"Kind" and modern classification

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

"Kind" and modern classification

Post #1

Post by agnosticatheist »

ATTN creationists:

The word kind is used in the story of Noah's Ark. What is a "kind"?

Is it the same as the modern classification species? Genus? Family?

Are lions and tigers the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and wolves the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and crocodiles the same kind?
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #21

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 20 by marakorpa]

Modern biologists agree that a population reduced below roughly 50 individuals is almost certain to die out. The genetic diversity has reached such an abysmal level that there is much risk in simply forcing breeding and letting a pair of animals repopulate their biome, which is often faced in the near future after a handful of generations.

How do you defend the claim that the minimum justifiable population size for all "kinds" in existence was, at one point, only two?

Moreover, how do you propose that these populations were capable of reproducing and eventually forming a stable population size when 99.999% of all flora and fauna on the planet was either wiped out or submerged underwater for a year?

What Creationists often end up failing to do is actually critically analyzing their own biased, unscientific ideas about how their stories went. Why be skeptical about your own beliefs when you can spit fire at biologists and scientists who claim your ideas are faulty?

But I beseech you, please do the math and show me how all living species that descended from a single "kind" were able to come into existence in a ravaged world that did not destroy the population in 90% of instances due to inbreeding and malnutrition.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #22

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 19 by Miles]

I am not guilty of exception handling which is the process of responding to the occurrence, during computation, of exceptions – anomalous or exceptional conditions requiring special processing – often changing the normal flow of program execution. It is provided by specialized programming language constructs or computer hardware mechanisms. This does not apply to the scientists tortology that is used to claro (L) their instrumentality of science, it appears to be an 'in house' process.

Rather, I simply say kind for family, and that explains all in regards to any breeding behavior. I dwelt on 'kind' as I have had great difficulty explaining to the scientific minds what 'kind' means, and how simple it is regarding replication of all the different 'kinds' we have on earth.

I do not argue, nor debate anything that suggests that 'kinds; can cross breed, as there is no instance of this happening, and according to my proven concepts, will never happen.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #23

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 21 by Neatras]

How do you defend the claim that the minimum justifiable population size for all "kinds" in existence was, at one point, only two?


To clarify your question I am saying that all families and all species of that family group came from the two of which were put on Noah's Ark. Mankind stemmed from two humans and there is great diversification in the human race now, but they are still all humans.( there were 7 of other animals for specific purpose)

You also have to take into account that Noah was not a ship builder, he had no knowledge of the amount of animals that needed to be housed and yet the Ark was constructed to a dimension of three decks the size of a football field each, don't you think that was a bit of a by chance goodie, too much so to be a by chance of anything.

I believe in creation, I have been lambasted, castigated, called a coward, degenerated for that stance in these pages, so I battle with explanations supplied to blind eyes, and am forever in amazement when intelligent people (Scientists) and believe and promote that all the world and the universe came about by accident, and the all living things are developed in the complexity of their being, by chance.

At least creationists have a beginning that is reasonable. You must consider how mankind became above the animals in that humans are reasonable, rational and religious.

Have you looked at the "by chance" happenings that were required to form the primordial slime and the first cell that could accept the DNA RNA process for life.

Is there any theory that at times unintelligent mixtures were tried to form life and failed? I don't think so, as far as I can see the theory is that there was the slime which contained certain acids and minerals with no explanation how they came about as living cells, and as the cellular structure of metals are entirely different, which brings into question, "By Chance" must have been very active, and moreover, much better at problem solving than life today.

Moreover, how do you propose that these populations were capable of reproducing and eventually forming a stable population size when 99.999% of all flora and fauna on the planet was either wiped out or submerged underwater for a year?


There must have been some vegetation, remember the Bible account says that Noak sent out a dove, which after a couple of trips without anything, returned with an olive twig suggesting that the waters were receding. Other vegetation was on the Ark as fodder for the animals, which were all herbivorous until after the flood. When t he birds were brought to the Ark their stomachs would have held the seeds of various plants, as would the animals themselves, so there is common sense explanations with no "Just by Chance" guess work.

