Jump to content


Photo

The List Of Extinctions Compared To The List Of 'evolved' Organisms


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

#21 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:44 AM

We are talking about organisms that MUST have evolved at a rate of growth and survival that is greater than the organisms that became extinct. That means that those organisms had to experience birth, growth, and allelic change on the same level as the ones that became extinct with the rate of evolution from one type of organism into another at a greater rate than that which killed off those nature did not 'select'. Otherwise, life on earth would have become entirely extinct thousands of years ago.


So in other words, you are saying that the rate of extinction has to be compensated for by the creation of new ones? Or do I get that wrong? As far as I know, scientists agree that evolution isn't constant and can speed up and slow down. Also keep in mind that humans are drastically influencing nature on this planet. To be honest, I would find it surprising that the amount of new species towards the one getting extinct would even be possible seen how many habitats we destroy (and we are equally responsible for killing certain species). In other cases, we prevent the natural proces by breeding dogs for instance. In our own case: we prevent the 'weak' from dying.

Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating. My prediction here is that that is exactly what some of them will do.


Why is that cheating? On what level would you want these examples to be? I honestly do not think you can evolve on any other level. If you evolve on a higher level, wouldn't that destroy the idea of common descent?

We say that this is because the world is degenerating and not evolving. From an original perfection that God made, the world has, since the fall of man in sin been degenerating and extinction is one of the hallmarks of that eternal truth.


Of course there is a big difference between claiming that and actually knowing it or proving the correlation between degeneration and sin.

But let the critics call Dr. Sanford 'ignorant' or unqualified to speak on this subject as they have suggested that I am.


Don't get me wrong. I get that Dr. Sandford accomplished many things in his life and I respect him for that. However I do not think his book is one of those accomplishments.
  • Alex likes this

#22 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:21 PM

Hi Jason77,

Chromosome fusion isn't a mechanism that creates new advantageous alleles. So, no new genetic novelty means no new species.

So, a new species of mouse would not count as a replacement species.
Then we can ignore all the mice that are in the list of extinct mammals that Calypsis4 linked, yes?

Because if a new species of mouse is just 'more mice' then an extinct species of mouse is just 'fewer mice'.
If fact, there are no extinct species of mice: mice are not extinct.

Would you agree?
  • Alex likes this

#23 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms
Ex-evolutionist, former Cornell University professor, holder of 25 scientific patents and developer of the world renowed biolistic gene gun, Dr. J.C. Sanford made it clear that the rate of extinction in the world far exceeds the rate of the so-called 'evolution' of living organisms.
Posted Image

So lets compare the list of organisms that have become extinct to the list of plants and animals that have evolved:

Here is the list for extinctions recorded:....................... The list 'evolved' organisms:
Contents

Contents
List of extinct mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can click this website to find out just how many there are in each category.

This list is made by observation. Would anyone care to fill in the list on the right? We are talking about organisms that MUST have evolved at a rate of growth and survival that is greater than the organisms that became extinct. That means that those organisms had to experience birth, growth, and allelic change on the same level as the ones that became extinct with the rate of evolution from one type of organism into another at a greater rate than that which killed off those nature did not 'select'. Otherwise, life on earth would have become entirely extinct thousands of years ago.

Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating. My prediction here is that that is exactly what some of them will do. They will claim that minor changes within the same species were caused by natural selection that gave rise to the survival of the now still existing organisms. Oh? But why is the rate of extinction so much greater than the rate of evolution? Why is there a definite empirical list of extinctions but no such list of newly evolved organsms? Neo-Darwinists tell us that it takes so very long........for an organism to evolve and branch off into other organisms. But that very argument is a de facto tacit admission of the missing element and establishes our case for extinction.

We say that this is because the world is degenerating and not evolving. From an original perfection that God made, the world has, since the fall of man in sin been degenerating and extinction is one of the hallmarks of that eternal truth.

But let the critics call Dr. Sanford 'ignorant' or unqualified to speak on this subject as they have suggested that I am.



If evolution is correct, then EVERY species is an example of an evolved species, including the ones that went extinct, which means the known species that have evolved has to be greater than the known species that went extinct, simply because of all known species only some (many, to be sure) have gone extinct.

So I don't get this logic.

#24 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 08 April 2012 - 03:49 AM

Hi Paul,

So I don't get this logic.

I think that Calypsis4 was saying that we would expect to see some 'churn' where some species become extinct and some species come into existance.
This 'churn' would require a greater number of new species than extinct species else there would eventually be no extant species.

We can all agree that not all species are extinct :) so Calypsis4 was asking "Where are these new species that are balancing out the 'churn'?".

