Big contradictions in the evolution theory

[Carico]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Breeding between species is not black & white. There are degrees of different organisms ability to fertilize and succesfully reproduce. For example, human and various other primate gametes (eggs and sperm) can successfully fertilize. Whether they produce a viable offspring is another story. Likewise, some species can hybridize and produce offspring (horses and donkeys), but often those offspring are sterile. Finally, you have ring species, where species A can reproduce with species B and species C can reproduce with B, but A and C cannot reproduce with each other.

So over the course of evolution, you'd have a scenario where there is widening diversity. At some point an ancestral population might not be able to reproduce with an existing population, but it doesn't happen all in one step. It's a gradient.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Actually, it's your confusion that is the issue. Once you understand evolution better, you won't be confused.

 

[MSBS]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

LOL...You aren't for real are you? An argument of "I don't get it, so it ain't true" is hardly an effective debate tactic. The "numerous contradictions" are in your misunderstanding of science, not in the theory. And frankly, the only embarrassment is what you are garnering for yourself.

 

[Ozymandius]

Didn't carico already make pretty much the same thread like 7 or 8 times a few months ago? And then proceed to ignore or lie about the explanations and evidence provided? Do we really need this again?

 

[Dal M.]

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

Australopithecus afarensis isn't around anymore.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape.

Very good, Carico, you learned something!

Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.

Recorded history goes back about 8,000 years, and not many people back then were studying apes, wouldn't you agree?

A drop in the proverbial bucket; even you must see that.

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

Do you even know what a "missing link" is?

Where did he get his genes?

From its parents, just like you and me

If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring?

Do you even know what "superior" means?

Scientists don't; there's no such term in evolutionary biology.

The genes are different. Whether or not they are "superior" depends on the environment. And "superior" can quickly become "inferior" (and vice versa) with a single environmental shift.

It's really only a matter of what's better suited for the environment at that particular place and time. Hardly a universal endorsement of "superior" by any reasonable definition.

Let me ask you this: Is a Polar bear "superior" to a Bengal Tiger?

Where did they come from?

Where did they go?
Where did you come from, Cotton-Eye Joe?

To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?

To suppose that, perhaps. But your supposition is based on numerous false assumptions which you will, as you have in the past, refuse to acknowledge.

Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes?

From her parents, just like you and me

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

They're not. Look around.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

That the theory of evolution contradicts just about everything you've said in this post is indeed embarassing. But you show no embarassment, and that's the blatant truth.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Didn't carico already make pretty much the same thread like 7 or 8 times a few months ago? And then proceed to ignore or lie about the explanations and evidence provided? Do we really need this again?

Carico makes this same thread every time. She's too proud to admit that the ToE is not what she thinks it is.

She simply cannot humble herself to admit a mistake.

 

[Mistermystery]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape.

well now, that's just too black and white. We also say that ring species exsist, therefor this claim is a bit untrue if you ask me.

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

There is no missing link, we understand pretty good how we share a common ancestor with apes.

Where did he get his genes?

Through evolution, not your strawman's version of it.

If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

It's sad that through all this time that you are here you are still using a horrible creationist version of evolution, instead of a proper scientific one. Keep asking questions though that are relevant and you might still learn one day.

 

[nvxplorer]

I now believe in God.

When seeing this topic on the front page, he revealed to me that the OP would include discussion of apes breeding outside their species, missing links and genetic superiority.

Lo and behold, God's word as revealed to me was correct!

I am now a solid believer in God's power. Thanks, Carico.

 

[Carico]

Breeding between species is not black & white. There are degrees of different organisms ability to fertilize and succesfully reproduce. For example, human and various other primate gametes (eggs and sperm) can successfully fertilize. Whether they produce a viable offspring is another story. Likewise, some species can hybridize and produce offspring (horses and donkeys), but often those offspring are sterile. Finally, you have ring species, where species A can reproduce with species B and species C can reproduce with B, but A and C cannot reproduce with each other.

So over the course of evolution, you'd have a scenario where there is widening diversity. At some point an ancestral population might not be able to reproduce with an existing population, but it doesn't happen all in one step. It's a gradient.



Actually, it's your confusion that is the issue. Once you understand evolution better, you won't be confused.

I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves! 2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it? Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal? I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this! So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable? I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the whole world would hear about it. And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.

 

[Osiris]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.

I think you have a misconception of what an ape is....

Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans.
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape (more information in the link)

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

Just the same as copies from paper copy machines are produced, after 100,000 copies the picture might most likely be dark/black.

Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from?

This is evidence for such mutations

H = Human, C = Chimpanzee, G = Gorilla, O = Orangutan

To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this?

You are thinking of evolution as frogs turning into plants or whales, which is wrong.

So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes?

Lucy adquired her genes from here ancestors.

