Jump to content


Photo

A World Without Evolution: The Repercussions


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

#41 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 09:47 AM

Alex, about the video you posted, traditionally the boundary of a species is defined by the ability to interbreed. Once an organism cannot interbreed, it becomes a different species. The main problem with this video is the assumption that creationists equate kinds with species. This is a common misconception/distortion of the creationist position, and even I thought that for awhile. A kind is a bit harder to define than a species. The field of Baraminology is the study of kinds in an attempt to give a better definition to the Biblical idea. The maker of the video missed this point and so the whole video is focused on knocking down a straw man.

#42 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:36 PM

Alex, about the video you posted, traditionally the boundary of a species is defined by the ability to interbreed. Once an organism cannot interbreed, it becomes a different species. The main problem with this video is the assumption that creationists equate kinds with species. This is a common misconception/distortion of the creationist position, and even I thought that for awhile. A kind is a bit harder to define than a species. The field of Baraminology is the study of kinds in an attempt to give a better definition to the Biblical idea. The maker of the video missed this point and so the whole video is focused on knocking down a straw man.


The point of this video was to demonstrate that one species split into two separate species. The biblical definition of a kind is different from a species, that much is obvious. I've never heard a clear and concise definition of exactly what a kind was, but it's somehow more than a species (dogs and wolves and all that are all the same kind, even though some may not interbreed), and at the same time, all animals put forth according to its kind. Well, if a bird type is a kind, the two bird species in the video, originally coming from the one same species, they should be able to interbreed. But they do not. They are unable to interbreed, being different scientific species, even though they are the same kind.
That would mean at the very least that one cannot claim that there were many less animals on Noah's ark because he didn't need to bring species, just kinds.

The point of this video is not to knock down a strawman, it is to show that ring species can be explained and are expected from the theory of evolution. Now, it is up to the creationists to explain how the ring species fits with their special creation and their biblical kinds.

#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:54 PM

The point of this video was to demonstrate that one species split into two separate species. The biblical definition of a kind is different from a species, that much is obvious. I've never heard a clear and concise definition of exactly what a kind was, but it's somehow more than a species (dogs and wolves and all that are all the same kind, even though some may not interbreed), and at the same time, all animals put forth according to its kind. Well, if a bird type is a kind, the two bird species in the video, originally coming from the one same species, they should be able to interbreed. But they do not. They are unable to interbreed, being different scientific species, even though they are the same kind.
That would mean at the very least that one cannot claim that there were many less animals on Noah's ark because he didn't need to bring species, just kinds.

The point of this video is not to knock down a strawman, it is to show that ring species can be explained and are expected from the theory of evolution. Now, it is up to the creationists to explain how the ring species fits with their special creation and their biblical kinds.

The point of this video was to demonstrate that one species split into two separate species. The biblical definition of a kind is different from a species, that much is obvious. I've never heard a clear and concise definition of exactly what a kind was, but it's somehow more than a species (dogs and wolves and all that are all the same kind, even though some may not interbreed), and at the same time, all animals put forth according to its kind. Well, if a bird type is a kind, the two bird species in the video, originally coming from the one same species, they should be able to interbreed. But they do not. They are unable to interbreed, being different scientific species, even though they are the same kind.
That would mean at the very least that one cannot claim that there were many less animals on Noah's ark because he didn't need to bring species, just kinds.

The point of this video is not to knock down a strawman, it is to show that ring species can be explained and are expected from the theory of evolution. Now, it is up to the creationists to explain how the ring species fits with their special creation and their biblical kinds.


I've never heard a clear concise explanation for species either.... Very "scientific"...

The current definition has its exceptions, one of these are the wolbachia disease of insects. What it does is that it turns all the infected males female, kills male larvae during development and causes reproduction via parthenogenesis (all female reproduction). This would infer that infected wasps are now a new species since they can no longer create a viable offspring with the original wasps.


The other definition used is very simple... They look the same, (this was taught 2 years ago in first year evolutionary studies at my University, as well as the above definition), however this doesn't account for ring species since all those look the same nor does it account for instances where males and females look different, or are different sizes.

#44 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:58 PM

The point of this video was to demonstrate that one species split into two separate species. The biblical definition of a kind is different from a species, that much is obvious. I've never heard a clear and concise definition of exactly what a kind was, but it's somehow more than a species (dogs and wolves and all that are all the same kind, even though some may not interbreed), and at the same time, all animals put forth according to its kind. Well, if a bird type is a kind, the two bird species in the video, originally coming from the one same species, they should be able to interbreed. But they do not. They are unable to interbreed, being different scientific species, even though they are the same kind.
That would mean at the very least that one cannot claim that there were many less animals on Noah's ark because he didn't need to bring species, just kinds.

The point of this video is not to knock down a strawman, it is to show that ring species can be explained and are expected from the theory of evolution. Now, it is up to the creationists to explain how the ring species fits with their special creation and their biblical kinds.


Not sure if trolling, or just clueless...let me draw you a map:

Lets look at the structure of the video; introduction, Kent H*vind (creationist's) argument, rebuttal that explains an apparent "problem" with the creationist (distorted) argument, Kent H*vind again, then another rebuttal to the distorted argument. The maker of the video's intention is clearly to knock down a straw man.

Your response completely ignored what I said about Baraminology. Perhaps if you had looked up Baraminology, you would have understand what I was saying.

