Jump to content


Photo

There Are 8.7 Million Species On Earth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:55 AM

...of which 7.77 million are animals. This is from http://www.scienceda...10823180459.htm

Let's think about that. 7,000,000 + species on this amazing planet of ours.

Also, from the article...

Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.

Why do I bring this up?

Out of all the species, humans are different. Very different. How so?

Our ability to create

Consciousness

Personality

Abstract Thinking

Moral Judgments

Social Skills and Learning (yes animals learn and some socialize, but not to the extent humans do)

source: http://www.godandsci...imageofgod.html

If evolution is indeed true, why are humans so very different than any other known creature on this planet?

If you have a good sense of humor, check out the similiarities to humans and apes below!
http://www.answersin...ans-and-animals

What does the Bible say about the uniqueness of humans?

From Genesis 1: 26-28...

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:03 PM

I am very skeptical of those figures since if the other ones are not catergorised then how in the world do they know how many there are in total in order to derive the percentage amount?


Additionally it would depend on what classification of species they were using, I've seen evolutionists call breeds (of a species) as different species... (And then went on to state that he didn't know if they could interbreed, (if that is unknown then how can one come to the conclusion that they are different species?

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:27 PM

I doubt the numbers of species generally given. There seems to be lots of double counting. And many assigned species within one genus are actually one interbreedable species. I am thinking just about the geni Bitis and pythons amongst snakes. I think even the whole family of pythonidae has been cross bred.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

Darwins finches can interbreed and were claimed as different species... (That was why it was "evidence" of evolution... Now we know its not so

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:26 AM

So I wonder what the figure is, if one reduces this to non-crossable taxonomic units.

#6 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:28 AM

That article is incredibly fascinating, thank you for posting the link Usafjay ! Basically they hypothesized that one can predict the number of species in a group from the patterns in higher taxa. Darwin finds something similar in The Origin of Species - he hypothesizes that varieties and species are generated by the same processes and infers that genera whose species contain more varieties (i.e. where that process, whatever it is, is more productive) should themselves contain more species, and vice-versa. He tested this hypothesis on some insect genera and found pretty much that.

It seems to me these people did something similar :

Here we analyze higher taxonomic data using a different approach by assessing patterns across all taxonomic levels of major taxonomic groups. The existence of predictable patterns in the higher taxonomic classification of species allows prediction of the total number of species within taxonomic groups and may help to better constrain our estimates of global species richness.

And they test this model on well-studied groups where we have a better idea of how many species each contain and find a very close fit :
http://www.ncbi.nlm....001127.g002.jpg
(I don't know if this forum has problem with images since the crash ?)

And so they applied their model to the Eukaryotes in general and that's how they came up with the number.

They account for several potential issues such as the existence of undiscovered higher taxa (they infer that from the pattern of how more and more species are discovered all the time but higher taxa are discovered less and less in an asymptotic fashion so one can infer the total number that way), the fact that the criteria for "species" will be different in different fields (so for example they say the different numbers they find for protists vs animals says more about how protist species are defined than about the actual differences in variability, but that's an issue you'd have even if all the species had been discovered so it's not an issue with this method in particular), or the fact that the higher taxa themselves may be defined arbitrarily (they do a statistical and sensitivity analysis that show that subjectivity isn't that much of an issue and doesn't affect their results).

The paper appears to be open-access, here :
http://www.plosbiolo...al.pbio.1001127

I'm still really surprised by some of the results (7.7 million animals out of 8.7 species ? Only 300,000 species among plants ?) but the paper is a year old so I can see if I can find any discussion of it in biological or taxonomic circles.

#7 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

I was thinking about this the other day and wanted to share this little thought experiment.

Let's start by assuming a very conservative estimate that there is 1.2 million species on earth. This number can take into account that some species are split into separate species when they shouldn't be, but those numbers are offset by species that have not yet been cataloged.

