Dolphin May Have 'remains' Of Legs

[Antlerman]

I should add that in addition to the social pressures against early scientists, even those who may have had sincere beliefs in God cannot rightly be called "Creationists". Is there anything in the science of Newton that bears any resemblance to Creationism?

 

[slam] Only that he believed in a Creator. Such belief did not affect his science. Hence, he was a creation scientist.

Let's critique your comment Slam. Newton was a creationist because he believed in a Creator? I'm going to repeat your sentence back to you substituting the word "Darwin" for "he". Ready?

 

"Only that Darwin believed in a Creator. Such belief did not affect Darwin’s science. Hence, Darwin was a Creation Scientist."

 

 

Creationism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

 

In many religious traditions, creationism is ideological support of the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being (often referred to specifically as God[1]) or by other forms of supernatural intervention. In other common definitions, it is referred to more precisely as the belief in a literal interpretation of specific religious works referring to God creating the universe

 

Ideological, not scientific.

 

Creation Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

 

Creation science is an umbrella term for the creationist movement attempting to reconcile the biblical account of creation with modern science. Its supporters claim that the extant scientific evidence best supports a creationist interpretation.

 

Neither of these descriptions fits Newton, Galileo, or Darwin, even though they all believed in God at the time of their major theories being put forth. Creationism is a modern phenomenon that is ideologically based that seeks to put forth the Bible as the source for knowledge of origins. ID, is just a cleaver attempt at masking the same old, same old.

 

Your claim that Newton was a Creationist is summarily dismissed. Your logic is flawed. He was not a Creationist.

 

 

[slam] I think the salient point is that what a scientist may believe about origins, should not affect their science. FE, the RATE scientists at ICR did not let their beliefs in God affect their research. As you probably know, they presented very strong evidence for a young earth based on their measurements of helium in zircons.

 

 

 

BTW, you never answered, do you believe in past-life regression hypnosis? If not why not? He is a minority scientist just like your friends at the ICR. Let's not be hypocritical about putting so much stock in the less than 1% group here. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Think about it, he has the support of Hinduism behind him, and there's lots, lots more Hindus than Christians, plus their religion is much older to boot! So, maybe you should trust in that minority instead?

 

Better still, why not stick with accepted science?

[Slamdunk]

 

 

[slam] I am not avoiding you. I did miss this. I would say that what you say here is reasonable.

 

If you accept that organisms reproduce with heritable variation and that many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce then how can you not conclude that evolution will necessarily follow?

 

[slam] Why couldn't this fit in perfectly with the major kinds being created and then variations within those kinds surviving to reproduce. IOW, the Creator put a limited gene pool into all the major kinds, some wider than others. But all the "survivors" are variations within the created kinds and reproduce to the extent the gene pool allows. I assume there were some created kinds that have gone extinct.

 

[Legion]

So let me see if I have this right Slam. You think that a minor sort of "evolution" may take place. But you don't think that changes can accumulate to the point where speciation can occur. Is that about right?

 

Also on the extinction comment, I've been told that over 90% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

 

I'm not going to try and convince you of veracity of evolution. I suspect that you deny it mainly for the reasons that so many others do. To accept that speciation can indeed occur implies that the story laid out in Genesis is a myth and that is unacceptable.

[Slamdunk]

So let me see if I have this right Slam. You think that a minor sort of "evolution" may take place.

 

[slam] If you consider micro-evolution as variation within species, yes.

 

But you don't think that changes can accumulate to the point where speciation can occur. Is that about right?

 

[slam] That's what I'm reading from different evolutionists.

 

Also on the extinction comment, I've been told that over 90% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

 

[slam] I don't know how they figure that.

 

I'm not going to try and convince you of veracity of evolution. I suspect that you deny it mainly for the reasons that so many others do. To accept that speciation can indeed occur implies that the story laid out in Genesis is a myth and that is unacceptable.

 

[slam] Unacceptable to who? I think most people believe they were created versus evolved.

 

 

[Legion]

Unacceptable to who? I think most people believe they were created versus evolved.

Evolution is unaccetpable to you, I take it because it differs from the Biblical account.

 

As for most people believing in creationism rather than evolution, it is my understanding that this may be true in America but not in other industrial nations. I think that most people in Japan for instance accept that we evolved.

[Slamdunk]

Unacceptable to who? I think most people believe they were created versus evolved.

Evolution is unaccetpable to you, I take it because it differs from the Biblical account.

