Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.
Pretty much. The biological species concept is population of individuals who freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Now, since speciation takes a number of generations, there is no hard and fast line when one species changes to another. That is, at generation 1 two separated populations are the same species. But at generation 1,000 they can't interbreed. But that separation is a gradual process. You can't say "at generation 500 the 2 populations are still one species but at generation 501 they are 2 different species."
But notice that with TOC you shouldn't have this difficulty. TOC as in Genesis 1 says kinds can always breed within the kind. There should be a sharp dividing line between kinds. That you can't find one is another piece of evidence that TOC is not how God creates.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.
Where in the Bible -- your source for TOC -- is this mentioned.
You said "Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce." But what I am talking about is the exact REVERSE of this. We started with a situation where they did reproduce. Then we ended up with 2 populations that could not reproduce with each other. By what you said, we ended up at "the species were not able to reproduce". We made new kinds.
I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.
Well, then, the lab experiments are not at all what you say. One original population, then split into several populations (each with 500 individuals). Population A is captured from the wild and is kept in the original environmental conditions. Population B is placed at colder temperatures. Population C has different food than A and B. Now, after 2,500 generations, population A is the original species. It can still breed with the wild population. However, populations B and C can't breed with A or the wild. They can't breed with each other. So, where we had one kind: A, we now have three kinds: A, B, and C.
Did you follow all that?
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
From history, we know that not all burial was dug. Some were in caves. And BTW, how does this prove that the fossil record is conclusive?
It doesn't. All it does is remove an argument against it. Some people have claimed that some fhuman ossils are older than they are because they were buried and thus were found in sediments lower (older) than when they actually lived and died. Burial made the fossils look older.
If I wasn't thinking, I would blindly follow the teaching without ever offering questions or hypothesis.
But why aren't you reading in the subject? Both what creationists are saying what TOC is and what biologists say evolution is? It's apparent that you are doing some reading. You tell us that TOC comes from Genesis, but the idea that speciation is part of TOC comes from articles at ICR and AiG written since 1995 or so. It's a very recent addition/change to TOC. And not a change based on the Bible!
What basic common sense would you have me apply, that burial can only occur by digging a hole.
No, that burial does occur by digging a hole. And it is this hole that is going to have the fossil appear to be in sediments older than when the individual lived and died.
Razzel, remember the claims. ALWAYS remember the claims. Testing and arguments are done in relation to claims. If you don't remember the claims, you end up posting the irrelevancy of burial in caves where the body is just set on top of the existing rock.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Okay, I am functioning on about 3 hours sleep, my eyes are getting blurry and I have some other issues on the forum I need to address before I get off for the night. I would appreciate things slowing a bit so I can keep up but this thread has a mind of it's own. Hope I don't miss something important.
Hey, you don't have to come to this board every day. And you don't have to answer every new post in one day. Just let us know when you are signing off for the day and that it may be a day or two before you get back. Basically, the thread will slow down if you do. Or if it keeps going it will be other people's conversations that you can ignore.
Do you know how to navigate using the "threaded mode". That way you only need to look at responses to your own post and can ignore side conversations.
How do new species occur? The mixing of genes?
Not usually no. I have met other creationists who think that cross-breeding is essential to evolution. But in the very first chapter of Origin of Species Darwin writes a segment on why this cannot be the case. Most new species occur through the prevention of breeding within the species, as we have shown you. Not through crossing different species.
If I breed two creatures that have similar but not identical genes, which set of genes does the offspring take? Remember, the answer cannot be both or you just answered your own question.
Actually the answer can be both. There is an exception to what I just said above, about cross-breeding between two different species not being the usual way to get new species. It is rare (for all I know, non-existent) in animals, but it is found fairly often in plants.
It is called "hybridization + polyploidy". Now, as you know, crossing two types of plants to get a hybrid is relatively common. Lots of seeds are hybrids. But these hybrids don't make new species. You can only use them in your garden for one year's planting. If you save the seed and try to reuse it, it will either not germinate at all, produce weak seedlings, or in any case give you a weird mixture of characters some of them not seen in the parent hybrid at all.
Why this happens is explained by Mendelian genetics.
So hybridization alone will not give you a new species.
But when you add "polyploidy" to hybridization, you can get a new species.
One reason hybridization alone will not give a new species is that the male parent's chromosomes and the female parent's chromosomes do not match up well and make reproduction difficult.
Polyploidy is a mutation that gives the new species a double set of the male parent's chromosomes, and a double set of the female parent's chromosomes. In short, the new species has a new chromosome number which is equal to the chromosome number of the two parents added together.
Now, because the new species has a double set of both the male and female parent's chromosomes, every chromosome has a familiar mate to pair up with, and cell division for reproduction occurs normally with none of the problems seen in hybrids without polyploidy.