That would mean at the very least that one cannot claim that there were many less animals on Noah's ark because he didn't need to bring species, just kinds.


This quote fails the evidence that you provided directly before that. This is exactly WHY creationists CAN claim that there were less animals on the ark, due to species and kinds not being the same thing, and species diversifying FROM kinds via adaptation. The kind is a classification for a group of species. All species within a kind are related to a common ancestor, which is the first created kind. Unlike the naturalistic assumption of "common ancestry of ALL LIFE", speciation via adaptation is observable in nature (as shown by the video) and fits perfectly with the creationist position. Make sense?

#45 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 24 March 2012 - 09:14 PM

I've never heard a clear concise explanation for species either.... Very "scientific"...


John Ray was the first to define a species.

“..no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species… Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa” - John Ray

Carl Linnaeus further developed the science of taxonomy and added that new species have arisen from hybridization since creation.

This new plant propagates itself by its own seed and is therefore a new species, not existing from the beginning of the world; it is a new genus never in being until now. It is a mule [i.e., hybrid] species in the vegetable kingdom. - Carl Linnaeus

The modern definition, since new advantageous alleles are needed to evolve new traits is:

Any organism that shares the same genotype with another, despite chromosome number, phenotype, infertility, or random mutations is the same species as the other. - Jason Bishop




Enjoy.

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 11:49 PM

John Ray was the first to define a species.

“..no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species… Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa” - John Ray

Carl Linnaeus further developed the science of taxonomy and added that new species have arisen from hybridization since creation.

This new plant propagates itself by its own seed and is therefore a new species, not existing from the beginning of the world; it is a new genus never in being until now. It is a mule [i.e., hybrid] species in the vegetable kingdom. - Carl Linnaeus

The modern definition, since new advantageous alleles are needed to evolve new traits is:

Any organism that shares the same genotype with another, despite chromosome number, phenotype, infertility, or random mutations is the same species as the other. - Jason Bishop




Enjoy.

John Ray was the first to define a species.

“..no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species… Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa” - John Ray

Carl Linnaeus further developed the science of taxonomy and added that new species have arisen from hybridization since creation.

This new plant propagates itself by its own seed and is therefore a new species, not existing from the beginning of the world; it is a new genus never in being until now. It is a mule [i.e., hybrid] species in the vegetable kingdom. - Carl Linnaeus

The modern definition, since new advantageous alleles are needed to evolve new traits is:

Any organism that shares the same genotype with another, despite chromosome number, phenotype, infertility, or random mutations is the same species as the other. - Jason Bishop




Enjoy.


Did you see the exception to this definition I posted.. The wolbachia disease of insects is an example of an exception to this definition hence it isn't an all-encompassing definition.

#47 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:02 AM

1. Nice story... Now all you need is evidence for it. Further you have forgotten to include the decrease in fitness for the red butterflies due to bad wings... I'm pretty sure if it cannot fly properly that will have a serious effect on its chances of survival. Furthermore your example is not an actual example... I can make up a thousand stories supporting design, but that does nothing... I believe I have already dealt with this kind of argument before, I've already shown you how it isn't logical.

2. Obviously you didn't read the paper.. Its discussing the mechanism by which embryonic cells specialize, this has been known for a very long time, (whilst the specific markers used are not all known)... Ok lets expand this, you take a marker away the organism doesn't develop the organ / tissue etc.... Sounds like a LOSS not a gain of a complex system.

Further it has no relevance on the creation of a new system, since the embryonic cells are already programed to do X,Y,Z in the presence of the proper marker.

3. I was taught that drift is not dependent on selection

4. And? The fact that bacteria are resistant to drugs doesn't automatically equate to evidence of evolution... As has been provided by Jason drug resistance in bacteria pre-dates human use of drugs... The reality of this is that many drugs come from compounds / enzymes produced by micro-organisms so this fact should be self evident. Yet despite how long it has been known, it still isn't taught in science classes?... hmm

5. Why is it valid? How does evolution fit with gravity.... Keep in mind that gravity is empirically demonstrable, how is evolution empirically demonstrable? (preemptively I will mention that variation, microchanges, are not evidence of evolution since evolution is assumed to occur from the accumulation of small changes, this has never been demonstrated in the real world so there is no evidence to back up the extrapolation.

6. And I've been telling you that you need no deities to have a Religion.... Adding to the evidence I have already given, (of which you merely dismiss) Here is a site of Religions that require no deity...

http://www.interfait...org/nodeity.htm

8. I am talking about the timeline since that is what is proven wrong. What this shows is that the conglomeration of all those aspects to find tiktaalik was fundamentally wrong as, evidenced by these fossil footprints, there was already life on the land when Tiktaalik was alive... Hence how can it be a transitional fossil when its supposed predecessor was alive before it was? This is the fundamental point.

Just because there are similarities doesn't prove that it evolved! You are assuming it evolved from looking at the similarities (and differences- flat head)... Actually there was a fish with a flat head... its called tiktaalik... Actually you should do some more :kaffeetrinker: since there is a FISH alive today that fits that description http://en.wikipedia....head_%28fish%29

How can one explain the purpose of design, you'd sooner be able to understand God's thoughts or work out the meaning of life. I could ask you to predict what will humans "evolve" into in the next 5000 years?

