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

#41 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:24 AM

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


If you get bogged down in semantics this reduces the potential for an intelligent exchange of ideas. Even wikipedia does not have a precise definition of a species. If you define a species according to its ability to interbreed, sure you can isolate a certain breed until it can no longer interbreed, and you could call that a species if you like to keep a wide definition of species.

However this creating of a new species yet retaining the same genome length and structure, and keeping within the gene pool that already existed in a species, merely explains some variation but does not explain the extent of the variation required for evolution to be the accepted theory of the existence of modern fauna and flora. To have favourable variation of an organism so there are large changes to its genetic structure requires mutation, and mutation is nearly always detrimental, not favourable. That is why we observe extinctions, generally species are not showing fitness, those that are left are showing a high adaptability to unique environments, but also show signs of negative mutations.

Observed improvements through mutation are minimal, to confidently espouse evolution as the reason behind the existence of modern life-forms is being confident in a hypothesis based on some minimal and unconvincing mutations.
  • Salsa and JayShel like this

#42 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:22 AM

What we observe in the fossil record fits with stasis of species over long periods of time (living fossils) and extincting of many different species. Organisms appear in the fossil record fully formed, with no evidence of transition gradually to such a state (such as dinosaurs slowly evolving from other animals). I would grant that in an industrial/post-industrial world that we live in, species may become extinct at a more rapid rate than in the past, but this does not solve the biggest problem of evolution, and that is a lack of demonstrable evidence that it ever did or could happen.

#43 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:15 PM

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.


I agree with you. It is apparent that scientists and those who agrees with them seem to believe that evolution theory is hard science, but however, when one closely examine them they are not that hard science. It is just a wishful thinking applying to those evidence to make it look real but it isn't.

#44 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:17 PM

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.


I agree as well. But let me ask you one thing: Why do creationists lost in court then? Is this a mistake? hmm...

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:40 AM

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?


Generally this is where the ad hoc explanations get created due to an experiment that gives unexpected results

#46 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:05 AM

I agree as well. But let me ask you one thing: Why do creationists lost in court then? Is this a mistake? hmm...


I am curious, what court case do you say creationists "lost"? What I was pointing out is that some evolutionists hold a double standard when it comes to endorsing the teaching evolutionary beliefs in school, but wanting to shut creationism out of the school. We are still legally able to teach creationism in public schools, but it is shut out for political reasons. Personally, I prefer schools to teach students to discern between philosophy and science, and that the two can sometimes become intertwined. I will be teaching my kids this in any case.

#47 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 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 03 May 2012 - 01:34 PM

Generally this is where the ad hoc explanations get created due to an experiment that gives unexpected results


Dear friend from down under; Greetings and thanks.

So far, however, we haven't seen from out counterparts any pictures of fossil stages of rodents that became bats...or any other organism for that matter.

Best wishes.

#48 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:50 PM

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.


This is basically correct, but I'll still put it in my own words for whatever that might be worth to you.

First, I want to say that I reject the differentiation between micro and macro evolution, but I will roll with it because I fully understand what you mean by it. I am going to start with a very basic description of biological evolution, so bear with me:

Biological evolution consists of three separate but related processes: Inheritance, Variation, and Selection.

Inheritance is obvious, and I don't think any of you guys would object to it. It is the reason that children look a lot like their parents, it is the reason Asian parents have Asian looking babies, European parents have European looking babies, etc.

Variation occurs in a few different forms. The most common is genetic recombination in organisms that reproduce s*xually. Both the father and the mother contribute their genetic material to the child, "mixing it up" if you will (I could go into the details but it isn't necessary here). Variation also occurs via mutation, which is basically a transcription error made while copying the genetic material. Most mutations are benign or detrimental, as would be expected by a random error. However, occasionally some prove to be beneficial to the organism, which you would also expect.

Selection is the simple fact that, on average, individual organisms better suited to their environment will reproduce more frequently than those less suited to their environment. This of course makes perfect sense, and I don't think anyone has a problem with it. When you combine this fact with inheritance and variation you get a gradual trend toward genetic variations (alleles) that are better for the organisms survival and reproductive fitness. I consider this an obvious conclusion but if you have any questions about why this is true please ask :D

One more thing you need to know is what a population is. A population is a group of organisms that interbreed, that's all. If you have two organisms and there is a chance that they could breed with each other and produce viable offspring then those two organisms are in the same population... simple right?

Now, to answer your question, biological evolution is about the change in the genetic material of a population over time. This can and usually does occur slowly, across many generations. It is also possible (though less likely) that a random mutation could be very beneficial, in which case this mutation would spread through the population relatively quickly (but still on the order of tens to hundreds of generations, potentially thousand of years depending on the rate of reproduction, the size of the population, the degree of the advantage provided by the mutation, and the selection pressure, or how difficult it is to survive).

What you call micro evolution I presume to be changes that are not obviously apparent to an observer, while macro evolution would be very obvious changes to the organism, or even speciation (correct me if I am wrong). If that is the case then micro evolution occurs constantly, and macro evolution would be the net sum of a relatively long period of micro evolution OR the result of a beneficial mutation. Speciation, which you would also call macro evolution, occurs when a population splits into two or more populations. When this occurs the new populations that used to be one no longer share the same gene pool, so beneficial variations in one are not shared with the others. Over time, these changes (due to mutation or simply recombination) accumulate and the populations begin to diverge physiologically. If enough change occurs from one population to another it may become physically impossible for them to ever interbred again. We see the beginning of this process today in Mules, which are the offspring of Donkeys and Horses. Donkeys and Horses are defined as different species, even though they can reproduce and make Mules, but the Mules are almost always infertile, meaning they cannot continue their lineage. SOMETIMES a mule is able to mate with another mule, but due to genetic incompatibility this is rare. Horses and Donkeys are on the verge of becoming completely incapable of breeding and creating fertile offspring, but they aren't quite there yet. Because of this they are a remarkable modern example of speciation in progress.
  • Calum likes this

#49 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:14 PM

Dear friend from down under; Greetings and thanks.

