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

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:56 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.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 January 2012 - 08:13 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.


When you become a traitor to the evolution movement it no longer matters how well educated you are because you automatically becomes stupid for disagreeing. Because I have yet to see one evolutionist that has been on this forum that has listened to a well educated "anyone" that disagreed with evolution. And I remember the days when when that's all evolutionist could ever say: Go get educated and then we will listen. Then well educated creationists and ex-evolutionists start coming out of the woodwork and they reneg on what they claimed they would do.

But thanks for the information I will go through it when I find some time.

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 January 2012 - 08:23 PM

When you become a traitor to the evolution movement it no longer matters how well educated you are because you automatically becomes stupid for disagreeing. Because I have yet to see one evolutionist that has been on this forum that has listened to a well educated "anyone" that disagreed with evolution. And I remember the days when when that's all evolutionist could ever say: Go get educated and then we will listen. Then well educated creationists and ex-evolutionists start coming out of the woodwork and they reneg on what they claimed they would do.

But thanks for the information I will go through it when I find some time.


You are quite right. If Stephen Hawking were to convert they would say he's finally lost his mind. :crazyguy:

Best wishes.

#4 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 27 January 2012 - 08:34 PM

You can question every theory in science except evolution. Ironically, evolution is the theory that has the least evidence for it.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 January 2012 - 09:39 AM

You can question every theory in science except evolution. Ironically, evolution is the theory that has the least evidence for it.


Evolution is the only theory that doesn't have any evidence in support of it. Every line of data is circular reasoning, and every time a prediction is made and tested, it forces them to change the theory.



Enjoy.

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:19 PM

You can question every theory in science except evolution. Ironically, evolution is the theory that has the least evidence for it.


Actually Jason777 is right. I have had someone equate my disbelief in evolution to a disbelief in gravity, and my belief in Creationism to a child believing in santa, or a flat earth. The sad thing is, they do not recognize how much they rely on circular reasonin, and confirmation bias. Then they either deny that thiers is faith or they say "what's the difference between me having faith and you having faith?"

Well, you are trying to prevent the teaching of my belief in public schools and preserve the teaching of your beliefs by preaching your faith as fact in the courts. If you truly want separation of church and state, then abiogenesis, common descent, the big bang theory, and macro-evolutionary faith statements should be thrown out of public schools. You are pushing a double standard. I want freedom from hipocracy.


Since so many evolutionists deny abiogenesis and the big bang theory relate to evolution, and can admit that they have not been proven, maybe they can admit that they should not be taught in science classes, since they are faith statements with religous implications that change when scientific knowlege changes. But then they could not indoctrinate our youth and combat Creationism throughout our public schools. Ahh, now theres the rub.

#7 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:48 PM

cant have that. i had one try to tell me that as we learn more about chemistry and physics . the more likely abiogenesis becomes!

i told him we cant acutally test nor observe or have any way of examining evidence of the first life on earth. therefore what could have occured isnt science but speculation as we dont know the conditions of the earth and cant rule aliens and so forth.(for the sake of argument i threw in the aliens)

all experiments have shown the inorder for dna to form it has to be guided to form thus a guided intellegent hand has to make it form and keep stable enough in the cell so that it can reproduce.

#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:06 PM

I am still waiting for ANY evolutionist who read my OP to fill in just one of the right side of the chart: an organism that has evolved into another classifiably, identifiably different organism. (Note: no clever art-work nor phylogentic trees...you know...that have organisms of all types on the tips of the branches and dot's from the tree-trunk to those tips).

Posted Image

#9 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:50 AM

This is the second time I have posted exactly the same challenge to neo-Darwinians on this issue. None have been able to answer it...so far. What should be so easy for them is beyond their reach. Why, if evolution is the real process of nature, should it be so hard to name an organism that has been observed to tranform into another classifiably different organism?

#10 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 02 February 2012 - 09:54 AM

This is the second time I have posted exactly the same challenge to neo-Darwinians on this issue. None have been able to answer it...so far. What should be so easy for them is beyond their reach. Why, if evolution is the real process of nature, should it be so hard to name an organism that has been observed to tranform into another classifiably different organism?


Then I will play devil's advocate, any evolutionist can jump in at any time and correct me if they have alternate answers to this question:

Evolutionists believe that lots and lots of micro-evolution over time causes macro-evolution. The reason we cannot macro-evolution happening it is because it takes many micro-evolutionary steps in order to form a completely new organism that is distinct from it's ancestor, and other organism from the same ancestor whose evolutionary path diverged. Essentially, they would say that the long time periods needed for this process to occur would make it impossible to observe examples of an organism tranforming into another classifiably different organism.