9. And your point?

10. My definition of a transitional fossil is similar to anyone elses... HOWEVER in order to verify that it is indeed transitional and not just an extinct seperate species, there needs to be a progression of one form to the other... (many hundreds of fossils will be required to depict this slow transition, if it took millions of years then the amount of organisms dieing should be sufficient... This is in line with what Darwin said).

Yes thats great it has similar features... But how can you VERIFY that it is indeed a transition.. It could be like the platypus and share traits with many different types of organisms... duck bill, beaver tail, has eggs, mammary glands, sensors like fish in bill..

This is what science is about. Supporting a hypothesis, not just making an assumption based on an observation and claim it is correct.

11. No you're totally wrong. God isn't used as an excuse for what we don't know but an explanation for what we do know. Yes Newton invoked God the whole time, making unsubstanciated claims are not on.

"For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[28]"-http://en.wikipedia....religious_views

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2"

In otherwords he is stating that since planets move in order to laws and do so without a hint of randomness there must be a reason for these laws governing them. What are these laws? how do they work? etc are grounds for further investigation.

The design hypothesis has never been well God did it thats it... It is and always was, "Wow, God created this thing, lets find out how it works so we can learn more about God". Christians are called to love God with all their heart, soul and mind. Science is one way they do this.

12. "And yet, every single living organism on this planet developped from a single cell."

And how is this claim verified?

Yes if you take a heart away the organism dies, yet it also requires the lungs to function, as well as a brain... and the digestive system to supply nutrients etc.. Yes one can claim this as irreducibly complex... (Which Darwin said would demolish his theory, so you've just demolished evolution... Congratulations!)

13. No it isn't a case of mechanical infertility.. From the sound of your claim, you're totally confused. Mechanical infertility refers to the physical properties of the organisms to have s@x, if a man was too big that is mechanical infertility, (mods sorry for this I have tried to explain this without refering to it but it seems I need to be more direct in explaining this concept).

14. No problem, when you find an ACTUAL scenario be sure to let me know.


1. For the loss in fitness, you have to realize that when you compare a camouflaged red butterfly with flying problems with a well-flying blue butterfly that birds will eat on sight, there is an advantage in having a hard time flying and being alive compared to being dead. It all depends on how much of a disadvantage the flying impairment is compared to the disadvantage of being easily spotted by birds.
As for real examples, can I provide this?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/evolutionexampl/
I freely admit that I have no idea what the eel thing is about, I don't get it at all. However, I'd be happy to do research for any specific subject if you'd like.

2. I have read the paper (what little they provided of it) and it seems you have missed the last line.

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

This is what the study wanted to show, not which specific markers caused cells to specialize into heart or tail muscles or the mechanisms thereof. The study's purpose was to show that due to a simple mutation which could perfectly well arise from natural means the formation of a perfectly functional two-chambered heart in a one-chambered-heart species is a reality. Thus, we have increasing complexity.
As for removing a marker, yes, that would be a loss. Similarly, you could remove the marker stimulating the formation of the brain. The loss of information of those mutations would cause a drastic decrease in fitness, showing why such mutations are not selected for but against.

3. Allow me to explain further. Drift is independent of selection yes. In a population where 50% of the individuals have the A allele, as opposed to the a allele, if there is no natural, artificial or S@xual selection, then there is a 50/50 chance that either allele will become lost or fixed. If however 75% of the individuals have allele A, then there is a 75% chance that A becomes fixed, and only 25% chances that A becomes lost. The effect of genetic drift is random and unpredictable, but statistically it is even. Now, going back to the 50/50 scenario earlier, if we assume there is either positive selection for A or negative selection against a, then even starting at 50/50, A has an advantage, and it has a more than 50/50 chance of being fixed and less than a 50/50 chance of being lost.
Drift and selection are independent, but that does not mean they cannot be cumulative.

4.http://www.discoverymedicine.com/R-Craig-MacLean/2010/08/04/the-evolution-of-antibiotic-resistance-insight-into-the-roles-of-molecular-mechanisms-of-resistance-and-treatment-context/
This article seems to say that even though mutation can be present in populations of bacteria, most of the immunity problem arises from spontaneous mutations.

Bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance as a result of spontaneous chromosomal mutations, or by acquiring plasmid-borne resistance alleles by horizontal gene transfer. There are often a number of different spontaneous mutations or horizontally-acquired resistance alleles that confer resistance to a given antibiotic, and these mutations will often have very different fitness consequences for the bacterium. For example, more than 946 unique mutations over 36 genes conferring resistance to seven antibiotics have been identified in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Sandgren et al., 2009). Similarly, there is a massive diversity of plasmid-borne resistance mechanisms in natural environments (D’Costa et al., 2006; Perron et al., 2008b; Sommer et al., 2009). The fitness effects of these resistance alleles will depend on two key factors: how much resistance the mutation provides, and the physiological cost associated with increased resistance (Figure 2). Recent work shows that these two factors are at least partially predictable from the molecular basis of resistance.


