Re: Ray Martinez and MRSA

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:27 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:28 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 28 Nov, 09:22, Rolf <snul...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ray, How do you thing MRSA originated? Would "selection"
be relevant?
Rolf
If he is unwilling to defend his positions on species
immutability, wolves and dogs being separate and distinct
species, and explain how wolf/dog hybrids can exist if his
positions be true, then how likely is it that he will be able
or willing to explain the emergence of Methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus?
IIRC Ray is unique (or nearly so) even among creationists for
arguing that "RM+NS" does not even explain changes *within*
species.
True.

Creationists do not accept unguided material causation (UMC)
existing in reality because it presupposes the absence of Divine
causation. The latter is known to be operating in nature based
on the observation of design and specified complexity seen in
nature.

Sean Pitman accepts both. He accepts UMC to explain the
existence of evil, suffering and random phenomena. What Sean
does not understand is that UMC was postulated because Divine
causation (ID) was judged to be absent from nature. Of course
he who has foundational understanding of Bible knows that evil
and suffering are effects of the Fall. Therefore to accept UMC
on said basis is to declare rejection of the Biblical
explanation (and its full explication in the Torah).

In fact
it's hard to find creationists (outside the "rank and file")
these days who will admit that "species" is the limit of
"RM+NS". The more savvy anti-evolutionists these days even
avoid the word "kinds" and leave it to the audience to infer
it.
They do this because they are unsure and confused. "Kinds" is a
very bad Biblical quote-mine. It is a pet theory, wholly
subjective, total nonsense.
What utter nonsense. The phrase "after his kind" (God's words)
are used after each creation of the various plant and animal
life.


With your thinking, God created the poodle not a very long time
ago. But I showed you an example of the catahoula ker dog that
was observed to be hybrid.

God created the wolf and the wolf gave rise to dogs via selection
and mutation over time.

The Wolf gave rise to another "after his kind" that we call the
dog

So I see you accept that wolves begat dogs though evolutionary
processes. Why not go further and accept wolves as a product of
evolution? Canids and ursids are rather close phylogenetically
speaking. Were they separate archetypes in the mind of God who
chose to infuse carnivorian mammals with similar traits or did the
stem from a common ancestral population before going their
separate ways as dogs and bears?

Because evolution has it wrong.

If it cannot mate and produce a fertil offspring, then it is not
the same "kind". The bible is clear "each after his kind".

Everything "stemed" from the same foundational design to make the
various "kinds".



But the dogs that stemmed from wolves went through a mutation,
recombination and selection process that involved heritable changes
in dog populations over time. This is evolution. You at least imply
this fact in what you allude above. Why stop at dog breeds within
the wolf kind (=species)? Since canids share many similarities and
genetic background, could they (wolves, coyotes, jackals) be but a
step above the process producing dog breeds in extent of time
involved? And going one further couldn't we extend this to canids
and ursids as closely related groups?

I never claimed evolution does not happen at all. In fact i argue for evolution if the species
are geneatically able to reproduce.


Are wolves and coyotes in the same or separate kinds in your
estimation? They can mate and some seem to think red wolves may be a
byproduct.

If they can mate and produce fertile offspring
--

It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: dog breeds: same species or not
    ... large dogs like St.Bernads, ... Does this not make them different species -- large dogs vs small ... Wolves have a proportionately broader skull and much ... been four separation, or domestication, events with gray wolves. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: dog breeds: same species or not
    ... large dogs like St.Bernads, ... Does this not make them different species -- large dogs vs small ... In my opinion wolves and dogs are virtually separate species for a variety ... been four separation, or domestication, events with gray wolves. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: When were dogs domesticated?
    ... > And two of the species begin to cooperate with one species as dominant: ... > and dogs is much more effective than men hunting alone. ... > I asked a question here about social habits of wolves... ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Right, but that's MUCH more than the vernacular does, because the ... biology and genetic relationships? ... tradition, well established, of discriminating between dogs and wolves. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: dog breeds: same species or not
    ... large dogs like St.Bernads, ... Does this not make them different species -- large dogs vs small ... In my opinion wolves and dogs are virtually separate species for a variety ... Indian wolf species. ...
    (talk.origins)