the continuity of skin on the chin.
[I forget why this was even important!]
Interesting . . . only eighty beavers were introduced in Argentina years ago and there are about 200k now! I think there has only been time enough for about twenty generations, though.
If they didn’t, then anyone could have children of any possible color.
Im not even remotely seeing the correlation there…Abraham was trying to bargain with God to save peoples lives…it has nothing to do with proving historicity of whether or not the narrative actually happened. That is not the way we check historical authenticity in the bible.
It’s a well-known logical fallacy. How many hairs does it take to make a beard? Similarly with Abraham, How many righteous does it take to save the city? I wasn’t making any comment about the historicity of the narrative.
Why are you replying to me with a quote from Jay?
Why do you regularly change the subject? The point was your question about “How many does it take?”
Dear God. I live in New Mexico and am familiar with the black lava fields. And also the white sands, and black and white mice.
Show me where humans live exclusively on a field of black lava. I’ll wait.
… that it is unreliable and may ‘hallucinate’.
The ‘wicked’ bible and Jefferson’s bible demonstrate otherwise.
Yep – its own words. It also says it cannot be counted on to distinguish between what is trustworthy and what is not, i.e. that it is not able to “evaluate the credibility of a source”.
Not really – they just show that it’s possible for people to alter what is recognized as the actual content, which isn’t quite the same thing.
The trouble is that Adam’s statement isn’t very rigorous.
The minimum population size for long-term viability depends on the sensitivity of the species and its genetic patterns. Greater genetic variation increases the ability of a population or species to meet challenges. There is some argument about whether promoting inbreeding in an extremely small population will help to select out deleterious alleles, in a conservation project.
Creating new species and even new genera in the lab is not hard, and we see species in all stages of developing into new species. An easy way to see the challenges of putting names on the ongoing dynamic changes in living things, check out two bird guides for the same region but several years apart. Studies keep finding new information that reveal connections or differences.
In turn, this pattern of varying degrees of similarity extends across all life and traits. The pattern of similarities and differences matches well with the specific expectations of evolution by natural selection. We see that God works much through natural patterns. Evolution does not remove God from the picture; it merely provides a physical description of the ordinary means of creating new kinds.
What are you on about?
The confusing thing is you opt for an interpretation of the Bible that makes it false. It is no different than the Catholic priests who insisted on biblically based Geocentrism.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