 

As for most people believing in creationism rather than evolution, it is my understanding that this may be true in America but not in other industrial nations. I think that most people in Japan for instance accept that we evolved.

 

[slam] Stop and think for a moment. If we evolved, where and how did it all begin? For evolution to have happened, it had to begin with some kind of life form. Science is at a loss to offer any evidence how this life form may have come into existance. One theory is that ceratin chemicals and the atmosphere converged to produce life. To date, there is no evidence to support this theory. So evolution is not even out of the starting blocks.

 

I was reading an article on DNA this morning and learned some astounding things. It is only

.000000002 of an inch in diameter. If a person's DNA were unraveled it would stretch for about 110 billion miles. But the real wonders are in its functioning and how information is stored and transferred. FE, e coli chromosome has 300,000 twists in a microscopic space of 1100 microns. DNA's information density is a staggering 1.88 x 10/21 (power) bits per cm.

 

Where did the design and function information of the first life form come?

 

Such wonders, IMO, should make a person stop and think if it makes more dense that life has been intelligently designed in lieu of some cosmic or random incident. To me, it makes more sense that life is the product of intelligent design.

[Legion]

[slam] Stop and think for a moment. If we evolved, where and how did it all begin? For evolution to have happened, it had to begin with some kind of life form. Science is at a loss to offer any evidence how this life form may have come into existance. One theory is that ceratin chemicals and the atmosphere converged to produce life. To date, there is no evidence to support this theory. So evolution is not even out of the starting blocks.

 

I was reading an article on DNA this morning and learned some astounding things. It is only

.000000002 of an inch in diameter. If a person's DNA were unraveled it would stretch for about 110 billion miles. But the real wonders are in its functioning and how information is stored and transferred. FE, e coli chromosome has 300,000 twists in a microscopic space of 1100 microns. DNA's information density is a staggering 1.88 x 10/21 (power) bits per cm.

 

Where did the design and function information of the first life form come?

 

Such wonders, IMO, should make a person stop and think if it makes more dense that life has been intelligently designed in lieu of some cosmic or random incident. To me, it makes more sense that life is the product of intelligent design.

I think that you are right in that evolution assumes the existence of life. It seeks not to explain the origin of life but rather the origin of species. There is currently a great deal of interesting and passionate debate amoungst scientists about the origin of life. Any theory of evolution cannot be invoked to explain it, again, because evolution presupposes the existence of organisms.

 

I don't deny the fantastic complexity of living things and any theory of abiogenesis (non-living to living transition) will have to account for this complexity. These are some very interesting times that we live in and I look forward to a rough consensus to emerge about the origins of terrestrial life. In fact there are a few people on the planet who seek to create organisms "from scratch" in an effort to shed light on this phenomenon.

 

Let us imagine that we already have a theory about the origins of terrestrial life. Will "God did it" really be satisfactory? Will we (or at least scientists) not require a natural rather than a supernatural explanation? Won't anything alse be known as childish and lazy?

[webmdave]

Such wonders, IMO, should make a person stop and think if it makes more dense that life has been intelligently designed in lieu of some cosmic or random incident. To me, it makes more sense that life is the product of intelligent design.

 

Except that the answer begs the question of who or what created the supposed designer?

 

Forgive me if any of this has already been stated — I decided to just jump in here after a quick scan of the topic.

 

If the cosmos is wondrous, then it would seem reasonable to assume that a designer would be at least equally wondrous, would it not? If the only possible explanation for the existence of the cosmos is Intelligent Design, because it is impossible for such wonders to exist without having been designed by an intelligence, then it follows that the intelligence could not exist without having been designed by another intelligence, and so on, back and back and back.

 

You can't have it both ways. If it is assumed possible that an intelligent designer of great complexity and incomprehensible power is simply self-existent, without the need of a designer, then it is at least as reasonable to conclude that the possibility exists that the universe itself is self-existent and undesigned. You can't effectively argue against the impossibility of a self-existent universe because it is hard to understand by proclaiming a self-existent designer that is impossible to understand.

 

Finally, your use of the words random and cosmic incident are flawed. There is nothing "random" about evolution. Evolution is a gradual, natural, developmental process that takes place over the course of eons. In contrast, creation magic "poofs" the world and life into existence in an instant.

