No.Not talking about cloning or genetic engineering. I’m asking if we take two populations of the same species and selectively breed them for very different traits, would they eventually be different species?
speciesWhat definition of species are you using?
Yes but environmental pressures have nothing to do with gene expression, the dominant and the co-dominant genes will be expressed even to the point of extinction. Even if a recessive gene confers some advantage in that particular environment, the frequency of expression will be very low and the population will eventually go extinct.If two groups of the same species are geographically isolated from each other could they be subjected to different environment pressures?
What species is a jungle corn snake?a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
Pantherophis guttatus guttatusWhat species is a jungle corn snake?
That is an indication of the Buddha’s lack of power. He can’t create a universe and cannot kill anyone by natural disasters or any other global means. There’s no comparison. As you admit - God has immense, infinite, omnipotence. God gives life and He takes it away,You are implicitly telling us, correctly, that the Buddha did not kill anyone.
If He does not misuse His rights, then He deserves respect for that. Additionally, we the creatures would be required to honor those rights also - correct?Actions have results. God’s actions will have results in future. If He misuses His claimed rights then He will see the results.
That’s a corn snake. Jungle corn snake.Pantherophis guttatus guttatus
That’s a corn snake. Jungle corn snake.
Okay so the parents must be the same species as the jungle corn snake, and the same species as each other right?The term ‘exchange of genetic material’ in species’ definition gives it clear boundaries.
Are these boundaries observable? Yes. Failure to interbreed even between so called close cousins.
My proposal had an if. If parents are always of the same species with their offspring, then there should only be a single species in the world.Okay so the parents must be the same species as the jungle corn snake, and the same species as each other right?
Then what does Numbers 31:17 say? Tell us where the obvious literal meaning is wrong please.The verse you quoted doesn’t say what you are saying maybe you need to review some things instead of copy pasting from dubious websites.
Have you killed anyone? Is that an indication of your lack of power or is it an indication of your not choosing to kill someone? Choosing not to use a power is not an indication that one does not (potentially) have that power.That is an indication of the Buddha’s lack of power.
Here is a quote from the Brahmajala sutta. A god is speaking about himself:God gives life and He takes it away,
Why should I follow your God, rather than one I find in Buddhist scriptures?“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of meditation, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”
One of the aims of Buddhist practice is to reduce hatred; greed, hatred and delusion are the Three Poisons. I am not perfect, but I do not hate your God. As above, He even gets a sort of mention in the Tripitaka. I find some of your God’s behaviour unacceptable and a bad example. He gives some good advice like “You shall not kill,” but He is distinctly lacking on meditation and the Path to nirvana.Was your hatred of God, driven by something internal that you could and should have changed?
The Buddha shows us the way to escape both life and death.God has the power over life and death. The Buddah does not.
Parents have the right to kill their children? Is abortion to be allowed if both parents agree? You might want to reconsider your logic here.You do not like that God can take the very lives He created. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Then what does Numbers 31:17 say? Tell us where the obvious literal meaning is wrong please.
Num 31: 1 And the LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”Again, I do not wish to worship a God who kills unborn babies and orders unborn babies to be killed (Numbers 31:17).
Before beginning - this was a great response. Highly informative and helpful in moving towards a deeper conversation - thank you.Have you killed anyone? Is that an indication of your lack of power or is it an indication of your not choosing to kill someone? Choosing not to use a power is not an indication that one does not (potentially) have that power.
That is a very significant passage. I would need to be able to speak your theological language to analyze it - or you would have to speak mine to understand the response. But I can only respond from a Western, Catholic philosophy and theology.Here is a quote from the Brahmajala sutta. A god is speaking about himself:
“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of meditation, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”
If the one in the Buddhist Scriptures has been created, then the creator of Brahma has rights over him. Brahma is not all powerful. The Catholic God possesses all power and all being. He is our creator, and therefore has the highest perfection - and is most worthy to be followed and worshipped. He also did not create evil - He is completely good. He has allowed creatures to separate from Him, so they could have freedom to choose. But evil is their choice, not His will.Why should I follow your God, rather than one I find in Buddhist scriptures?
In order to achieve those noble goals in life - the building of those virtues and overcoming the vices of hatred and greed, etc. I would think the power from omnipotent source (Brahma) would assist you. That is how we view it. We gain the strength to become better as humans by receiving it from God. If Brahma cannot confer those virtues, then that is another reason to choose the Catholic God over Brahma.One of the aims of Buddhist practice is to reduce hatred; greed, hatred and delusion are the Three Poisons. I am not perfect, but I do not hate your God. As above, He even gets a sort of mention in the Tripitaka.
That is informative and I didn’t know it - thank you.In Buddhism a Bodhisattva is higher than a god.
That’s a key difference. In both religions we meditate. In Buddhism, it is an emptying and annihilation of self and then escaping life, death, thought, suffering and desire.The Buddha shows us the way to escape both life and death.
This is a key concern for you but you’re only looking at a limited part of it.Parents have the right to kill their children? Is abortion to be allowed if both parents agree? You might want to reconsider your logic here.
The last sentence makes sense, but I don’t understand how it fits your thought on this. But anyway, we would conflict on what it means when you say “we created our own lives”. In the Catholic view that is impossible because we lack the power to create from nothing. Only God has that.God did not create our lives. We created our own lives by failing to attain enlightenment in our previous lives, hence getting born again and eventually dying again. If you don’t want to die, then you have to avoid being born.
Man can do evil but are you saying man created evil? If evil is contingent on it being created then can God be considered good? What is that good measured against since evil is contingent?He also did not create evil - He is completely good. He has allowed creatures to separate from Him, so they could have freedom to choose. But evil is their choice, not His will.
Not sure why you want to insist that environmental change is random. Speciation is often driven by environmental change, such as when a population is separated - part of the population finding itself in one place and part in another. This creates the circumstances for the two populations to develop different characteristics.currently existing in a randomly changing environment."