I will pass over your critique of "Creationists". I agree many creationists just accept what they are told, as they do the dogma of the religion they are "badged" by; however not all are dumb cretins.

But I beseech you, please do the math and show me how all living species that descended from a single "kind" were able to come into existence in a ravaged world that did not destroy the population in 90% of instances due to inbreeding and malnutrition.

I do not fully understand your last question, could you clarify a bit, please.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #24

Post by Neatras »

[Replying to post 23 by marakorpa]

When I asked you to defend the claim that the minimum justifiable population size for a species was just two, I meant I wanted you to defend it with statistics and evidence.

Evidence that a species can sustain itself with only two progenitor members. Preferably in a post-flood environment.

Data and statistics that model the ability for a population to survive 100-1000 years in the future based on how many members of the population are capable of breeding (which in Noah's ark's story would be all of 2).

Maybe something that accounts for dietary restrictions, such as fruit-eating animals attempting to find fruit when no plants have been pollinated in a year. Or accounts for that pair of animals having to travel thousands of miles over water in order to get back to their original ecosystem.

I want numbers, marakorpa. The thing creationists seem to be allergic to, unless they're making them up to attack the theory of evolution.

You can set aside your constant belligerent attacks on evolution for just five minutes, please. And justify the story of Noah's ark with evidence. Can't you?

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #25

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 24 by Neatras]


No, not really. You are doing the same thing you 'convict' me of, you try to make word traps, impossible situations that have never been studied, simply because in the system of life, are not important enough to contemplate on.

There are numbers in the Bible that do mean something to the Bible student, and I ask you have you ever read the Bible? I have read many theories on Evolution, on the origin of life and of the fraud and hoaxes perpetrated in attempt to get something to make the 'discoverer' famous.

I said before at least the creation story has only one line of explanation, and as yet it has not been disproved. Have you used your magic numbers to do that?

I find no problem with pairs of animals, and 8 humans making up a new population. I find no problem with that population crossing out over joined land masses, which later parted to make the land masses we have now.

I have no problem with the water returning to the earth, as it is said that the water is all the water we will ever get.

Do you think that all the animals will produce only one offspring at each birth. How about cats with 6 or 8 kittens that later get into an environment that grows their fur longer, and a different colour so they can survive that environment.

AS a creationist I can accept that God had a hand in the animals safety until man could take charge.

There are lots of things that I can reasonably accept from the Bible, but I do not have any algebraic computations to write on a blackboard and empress everyone with.

You express much faith in your concepts, and you do not have any math to prove what you say...So back off my friend. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #26

Post by Rufus21 »

marakorpa wrote:Is there any theory that at times unintelligent mixtures were tried to form life and failed?
Yes, why would you think not? There are chemical reaction constantly taking place all around us that do not produce life. The same was true near the beginning of time. Why would you think any differently?
marakorpa wrote:When t he birds were brought to the Ark their stomachs would have held the seeds of various plants, as would the animals themselves
So Noah and his family picked through the animal's feces to pick out the seeds, kept them for a year, then re-planted them after the flood. Can you cite the scripture that describes that? Or did you make it up in your head?
marakorpa wrote:Other vegetation was on the Ark as fodder for the animals, which were all herbivorous until after the flood.
Citation needed. Because everything I've read says that many of those animals were always carnivores.
marakorpa wrote:the Ark was constructed to a dimension of three decks the size of a football field each, don't you think that was a bit of a by chance goodie, too much so to be a by chance of anything.
How is that relevant? If it was half of a football field in size would that change the validity of the story? The dimensions of the ark are not some magical number, they are arbitrary. In fact, they can be used to prove that the story is false.