The hypothesis that such resistance comes from single point mutations is supported by the following:

Given the ease with which bacterial populations adapt to a single antibiotic, multidrug treatment strategies (i.e., “antibiotic cocktails”) are frequently advocated as a means for treating bacterial infections. It is commonly observed that non-additive physiological interactions occur between pairs of antibiotics when they are used together to treat bacteria (Yeh, 2009), and these interactions play an important role in determining the rate of evolution o multidrug resistance (MDR). When an antagonistic interaction occurs between antibiotics (i.e., when different antibiotics mask each other’s effects), resistance mutations are associated with very small benefits, because acquiring resistance to one antibiotic unmasks the inhibitory effect of the second antibiotic, and resistance evolves slowly (Hegreness et al., 2008). Conversely, when a synergistic interaction occurs between antibiotics (i.e., antibiotics aggravate each other’s effects), resistance mutations will be associated with large benefits, because acquiring resistance to one antibiotic will eliminate both the inhibitory effect of the antibiotic and the synergistic effect resulting from the combination of antibiotics, and resistance evolves quickly (Michel et al., 2008).

It is much more unlikely that a bacteria will develop the two simultaneous mutations required to become immunized against two separate antibiotics, as is demonstrated by their much slower evolution in that case.

I think I can conclusively say that even if immunized strains do exist in some populations and that immunity might have far predated modern medicine, the fact that not all strains have such a resistance, that carrying a resistance has a net cost, and that point mutations can and do produce immunity (or at least resistance), it is safe to say that even if immunity did exist centuries ago, it has little to no impact on evolution or present-day bacterium in the modern setting of a hospital and in the controlled environment of a lab's petri dish.

5. I was using gravity to compare how natural selection and mutations in and of themselves are independent and independently understandable/testable, and when you combine the two you have the theory of evolution, much like the formulas with the theory of gravity.
Secondly, from a list of transitional fossils
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
to genetic studies showing common descent from an ancestor
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/568.long
to a long-term evolution experiment, with no selective pressure,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
in which some strains developped the ability to transport citrate inside their cells and to use it as energy and that such an event could independantly evolve in other populations not containing such a mutation and who have had no contact with the citrate-eating bacteria, specialisation for living on glucose (which is an evolutionary disadvantage when compared to wild strains but an advantage for living on a petri dish),
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
to the evolution of multi-cellularity along with specialization,
http://archive.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/treeoflife/predictions.html
along with predictions made by the phylogenetic relatedness of organisms, known as the tree of life, I think we can deduce that yes, evolution does occur to a greater degree than microevolution permits.
I would be happy to discuss any one of these subjects with you some more, but discussing all of them at the same time would probably make the discussion too long.

6. True, I recognize it, there are nontheist religions, and more than I thought too, as evidenced by this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
However, it has also brought to my attention that there are a lot more religions and mythologies with gods than there ever was without gods. I admit that religions don't need gods, but they do seem to be in the minority.

8. You are telling me Tiktaalik cannot be transitional because land animals existed before. I am telling you Tiktaalik is transitional because it is half-fish and half-tetrapod. I am not, however, saying that Tiktaalik is THE one transitional species which lead directly to humans, merely one of many possible transitional species. Whether or not Tiktaalik was the first of the last, it is irrelevant since it is a transitional fossil by virtue of its characteristics. Evolution tells us that every living organism today is a transition between its ancestors and its descendants, a point in a continuum. We also previsouly thought all birds came from one species of dinosaur, but that seems to have been falsified, and that there were many ancestors to the modern birds. Why can the same not be said of tetrapods?

As for your flat-headed fish, there are also hammerhead sharks nowadays. But A flat head is also only one component. That fish still does not have a neck, nor does it have bony limbs. If it did, I'd say you have a splendid transitional specimen.

I might as well try to predict what the weather will be in 5000 years as to try to predict what human evolution will be. There are simply too many factors to take into consideration. Modern medicine, the lack of a clear selective pressure, unknown conditions 5000 years from now, it is simply not possible.

9. My point was in response to your misunderstanding that we wouldn't be able to tell anything apart. Well, if we can tell apart a single species of bird which diverged into two different species, yes, we can see the difference between evolving species, and by extension, yes, we expect to see differences in species as a result of evolution.
I am also curious as to the exact definition of a biblical kind.

10. So if Tiktaalik is a transition between a fish-like species and an extinct amphibian-like species, it doesn't count as transitional?
As for the many hundreds of fossils in between, that may be a bit exxagerated, but I see your point.
I found this cool site which explains different kinds of evidence for evolution ,not only about fossils. http://evolution.ber...nsitional.shtml
And I know you guys don't like the Talkorigins page, so I tried not to go there, but they do have a few pages. Here are lists of fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
These to pages from Wiki may also interest you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
And finally this last link just to make sure we are on the same page in regards to what transitional means
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
Reading this I learned many new things! It really is surprising.

As for the platypus, I'll look at the traits you have given me and ad a few more:
eggs, like fish, amphibians, and reptiles
sensors like fish in the bill (which is not the same as a bird's beak, it is leathery skin)
fur, like only mammals
mammary glands, like only mammals
no nipples, like the rest of the monotreme family (includes echidna)
fur, like only mammals

and if you look more clocely at the monotreme family, they have many characteristics which show a lot of primitive characteristics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

11. Allow me to quote this:
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
From Newton. Gravity explains how the planets move. Previously we had no idea, and thought God was responsible for all of it. God moved from controlling everything in the sky minute by minute to controlling things outside the solar system. Newton used God to say where did the planet's orbit originate from. He also said:
"In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction."
meaning God was always keeping the stars in motion. Now we know there is no such viscosity nor friction out there, it is almost a vacuum. Had Newton known this, would he have said God was required to explain the motion of the stars, or would he use God to explain where the stars came from?