 

Now, I'd have to agree that we don't know all the answers to all the questions generated by this subject, but retreating behind primitive and ignorant superstitious "God did it" blather won't provide answers either. Well, it might help religious people "think" they have the all the answers, perhaps, but in reality will do nothing toward providing satisfactory answers about how nature works. For instance, if the Bible were used for a medical guide, oil and prayer would be all a doctor could prescribe.

[neverclear5]

[

[slam] As I understand it, creation scientists suggest that decay rates could have been affected by the catastrophic forces dealt by the flood, among other things. I know that ICR scientists have published volumes of literature about this. Of course, it is all rejected by conventional science. My position is that the earth is about 6000 years old as the Bible says and their 8 year research on helium diffusion stronlgy supports that position. http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

 

 

Um, I just read this site and....wow. If figured to get people to beleive this stuff it would be pretty convincing.......... it's not!

 

The evidense for accelerated decay is miniscule and highly questionable at best. It has huge holes in it and make some odd asumptions.

 

The big, obvious, stumbling point though is heat. The earth would be so hot that it would have cooked anything on it. The attempt at an answer to this is laughable. The verse about god stretching the stars across like a curtain ( a pathetic description of the universal expansion it apparently describes) is used yet again, and the idea is that this expansion would have cooled everything.

 

Expansion of a gas to twice its volume under constant pressure, will cause it's temperature to half.

Fine. There's no gas in space! Also, the earth is what would be hot, the earth never expanded. The actual matter in the universe is not expanding, its the gaps between it that are getting larger!

Its like kids in a playground. If they spread out, the total area they are in and the distance between them is larger but the kids are the same size.

 

Making every ridiculous assumption that they did, the idea still falls flat on its face!!

This has to become a new thread, I need more people to know the standard of the opposition.

I seriousely, as a scientist, thought disproving this stuff would be hard, otherwise why do people beleive it? This was not even a what I'd call a task. Barely a passing thought needed. (just so you know, I did go over it a few times and, yeah, it is that silly).

[Slamdunk]

Such wonders, IMO, should make a person stop and think if it makes more dense that life has been intelligently designed in lieu of some cosmic or random incident. To me, it makes more sense that life is the product of intelligent design.

Except that the answer begs the question of who or what created the supposed designer?

 

[slam] God is from everlasting to everlasting; no beginning, no end. Could it be there are some things that are real that don't have explanations? Is science the sum and substance of our existance? If science can't prove it, does it mean it's not real?

 

If the cosmos is wondrous, then it would seem reasonable to assume that a designer would be at least equally wondrous, would it not? If the only possible explanation for the existence of the cosmos is Intelligent Design, because it is impossible for such wonders to exist without having been designed by an intelligence, then it follows that the intelligence could not exist without having been designed by another intelligence, and so on, back and back and back.

 

[slam] No one knows everything. Could it be that an eternally existing Creator/Designer is real and no one can understand how he had no beginning and no end? Does it matter? What if it's true that faith is rewarded in this Creator? What if it's really true that he had a Son who forgives and rewards?

 

You can't have it both ways. If it is assumed possible that an intelligent designer of great complexity and incomprehensible power is simply self-existent, without the need of a designer, then it is at least as reasonable to conclude that the possibility exists that the universe itself is self-existent and undesigned.

 

[slam] Some believe as you do; others as I. The bottom line is both sides have faith in what they believe. No one observed the universe coming into existance. It takes just as much faith to believe it all happened from a tiny ball of space, matter and energy exploding, as it does an intelligent designer bringing it into existance by a power that he has and which we don't understand. Our origins were supernatural. And that places it outside of science.

 

You can't effectively argue against the impossibility of a self-existent universe because it is hard to understand by proclaiming a self-existent designer that is impossible to understand.

 

[slam] Why must we understand? Could we cope by not knowing? Would science survive if it never found out how the universe came into existance?

 

Finally, your use of the words random and cosmic incident are flawed. There is nothing "random" about evolution. Evolution is a gradual, natural, developmental process that takes place over the course of eons.

 

[slam] What evidence is there that shows evolution is gradual?

 

Now, I'd have to agree that we don't know all the answers to all the questions generated by this subject, but retreating behind primitive and ignorant superstitious "God did it" blather won't provide answers either.

 

[slam[ My only question is, since man doesn't know everything, could it be possible that what science terms as a "big Bang" was actually the handiwork of an intelligent Creator?

 

Well, it might help religious people "think" they have the all the answers, perhaps, but in reality will do nothing toward providing satisfactory answers about how nature works.

 

[slam] What is a good example of how nature works?