#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 February 2012 - 11:21 AM

Then I will play devil's advocate, any evolutionist can jump in at any time and correct me if they have alternate answers to this question:

Evolutionists believe that lots and lots of micro-evolution over time causes macro-evolution. The reason we cannot macro-evolution happening it is because it takes many micro-evolutionary steps in order to form a completely new organism that is distinct from it's ancestor, and other organism from the same ancestor whose evolutionary path diverged. Essentially, they would say that the long time periods needed for this process to occur would make it impossible to observe examples of an organism tranforming into another classifiably different organism.


O.K. thanks.

To which I would reply: that is a tacit admission that you have no evidence that any organism has ever evolved from another type of organism. The very answer itself would be an admission that all observed processes result only in changes that remain within the kind/family.

But how did the vast variety of life on earth survive at the rate of extinction since we see it is far faster than the rate of so-called 'evolution' or living organisms and has never been observed otherwise?

That's two big strikes against evolution right there.

#12 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:38 PM

Hello :)

Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating.


Am I correct in thinking that a new species of mouse would not count as a 'replacement' species because the 'mouse' kind already exists?
i.e.
http://www.genomenew...land_mice.shtml
would just be "more mice" and not "new species"?

Is a new type of mouse not a new species?

#13 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

Hi Peter,

I noticed that you, like me, are a new member here and because it seems like we are the only two people who are reading this thread at the moment, I thouht I would give you my answer.

Is a new type of mouse not a new species?


I would say a new type of mouse is, well........... a mouse.

Peace,
Ceeboo

#14 Peter

Peter

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:19 PM

I noticed that you, like me, are a new member here and because it seems like we are the only two people who are reading this thread at the moment, I thouht I would give you my answer.

np :)

I would say a new type of mouse is, well........... a mouse.

I agree that it is a mouse. That much seems clear to me. ;)

But the aspect I wanted clarified relates to the sentence I quoted from Calypsis4.
Would a new type of mouse count as a replacement species of mammal to counter the number of species of mammal that have gone extinct?
I infer from Calypsis4's post that it wouldn't, but I prefer to ask than simply guess.

#15 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

This is the second time I have posted exactly the same challenge to neo-Darwinians on this issue. None have been able to answer it...so far. What should be so easy for them is beyond their reach. Why, if evolution is the real process of nature, should it be so hard to name an organism that has been observed to tranform into another classifiably different organism?

I would like to ask exactly what do you mean by classifiably different organism? If not speciation, then a new genus, family, order, class? And if speciation is accepted as a criteria, would ring species count?

O.K. thanks.

To which I would reply: that is a tacit admission that you have no evidence that any organism has ever evolved from another type of organism. The very answer itself would be an admission that all observed processes result only in changes that remain within the kind/family.

But how did the vast variety of life on earth survive at the rate of extinction since we see it is far faster than the rate of so-called 'evolution' or living organisms and has never been observed otherwise?

That's two big strikes against evolution right there.


Well, Calypsis4 had a basically correct answer, omitting the fossil record and the genetic studies and all that, but those are specifics.

I will reply to you then that since you nor anyone has observed it, then clearly you cannot falsify the theory that the earth goes around the sun, no? You can observe the movement of other planets and such, and from them deduce that the earth is moving, but we'll never know unless we can see it, no?

Well no, that's the answer. We don't need to directly observe a process to validate it. As for this: "all observed processes result only in changes that remain within the kind/family" might I remind you that evolution is akin to descent with modification? Of course it can only result in changes that remain within the kind/family! No matter what (assuming you are Caucasian here), your descendants will not evolve to be Asian, or African, unless they specifically breed with people of such environments. In which case that is not your genes evolving to become something you are not, it is you subsuming your genes into an Asian/African gene pool. The different domains, kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species classification arise specifically from the nested hierarchy and common descent of all organism. The differences reflect speciation events, and the higher the biological classification (ie domain vs genus) the older the split. Elephants might one day evolve into two separate species, African elephants and Asian elephants, but they will still be elephants. Millions of years from now, those two species might drift further apart, and each will split again, in which case the 'elephant' characteristic all those future species share might be referred to as the family Elephantidae with two genus, Laxodonta and Elephas, giving rise to separate sub-species. But no matter what, those descendants will still be elephants, even though they may change their appearance, size, behaviour and feeding habits. That is why a whale is still a mammal, despite not having 4 limbs, no visible fur, and living in the ocean.