Newton also said "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact." Gravity and magnetism both affect matter at a distance without there being any contact, in a perfectly consistent and repeatable manner. Is there need for an inteligence to say that an object's magnetic/gravitational field is affecting the same field of another object?

"The design hypothesis has never been well God did it thats it... It is and always was, "Wow, God created this thing, lets find out how it works so we can learn more about God"" And this has lead to the discovery (by prominent creationists of the time no less) of modern geology, astronomy and biology, which ironically most of modern young earth creationists reject. I guess some want to discover the world, but only if it conforms to their Bible.

12. Very easily. I assume your parents had s@x. I assume at some point a sperm met an egg and fertilized it. I assume the resulting cell divided, formed a blastula, a gastrula, a foetus, an embryo, a baby, a child, and that child survived and grew up to become you. Every single living creature on this planet has at the beginning of its life come from a single cell. Now I'm not going to say that Ernst Haeckel's embryos were correct, but there is a new field called evolutionary development, or evo devo for short, which looks at how the embryo develops and how changes in the development can affect the adult individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
Evo devo tries to understand what genes regulate how we grow, for example the Hox gene. The Hox gene produces no useful proteins or sequences, it is jut a switch. As the organism develops as an embryo, these genes are switched on or off depending on the immediate environment of the first cells, and this then becomes the way an embryo knows where to develop the head and where to develop the toes. You might find it surprising that humans and fruit flies use nearly the same sequences in nearly the same manner for an embryo to determine where its head is supposed to be.

As for the irreducibly complex argument you are presenting here, it sort of assumes each organ evolved independantly of the others and up to their full complexity as we see today. That is not what evolution predicts, and were something such as that to occur (ie a new organ growing out of nowhere and say enabling us to feel radio waves) would be completely contrary to evolution. Organs grew networked together from the very beginning. Allow me to explain a bit.
From what I have understood, there were first single celled organisms. Then, colonies or single celled organism were made (think like sponges) where each cell is independant and capable of looking after it's own survival. Then, some colonies started to become more like a multicellular organism in that all the cells remained together in a ball, although they were each and all independant. Such colonies would reproduce by fission of the large group. In some colonies, some cells began to share food with each other. This enabled some cells to specialize. However, all the cells in the colony still shared the same DNA. An example would be in the cyanobacterial colonies of anabaena,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyst
where one out of say 50 cells will become a heterocyst, which is a cell abot to take atmospheric nitrogen (N2) and convert it to nitrogen the anabeana could use. Now, the anabaena colonies are string-like, and if you cut one in half, both halves will continue to survive. In fact, if you take a single cell from an anabaena colony, it will divide, and all the other anabaena cells that come from it will stay attached, reforming a colony. Eventually, one of the cells will convert to a heterocyst, to be able to take in nitrogen, showing that the heterocysts are in fact the same cells as the rest of the colony. This is the beginning of organisms with specialisation.
Then you have colonies like Spirogyra, who behave much the same as anabaena. However, what spirogyra does more is S@xual reproduction. A little foreword: Spirogyra has a tough outer casing around its cells, as that enables it to survive rather well. However, that case is constricting, and every time a spirogyra cell reproduced, it can only split down the middle, pushing one cell up and one cell down, forming a long tube. However, the tube constricts as more and more cells divide. This problem could be solved by breaking the colony into smaller pieces. However, but this did not originate in Spirogyra, this colony reproduces s*xually. When two linear strands of spirogyra meet, cells form a little tube between each filament, and the contents of one cell actually migrates into the other cell. There, both cells fuse. The cell wall containing the new embryo splits open (essentially leaving one husk of Spirogyra cell membrane and one split open). All the embryos escape into the water, where they split and immediately start forming their cell walls anew. The advantage to this is that the new embryo cells can make a bigger cell wall than its parents, allowing the Spirogyra to grow in size however much it wants. During all this time, the plants have the same set of organelles, which slowly develop to become more and more complex. Eventually, in green algae, the chloroplasts formed around individual thylakoids, and the folding of thylakoids inside the chloroplasts perfected the photosynthesis pathway. This was happening at the same time that the cell was becoming more specialised for the needs of the organism more than the needs of the individual cell.
This interdependancy eventually lead to the formation of very primitive organs for the organism to be able to take care of all its cells. In tapeworms for example there is no heart and no blood vessels, the nutrients from the stomach dissolve into the 'ooze' that makes up the body and feeds the organism. Oxygen simply diffuses into its body, and CO2 out of it. However, as organisms grew in size, that no longer was enough. They needed a system to transport food from the stomach to all the parts of the body. This developped blood and blood vessels. Then, they also needes to be able to transport oxygen more easily. A greater contact surface was needed to absorb oxygen better., in fish, this greater surface area is folded into the gills. In humans, it is folded into the lungs. Each person's lungs have an inner surface area more or less equivalent to a tennis field.