marakorpa wrote:At least creationists have a beginning that is reasonable. You must consider how mankind became above the animals in that humans are reasonable, rational and religious.
Their brains grew bigger. Not so unreasonable, is it? Or is the story about the invisible man who lives in the sky more reasonable to you?
marakorpa wrote:I said before at least the creation story has only one line of explanation, and as yet it has not been disproved.
There are many interpretations of the creation story and all of them have been debunked. Again, a few seconds of research will show you the truth.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #27

Post by Miles »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 19 by Miles]

I am not guilty of exception handling which is the process of responding to the occurrence, during computation, of exceptions – anomalous or exceptional conditions requiring special processing – often changing the normal flow of program execution. It is provided by specialized programming language constructs or computer hardware mechanisms. This does not apply to the scientists tortology that is used to claro (L) their instrumentality of science, it appears to be an 'in house' process.
?????????????
Rather, I simply say kind for family, and that explains all in regards to any breeding behavior. I dwelt on 'kind' as I have had great difficulty explaining to the scientific minds what 'kind' means, and how simple it is regarding replication of all the different 'kinds' we have on earth.
I don't know why when you summed it very concisely here by saying in effect that "kind" is the equivalent to "family." But just so you're aware, there appears to be around 5,320 Families of organisms on the planet, and considering that many of them came aboard the ark in pairs---let's say a quarter of them: 1,330---this would mean that there were about 6,600 plants, animals, fungi, starfish, corals etc. on the boat. 6,600 organisms that would have to be looked after for 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days. And all of them in their own particular environments. So, equating "kinds" with "families" doesn't resolve the creationist's problem of too many animals aboard the ark any more than if they stuck with equating "kinds" with the 8.7 Million species of life on Earth.

Trouble with the common creationist argument using "kinds" and Noah's ark is that they very conveniently ignore any kinds of life other than those animals that could walk aboard. Forget all the plant life that would perish during such a flood. Forget all the sea life that would perish during such a flood. And forget all the insects and such that would perish during such a flood. Just stick with horses, lions, elephants, and the like. Stupid? Of course. Convenient? Absolutely!

....................................................................................
Image

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #28

Post by Zzyzx »

.
It certainly takes a great deal of 'creativity' to defend creationism – plus word play, mental gymnastics, and dismissal of much that science has learned during the past few centuries. I admire the tenacity of those who attempt to 'explain' ancient tales told in the ignorance characteristic of long bygone eras. However, I do not admire their judgment, discernment, or knowledge base.
marakorpa wrote: No, not really. You are doing the same thing you 'convict' me of, you try to make word traps, impossible situations that have never been studied, simply because in the system of life, are not important enough to contemplate on.
Kindly cite examples – with URL
marakorpa wrote: There are numbers in the Bible that do mean something to the Bible student,
Not all who debate or read here are Bible students. If biblical numbers have meaning in the real world, those meanings are not restricted to bible students.
marakorpa wrote: and I ask you have you ever read the Bible?
Kindly refer to C&A guideline #6 Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

Many Biblicists seem to assume they have superior knowledge of the Bible – and learn through debate that is decidedly NOT the case.
marakorpa wrote: I have read many theories on Evolution,
Does this reading include information about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant through genetic change?
marakorpa wrote: on the origin of life
There are many theories about the origin of life. Some are produced by people who actually study life forms and are based on those studies. Others are 'theories' are produced by people who do NOT study life forms, but who 'study' ancient texts.
marakorpa wrote: and of the fraud and hoaxes perpetrated in attempt to get something to make the 'discoverer' famous.
If fraud and hoaxes are exposed and shown to be fraudulent or false, are those exposures made by scientists or by theologians and creationists?
marakorpa wrote: I said before at least the creation story has only one line of explanation, and as yet it has not been disproved. Have you used your magic numbers to do that?
'My pet theory hasn't been proved wrong' is the blunder in logic known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Google if unfamiliar)