Now, I have two questions before I could answer that.
1) What would count as a 'replacement' species?
2) How many 'replacement' species would be required to balance out the extinctions?

I am still stuck on 1).

#25 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

Hi Paul,

I think that Calypsis4 was saying that we would expect to see some 'churn' where some species become extinct and some species come into existance.
This 'churn' would require a greater number of new species than extinct species else there would eventually be no extant species.

We can all agree that not all species are extinct :) so Calypsis4 was asking "Where are these new species that are balancing out the 'churn'?".

Now, I have two questions before I could answer that.
1) What would count as a 'replacement' species?
2) How many 'replacement' species would be required to balance out the extinctions?

I am still stuck on 1).


How about something like this:

Posted Image
wolf-bear

...or this:

Posted Image

#26 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:11 PM

Hello Calypsis4,

How about something like this:
wolf-bear

I am sure that they wouldn't count as 'replacement' species as there aren't any of those in nature.
For a new species to count, the minimum requirement would be that they exist.

Do you think that a new species of mouse would count as a 'replacement' species?

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:03 AM

Hello Calypsis4,


I am sure that they wouldn't count as 'replacement' species as there aren't any of those in nature.
For a new species to count, the minimum requirement would be that they exist.

Do you think that a new species of mouse would count as a 'replacement' species?


And that is your problem (& that of all who believe in evolution); such organisms don't exist and you won't find transitionals between the various classifications of organisms that DO exist. Quite the point.

"Do you think that a new species of mouse could count as a 'replacement' species?

Answer: No. But if there were a step-by-step, stage-by-stage change from a mouse to a squirrel or a fox, etc. it would. Good luck finding anything like that either.

Here is a graphic illustration of your problem:

Posted Image

So there are bats in the fossil record and rats (rodents of all kinds) in the fossil record but no bat/rats. Nothing in between.

And furthermore, it must not only be shown that such creatures are anatomically similar and lined by those similarities, there must be genetic evidence that they are related. Real proof of evolution would have to be in the genetics.

#28 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:01 PM

"Do you think that a new species of mouse could count as a 'replacement' species?

Answer: No. But if there were a step-by-step, stage-by-stage change from a mouse to a squirrel or a fox, etc. it would. Good luck finding anything like that either.

So, if a new species of mouse is not a 'gained' species, then an extinct species of mouse is not a 'lost' species.
A new species of mouse is not required to replace an extinct species of mouse because mice are not extinct.

Do you agree?

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:39 PM

So, if a new species of mouse is not a 'gained' species, then an extinct species of mouse is not a 'lost' species.
A new species of mouse is not required to replace an extinct species of mouse because mice are not extinct.

Do you agree?


No.

Talk about missing the point!

Take for instance, coelacanth...which evolutionists declared extinct, that is, until 1938 when the 'extinct' organism was fished out of the ocean east of Africa. But like so many other examples of those that have 'living fossils' there has been no evolutionary change in coelacanth in 360 million years.

Not only so but coelancaths ' are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods).' Wikipedia and yet the anatomical comparison between the fossils and the living organisms reveals no change. This reflects the law of fixity (after its kind) as found in scripture, not evolution.

Posted Image

Wikipedia further says: 'The coelacanth has been nicknamed a “living fossil”, because it originally was known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen. The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.'

From what? Let's see it and let's see both the anatomical and the genetic connection between coelacanth and ...whatever.
  • supamk3speed and Remnant of The Abyss like this

#30 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 18 April 2012 - 05:25 PM

No.

Talk about missing the point!

I am definitely missing your point.
I see no connection with my question and your reply, beyond the word 'No'.

Take for instance, coelacanth...which evolutionists declared extinct, that is, until 1938 when the 'extinct' organism was fished out of the ocean east of Africa. But like so many other examples of those that have 'living fossils' there has been no evolutionary change in coelacanth in 360 million years.

Not only so but coelancaths ' are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods).' Wikipedia and yet the anatomical comparison between the fossils and the living organisms reveals no change. This reflects the law of fixity (after its kind) as found in scripture, not evolution.

As you asked in the opening post: "But why is the rate of extinction so much greater than the rate of evolution?"
Well, although interesting, your comments regarding a fish that is neither extinct nor newly evolved seems irrelevant to a discussion about the ratio of extinct/newly evolved species.

So, back to my statement:
If we cannot include new species of mice as 'additional' species then we cannot include extinct species of mice as 'lost' species.

Since you do not agree with this, perhaps you could elaborate on why.

#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:06 PM

I am definitely missing your point.
I see no connection with my question and your reply, beyond the word 'No'.