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

Lucy's parents aren't around today, they have been all extinct.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Perhaps the truth holds no contradiction, and I will even agree with you on this.... Also, the only contraditions are in your misinterpretation of evolution, there are really no contradictions in evolution, so as of yet, it is closests to the truth.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves! 2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it? Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal? I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this! So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable? I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the whole world would hear about it. And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.

Becuase you insist that evolution happens when a human mates with a chimp.

Nobody even remotely competent in the theory would've taught you that, so where'd you learn it?

In any case, until you unlearn that, there's little hope of you learning anything new.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible.

You're 54 correct?
Unless you are currently studying biology, that information is atleast 35 years out of date.

 

[Mistermystery]

I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves! 2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species.

Damn, you're totally not paying attention. You haven't even got the basic understanding of evolution.

Look, I think you are a wonderfull being that has potential to learn, so what if we scrape off the stuff you heard and start learning the basics? Are you ready to start learning the basics? Are you willing to admit that your interpretation of evolution as it is of yet, could do some sort of tweaking?

If so, please tell and I will explain everything in detail for you.

 

[Deamiter]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.

Very true, yet there are many species of ape. In fact, humans are a species of ape. Also, there are numerous examples of speciation where a group of organisms splits off and becomes no longer ABLE to breed with the original population. Some examples off the top of my head are mosquitoes in the London underground and a species of fish transplanted from a lake to a river (speciation was observed after a period of five years).

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring?

There is no missing link. As demonstrated above speciation is rather common. Yes, the fish is still a fish, and the mosquito is still a mosquito. However, once the actually speciation happens and the two populations are no longer able (or willing) to interbreed, any beneficial genes that arise in one population will not be spread to any other population. Note that evidence of novel and (in a certain environment) "superior" genes have been demonstrated in such cases as the nylon-eating bacteria or again in London underground mosquitoes. I've noticed that you don't like to look up links, so I haven't provided any. I guarentee that google would instantly give you a number of links on all the examples I've provided, but feel free to PM me to request articles that show my assertions.

However, you've been around for quite a while, and I assume you're familiar with all of these examples as they have been referenced repeatedly on the C&E board.

You seem to be assuming that any speciation happened instantly, but remember, at the point of speciation, the two populations are almost identical. It is only over a long period of time, while beneficial genes for the two seperate environments diverge ever increasingly that organisms develop the extreme separation that you are demanding.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves! 2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it? Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal? I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this! So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable? I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the whole world would hear about it. And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.

Indeed, you appear to be getting contradictory information and are confused. But again, the issue here is your confusion, not the ToE.

First of all, hybridization is not generally (in animals at least) how we get new species. They develop over subsequent generations, changing a little bit each generation. It is only after accumulated changes that you might wind up with something that is signifigantly differenent than what you started out with. Again, this does not happen in one step.

As far as cross-fertilization goes, I'll have to dig up the paper on that. But remember, there is a big difference between hyrbridization and diversification. In the former case, you are mixing two species into a third species (or hybrid). The latter case, you are accumulating variation in two seperate population that leads to two different species. Evolution in the animal kingdom generally happens in the latter case, not the former.

 

[Heather S.]

1) Do you agree that an organism is always slightly different than it's parents? (<<<< - This requires a YES or NO answer).

2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species.

It's not that they can't, it's that they don't (usually). The problem here is that these concept's require some intelligence in order to understand, and you apparently lack this rather useful trait. But I'll try just for the heck of it.

You see, a species is a population of animals that typically (in a normal environment) does not interbreed with members of another species. Albeit, in unfavorable habitat conditions, many species of aquatic turtles and other species will interbreed with other species to create a hybrid (sometimes fertile, sometimes not). However they are still different species because in normal conditions, they do not interbreed.

And this doesn't even touch upon ring species or mixes between subspecies or other fuzzy differences between some populations of animals.

Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal?

First of all, STOP using humans as your example. We are not good examples of evolution right now because of the ways in which we combat natural selection. Second of all, hybridization is NOT evolution.

I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the while world would hear about it.

Humans can produce fertilized eggs with other animals (other apes).

And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.

Well, obviously this IS possible, so bring out your next strawman attack.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal?

Carico no one makes that claim. No one but you. Even you should relaise by now that you have the wrong end of the stick.

I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible.

That's right, and the theory of Evolution states that its not possible, so what does this tell you? It should tell you that you have misunderstood the theory of evolution.

So apparently, all scientists are confused about this!

No one except you is confused about this Carico and you are making yourself look very silly. Has it not occurred to you yet that even other Creationists don’t think the Theory of Evolution says what you AND ONLY YOU think it says.


Ghost

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

What a neat example of a category mistake.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Carico no one makes that claim. No one but you. Even you should relaise by now that you have the wrong end of the stick.

Actually, I raised it. Although, I might have been too hasty in suggesting they successfully cross-fertilized, since I'm not sure if this example would be considered fertilization or not.

But I found the paper in question:

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

The paper does demonstrate that the interactions between gametes of different species is not an all-or-nothing affair.