I'll just skip to the lungs straight away. So what some think happened is that lungs evolved in fish during times when droughts were common. Some fish were able to survive better by gulping air, as their gills didn't function in air. The gulped air passed their digestive tract, where perhaps some oxygen passed the intestines into the blood stream. Over time, an area of the intestinal tract became bigger and bigger until it formed a sort of hollow chamber. This chamber slowly split off from the gastrointestinal tract so that it could do its lung function better while not bothering the intestines with a huge empty space. Once the proto-lungs were seperate from the intestines, selection was free to enhance the lungs separately without affecting the intestines. This would explain why our lungs are connected to our mouths with the same opening we use to eat. Notice that at no point in time did a lung just suddenly pop into existence, and that this probably took millions of years.
This paper seems to discuss the development of lungs from fish to modern mammal with its complex structure
http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/content/31/1/8.full

13. To which I would reply again, that since two females are unable to copulate properly, that would also be mechanical infertility no? After all, we do know that they can now form a viable embryo, even though it is through artificial means.
My whole point here is to show that mechanical infertility cannot be discarded as a means to seperate two species, that mechanical infertility doesn't count because we can get around it. Well, we can get around the mechanical infertility of two women, when it is clearly not 'natural'. Pre-zygotic measures such as different mating seasons, different mating calls and different mating behaviours can and do influence speciation, and thus evolution. Even though a Chihuahua might be able to breed with a terrier, a terrier with a husky, a husky with a labrador, a labador with s St-Bernard, and a St-Bernard with a great dane, that is not necessarily indicative that chichuahuas and grat danes are the same species. Remember the ring species earlier? Even though every species can interbreed with a species a little taller or a little smaller, the fact chihuahuas are completely incapable of mating with great danes means that in nature, they are to all intents and purposes different species.

14. Well, evolution pertaining to man is something that is rather difficult, since there is no longer much natural selection or survival of the fittest going on. Would you like to discuss selective pressure resulting in change for other species?

#48 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:26 AM

Not sure if trolling, or just clueless...let me draw you a map:

Lets look at the structure of the video; introduction, Kent H*vind (creationist's) argument, rebuttal that explains an apparent "problem" with the creationist (distorted) argument, Kent H*vind again, then another rebuttal to the distorted argument. The maker of the video's intention is clearly to knock down a straw man.

Your response completely ignored what I said about Baraminology. Perhaps if you had looked up Baraminology, you would have understand what I was saying.

This quote fails the evidence that you provided directly before that. This is exactly WHY creationists CAN claim that there were less animals on the ark, due to species and kinds not being the same thing, and species diversifying FROM kinds via adaptation. The kind is a classification for a group of species. All species within a kind are related to a common ancestor, which is the first created kind. Unlike the naturalistic assumption of "common ancestry of ALL LIFE", speciation via adaptation is observable in nature (as shown by the video) and fits perfectly with the creationist position. Make sense?

Not trolling, sorry, just clueless. From what I've heard of creationist explanations, a kind would be something akin to a family, ie all canids are one kind, all felines are one kind, etc etc etc. Most however would make a difference between small cats and big cats, as different kinds, and that is understandable. Some would put horses and donkeys together in one kind I assume, and some would not. However, this conflicts with the idea that all animals of one kind can bring forth. In one sense, horses and donkeys CAN bring forth, so they could be the same kind. However,they produce a sterile mule, which cannot produce after its own kind, so that would make a mule a different kind, meaning perhaps horses and donkeys were not the same kind to begin with .But then again, if they were different kinds, they wouldn't be able to bring forth at all, now would they?

Also, I do not see how potholer distorted Mr H*vind's idea in any way. Mr H*vind said that all dogs could interbreed thus they were all of the same kind. Potholer took that definition and showed that it is flawed. Animals of the same kind can also be unable to bring forth. Unless kind has nothing to do with genetics or reproduction at all, and is merely based on looks.

I have looked up baraminology, and I have not seen much that would impress me. According to the scientific community, baraminology would be classified as pseudoscience, and I can't help but agree. It did originate from the creation science movement after all.

The only thing that doesn't make sense with that is that to accept the original pair as the originators of a kind, or baramin, you have to assume all the members of the kind can put forth, ie interbreed. That is from a literal interpretation of the Bible, it's not me twisting anything here. If it cannot put forth, it is not of the same kind. According to that definition, Noah couldn't have simply brought the greenish warbler on the Ark, he'd have to bring its descendants also because they cannot interbreed, and thus would belong to different kinds.

I find it interesting that despite evidence, creationists are hell-bent on rejecting common ancestry and evolution, when they are quite happy to assume all species magically poofed into existence despite the total lack of evidence showing this to be even remotely possible.



Did you see the exception to this definition I posted.. The wolbachia disease of insects is an example of an exception to this definition hence it isn't an all-encompassing definition.


1) A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens

2) A group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common attributes and called by a common name

Is this sufficient? Also, the messiness at, below, and above, the species level, in terms of providing definitions, is what one would expect if an evolutionary process were in progress no? I mean, if God created everything, surely it would be neat and orderly, not this inextricable mess of species we try to understand.

#49 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 04:08 AM

Is this sufficient? Also, the messiness at, below, and above, the species level, in terms of providing definitions, is what one would expect if an evolutionary process were in progress no? I mean, if God created everything, surely it would be neat and orderly, not this inextricable mess of species we try to understand.


The "mess" is only created by evolutionists with evolutionary assumptions who are trying to categorise species according to some sort of "development over time". Without these assumptions you do not have a mess, you just get a whole lot of independently created creatures that have survived a number of catastropic extinction events. I am a believer in rapid micro-evolution and so have no problem with new species existing through rapid changes to allele frequencies through adaptation to the environment, even in the 4350 years since the flood. I believe they could have speciated so rapidly that they can no longer breed with eachother, this does not challenge creationism at all. On the contrary I believe God made creation with the ability to be hardy and flexible and rapidly adapt. I see no problem with the propensity of new allele frequencies to be obtained in environments that have permanently changed.

