Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?

Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?

No i don't expect scientists to support your views.

You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."

Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?

No i don't expect scientists to support your views.

You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."

Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?

Yes of course.

But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.

Can you provide proof of that? Or are you going to admit you lied again?

 

[LOki]

Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?

How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.

I did for mine now It's your turn.

Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.

It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Go back and read and look at the pictures.

I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?

No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.

Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.

You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs

 

[Youwerecreated]

No i don't expect scientists to support your views.

You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."

Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?

Yes of course.

But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.

Can you provide proof of that? Or are you going to admit you lied again?

Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.

What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms through mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different family of organisms.

How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: August 23, 2011



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Reprints
Share





.



In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, there’s a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.



RSS Feed


Get Science News From The New York Times »
.

The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.

These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. “Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they’ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,” says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.

“It’s astounding that we don’t know the most basic thing about life,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.

The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. “In my opinion this is a very important paper,” said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper can’t work, and that Earth’s true diversity is far greater.

In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. “If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth,” he wrote.

Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. They’ve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.

In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.

Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.

For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.

In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as it’s possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.

The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest — a sign that we’re getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.

Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earth’s surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the world’s species.

“I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today,” said Lord May.

But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think there’s a big flaw in the study. There’s no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. “They’re measuring human activity, not biodiversity,” he said.

David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi — a particularly understudied group — agrees. “This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach,” he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.

The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesn’t work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate — about 10,000 species — should be considered a “lower bound.”

Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.

Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.

“This is akin to saying, ‘Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,’ ” he said. “While true, what is the point of saying it?”


It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

 

[LOki]

It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.

It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Go back and read and look at the pictures.

I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?

No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.

Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.

You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs

Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.

That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.

If man was not crossing lions and tigers and or buffalo and cattle they would die out because they would probably not cross breed in the wild. But they know cross breeding in the wild has happened.

You notice that just like in our cities most races keep to themselves but they do mix but not enough to make a new race. Most breeds of animals not in the wild were the result of selective breeding.

In the wild I think God had something to do with creating the different animals we classify as a family.Surely if he created them he had the ability to create diversity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.

Explain the misrepresentation ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.

It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Go back and read and look at the pictures.

I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?

No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.

Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.

You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs

Ask dragon he read it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?

Yes of course.

But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.

Can you provide proof of that? Or are you going to admit you lied again?

Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.

What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.

How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: August 23, 2011



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Reprints
Share





.



In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, there’s a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.



RSS Feed


Get Science News From The New York Times »
.

The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.

These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. “Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they’ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,” says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.

“It’s astounding that we don’t know the most basic thing about life,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.

The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. “In my opinion this is a very important paper,” said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper can’t work, and that Earth’s true diversity is far greater.

In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. “If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth,” he wrote.

Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. They’ve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.

In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.

Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.

For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.

In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as it’s possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.

The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest — a sign that we’re getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.

Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earth’s surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the world’s species.

“I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today,” said Lord May.

But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think there’s a big flaw in the study. There’s no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. “They’re measuring human activity, not biodiversity,” he said.

David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi — a particularly understudied group — agrees. “This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach,” he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.

The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesn’t work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate — about 10,000 species — should be considered a “lower bound.”

Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.

Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.

“This is akin to saying, ‘Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,’ ” he said. “While true, what is the point of saying it?”


It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it. Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are? So what?

Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.

 

[LOki]

Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.

Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.

Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.

That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.

Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.

If man was ...

---WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED---

... had the ability to create diversity.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.

Explain the misrepresentation ?

First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Go back and read and look at the pictures.

I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?

No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.

Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.

You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs

Ask dragon he read it.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes of course.

But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.

Can you provide proof of that? Or are you going to admit you lied again?

Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.

What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.

How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: August 23, 2011



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Reprints
Share





.



In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, there’s a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.



RSS Feed


Get Science News From The New York Times »
.

The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.

These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. “Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they’ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,” says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.

“It’s astounding that we don’t know the most basic thing about life,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.

The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. “In my opinion this is a very important paper,” said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper can’t work, and that Earth’s true diversity is far greater.

In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. “If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth,” he wrote.

Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. They’ve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.

In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.

Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.

For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.

In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as it’s possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.

The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest — a sign that we’re getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.

Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earth’s surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the world’s species.

“I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today,” said Lord May.

But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think there’s a big flaw in the study. There’s no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. “They’re measuring human activity, not biodiversity,” he said.

David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi — a particularly understudied group — agrees. “This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach,” he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.

The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesn’t work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate — about 10,000 species — should be considered a “lower bound.”

Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.

Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.

“This is akin to saying, ‘Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,’ ” he said. “While true, what is the point of saying it?”


It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it. Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are? So what?

Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.

The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.

Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.

Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.

That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.

Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.

If man was ...

---WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED---

... had the ability to create diversity.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.

What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.

How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: August 23, 2011



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Reprints
Share





.



In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, there’s a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.



RSS Feed


Get Science News From The New York Times »
.

The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.

These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. “Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they’ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,” says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.

“It’s astounding that we don’t know the most basic thing about life,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.

The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. “In my opinion this is a very important paper,” said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper can’t work, and that Earth’s true diversity is far greater.

In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. “If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth,” he wrote.

Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. They’ve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.

In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.

Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.

For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.

In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as it’s possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.

The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest — a sign that we’re getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.

Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earth’s surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the world’s species.

“I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today,” said Lord May.

But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think there’s a big flaw in the study. There’s no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. “They’re measuring human activity, not biodiversity,” he said.

David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi — a particularly understudied group — agrees. “This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach,” he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.

The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesn’t work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate — about 10,000 species — should be considered a “lower bound.”

Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.

Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.

“This is akin to saying, ‘Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,’ ” he said. “While true, what is the point of saying it?”


It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.

Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it. Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are? So what?

Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.

The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.

What number is too many?

100? 1,000? 1 million? 10 million?

And after you answer that question, please give me proof as to why that's too many species for mutations to have a hand in evolution.

Thank you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.

The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.

Explain the misrepresentation ?

First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.

12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.

 

[Dragon]

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.

No. These statements from the Bible are too vague for that. Besides, it is YOUR term, so it is YOUR job to define it.

 

[LOki]

Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.

Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.

Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.

Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.

If man was ...

---WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED---

... had the ability to create diversity.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?

No.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Explain the misrepresentation ?

First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.

12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?

Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.

How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.

Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.