I find no problem with pairs of animals, and 8 humans making up a new population. [/quote]
Biologists, people who study animals, DO have a problem with claims of re-population of the Earth in a few thousand years by pairs of animals in a given location. Numerous 'problems' are discussed in introductory biology or genetics classes.
marakorpa wrote: I find no problem with that population crossing out over joined land masses, which later parted to make the land masses we have now.
Of course it is 'no problem' if one ignores what is known about the positions and movement of land masses. For fifty years I have been pointing out that continental plates (masses) move relative to each other (toward or away from) at approximately the rate fingernails grow – and that it takes millions of years to produce any significant separation.
marakorpa wrote: I have no problem with the water returning to the earth, as it is said that the water is all the water we will ever get.
If you maintain that DID happen, kindly describe how enough water to flood mountains worldwide (and wipe out all life that breathes – according to Genesis) magically appears and then magically disappears. That requires approximately one BILLION cubic miles of water.
marakorpa wrote: Do you think that all the animals will produce only one offspring at each birth. How about cats with 6 or 8 kittens
Has someone in this debate suggested that?
marakorpa wrote: that later get into an environment that grows their fur longer, and a different colour so they can survive that environment.
Kindly explain how 'an environment grows fur longer or a different color' WITHOUT using genetic change (evolution). Even a 'winter coat' is genetic – will occur seasonally even if conditions do not require additional fur / hair. Notice that house pets often produce a 'winter coat' even in a warm house environment that they may seldom or never leave. Their environment has not changed significantly but their coat does change.
marakorpa wrote: AS a creationist I can accept that God had a hand in the animals safety until man could take charge.
Of course, one can imagine whatever they like – but that is VERY different from SHOWING it is the case (as appropriate in reasoned discussion or debate).
marakorpa wrote: There are lots of things that I can reasonably accept from the Bible, but I do not have any algebraic computations to write on a blackboard and empress everyone with.
It appears as though many Believers recognize that much of what is told and claimed in the Bible
marakorpa wrote: You express much faith in your concepts, and you do not have any math to prove what you say...So back off my friend. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
It is amusing when those who produce NO math or other verifiable information to support their concepts demean others for not showing math.

I am more than willing to provide the 'math' and actual information from studies relating to plate movements to be compared to the maths and information from studies provided by Apologists who propose to know about such movement (preferably in Head-to-Head debate with anyone willing to 'put their money where their mouth is').
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #29

Post by Neatras »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]


No, not really. You are doing the same thing you 'convict' me of, you try to make word traps, impossible situations that have never been studied, simply because in the system of life, are not important enough to contemplate on.
Impossible situations? If you're going to willfully ignore the science of biology and instead assert that your story "at least offers a line of explanation," when it honestly fails to do so by conflicting with all known data, then you are simply being intellectually dishonest. You do not get to make these assertions without backing them up. And you have skirted around presenting evidence by using careful rhetoric that is common for Creationists. No numbers, no data.

Perhaps I should give you an introductory lesson on what scientific rigor actually is. Maybe then you'll gain some idea of the kind of work real scientists go through to justify their models and try to understand the world around them. Because for all your posturing about how scientists are out to get famous, the fact of the matter is that most scientists enter their fields with an almost inhuman level of curiosity, and desire for knowledge. Far more than what I see from Creationists on this forum, at least, who demand that their ideas be taken seriously without doing any of the work to connect their incoherent rambling with real, verifiable information.

So let's begin.