Next let's assume that each originally created species has undergone 2 speciation events on average. This seems rather reasonable since speciation is not doubted only the extent to which it occurs. Two speciation events on average would take into account kinds that diversified rapidly and others that remained rather static. I personally think the estimate should be much higher, but this is an extremely conservative value. This would mean that there were 400,000 original created kinds and 800,000 speciation events.

Now if these speciation events have occurred in only 6,000 years that would average to 133 speciation events per year. Call this hypothesis A

(Note if you included all extinct species and increased the current species to recent estimates the average estimate would be considerably higher. In addition if you figured this from the time of the flood - 4400 years ago, the average is again significantly increased. Also estimates say that there were only 50,000 animals on the ark, so 1.2 million species needed to diverge from that 50,000)

Now let's plug in the numbers that scientists suggest.

8,700,000 species on earth. An estimated 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. This yields 870,000,000 species (and thus speciation events). These speciations are supposed to have occurred over at least the last 3 billion years. This yields an average of .29 speciation events per year. Call this hypothesis B.

Now, one of the supposed evidences against evolution is that we have observed thousands of generations of breeding experiments and have never seen one type of creature become another type of creature. Now we certainly have observed speciation events, but what I take this to mean is that we don't see multiple speciation events that lead to the formation of new kinds.

So ... which hypothesis fits the observation better?

If hypothesis A were true we should be observing all kinds of speciation events. When we breed fruit flies for generation upon generation, we should see new species emerging all the time. Speciation would be extremely rapid.

If hypothesis B were true, speciation should be a rare event. We would not be observing speciation events even after a couple of hundred generations.

Which hypothesis fits the observations better?

HBD

#8 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:26 AM

Did speciation occur quickly under the conditions following the Flood?

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/biology/index.html

I havnt read the Tulmud has anyone else?


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

Spetner was inspired by the rabbi David Luria (1798 - 1855), who calculated that according to Talmudic sources that there was 365 originally created species of beasts and 365 of birds.

#9 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 26 December 2012 - 07:37 PM

Did speciation occur quickly under the conditions following the Flood? http://www.creation-...logy/index.html

I really don't know what you are suggesting. Bare links aren't really helpful. You should summarize your points and use references to support your position. Now I have to guess your points.

Before the flood species went from 750 created kinds to about 300,000 kinds at the time of the flood (250,000 known fossil species and 50,000 species on the ark) in 1,600 years. - 187 new species per year.

After the flood species went from 50,000 on the ark (AIG estimates) to 1.2 million today in about 4,400 years. - 260 new species per year average. Except that those animals that left the ark diversified rapidly The author in the article doesn't suggest a time frame other than several generations, but let's say it took 1,000 years so that most of the diversity was complete before about 1,400 B.C.E That would mean that every year almost 1,200 new species would arise each year. However,

The representatives of each Genesis Kind (each precursor species) that was saved in the Ark must have been the seed that was used to generate the much greater numbers of species that we now have in the world. Some flood survivors speciated and flourished, others died out. Some were able to survive in one area, others in other areas. Many died out as the regional climates changed and settled into their present patterns. Sort of a "differential survival" process.

So in addition, the author suggests that not all populations that left the ark survived so the speciation rate would have been even higher than calculated.

But I suppose that it is within the realm of possibilities. Except that this rate of speciation is dangerously close to one species giving birth to another (which is what I suspect creationists actually believe happens). Also do you think this scenario would leave genetic evidence? Such as a bottleneck?

How is this for a nice piece of speculative writing of which evolutionists are accused of:

We are also told that Angels led the animals into the Ark. They could have also helped led the migration from the Ark to repopulate the whole world. Who knows, there are many questions that are left unanswered. Did the animals migrate in small groups? Did they, from time to time separate into even smaller groups and thus go their separate ways? If these ideas are possible, then this process of distributing the animals after the flood could have taken many generations to complete.


and

Before the flood I would imagine that genetic variability would have been much greater than today. Once the flood occurred, however, most of the gene pool was destroyed, life was allowed to continue using only a few individuals of each "Kind" to repopulate the Earth. Each Genesis Kind is thought to have been potentially the source of quite a number of modern species. So I would expect genetic variability to be much less today than before the flood.