I like to simplify arguments, to summarise these very complicated debates how about this:

You look at the Tiktaalik and see a transitional type, I look at it and see another wonderful creation. You cannot prove its a transitional type, it just looks like one to you, it could have been a created type, deliberately created to handle two environments.

You believe in 600 million years, I believe in 6000 years, I have evidence to put doubt in decay rates, you have evidence to have confidence in decay rates. I am not a mathematician able to prove to you that a decay rate error margin of 3% can have an exponential effect on the half-life rate, even though it seems obvious to me that the net effect on an exponential projection would be greater than 3%. Additionally the half-life is specifically based on randomness, if you have an outside influencing factor dimishing the randomness it requires a different exponential rate.

You believe there can be continuous positive increases in the genome length that can lead to a 1 million bp organism becoming a 30 billion bp organism. I say that gene amplifications or insertions have not yet been proved to have a positive effect on an organism, and even if so, just prove the possiblity of occasional evolving. To project those possiblities to explain the geologic column is a massive jump, merely a theory.

You see trilobites normally below carboniferous land-based organisms and assume they were first in evolution. I merely assume they were created at the same time, and the landmass grew over time, as geologists confirm. Of course if fossilised sea regions become dry land you will find sea creatures below land creatures. You assume trilobites were first , before fish, because they are lower. I assume the ocean was more sulfuric and partly anoxic, those trilobites that proliferated existed in oceans that did not have fish, and were not conducive to fish. Later they became less sulfuric, and more oxygenated, and fish were found. Where did these fish come from? Evolved? No they came from regions that were not anoxic. Probably they swam down rivers into the sea when the sea became more hospitable for them.

I could carry on and on about evolutionist assumptions, there exists whole other theories that can explain the geologic record, and do not involve much evolving at all. Despite all the arguments put forward for and against, I believe evolution is possible, organisms do transform, but does this really explain the geologic column? Its just one theory among a few, and currently quite far away from being proven.

I personally have a lot of respect for the theory of evolution. With the information at his disposal Darwin made a logical jump by relating his observations of micro-evolution to the geologic column. But this remains a theory and the link between evolution and the geologic column is made through numerous misinterpretations of observed organisms, based on preconceived notions and has no proof whatsoever compared to creation's explanation.

A biologist without the theory of evolution, when confronting a disproportionate human skull would assume a deformation possibly through bad diet, or a unique race that is now extinct.
A biologist, without the theory of evolution, when observing a Tiktaalik, would assume it can adapt to multiple environments like a mud-skipper, rather than making wild claims that its an example of a preconceived process.

Admit it, its just simply a theory, one that was popular but based on evidence itself is unproven.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 05:38 AM

Admit it, its just simply a theory, one that was popular but based on evidence itself is unproven.


Technically theories require empirical evidence in order to support them... Hence evolution is not a theory, it is merely a hypothesis..

But everything else you said about evolutionist assumptions is correct, however I am sure no evolutionist will admit it.

#51 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:41 AM

Not trolling, sorry, just clueless. From what I've heard of creationist explanations, a kind would be something akin to a family, ie all canids are one kind, all felines are one kind, etc etc etc. Most however would make a difference between small cats and big cats, as different kinds, and that is understandable. Some would put horses and donkeys together in one kind I assume, and some would not. However, this conflicts with the idea that all animals of one kind can bring forth. In one sense, horses and donkeys CAN bring forth, so they could be the same kind. However,they produce a sterile mule, which cannot produce after its own kind, so that would make a mule a different kind, meaning perhaps horses and donkeys were not the same kind to begin with .But then again, if they were different kinds, they wouldn't be able to bring forth at all, now would they?


That's what people are researching.

Also, I do not see how potholer distorted Mr H*vind's idea in any way. Mr H*vind said that all dogs could interbreed thus they were all of the same kind. Potholer took that definition and showed that it is flawed. Animals of the same kind can also be unable to bring forth. Unless kind has nothing to do with genetics or reproduction at all, and is merely based on looks.


Well if animals can interbreed then they are the same kind, but this is not the limit of a kind. Potholer then attempts to make this the limit for the definition of a kind instead of a realistic version that Creationists use, whereby flies may not interbreed currently, they were obviously brought fourth by flies in the past, same with dogs. This is called quote mining. I'm sure you have heard of quote mining?

I have looked up baraminology, and I have not seen much that would impress me. According to the scientific community, baraminology would be classified as pseudoscience, and I can't help but agree. It did originate from the creation science movement after all.


Your bias is showing. Your are claiming that all things originating from the creation science movement are pseudoscience which is ridiculous. Furthermore, you miss that materialists are guilty of pseudoscience. Finally, based on these false premise, and the obvious lack of detailed explanation that your sources gave for baraminology, you buy into their opinion on the subject. So much for objectivity...