In reference to Mark L. Shaffer's report on Minimum Population Sizes
for Species Conservation
, he outlines 5 techniques for analyzing minimum population size for the purpose of preserving species longer than a single generation. Bear in mind that the context for ALL of these excerpts is for the preservation of wildlife on nature preserves, however it goes without saying that preservation and population size are inextricably linked.
Experiments:
The most straightforward approach to the problem of assessing minimum viable population sizes is simply to create isolated populations and monitor their persistence. This approach is intractable for two reasons: First, we cannot experimentally measure persistence in terms of decades and centuries; institutional abilities or willingness to support research projects are usually limited to a decade or less. Second, in most cases irreversible decisions on land use will be made in the very near term (10 to 20 years). Unless conservationists can provide useful estimates of the location, number, and size of reserves in this time period, the opportunity to do so may be permanently foreclosed. Development interests will not (in some cases, cannot) await the results of research that may take a century to complete. This should not be construed as an argument against long-term population-monitoring studies. Such studies are of great potential value in many areas of biology and ecology, but their utility for solving this particular problem is limited.
As we see above, experimentation is valuable, however it presents limitations. Regardless, the data collected can still be used to formulate an argument against reducing a population below a certain size. A size which you attest was the case after a global flood.
Biogeographic Patterns:
Examination of the distributional patterns of species that occur in insular or patchy patterns can provide a first approximation of minimum area requirements and, provided some estimate of densities, minimum viable population sizes. This approach requires that species communities occupying such habitat patches are in equilibrium and the approximate length of their isolation is known. If these conditions are met, such surveys can reveal both the smallest island or patch inhabited by a species and also the percent of islands or patches of a certain class supporting that species, measured either in area or species diversity. Robbins' (1979) work on the habitat size relationships of the migrant neotropical avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest employs this approach. Although this is probably the most tractable and reliable approach to the problem, it does have its limitations. The most critical is that there is apparently no clear relationship, either theoretical or empirical, between the percent of occupied patches of a certain size and the potential longevity of the populations they support. This is a key research need. For example, a particular species might be a breeding resident of 95% of islands or patches 50-100 km2 in area. Unfortunately, knowing this fact alone reveals nothing about the frequency with which populations on such patches go extinct or recolonize. Suppose populations of this hypothetical species on patches of the given dimensions go extinct, on average, every 20 years. Relying on a single reserve of this size to maintain the species without alternate reserves to provide sources for recolonization will prove ineffective in the long term. To make this approach workable, there must be good information on both the frequency with which species occur on islands or habitat patches of different sizes and species-specific extinctionicolonization rates typical of these units. Some information of this type is available for certain avian species (for an overview see Wilcox 1980 or Terborgh and Winter 1980), but much remains to be done. An additional complication with this approach is that population characteristics (e.g., density, mortality and fecundity rates) of many species show wide variation from one part of their range to another depending on habitat quality or community structure. Two habitat patches of the same size may not support equally large or enduring populations. Such habitat differences are critical to wise conservation planning, and any research efforts employing this approach must recognize and deal with this fact. Obviously, this approach cannot be used for those species that have contiguous distributions and do not occur either on islands or patchily distributed habitats. Despite these drawbacks, analysis of biogeographic patterns, when coupled with studies of species-specific turnover rates, is one of the major means of determining minimum viable population sizes and their area requirements. The most valuable research directions to fully utilize this approach are to extend its application to nonavian species, refine analyses to reflect differences in habitat quality as well as quantity, and determine if there is any relationship between the percent occurrence of a species and its characteristic extinctionicolonization rates.
To condense the information above (since I would never expect anyone to willfully read all of this in the middle of a debate), I'll summarize:
If we observe isolated pockets of species populations in the wild, and know some aspect of how long they were subject to those conditions, it would lend to our ability to estimate their minimum viable population size. However, if we do not know the crucial element of isolation time, then we cannot go ahead and make our estimations without missing key elements, such as if the isolated environment changed drastically (as they would after a flood), so this is largely useless for arguing for or against a global flood.
Theoretical Models:
There are several theoretical models for predicting the probability that a small population will go extinct and the time this will take. There are also numerous models of population growth under stochastic conditions (demographic, environmental, or both). But these models either embody unrealistic assumptions or lead to currently unresolved mathematical problems. For example, the models of MacArthur and Wilson (1967) and RichterDyn and Goel (1972) assume a constant canying capacity and birth and death rates that change only in response to density. Thus, they deal only with the probability of extinction due to demographic stochasticity. The branching process theory employed by Keiding (1975), though capable of dealing with both demographic and environmental stochasticity, is restricted to exponential growth. Diffusion theory, as employed by various workers (for a review see ShatTer 1978), applies only to a totally unpredictable environment. Moreover, there has been some doubt about the appropriate method of analysis to be applied to diffusion theory equations. Turelli (1977), after a thorough review of analysis methods, emphasized that the diffusion theory models are most appropriately viewed as approximations to more realistic models that are analytically intractable. The idiosyncratic nature of many species and the great variability inherent in nature probably preclude direct application of any single theoretical model to many real-world situations. Nevertheless, this is an important area of research and deserves increased attention. From a practical standpoint, the most fruitful approach would be the development of a small number of models to fit various scenarios of population growth and regulation and use these to determine both the relationship of population size to extinction probabilities and the sensitivity of the results to assumptions inherent in the models and key population characteristics. For example, in the classic model of logistic population growth, do survival probabilities depend primarily on mortality or fecundity rates, or carrying capacity? Is the mean or variance of these parameters more important in assessing survival? To what extent is survival affected by introduction of time lags in the density-dependent process of mortality and reproduction? Such models should also facilitate development of effective management strategies for reserves that are too small to assure persistence if left alone.
