"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1f55mukbu39srm1uuq3rdqnke33pa3ah9q at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> >Let's use a simple example to demonstrate the absurdity of the belief
that
> >God "guided" or "directed" speciation (speciation being the transition of
> >one species across the statistical barriers to another species).
> >
> >There are 170 separate and distinct breeds of dog.
>> No there aren't. There are perhaps that many identified breeds
> recognized by the AKC. But most dogs are mixed breed mutts and
> therefore not distinct breeds.
>> From the AKC website:
> >A breed is a "relatively homogeneous group of animals within a
> > species, developed and maintained by man." All dogs, impure as well
> > as pure-bred, and several wild cousins such as wolves and foxes, are
> > one family. Each breed was created by man, using selective breeding
> > to get desired qualities.
>> Get it "developed and maintained by man". Dog breeds have little to
> do with nature.
>
You MISSED the entire point, once again.
HUMAN INTERVENTION caused there to be more breeds of dogs that there would
have been otherwise, RIGHT? But where there was no human intervention, what
happened to these other species of canines, over "bahzillions of" [read: a
few thousand] years? Nothing. Not a dam. thing. The number of species in
the wild today is *exactly* like the number of species in the wild a
thousand years ago (or to use the "evolutionists" vernacular "bahzillions of
years ago").
> >If there had been no
> >statistical limits on each breed, then they would have been able to
> >interbreed with each other for thousands of years,
>> Except that most of the breeds have been created within the last 1000
> years.
>
EXACTLY the point. Before that, for thousands of [read: bahzillions of]
years, until Adam was created by God--NOTHING. All of the species of
canines which had been originally created were still in their exact original
form, except for a few species which are believed to have become extinct.
> >and there would now be more inter-breeds than there are breeds.
>> There are, but no one counts them.
>http://www.saveourstrays.com/dogdynamics.htm>> gives 53 million dogs in the US alone, and says that 45% of them or 23
> million are mixed breeds. That is 23 million "different breeds" which
> is a lot more than 170.
>
How can you be such a moron? If 23 million of them are identified as "mixed
breeds", then WHAT are they a mix of? BREEDS. There are a fixed number of
breeds, and any offspring of two different breeds who mate are called "mixed
breeds".
> >How many more? The factorial of 170 is 7.3 x 10^306.
>> Nonsense as usual. There would not be more breeds than there are
> dogs, and dog breeding is anything but random.
The POINT is exactly that! Dog breeding is not random. And now we have to
explain to you what "factorial" means? If dog breeding WAS random, and if
there are 170 different breeds, then the potentional number of combinations
between all these breeds is 7.3 x 10^306.
Please don't say you don't know what a "factorial" is.
>>> That's a 73 followed by 305 zeros. That's how many
> >inter-breeds there would have been. But there aren't that many, are
there?
> >The breeds actually outnumber the inter-breeds [read: mutts], don't they?
>> Nope.
"Nope"? Your very own reference above confirms this statement. Didn't you
even read it?
> you wrote:
> gives 53 million dogs in the US alone, and says that 45% of them or 23
> million are mixed breeds.
The majority, 55% of them, are not mixed breeds, right?
If there are 30 million who aren't mixed breeds, and 23 million who are, do
you really think there are more mixed-breeds than breeds?
>> >This is an example where it's known that two different "brands" can
> >inter-breed with each other.
>> Which of course makes it irrelevant to what you are trying to prove.
>> >Most species can't even inter-breed like this.
>> Indeed. That is why they are distinct species.
>> >But if they could, these
> >inter-breeds would have "wedged out" [to use Darwin's term] ALL of the
other
> >original species a LONG time ago.
>> But since they can't ...
>> >Why would God "guide" such a process in the first place,
>> For whatever reasons He chose. Are you trying to tell God that He
> cannot do whatever in Heaven that He wants, for whatever reason He
> chooses?
>
No. I'm telling you that your inability to simply observe what God DID is
what makes you a "liberal".
> >when the objective was obviously to *restrict* inter-breeding
>> It was?
>> >(and when the only viable forms
> >of life could exist only if such inter-breeding was never permitted)?
>> False.
>> >A horse can breed with a donkey, and the result is a mule. But that's
the
> >end of the line for this inter-breeding, because a mule can't breed with
a
> >mule. The only way to create mule is to breed a horse with a donkey.
Does
> >this give you a clue about how these statistical boundaries work?
>> That gives a clue as to the nature of species.
>> >"Evolution" cannot occur without inter-species transitions.
>> True, but those transitions don't work the way you seem to think.
>> >A lower life form can't "evolve" to a higher life form (or vice versa)
>> Define how "high" a life form is by an unambiguous metric.
>> >without crossing these statistical boundaries.
>> There are no statistical boundaries. And bacteria do not simply turn
> into humans spontaneously.
>> >Because niggers and Whites can inter-breed
>> meaning that they are the same species.
>
Except that there are 32,000 different species of orchids which can all
inter-breed whose differences from each other are minute compared to the
differences between niggers and Whites.
By this standard, niggers and Whites are different species, right?
> >doesn't mean that niggers and apes can,
>> meaning that they are not the same species.
>
Except that wolves and foxes can inter-breed and you DO claim that they are
different species.
By this standard, niggers and Whites are different species, right?
Can you find a single standard for "species" which would prohibit niggers
and Whites from being classified as different species?
No?
John Knight