Here is more of a detailed look at the current state of Baraminology:

http://www.creationr...araminology.htm

Other articles giving examples:
http://creation.com/...grasses-poaceae
http://creation.com/...oan-monobaramin

The only thing that doesn't make sense with that is that to accept the original pair as the originators of a kind, or baramin, you have to assume all the members of the kind can put forth, ie interbreed. That is from a literal interpretation of the Bible, it's not me twisting anything here. If it cannot put forth, it is not of the same kind. According to that definition, Noah couldn't have simply brought the greenish warbler on the Ark, he'd have to bring its descendants also because they cannot interbreed, and thus would belong to different kinds.


That was the definition from the beginning of creation. Since kinds can specialize into different non-interbreeding species, this deffinition does not apply today. A kind is the original common ancestry of a species. Flies always produce flies, dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. There was no stepwise building up to a cat, God created them as fully functioning animals.

I find it interesting that despite evidence, creationists are hell-bent on rejecting common ancestry and evolution, when they are quite happy to assume all species magically poofed into existence despite the total lack of evidence showing this to be even remotely possible.


Total lack of evidence? In the fossil record we find what we would expect, really old organisms with a high degree of complexity falsifying the claims of evolution from a common ancestor. We see no step-by-step process slowly developing bones and eyes. When we find eyes, they are always fully functional, fully formed. Also, you want to believe in abiogenesis which is not only statistically impossible, but also biochemically impossible. Abiogenesis would be nothing short of miraculous. You are the one lacking evidence.

#52 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:51 PM

I totally agree and may be why Dawkins was calling for evolution to be taught when kids are 5 years old!


Every 5 year old will be given the mark of the beast on his forehead and right hand, such that he will think (with forehead) and act (with right hand) in an atheistic way.

Yet another prophecy came to pass?!

#53 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:03 PM

Every 5 year old will be given the mark of the beast on his forehead and right hand, such that he will think (with forehead) and act (with right hand) in an atheistic way.

Yet another prophecy came to pass?!


No because you missed some important details:

Revelation 13:16-17
  • And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
  • And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Being an atheist is not required to buy or sell.

#54 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:56 PM

No because you missed some important details:

Revelation 13:16-17

  • And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
  • And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Being an atheist is not required to buy or sell.


He needs that atheistic education to make a living (buy and sell), at the same time he's forced to do so without a choice (in a lot of countries you can't refuse a formal education, it is even against the law in some of these countries)

#55 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:19 PM

He needs that atheistic education to make a living (buy and sell), at the same time he's forced to do so without a choice (in a lot of countries you can't refuse a formal education, it is even against the law in some of these countries)


It sounds like a bit of a stretch. Time will tell. I think there are certain end time prophecies that have been fulfilled and definitely some that have not yet.

#56 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:22 PM

It sounds like a bit of a stretch. Time will tell. I think there are certain end time prophecies that have been fulfilled and definitely some that have not yet.


Yep, agree.

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:02 AM



Admit it, its just simply a theory, one that was popular but based on evidence itself is unproven.



Technically theories require empirical evidence in order to support them... Hence evolution is not a theory, it is merely a hypothesis..

But everything else you said about evolutionist assumptions is correct, however I am sure no evolutionist will admit it.



I agree with the overall comments, but would submit that evolution could be considered a “model” based upon hypotheses. This is because evolutionists attempt to postulate a “System” of evolution. Of course, when I use the term “evolution” in this context, I am specifically talking about MACRO-evolution.

#58 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:24 AM

I agree with the overall comments, but would submit that evolution could be considered a “model” based upon hypotheses. This is because evolutionists attempt to postulate a “System” of evolution. Of course, when I use the term “evolution” in this context, I am specifically talking about MACRO-evolution.


A model would be a more adequate term, however it still isn't a theory. Since a theory is the culmination of many confirmed hypotheses without any that refute it.

Considering that macro-evolution (not variation) has no confirmed hypotheses then according to the scientific method it is still in the hypothesis stage, hence my statement.

#59 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:45 PM

A model would be a more adequate term, however it still isn't a theory. Since a theory is the culmination of many confirmed hypotheses without any that refute it.

Considering that macro-evolution (not variation) has no confirmed hypotheses then according to the scientific method it is still in the hypothesis stage, hence my statement.


True. I don't like the manner in which evolutionists have changed the definition of macro-evolution, they now include micro-evolution to the extent that there are difficulties breeding between the sub-species. I believe this speciation can occur rapidly, not sure of the evidence but there does seem to be signs of this speciation, and I do believe it occurs.

So instead of using the term macro-evolution I feel forced into using a whole phrase; "favourable increases to the length of the genome" remain unproven.

#60 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:42 AM

True. I don't like the manner in which evolutionists have changed the definition of macro-evolution, they now include micro-evolution to the extent that there are difficulties breeding between the sub-species. I believe this speciation can occur rapidly, not sure of the evidence but there does seem to be signs of this speciation, and I do believe it occurs.

So instead of using the term macro-evolution I feel forced into using a whole phrase; "favourable increases to the length of the genome" remain unproven.


That depends on what you call speciation. If speciation is reproductive isolation then yes, it can happen quite quickly.

To borrow from Jason777:

Actually, infertility within isolated populations is the result of chromosome fusion and not genetic mutations.

http://www.genomenew...land_mice.shtml

Any group of organisms that share the same genotype, despite chromosome number, random mutations, fertility, hybridization, or phenotype is the same species as the other - my modern definition of a species. ;)

This saves us from an unending equivocation and places the burden of proof for novel advantageous alleles on those who promote Neo - Darwinism.






Enjoy.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users