Once again I will summarize, to avoid being accused of setting up a "word trap," despite minimum viable population sizes being an absolutely crucial debate topic that you seem unwilling to approach, marakorpa. We continue regardless, because I'm not going to slow down and fall into a rhetorical back-and-forth when I can just as easily demonstrate that these "impossible situations" that "are not important enough to contemplate on" are actually realistic and scientific studies that give us a gleaning of the nature of life and earth's history, something that scientists are very interested in. And while Creationists would drop all scientific instruments the moment they get their way, we have to continue doing science, with or without anti-intellectual criticism, in order to increase our knowledge. We continue.
Simulation Models:
Because they are not subject to the various constraints of analytical models, computer simulations employing numerical methods may provide a tractable approach to determining minimum viable population sizes and their area requirements. Aside from their greater realism, such models also provide a flexible tool for assessing the effects of changes in various parameter values (e.g., mortality - and fecundity rates, etc.) andor relationships (density-dependent versus densityindependent mortality rates, etc.). The principle drawbacks of this approach are a lack of generality (i.e., the simulations have to be altered for different species) and demand for extensive data. At a minimum, such models (for vertebrates) require knowledge of the mean and variance of age and sex-specific mortality and fecundity rates, age structure, sex ratios, dispersal, and the relationship of these various parameters to density. Such information should be gathered over a sufficiently long period to assure that it is representative of the full range of conditions the population is subject to, including cyclic behavior. (For some species this may require very long data bases.) Based on the extensive data of Craighead et al. (1974) for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos L.) in Yellowstone National Park, I (Shaffer 1978) used the simulation approach to assess minimum viable population sizes and area requirements for this species. The simulations could evaluate the effects of either or both demographic and environmental stochasticity. Natural catastrophes appear to be unimportant for the grizzly, and lack of adequate genetic information precluded testing the effects of genetic stochasticity. The results of this analysis showed that populations of less than 30-70 bears (depending on population characteristics) occupying less than 2500-7400 km2 (depending on habitat quality) have less than a 95% chance of surviving for even 100 years. Survival probabilities were most affected by changes in the mean mortality rate, cub sex ratio, and age at first reproduction of females. This type of approach should be expanded to other species when sufficient data exist. Where possible, future field population studies should be designed to gather the types of information necessary to develop simulation models. Such simulations provide the most tractable and realistic alternative to the analysis of biogeographical patterns and speciesspecific turnover rates.
This presents a very strong argument in favor of simulation models over other characteristic study types, however it is flawed. It requires an immense amount of data and must be modified for each species (it cannot be generalized). However, when these details are known, we can easily come up with mathematical, and statistically accurate models. Must be weird to build an entire study off of something that isn't "important enough to contemplate on."
Genetic Considerations:
Several workers have based minimum population recommendations on genetic and evolutionary arguments. Franklin (1980) has suggested that, simply to maintain short-term fitness (i.e., prevent serious in-breeding and its deleterious effects), the minimum effective population size (in the genetic sense) should be around 50. He further recommended that, to maintain sufficient genetic variability for adaptation to changing environmental conditions, the minimum effective population size should be around 500. Soule (1980) has pointed out that, above and beyond preserving short-term fitness and genetic adaptability, longterm evolutionary potential (at the species level) may well require a number of substantially larger populations. These recommendations were based on very general applications of basic genetic principles and, consequently, are somewhat oversimplified. A more detailed approach would involve gathering information on the degree of genetic variability and the breeding structure of the species to be preserved. Given this information, it should then be possible to determine what size population would provide (at some probability level) a representative sample of the genetic diversity typical of the species and what size would be necessary to assure (at some probability level) that none of this variability would be lost due to inbreeding and genetic drift over some specified period of time. Lacking this sort of detailed work, the above recommendations should be viewed as very rough guidelines rather than specific prescriptions.
Now we broach an argument that you haven't even so much as paid attention to, despite its extreme importance: genetic considerations. Meaning how possible it is for a population to recover when genetic diversity is at an absolute minimum (only 2 breeding members). Where all legitimate scientists agree that a larger population size is crucial to prevent catastrophic failures due to inbreeding and low adaptability to the environment (as a result of limited variation between traits), you seem to press onward, your inexpertise insulating you from the challenges presented by coming up with grand claims while having no backing. I'm sure that if the world were not complicated, then your ideas could be taken more seriously. However you have not met the standards that all scientific ideas must go through in order to be taken seriously. So why you continue this charade, I can only imagine has to do with a rejection of all things that disagree with your beliefs which you use to ground all your actions, rather than taking evidence and using them to inform your views. I'm waiting for your data, marakorpa.