As you asked in the opening post: "But why is the rate of extinction so much greater than the rate of evolution?"
Well, although interesting, your comments regarding a fish that is neither extinct nor newly evolved seems irrelevant to a discussion about the ratio of extinct/newly evolved species.

So, back to my statement:
If we cannot include new species of mice as 'additional' species then we cannot include extinct species of mice as 'lost' species.

Since you do not agree with this, perhaps you could elaborate on why.


Good grief. You need to stop. If you are that far from reality and common sense in this matter then perhaps it's because you have been so badly mentally conditioned by the education you were given concerning Darwinian evolution that you can't even grasp the logical comparisons.

Just how hard is it to make the connection that if we don't find the stage-by-stage fossils of living organisms in the fossil record BUT WE DO IN FACT FIND that extinction is far outdistancing any 'newly evolved' organisms by tens of thousands to zero that therefore you have no case? Your problem is that you're stuck on the changes in the species level...which is merely changes within the kind. There are all kinds of small variations on the species level...but not one of them gives rise to another type of organism. If you can't change gears in your thinking about such comparisons then it will be impossible for us to communicate.

P.S. I am an ex-evolutionist.

#32 Sporktastic

Sporktastic

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:10 PM

Just how hard is it to make the connection that if we don't find the stage-by-stage fossils of living organisms in the fossil record BUT WE DO IN FACT FIND that extinction is far outdistancing any 'newly evolved' organisms by tens of thousands to zero that therefore you have no case? Your problem is that you're stuck on the changes in the species level...which is merely changes within the kind. There are all kinds of small variations on the species level...but not one of them gives rise to another type of organism. If you can't change gears in your thinking about such comparisons then it will be impossible for us to communicate.

Ok, so we are not talking about changes within kinds. That means that speciation within a kind does not count as a "replacement" species, but it also means that extinctions within a kind do not count as "lost" species, unless the whole kind goes extinct. I think this is what Peter was trying to get at when he was asking about mice.

That said, we can talk about fossilized species, or we can talk about species observed during recorded history. If we want to talk about fossilized species, saying that extinction has outdistanced newly evolved organisms is begging the question. According to an evolutionist, every organism in the fossil record has evolved, so new species are keeping up with extinctions perfectly. You can certainly argue that the fossil record doesn't have any transitional forms, like you did in your last post. But that is a different argument, one that has nothing to do with the comparative "rates" of speciation and extinction.

If we want to talk about species that were observed while they were still alive, I have to admit that no one has ever watched a new "kind" evolve. But has anyone ever seen a "kind" go extinct, either? If new species within a kind don't count as replacements, lost species within a kind don't count as extinctions either. By those standards, I don't think there has been a single extinction or evolution event in recorded history.

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:44 AM

Ok, so we are not talking about changes within kinds. That means that speciation within a kind does not count as a "replacement" species, but it also means that extinctions within a kind do not count as "lost" species, unless the whole kind goes extinct. I think this is what Peter was trying to get at when he was asking about mice.

That said, we can talk about fossilized species, or we can talk about species observed during recorded history. If we want to talk about fossilized species, saying that extinction has outdistanced newly evolved organisms is begging the question. According to an evolutionist, every organism in the fossil record has evolved, so new species are keeping up with extinctions perfectly. You can certainly argue that the fossil record doesn't have any transitional forms, like you did in your last post. But that is a different argument, one that has nothing to do with the comparative "rates" of speciation and extinction.

If we want to talk about species that were observed while they were still alive, I have to admit that no one has ever watched a new "kind" evolve. But has anyone ever seen a "kind" go extinct, either? If new species within a kind don't count as replacements, lost species within a kind don't count as extinctions either. By those standards, I don't think there has been a single extinction or evolution event in recorded history.


Fellow readers, what does it take to get the neo-Darwinians to see that 1 leads to 2 (yes) and 2 leads to three (yes again) but eventually single digits leads to a new creature (i.e. 'organism' if you will) so that 9 leads to 10; a double digit number. But If we arbitrarily decide to jump from 2 or 3 to 10 or 11...or even perhaps 99 or 100 while leaving out the numbers in between...................we are cheating. So if say, rodent speciman 'A' changes into rodent species 'AA' and then we suddenly jump from the rodent species to Bat species 'B'...are we not also cheating? Yup.

Quote: "But has anyone ever seen a 'kind' go extinct, either?"

He didn't read the OP did he? There are no bat/rats in the world nor is there any such thing in the fossil record. Neither are there any bacteria/lice nor bacteria/aphids in the world nor are there any fossils connecting them.