Where do the hundreds come from? How do we get variations, if this is inconsistant with the TOC?
How do we get variations even with TOC? How does TOC explain variation?
A common ancestor, that was a single celled organism that was not a single celled organism at all but rather a population of single celled organisms that came from an unknown source to populate the earth.
Not from an unknown source. From abiogenesis: the creation of life from what is not living. You know, like in the book of Genesis.
Where does Genesis say God created only two snails or only one fig tree?
Of course, scientists are also working out how God caused abiogenesis from natural causes as lucaspa described. But those causes also suggest that the first living form emerged as a population, not as one or two individuals.
Single cells reproduce asexually, so there is no mating. But evolution still happens because there are still copying error in the DNA to make variation between single-celled organisms.
Right that explains all the reproductive processes we know today.
No, it explains why there were no mating problems as with the mule. Changing the question after you have been given the answer to the one you asked is hardly fair. You did not ask about "all the reproductive processes we know today."
Nope sorry, I was told on this thread that all the unanswered questions were answered.
All your unanswered questions have been answered, at least the ones you've asked, and when you ask more, I expect there will be answers for them too. The unanswered questions lucaspa was referring to are not the same questions.
So, while we don't know all the various ways that populations can become isolated, we do know that, when they are isolated facing new environments, new species will evolve.
But not that they did. That is why it is still a theory. Because we assume that it did.
What are you saying? That we can be sure, as lucaspa said, that new species will evolve, but that we cannot be sure that today's species did evolve?
Why not? There are a lot of things about todays species (those ERVs and ALUs among others, and ring species, and those stubbornly infertile mules) that cannot be explained in any other way.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Sorry, but TOE is based on the idea of common ancestors. Not a single organism. If life arose from non-life via protocells, as I think is likely, there were billions of organisms. If life arose by the RNA world, there were billions of RNA molecules. At least! Probably trillions or even higher.
As you think likely, I thought we had overwhelming evidence!!!!
Overwhelming evidence of evolution. Here lucaspa is talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
She agrees that speciation occurs, but still insists evolution is "only a possibility for which there is no overwhelming evidence."
That's because she is forgetting the title of Darwin's book. Origin of the SPECIES. Not "every living thing comes from a single cell", but the origin of species.
So, what has happened is Razzel has incorporated speciation into TOC. She isn't really discussing evolution anymore, because she is admitting it happened. She is arguing theism vs atheism. Deep down to her evolution = atheism. So evolution is always going to be a "possibility".
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Why do you all treat people you believe to be C like they we uneducated idiots? I know fully well what you are saying and have understood it for many many posts now.
Well you haven't said until now that you have understood us. You have just kept on asking the same questions that we thought we had answered clearly. If you do not want to look like an idiot, tell us what you have understood and rephrase the question so that we know what we haven't covered. Don't act like you are ignoring the answers you have been given.
What you are not understanding is that I am not talking about interbreeding, but rather the ability to breed. I should be talking down to you people but instead, I bear your insults, no matter how subtle and continure on as best I can. Please do try to apply some logic and reason to your own post from now on, (statement to whomever on this thread needs to wear the shoe).
So define your terms.
What, in your opinion, is inter-breeding?
What is breeding?
Isn't lucaspa describing two species which are successfully breeding? (not inter-breeding)?
Where is the problem you see that we are too stupid to see.
Help us out here Razzelflaben. We don't know what problem you are talking about. Using lucaspa's salmon example, show us what the problem is.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
As I understand it, the theory used to say, that everything was descended from one organism,
This is what the theory originally said: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
now, we are saying that there were several organisms that each sperately started evolving. This is very similar to the Gen account of creation. God created a bunch of organisms. The difference is in how far back we go.
We are not similar to Genesis. We are still saying there was a common ancestor population or species, but we are saying that this common ancestor species had many, many, individuals.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
So now we are basing the whole theory on appearance? My in laws say that our eldest son is the spitting image of my father in laws brothers, son. I guess that would mean that they are closer relatives than my other children? NO, there is more to it than appearance.
Not just appearance. Similar appearance is a guide. But we also have to look at what the cause of the similar appearance is.
btw, how does TOC explain the fact that children have a similar appearance to their parents?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.
I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.
That's a weird idea even for TOC. Most versions of TOC would say the mule is possible because the horse and donkey are one kind, not two.
If horse is one kind and donkey is a different kind, does that mean they have no common ancestor? How could they produce any offspring at all then? (according to TOC?)
This is not evolution. It's not even the limited evolution some versions of TOC admit.
Evolution is not usually about two kinds making one new species. It is about one kind making two (or more) new species.
You have it all backwards about.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
The problem is when breeding stops all together and only the original populations are breedable.
That's not a problem. The original populations are the ones that are evolving.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Linear Mode