We continue.

Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates is an aptly named experiment that does more scientific inquiry than any Creationist website ever has, I reckon. Reading through it in its entirety, and summarizing it would have the same overall message:
Smaller population sizes experience greater risk of going extinct. I'm sure we can both agree on this. However every available study agrees that the minimum viable population size exceeds 2 in every case. Statistically, we would expect a population size of 2 to die out without question. How, then, did NO species die out despite ALL being reduced to a population size of 2? The experiment even takes into account a lack of predation to assist in population growth, and still found it impossible. This leads to the question of how carnivorous animals fed when the world was 99.999% barren of all possible food sources post-flood for up to 5 years. I don't think a population of ANY size would've kept them alive while waiting for their prey to repopulate. But this is just another challenge for the Noah's Ark myth that I don't expect you to actually address with data or evidence. Saying "it's a line of explanation" is a hollow remark. The same could be said for astrology, homeopathy, a flat earth, and crystal healing. The difference between all these pseudo-scientific ideas and real science is the evidence supporting them. If you don't want to have your precious flood tale tossed into the pile, then substantiate it. Or find someone who has. I've been doing all the work so far, it's time for you to pitch in. And telling me to "back off" only makes me more interested in this debate.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
There are numbers in the Bible that do mean something to the Bible student, and I ask you have you ever read the Bible? I have read many theories on Evolution, on the origin of life and of the fraud and hoaxes perpetrated in attempt to get something to make the 'discoverer' famous.
I have read excerpts of the Bible. I was part of a "Bible Quizzing" organization in my youth, where parents made the practice of memorizing Bible passages into a sort of game. Rote memorization still leaves countless verses in my brain, sung to annoying tunes. I doubt I'll ever be able to actually get over the indoctrination I faced, but I'll keep working. But to answer your question, yeah. I've read quite a bit.

Oh, and those "many theories of evolution" you talk about, the 6 types proposed by Kent Hovind and laughed out of all scientific circles, is really just another strawman scheme handed down by nutty Creationists with fake PhD's. You can do better than that. Actually propose ANY of these theories of evolution except for the one that matters: evolution by mutation and natural selection. If you can propose even a single "theory of evolution" that conflicts with the former, I'll be astounded.