Scroll to the end of this article. Notice something? No references. None. Not a single reference. Then look at the top of the page. Notice it is called an opinion page? This article is nothing but unsubstantiated claims made by this author.

So how does this fit the evidence? I think it makes the whole situation worse. But that's just me.

HBD

#10 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:06 AM

How is this for a nice piece of speculative writing of which evolutionists are accused of:


I don't think creationists claim that they never speculate, or even that they speculate less than evolutionists.
The question is whether or not one should speculate about something and then present it to the general public as a scientific fact.

#11 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:54 PM

I don't think creationists claim that they never speculate, or even that they speculate less than evolutionists. The question is whether or not one should speculate about something and then present it to the general public as a scientific fact.


The question is which is more believable, the position that speculates 10% of the time or the position that speculates 90% of the time?

HBD

#12 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

The question is which is more believable, the position that speculates 10% of the time or the position that speculates 90% of the time? HBD


Well you can throw out all the fictitious numbers you want about who speculates the most, but anyone who tries to put a date on the universe is speculating 100% of the time, just as anyone who claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor is speculating 100% of the time.

#13 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:05 PM

Well you can throw out all the fictitious numbers you want about who speculates the most, but anyone who tries to put a date on the universe is speculating 100% of the time, just as anyone who claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor is speculating 100% of the time.


How about the universe being 6,000 years old? Speculation or fact?

#14 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

http://en.wikipedia....ecorded_history

Recorded history is the period in the history of the world that has been written down using language, or documented using other means of communication. It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)

Methuselah is a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree growing high in the White Mountains of Inyo County in eastern California.[1][2] Its age of around 4844–4845 years[a] makes it the world's oldest known living non-clonal organism

#15 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

How about the universe being 6,000 years old? Speculation or fact?


Speculation! Why on earth do you think I underlined anyone???

So let me just repeat what I said and see what else you've got to avoid the issue:

The question is whether or not one should speculate about something and then present it to the general public as a scientific fact.

#16 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:35 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history Recorded history is the period in the history of the world that has been written down using language, or documented using other means of communication. It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing. http://en.wikipedia....ethuselah_(tree) Methuselah is a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree growing high in the White Mountains of Inyo County in eastern California.[1][2] Its age of around 4844–4845 years[a] makes it the world's oldest known living non-clonal organism


Cut it out Sammy! you're tempting me to speculate! Posted Image

#17 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:34 AM

lol

#18 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:07 AM

So let me just repeat what I said and see what else you've got to avoid the issue:


Yea, its me that's avoiding the issues. Posted Image Show me where someone responded directly to my Post #7. I AM NOT THE ONE AVOIDING THE ISSUE!

HBD

#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

Before the flood species went from 750 created kinds to about 300,000 kinds at the time of the flood (250,000 known fossil species and 50,000 species on the ark) in 1,600 years. - 187 new species per year.

1, From where did you derive this data? 2. Do you realize that you just combined 'kind' with 'species' without differentiation in their definitions?

#20 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:52 AM

Yea, its me that's avoiding the issues. Show me where someone responded directly to my Post . I AM NOT THE ONE AVOIDING THE ISSUE


I never said that you avoided the "issues". Why would I say that? Someone like me who doesn't mind admitting to avoiding issues would not say anything like that.

No. What I said is that you avoided "the issue" where the colon at the end of that sentence indicated what "the issue" was as far as our exchange was
concerned, and I based my comment on the fact that you tried to turn "the issue" into "another issue".

As far as your post #7 is concerned I just don't understand what you are trying to say, so I guess I "avoided" it (so as to save embarrasing myself),
but I guess you caught me out, so I'll just have to pull up a chair and beg you to dumb it down for me.

So let's see if I read you correctly. It seems to me that you are trying to average out speciation events over two separate periods of time and then seeing which one of these matches what we observe.
Well, that's OK I guess, but doesn't it presuppose that speciation always occurs at a constant rate. What if wildly accellerated speciation occured during a global catastrophe? Would averaging it out prove anything?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users