 

For instance, if the Bible were used for a medical guide, oil and prayer would be all a doctor could prescribe.

 

[slam] You left one ingredient out: faith. Many have been healed through prayer and faith. I suspect that many more would be healed if they had the prayer support and faith that God could really heal them. Jesus once told his disciples that he could perform no miracles or healing because the people were lacking faith.

 

[Slamdunk]

 

The evidense for accelerated decay is miniscule and highly questionable at best. It has huge holes in it and make some odd asumptions.

 

[slam] I'm not a scientist, but I know the scientists at ICR have spent alot of time and money on researching this. I think their latest project (RATE) goes into much detail about this. The results of their work has been published in a technical book, available on their website - ICR.org

 

The verse about god stretching the stars across like a curtain ( a pathetic description of the universal expansion it apparently describes) is used yet again, and the idea is that this expansion would have cooled everything.

 

[slam] Why couldn't this expansion be the handiwork of God and science explains it through red shift, microwave background radiation, etc? How do you know he isn't stretching out the universe by his power? I don't want to hear how laughable it is, rather why it couldn't be him expanding the universe?

 

Expansion of a gas to twice its volume under constant pressure, will cause it's temperature to half. Fine. There's no gas in space! Also, the earth is what would be hot, the earth never expanded. The actual matter in the universe is not expanding, its the gaps between it that are getting larger!

Its like kids in a playground. If they spread out, the total area they are in and the distance between them is larger but the kids are the same size.

 

[slam] I'll bet the scientists at ICR would love to rap with you about this:-)

 

Making every ridiculous assumption that they did, the idea still falls flat on its face!!

This has to become a new thread, I need more people to know the standard of the opposition.

I seriousely, as a scientist, thought disproving this stuff would be hard, otherwise why do people beleive it? This was not even a what I'd call a task. Barely a passing thought needed. (just so you know, I did go over it a few times and, yeah, it is that silly).

 

[slam] Perhaps there is more you need to know that was not presented. I don't know. I would like to hear more input from both sides on this.

 

[roman]

Tell the truth. What you want to hear are more fundy opinions that agree with what you have chosen to believe.

[Slamdunk]

Tell the truth. What you want to hear are more fundy opinions that agree with what you have chosen to believe.

 

[slam] Duh:-)

[roman]

Tell the truth. What you want to hear are more fundy opinions that agree with what you have chosen to believe.

 

[slam] Duh:-)

Interesting response. Very enlightening. Did you mean that to be an admission that your mind is closed and you are full of shit? We already knew that.

[Antlerman]

Tell the truth. What you want to hear are more fundy opinions that agree with what you have chosen to believe.

 

[slam] Duh:-)

Interesting response. Very enlightening. Did you mean that to be an admission that your mind is closed and you are full of shit? We already knew that.

What exactly was it I said earlier about the lack of integrity and sincerity going on here???

[roman]

Tell the truth. What you want to hear are more fundy opinions that agree with what you have chosen to believe.

 

[slam] Duh:-)

Interesting response. Very enlightening. Did you mean that to be an admission that your mind is closed and you are full of shit? We already knew that.

What exactly was it I said earlier about the lack of integrity and sincerity going on here???

Exactamundo. I can't escape the prejudice that these people don't understand integrity or sincerity. Not the ones who come around here, I mean.

 

I imagine that you and I both have friends who are sincere Xians with integrity. But you won't see them doing what these phonies do.

 

I have a friend who is a Franciscan priest. He is slowly dying of Padgett's Disease. He doesn't do The Internet, because he has such a short time left that he wants to spend it doing what is most important to him...seeing that hungry children in Greenwood, Mississippi, get something to eat every day. Some of these people take advantage of him...when he was my parish priest I witnessed him paying utility bills for people who asked him to do that for them. I knew that some of them were conning him. None of these persons he helps is Catholic. Not one. They never will be. He doesn't care. He doesn't try to convert them. He just helps them.

[Legion]

Slam, I have begun to look into the process of speciation. It may take me some considerable time to read and digest the information. I have spotted something that might act as a stumbling block to any further discussion though. There is no agreement on what constitutes a species. Several criteria are used.

 

What defintion of species do you accept or employ?

[Antlerman]

Slam, I have begun to look into the process of speciation. It may take me some considerable time to read and digest the information. I have spotted something that might act as a stumbling block to any further discussion though. There is no agreement on what constitutes a species. Several criteria are used.

 

What defintion of species do you accept or employ?