So far, however, we haven't seen from out counterparts any pictures of fossil stages of rodents that became bats...or any other organism for that matter.

Best wishes.


If you're looking for transitional fossils Tiktaalik Roseae is a pretty good example, among many others (I'm just partial to Tiktaalik because I like it's name!)

Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish from the Devonian period that has unique fins that are a sort of cross between normal fish fins and tetrapod feet. The organization of the bones of the fin suggest that they were capable of bearing the weight of the organism, though it is not thought that they walked on them. Instead it is thought that they were able to push themselves up so that their heads broke the surface of the water, which would be advantageous given the abundance of insects during that time that it would have exclusive access to as an entirely new food source. Also notable is the unusual spiracles on the top of its head which suggests it had lungs and was able to breath oxygen as well as having normal fish gills. Further, Tiktaalik is the earliest known fish to have a neck that allowed significant lateral head movement due to a lack of the usual bony plates in that area.

Here is a good article about Tiktaalik from UC Berkeley:
http://evolution.ber...60501_tiktaalik

There are many other examples of transitional fossils if you are interested.

#50 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:38 AM

Biological evolution consists of three separate but related processes: Inheritance, Variation, and Selection.


Not in reality. It could only proceed by the creation and fixation of new advantageous alleles. An isolated population of cows changing color could never turn them into whales.

#51 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:45 AM

If you're looking for transitional fossils Tiktaalik Roseae is a pretty good example, among many others (I'm just partial to Tiktaalik because I like it's name!)

Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish from the Devonian period that has unique fins that are a sort of cross between normal fish fins and tetrapod feet. The organization of the bones of the fin suggest that they were capable of bearing the weight of the organism, though it is not thought that they walked on them. Instead it is thought that they were able to push themselves up so that their heads broke the surface of the water, which would be advantageous given the abundance of insects during that time that it would have exclusive access to as an entirely new food source. Also notable is the unusual spiracles on the top of its head which suggests it had lungs and was able to breath oxygen as well as having normal fish gills. Further, Tiktaalik is the earliest known fish to have a neck that allowed significant lateral head movement due to a lack of the usual bony plates in that area.

Here is a good article about Tiktaalik from UC Berkeley:
http://evolution.ber...60501_tiktaalik

There are many other examples of transitional fossils if you are interested.



Yes. Tiktaalik has lobed fins, but they are fins none the less and scientists have determined that they share even less homology with tetrapods than Panderichthys does.

'Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.'

http://creation.com/...sh-with-fingers

Considerable developmental repatterning is a frank admission that no transition exists.



Enjoy.

#52 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:09 AM

Not in reality. It could only proceed by the creation and fixation of new advantageous alleles.


Yes, the creation of advantageous alleles falls under variation, and the fixation of this variation is a combination of inheritance and selection... it's clear you didn't understand my description of the process of evolution.

An isolated population of cows changing color could never turn them into whales.


Of course not, they would not change directly from cows to whales, no evolutionist would argue this. However, if a population of cows were split up then several things could occur that would serve to cause them to drift apart from each other (physiologically, not geographically) over time. If they were physically seperated then one group of these cows could be subject to environmental pressures that the other group was not, which would lead to selection of different traits through genetic recombination during mating. Further, a random beneficial mutation that is selected for and that propogates the gene pool of one of these populations would not be shared with the other population (as per the definition of a population), so only one group would have that genetic material and the associated traits. These changes accumulate over time so long as the groups remain two separate populations and over time they become less and less similar. This is how speciation ultimately occurs and we see it today with horses and donkey's which can only produce infertile mules when they reproduce, meaning they cannot produce fertile offspring which is why they are classified as two different species.

#53 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:14 AM

Yes. Tiktaalik has lobed fins, but they are fins none the less and scientists have determined that they share even less homology with tetrapods than Panderichthys does.

'Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.'

http://creation.com/...sh-with-fingers

Considerable developmental repatterning is a frank admission that no transition exists.

Enjoy.


Tiktaalik represents a snapshot in the process, it is not representative of the entire change from fins to feet, obviously as no single organism can be.

I read the article you linked to, it doesn't adequately address the fact that Tiktaalik contains a mix of both fish like features and tetrapod like features. This goes beyond the fins to include the sphericals on the snout which allowed it to breath oxygen from above the water along with gills which allowed it to extract oxygen from the water. This is exactly what you would expect to see in a species that is in between fish and tetrapods, and there is no getting around this.

The article's only real objection is that this single specimen does not show the entire process of the transition of fins to feet, but that is not possible, as it would have occured over a long period of time involving billions of individual organisms. It is downright amazing that we find ANY of these fossils, in fact the discovery of Tiktaalik was not by chance, it was hunted for by paleontoligists who made a prediction of when these organisms would have existed who then searched in rock strata of approximately that age and that was formed in the river delta environment that these creatures were thought to have lived. Simply finding this specimin in the exact place that scientists expected to find them is a validation of these ideas.
  • Calum likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users