On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:54:54 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <bp34r1h6oirlei2fghfu8m79v6hk4i53pf@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:36:25 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <q6q3r1hifk6jqt595v67qd7vpig8u5pkvh@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:51:40 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <ejc3r1pn2kff4qosoacm5j16uvk08upjr5@4ax.com>, Matt

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:54:52 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <cm83r1hmcf2a4hhaas96u8l7mjrg3rrfj9@4ax.com>, Matt

Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:02:09 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

(Jason) in

wrote:

In article <87fyoev2vl.fsf@drizzle.com>, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:

You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an

advocate of

creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each

We believe

that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we

have 45 deer

species.

Actually, I know quite a bit about it. Intelligent

Design (or

Creation Science, for that matter) offer not a single shred of

evidence

why, if "micro evolution" is acceptable, "macro

happen. The important point of the mosquito evolutionary story

is that

the species were biologically distinct: they could not

interbreed. If

you accept that you now have two distinct and isolated gene

pools where

once you had but a single, then you have accepted

macro-evolution.

As you said, there are 45 deer species: and those

species have

morphological distinctions. Is there any scientific mechanism

proposed

in the journals of the ICR to show why those morphological

distinctions

cannot become more drastic over time?

Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf

"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei

Elf,
I don't believe that deer (Cervidae family) will evolve into

animals that

are not members of the Cervidae family.

Why? What would stop it? And, again, the difference inside that

family

are far larger than the difference between humans and chimps.

If you know out about a deer that has evolved into an animal that

is not a

member of the Cavidae family, please post the URL so I can see a

picture

of it.

You keep making sillier comments than the last. Of course all current
deer are in the Cavidae family. That is what it means to be a deer.
And all descendents of those animals will always be deer/Cavidae. If
the descendents someway get so different that we want to group

separate families we would do so, but they will always be
deer/Cavidae. You simply don't have a clue of what you think you
object to. Family/Genera/Phyla are all just convenient names for
ranks, the tree is what matters. Birds and turtles share a common
ancestor, call it Mike. All descendents of Mike are Mikes, no matter
how different they become.

Otherwise, don't expect me to believe that it might happen someday.
That's not how science works.

You don't seem to have even a clue on how to support a claim, do you.
*You* said it would not happen, I am asking you to support *your*
claims. If you think there is some limit to the change then tell us
why, explain to us how you know this limit exists. That they have not
yet changed is not evidence for a limit.

I suggest that you re-read the following:

My statement:

I don't believe that deer (Cervidae family) will evolve into

animals that

are not members of the Cervidae family.

Elf's statement:

Why? What would stop it? And, again, the difference inside that

family

are far larger than the difference between humans and chimps.

Matt,
Do you agree or disagree that Elf implied that
deer will evolve into animals that are not members of the

He did not imply that, you fail to understand any of the material you
write about, either the science or the religion.

Take some population today, call it the Zrygi. All of the descendents
of that population will always be Zrygi. After some time we could have
two daughter species, both are descents of Zrygi and so both are
Zrygi. After some more time we may have lots of daughter species and
enough diversity we group them in their own genus. They are all Zrygi.
After more time we may have so many species and so much diversity we
group them in their own family. Still Zrygi. No amount of change will
make them other than Zrygi.

What you are trying to say, and doing a bad job, is that there is a
limit to the amount of change that can happen. You want to claim that,
for example, no member of the deer family could change so much that it
would be partially or fully aquatic. You don't even know enough to
state that properly, but it would be wrong when you do. If you are
going to assert this limit on change you have to tell us why you think
there is a limit. So far your only reason for any of your claims has
been some version of "I want it that way". Not exactly persuasive.

Matt,
You need to learn to read and understand what you read. try again:
read my words and read Alf's words.
My statement:

I don't believe that deer (Cervidae family) will evolve into

animals that

are not members of the Cervidae family.

Elf's statement:

Why? What would stop it?

I ask again: Did Elf state that there was nothing to stop a deer from
evolving into animals that are not members of the Cervidae family?
yes or no

As near as I can tell, he asked what would stop it. I think you are
trying to imply that Elf and I disagree as though that had meaning.
Elf is wrong if he thinks it is possible. I explained why. Try dealing
with the idea instead of the people.

If Elf reads this post--please answer this question:
Do you believe that it's possible for deer to evolve into a species that
is not a member of the Cervaidae family?
I know the reason that deer will never evolve into an animal that is not
a member of the Cervaidae family. However, I doubt that we would agree in
relation to the reason that it's not possible. (Hint--Gen. 1: 24--after
his kind.)

It is not possible by definition. All descendents of any organism
belong to the group of that organism. Again, think of a tree. branches
split off from other branches. No matter how long a branch grows, no
matter how far it gets from some other branch, they still come from
the same place.