Once again, you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty by reverting back to referring to the theory of evolution as an explanation on the origin of life. You have been corrected multiple times. As with most Creationists, you spit back the correct terminology, and then when you think nobody will notice your change of rhetoric, slip back into the common argumentative tone that demonstrates you have no interest in being addressing our arguments as they are, instead opting for attacking strawmen. You've been exposed once again, marakorpa.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
I said before at least the creation story has only one line of explanation, and as yet it has not been disproved. Have you used your magic numbers to do that?
Yeah. Yeah, I think my "magic numbers" have done more than enough to dismantle the myth. Because I've backed it up, and every time I've backed it up, I followed suit with challenges that you have been unable or unwilling to address. You can ignore it all you like, and I expect you to, but my work isn't for nothing. It has culminated in this adorable exchange where you demand I disprove something, while refusing to justify your story as I bring to bear all of its flaws.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
I find no problem with pairs of animals, and 8 humans making up a new population. I find no problem with that population crossing out over joined land masses, which later parted to make the land masses we have now.
That's great. Your unscientific worldview doesn't make sense in reality, so you're going to have to live with that. Meanwhile, the "magic numbers" I've brought up make it clear that the only thing magical is how many contrived plot holes and Deus ex Machina's are needed to make your story legible, much less feasible.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
I have no problem with the water returning to the earth, as it is said that the water is all the water we will ever get.
Well, sorry to break it to you, but we found water in space. We could probably bring it to earth if we wanted to, despite that being an economic fool's errand. So, another prediction falsified. I'm glad you're at least willing to make these bogus claims. Falsifiability is what makes science so great, don't you think?
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
Do you think that all the animals will produce only one offspring at each birth. How about cats with 6 or 8 kittens that later get into an environment that grows their fur longer, and a different colour so they can survive that environment.
6 or 8 is still greater than 2, and typically they enter an environment that at least has enough food for them to survive a week (being carnivores and all that). Unless you'd like to propose an evolutionary model for when, not more than 6,000 years ago, they spontaneously became meat-eaters, with changed internal physiology and all to make the change seamless.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
AS a creationist I can accept that God had a hand in the animals safety until man could take charge.
So you're appealing to magic. God did it, he's the "gap" in the arguments you've made that can magically hold it all together. Fantastic.

These arguments do not belong in a scientific thread. You're basically admitting this yourself by refusing to engage with me on an equal level, instead trying to talk down to me and use rhetoric to make me... what was it? "Back off," right. Still here, by the way.
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
There are lots of things that I can reasonably accept from the Bible, but I do not have any algebraic computations to write on a blackboard and empress everyone with.

You express much faith in your concepts, and you do not have any math to prove what you say...So back off my friend. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Algebraic computations to empress us? That would be more entertaining than what we've gotten so far.

My arguing isn't just for the sake of arguing. It's for the sake of highlighting the differences between you and I. These differences that are so vast, that there is little else to do but step back and marvel at how the scientifically illiterate are so wrapped up in their own lack of knowledge, that they believe they are smarter than experts in the field because of it.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: "Kind" and modern classification

Post #30

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 26 by Rufus21]

I will finally agree with you. You should give up on this poor, uneducated, cowardly, unintelligent. wont listen, bad bad creationist.

I am not going to pour through all that stuff yu have gone to the trouble of loading, as evolution is such that there would be equal amounts that contradict what you write, from other scientists. (I know...Give me the math...."

AS we use entirely different text books we will never agree nor is it my intention to accept the BY CHANCE syndrome that is as incongruous as what you reckon creation is, thee is little to no chance that you will convince of any one of the many theories of man that explains what you are trying to ram down my throat.

You would make a good insurance salesman.

Have a nice day.


If you need a "you win", and it looks like you do very much by your continued bombardment on someone that you also say could not take it in, here you go

YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!

:tongue: :P :study:

Post Reply