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:27 AM

But to show the readers another example of the utter failure of evolutionists to establish their case lets look closely at the so-called bat 'evolution' again:

Here is Onychonycteris finneyi, discovered in Wyoming dated at 52.5 million yrs. and found to lack the ear bone structure that gives bats echolocation (sonar ability). This was considered to be proof that it had evolved (from what...they don't know) and was the last in the line of bats WITHOUT echolocation ability.

Posted Image

Notice what this evolutionist scientist said about this creature: "The oldest fossilised bats ever discovered have given palaeontologists an unprecedented insight into the flying mammals' evolution. The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation.

"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said Dr Nancy Simmons at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was part of the team. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."

http://www.guardian....3/bat.evolution

That was in 2003.

But in less than ten years they were forced to change that opinion:

The Murgon bat of Australia:

Posted Image

Quote: "But the Australian Museum has dated the Murgon bat from Australia at 55 million years, 2 million years older than the Wyoming bats, and says it had echolocating ability. ‘Ear bones of the Murgon Bat show that it could navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today."
Quote: "A surprise with the fossils of Australonycteris at Murgon is that they were about 20 cm across and seemed to have looked very similar to modern bats and the periotic bone, of the region of the ear that has been found demonstrates that at this early stage of their evolution they already had the ability to echolocate.http://austhrutime.com/murgon_fossil_site.htm


Confused? Well, it's no wonder. After claiming that the Wyoming bat was the transitional stage between bat and it's non-bat ancestors they find this creature that HAS echolocation ability. Swisssssssh! out the window goes Onnychonycteris finneyi.

They don't get it. They don't wish to get it. There are no connecting threads (fossils) of any organisms of bats from non-bats. Period. Of course the reason is because God made a law that nature will not violate: 'After its kind'.

#35 Sporktastic

Sporktastic

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:32 PM

Calypsis, I'm confused. In the OP, you tried to argue that species are going extinct far faster than new species have been appearing. When Peter and I tried to refute your point, you started to focus instead on the lack of transitional fossils, especially for the mice-->bats transition. In your last two posts, you talked about nothing but the mice-->bats transition. So which is it? Are you trying to say that extinction is happening faster than speciation? If that's your argument, you haven't responded to Peter's and my posts at all. Or are you trying to say that scientists have never found transitional fossils? If that's your argument, please say so explicitly, so that posters like Peter and me don't get confused by the OP.

#36 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

Calypsis, I'm confused. In the OP, you tried to argue that species are going extinct far faster than new species have been appearing. When Peter and I tried to refute your point, you started to focus instead on the lack of transitional fossils, especially for the mice-->bats transition. In your last two posts, you talked about nothing but the mice-->bats transition. So which is it? Are you trying to say that extinction is happening faster than speciation? If that's your argument, you haven't responded to Peter's and my posts at all. Or are you trying to say that scientists have never found transitional fossils? If that's your argument, please say so explicitly, so that posters like Peter and me don't get confused by the OP.


Should we wonder why you are confused? That happens to those who are so infected with Darwinian dogma. I'm not joking for I was once there myself.

"you started to focus instead on the lack of transitional fossils, especially for the mice-->bats transition"...O, gee, I wonder why? You really, really don't get it, do you?

You and those like you wish to jump from lower level to higher level organisms and claim evolution occurred without the necessary stages in between. But at the same time you are absolutely blind to the fact that the extinction rate outdistances what YOU (Darwinians) claim was that same step-by-step process that supposedly proves evolution is true in the first place. Well, where is it? Since you can't reveal newly evolved organisms as compared to the extinct organisms we KNOW OF by observation and you cannot give us an observable stage-by-stage development in any of those same extinct creatures because you can't find it in the fossil record either...then where, pray tell, do you go from there?

So what is it going to take to convince you that your position on the matter is dead wrong? Bats are not extinct...yet. But if they did become extinct over the next few decades then what would you do to prove that bats had ever evolved in the first place? You've got zip and you know it.

But what was said about extinct organisms and bats-from-rats...I also mentioned is true among bacteria as it relates to small organisms like lice or ahpids. You've to zip there also.

I say that you and your likewise mentally-conditioned comrade in unbelief cannot make the obvious connection here because of Dariwnian influence. It's really a deadly poison to a professing believers thinking.
  • supamk3speed likes this

#37 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:52 PM

Good grief. You need to stop. If you are that far from reality and common sense in this matter then perhaps it's because you have been so badly mentally conditioned by the education you were given concerning Darwinian evolution that you can't even grasp the logical comparisons.

I would prefer that you kept this discussion civil.