LR, this may be of some help to you in understanding where the problem is going to lie in this discussion. I recognized that at the heart of their arguement is a redfining of terms and use of their own non-scientific language:

 

from here http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=233665

 

Slam, could you please define for us your use of the term "speicies"? I'm curious if you are calling something that scientists call 'speciation' something different to avoid a collision with your Bible-based Belief of Creationism? (The BoC, I think I'll call it from now on in converstation to distinguish it from the ToE).

 

[slam] My understanding of species is what the Bible uses as "kinds." I would further say that a species or kinds are not capable of major changes that would cause them to become kinds or species other than what they are. Of course, there is wide variation within each kind or species. Macro-evolution is a term used by many to describe this major change in species.

"Kinds" is a Biblical term, not a scientific one. If you have any hope of having an intelligent discussion of science with a religious creationist, you will need to get them to use the language of science. What defines a species is a matter of great discussion within the scientific world, but "Kinds" is a non-science term that creationists use without the support of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

Good luck in your endeavor. I enjoy your posts.

[Slamdunk]

Slam, I have begun to look into the process of speciation. It may take me some considerable time to read and digest the information. I have spotted something that might act as a stumbling block to any further discussion though. There is no agreement on what constitutes a species. Several criteria are used.

 

What defintion of species do you accept or employ?

 

[slam] Whether you want to call them species, kinds, higher taxa, larger groups, or anything else, there has never been a case where any creature evolved into something different than it was. For example, land animal into whale, dinosaur into bird, rock badger into a horse, invertebrate into vertebrate, ape into man, etc.

[Legion]

Slam, I have begun to look into the process of speciation. It may take me some considerable time to read and digest the information. I have spotted something that might act as a stumbling block to any further discussion though. There is no agreement on what constitutes a species. Several criteria are used.

 

What defintion of species do you accept or employ?

 

[slam] Whether you want to call them species, kinds, higher taxa, larger groups, or anything else, there has never been a case where any creature evolved into something different than it was. For example, land animal into whale, dinosaur into bird, rock badger into a horse, invertebrate into vertebrate, ape into man, etc.

Unless you can provide me with a working definition of a species, then we are at an impasse. You cannot claim that I have not treated you with respect or that I have refused to give you consideration. Let everyone be a witness.

[Slamdunk]

Slam, I have begun to look into the process of speciation. It may take me some considerable time to read and digest the information. I have spotted something that might act as a stumbling block to any further discussion though. There is no agreement on what constitutes a species. Several criteria are used.

 

What defintion of species do you accept or employ?

 

[slam] Whether you want to call them species, kinds, higher taxa, larger groups, or anything else, there has never been a case where any creature evolved into something different than it was. For example, land animal into whale, dinosaur into bird, rock badger into a horse, invertebrate into vertebrate, ape into man, etc.

Unless you can provide me with a working definition of a species, then we are at an impasse. You cannot claim that I have not treated you with respect or that I have refused to give you consideration. Let everyone be a witness.

 

[slam] Let everyone be a witness? I'm not sure why you say this. Of course you have treated me with respect as I have you. If I treat you disrespectfully, I would expect you to stop dialoguing. I'm not trying to avoid the question, but make a practical application of the issue. Do you find anything unworkable with it? These are the most publicized so-called transitions between different kinds, species, phyla, genera, taxa, or whatever major groups are. So if there are no fossils documenting the gradual (Darwinian) evolution between them, then scientists must look elsewhere for evidences. Many evolutionists do not believe the fossils support this kind of evolution.

[Legion]

Slam, I have actually derived some pleasure from this conversation, and I would like to see it continue. If I learn something about the process of speciation in the course of debating with you that seems like a win to me.

 

It seems to me that you are saying that a species = that which cannot evolve. That does not seem adequate to me. Most definititions of a species that I have encountered are something to the effect of... Two populations are different species when they are no longer capable of producing fertile offspring. To me that seems much closer to being a working definition.

 

Can you then provide me with a definition of species?

[Slamdunk]

 

Slam, I have actually derived some pleasure from this conversation, and I would like to see it continue. If I learn something about the process of speciation in the course of debating with you that seems like a win to me.

 

[slam] Well, I don't think you will learn anything from me about speciation because I don't believe it ever happened because I believe the original kinds were created and from them diversification within each kind.