As for your rate of extinction argument, I can resume it thus : When a tree grows, the hard wood inside it is essentially dead tissue. When the tree was young, it had just a single sprout, with a single leaf, and no dead tissue. Then, as the years go by, the tree grows more and more, and more dead tissue accumulates. How then can you possibly justify that the tree is still alive after all that dead tissue? It must grow faster and faster so that the rate of growth can still surpass the growth of the dead tissue!
Well, no, this is false. The faster a tree grows, the faster dead tissue will accumulate. Similarly, the faster a species evolves, the faster we will have extinct species. Species are not a defining building block, mind you. Species change over time, and when we say extinct, it can also mean that the descendants have changed so much from their ancestors we can no longer call them the same species. You cannot measure the rate of speciation today with the amount of all the extinct species that have ever lived in the past. I do agree however that the rate of extinction is rising in modern times. That is a bad thing for the balance of ecosystems, but that should not have an effect on the overall survival of life on earth. Extinction does destroy species, but it frees ecological niches in the environment, which provides opportunity for other species to evolve.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:23 PM

cant have that. i had one try to tell me that as we learn more about chemistry and physics . the more likely abiogenesis becomes!

i told him we cant acutally test nor observe or have any way of examining evidence of the first life on earth. therefore what could have occured isnt science but speculation as we dont know the conditions of the earth and cant rule aliens and so forth.(for the sake of argument i threw in the aliens)

all experiments have shown the inorder for dna to form it has to be guided to form thus a guided intellegent hand has to make it form and keep stable enough in the cell so that it can reproduce.


Tell that person about Chirality and DNA and / or protein.... That shoots abiogenesis in the heart

#17 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:20 PM

Tell that person about Chirality and DNA and / or protein.... That shoots abiogenesis in the heart


Well actually Gilbo, it does not. Did you know for instance that many bacteria actually use amino acids of exactly opposite chirality to ours (i.e. they use left chirality amino acids instead of our right chirality amino acids) specifically to avoid detection? Since our antibodies recognize proteins, and proteins made with a different chirality has different properties, then our antibodies can't recognize that protein, meaning the bacteria goes undetected by our immune system. Also, a protein must be made either entirely out of L-amino acids or R-amino acids, it cannot be made form a mixture of both. The predominance of L-amino acids in living systems simply shows that life selected the L form very early on, and that L amino acids became dominant.
Also, I found this article, which is interesting. I do admit that it does sound a tad far-fetched, but it does make sense. If I could read the paper describing how the L chirality was transferred to newer amino acids and such, it would probably be more credible.

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 March 2012 - 01:48 AM

Hello :)



Am I correct in thinking that a new species of mouse would not count as a 'replacement' species because the 'mouse' kind already exists?
i.e.
http://www.genomenew...land_mice.shtml
would just be "more mice" and not "new species"?

Is a new type of mouse not a new species?


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


Enjoy.

#19 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 18 March 2012 - 09:10 AM

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


Enjoy.

Funny that you should mention that actually...
http://en.wikipedia....mosome_2_(human)

#20 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

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

Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:22 AM

Since so many evolutionists deny abiogenesis and the big bang theory relate to evolution, and can admit that they have not been proven, maybe they can admit that they should not be taught in science classes, since they are faith statements with religous implications that change when scientific knowlege changes. But then they could not indoctrinate our youth and combat Creationism throughout our public schools. Ahh, now theres the rub.


Abiogenesis, the big bang and evolution all relate to different fields of science. Even though together they might tell the entire story, ones truthfullness doesn't depend on the other.

Scientific theories are never proven so that's a hollow phrase. Scientific theories do have to fulfill certain requirements though. And the Big bang meets those requirements, just like micro-evolution for instance. I do not think abiogenesis should be taught as it isn't a scientific theory.

The moment you can turn creation into a scientific theory, I have no problems that peope teach it in science class. I have seen some interesting research about intelligent design (not quite exactly the same as how Ben Stein or Behe proposed it and thus it might actually stand a chance) where the scientists are actually trying to turn it into science. However their biggest concern remains how to define design and irreducibly complex systems (something M. Behe didn't bother to figure out). Just like any scientific research, they find they have to modify their hypothesis quite often. Maybe we can expect something from this research over the next 5-10 years (which is a relativaly short period for research of that kind).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users