Your problem is that you're stuck on the changes in the species level...which is merely changes within the kind. There are all kinds of small variations on the species level...but not one of them gives rise to another type of organism.

And your problem is that you deny new species of mice have evolved while insisting that old species of mice have gone extinct.

When comparing the ratio of 'newly evolved' to 'extinct' species you can't (for example) claim that the Basalt Plains mouse counts as an extinct species but then claim that the Apomys Brownorum mouse doesn't count as a new species.
The fact that "There are all kinds of small variations on the species level" applies equally to both the extinct and the new species.
To exclude the new species because it doesn't have large morphological changes also excludes the extinct species for exactly the same reason.

If you wish to shift the focus to Kinds then you are left with the same problem.
The mouse Kind is not extinct, therefore there is no need for a replacement mouse Kind.

p.s.
If you do wish to move from discussing 'Species' to discussing 'Kinds' then could you please provide a list of extinct Kinds as the list you provided of extinct Species will no longer be appropriate.
Thank you.

#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:24 PM

I would prefer that you kept this discussion civil.


Look up the word 'civil', please.

And your problem is that you deny new species of mice have evolved while insisting that old species of mice have gone extinct.


I'm not the one with the problem here, fella; you and your comrade are. You can't give evidence to the stage-by-stage, step-by-step evolution of any organism no matter from what category we've mentioned: the extinct animals as listed in the OP nor the fossil record either one. I might add the 'living fossils' to the matter also...and it's even clearer that evolution did not occur in nature among those organisms either. There are hundreds of them.

When comparing the ratio of 'newly evolved' to 'extinct' species you can't (for example) claim that the Basalt Plains mouse counts as an extinct species but then claim that the Apomys Brownorum mouse doesn't count as a new species.


Let me take a deep breath for a moment. (1...2..3...breathe out). The changes in mice are not 'evolution'...they merely reveal the extant of genetic ability that was latent within the DNA to begin with and eventually expressed in the characteristics of those like Apomys Brownorum.

The fact that "There are all kinds of small variations on the species level" applies equally to both the extinct and the new species.
To exclude the new species because it doesn't have large morphological changes also excludes the extinct species for exactly the same reason.


Which is the very best you can do...small changes within a kind...which is the most any kind of organism will reveal within its genetic pool. This matter could be easily settled if one could genetically engineer one type of organism into another completely different type, but alas for your side; it can't be done. If humans and apes could cross genetically in a series of successfully reproducing ape/human offspring, your side would win the day but the fact is they cannot be crossed successfully.

If you wish to shift the focus to Kinds then you are left with the same problem.
The mouse Kind is not extinct, therefore there is no need for a replacement mouse Kind.


Nice dodge. But you aren't helping your cause unless you can reveal BOTH the antatomical & the gentic changes from one type of organism to another is observed. That you cannot do. What you REFUSE to get is that our position is based on observation; yours is not.

p.s. If you do wish to move from discussing 'Species' to discussing 'Kinds' then could you please provide a list of extinct Kinds as the list you provided of extinct Species will no longer be appropriate.


Nope. You've got a dictionary just like I do so I kindly suggest you use it. Deal with what you saw in the OP. You haven't done that yet. But I understand your frustration because you can't do what is asked of you. There is nothing for you to work with.

#39 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oxford

Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:43 PM

Let me take a deep breath for a moment. (1...2..3...breathe out). The changes in mice are not 'evolution'...they merely reveal the extant of genetic ability that was latent within the DNA to begin with and eventually expressed in the characteristics of those like Apomys Brownorum.

Do you agree that the Apomys Brownorum mouse is a new species of mouse?

#40 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:15 PM

Do you agree that the Apomys Brownorum mouse is a new species of mouse?


No, I don't. I explained above my position on different genetic expressions within the same gene pool quite clearly but you seem stubbornly intent to pound home a useless point: that there are small changes on the species level. So what?

Here is what I said...that you conveniently dissed without consideration: 'The changes in mice are not 'evolution'...they merely reveal the extant of genetic ability that was latent within the DNA to begin with and eventually expressed in the characteristics of those like Apomys Brownorum.'

The fact that this organism might have been recently discovered by scientists does not mean that the expression of its characteristics was never observed in the past and/or expressed in the past under different circumstances.

Show us a rodent that has been observed to become classifiably and identifiably a non-rodent and you might have a case. Otherwise you're just wasting my time and yours both.

But how many times do scientists of your persuasion have to perform experiments in the attempt to establish evolution....and fail...before you will recognize that Darwinian evolution simply does not exist?
  • gilbo12345 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users