 

It seems to me that you are saying that a species = that which cannot evolve. That does not seem adequate to me. Most definititions of a species that I have encountered are something to the effect of... Two populations are different species when they are no longer capable of producing fertile offspring. To me that seems much closer to being a working definition.

 

[slam] But how would this account for the change of one species to a different species? How could lack of fertility effect change? Isn't a "population" basically a species?

 

Can you then provide me with a definition of species?

 

[slam] How about this. A species generally consists of all the individual organisms of a natural population which are able to interbreed, generally sharing similar appearance, characteristics and genetics. IOW, dogs, cats, horses, fish, birds, insects, reptiles are all species. Within each species are variations where the gene pool of each keeps them within their species. It 's like each species keeps all variations within it on a genetic leash; no stepping outside it.

[Legion]

Okay Slam, I think that we may be making some progress here. Please bear in mind throughout that I am far from being the repository of all knowledge and understanding. I'm almost certain that you knew that, but I just wanted to state it unless I happen to come across like that.

Slam, I have actually derived some pleasure from this conversation, and I would like to see it continue. If I learn something about the process of speciation in the course of debating with you that seems like a win to me.

Well, I don't think you will learn anything from me about speciation because I don't believe it ever happened because I believe the original kinds were created and from them diversification within each kind.

It is my hope that in the course of this discussion I will get a better handle on where you are coming from, because one must know one's enemy. I think that I get the general outline of your view but I hope to flesh it out a little more. I will also learn because I am having to do some research on my own in these matters.

It seems to me that you are saying that a species = that which cannot evolve. That does not seem adequate to me. Most definititions of a species that I have encountered are something to the effect of... Two populations are different species when they are no longer capable of producing fertile offspring. To me that seems much closer to being a working definition.

But how would this account for the change of one species to a different species? How could lack of fertility effect change? Isn't a "population" basically a species?

I hope to address some of these questions a little later on. To answer one of them though, if I take say 100 butterflies of the same species from Africa to the States then it seems to me that we then have two populations of the same species. So it seems to me that population and species are not at all the same thing.

Can you then provide me with a definition of species?

How about this. A species generally consists of all the individual organisms of a natural population which are able to interbreed, generally sharing similar appearance, characteristics and genetics. IOW, dogs, cats, horses, fish, birds, insects, reptiles are all species. Within each species are variations where the gene pool of each keeps them within their species. It 's like each species keeps all variations within it on a genetic leash; no stepping outside it.

It is my understanding that there are more than a 100,000 species of insects alone. That is, that not all insects can interbreed with one another. I just looked it up and "insect" is the name of a Class. The Linaeus scheme goes: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. "Dog" is a genus, so apparently there are more than one species of dog. I didn't know that.

 

Anyway, we will probably not be able to carry on a discussion about speciation unless we can come to an agreement about what a species is. I hope that you will give me some time to research it and also think about it for myself before I propose a definition for your acceptance or rejection.

 

Let us strive to be patient with one another Slam. Life and it's study are wonderous things. We may not ultimately agree, but we may be sharpened along the way.

[Slamdunk]

 

I hope to address some of these questions a little later on. To answer one of them though, if I take say 100 butterflies of the same species from Africa to the States then it seems to me that we then have two populations of the same species. So it seems to me that population and species are not at all the same thing.

 

[slam] My only point is that they are still butterflies, whether you have two or ten populations. They are of one major kind, or species - Insects. And butterflies will not change into worms, frogs or birds.

 

It is my understanding that there are more than a 100,000 species of insects alone. That is, that not all insects can interbreed with one another. I just looked it up and "insect" is the name of a Class. The Linaeus scheme goes: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. "Dog" is a genus, so apparently there are more than one species of dog. I didn't know that.

 

[slam] If that is the correct terminology then so be it. I have always thought that species is the highest order under which all the variations within it are produced. But I think the practicality of the matter is that dogs will never produce "dats" in order to become "cats."

 

Anyway, we will probably not be able to carry on a discussion about speciation unless we can come to an agreement about what a species is. I hope that you will give me some time to research it and also think about it for myself before I propose a definition for your acceptance or rejection.

 

[slam] Whatever definitions we come up with, let's not lose sight of the fact that major kinds (kingdoms if you will) and any of the variations within them, do not jump ship to become a different kingdom.

 

Let us strive to be patient with one another Slam. Life and it's study are wonderous things. We may not ultimately agree, but we may be sharpened along the way.

 

[slam] I like your spirit:-) You have been genuine and sincere. I hope I have been likewise.