Evolution Between Species: Essential Questions

[Commander]

Then we disagree.

Then you should read the Babylonian religious text Enuma elish. Yeah, it was around way before Darwin!

 

[RickG]

Then you should read the Babylonian religious text Enuma elish. Yeah, it was around way before Darwin!

I don't give a rats back-side about Darwin or anything having to do with evolution. My comment was specific to the "creation science literature". It is deliberately misrepresented science. If one wishes to reject evolution it needs to be based on scripture, not sources that bears false witness.

 

[Commander]

I don't give a rats back-side about Darwin or anything having to do with evolution. My comment was specific to the "creation science literature". It is deliberately misrepresented science. If one wishes to reject evolution it needs to be based on scripture, not sources that bears false witness.

Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3 how is that for scripture!

 

[sfs]

So, if they are not sterile, then they can produce. Glad you realized that.

I'm going to stick to this single point, since at this point I can't tell if you're honestly confused, care too little to make sense, or are just trolling. The only person in this thread who thought the fruit fly species was sterile -- and therefore would go extinct -- was you. I've corrected you repeatedly on this point, and you ignored me. Now you say that I have finally realized they're not sterile? Are you deliberately trying to troll me? Are you just saying whatever comes into your head?

 

[Commander]

I'm going to stick to this single point, since at this point I can't tell if you're honestly confused, care too little to make sense, or are just trolling. The only person in this thread who thought the fruit fly species was sterile -- and therefore would go extinct -- was you. I've corrected you repeatedly on this point, and you ignored me. Now you say that I have finally realized they're not sterile? Are you deliberately trying to troll me? Are you just saying whatever comes into your head?

If you remember when I came into this conversation I was speaking to Papias, who had listed a website for conformation on evolution. That is where you interrupted into the conversation.
My reply to him was(post#29) " Yeah, I viewed the site you have listed. You are confusing micro with macro evolution. Example one from the site quotes "Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963." If the male offspring is sterile it cannot reproduce, in other words it is not able to procreate or have little Drosophila paulistorum babies. We also see this in mules. Prognosis- it goes extinct. Not a very good example of evolution there- keep trying you will come to the truth of "In the beginning God."
This is where you stepped in. I informed you that something sterile cannot reproduce(do you see the hybrid sterility of male offspring in bold letters)?

Anyway, did the fruit flies that you are speaking of change from having 4 pairs of chromosomes? That is a very simple question to answer.

 

[Papias]

...
My reply to him was(post#29) " Yeah, I viewed the site you have listed. You are confusing micro with macro evolution. Example one from the site quotes "Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963." If the male offspring is sterile it cannot reproduce, in other words it is not able to procreate or have little Drosophila paulistorum babies. We also see this in mules. Prognosis- it goes extinct. Not a very good example of evolution there- keep trying you will come to the truth of "In the beginning God."
This is where you stepped in. I informed you that something sterile cannot reproduce(do you see the hybrid sterility of male offspring in bold letters)?
....

Um, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the basic situation. Take a population of species A. Allow it to separate into two populations of species A. Allow generations to pass, and each population to evolve, so they are now two different species (say, A1 and A2). Now, mate an individual of A1 with an individual of A2, making a hybrid. You test the hybrid offspring, and find it to be sterile (just as the offspring of a horse and donkey is sterile).

That sterility only means that the hybrid will go extinct. The new species A1 and A2 are not sterile within their own species, and so there is no reason to expect either of the new species to go extinct. It's the same as in the case of horse/donkeys - the fact that the hybrids could go extinct in no way means that one should expect horses (who can still breed among other horses) or donkeys (who can still breed among other donkeys) to go extinct.

sfs gets the credit here - he explained this back in post #82.

Does it make sense now?

in Christ-

Papias

 

[Commander]

Um, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the basic situation. Take a population of species A. Allow it to separate into two populations of species A. Allow generations to pass, and each population to evolve, so they are now two different species (say, A1 and A2). Now, mate an individual of A1 with an individual of A2, making a hybrid. You test the hybrid offspring, and find it to be sterile (just as the offspring of a horse and donkey is sterile).

That sterility only means that the hybrid will go extinct. The new species A1 and A2 are not sterile within their own species, and so there is no reason to expect either of the new species to go extinct. It's the same as in the case of horse/donkeys - the fact that the hybrids could go extinct in no way means that one should expect horses (who can still breed among other horses) or donkeys (who can still breed among other donkeys) to go extinct.

sfs gets the credit here - he explained this back in post #82.

Does it make sense now?

in Christ-

Papias

They are still a fruit fly, or a horse, or a donkey, or a monkey, or a man. Nothing more, nothing less, brother.

 

[Papias]

Here are the supposed bones of Australopithecus afarensis(Lucy). Notice the lack of facial bones-including the brow ridge, the lack of hand bones, and there are no bones of the feet. Also remember the knee bone was found 200 feet deeper, than the other bones.

Did you not even look at your own picture? There is no knee bone there. Do you have a source to say that Lucy's "knee bone was found 200 feet deeper", or are you just making stuff up?

Maybe you are just confused. A different AA fossil did have a knee bone, but that wasn't from Lucy herself, and it was found a distance way, not "200 feet deeper".

maybe that's what you are thinking of? Even though it doesn't help your claim that Lucy is a hoax.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Commander]

They are still a fruit fly, or a horse, or a donkey, or a monkey, or a man. Nothing more, nothing less, brother.

@Papias-Since sfs cannot answer a simple question maybe you can answer it for him. Did the fruit flies change from having 4 pair of chromosomes? Do they have more, less, or do they still have 4 pair of chromosomes? A simple number like 4 will be sufficient, or a simple no they still have 4 pair of chromosomes. Truth, it will set you free, brother.

 

[Commander]

Did you not even look at your own picture? There is no knee bone there.

The right knee bone is there, did you look at the picture?

Do you see any bones of the feet?

How many left hand bones do you see?

How many right hand bones do you see?

Do you see any facial bones?

Do you see any brow ridge bones?

Now, who is making something out of nothing. I did not make what we see in the evolutionary model of Lucy, but someone did! Do you think it was an evolutionary scientist-to get you to believe in the fallacy of evolution? Truth, it will set you free.

 

[Papias]

The right knee bone is there, did you look at the picture?

I looked at the picture. There is a femur (leg bone) and no patella (knee bone). Look, if you can't even tell that there is no knee bone there, maybe that's a hint that you should be listening to what the experts say, since you don't know these bones?

Do you see any...

Irrelevant. If you read our discussion, you'd know that we were discussing your claim that the knee bone was found someplace else, when in fact there is no knee bone to discuss.

Then you should study more, if that's what you believe in.

Um, sfs is an expert in genetics, a practicing scientist in this very area of expertise. Your statement is like that of a 6 year old telling a brain surgeon to study more. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

They are still a fruit fly, or a horse, or a donkey, or a monkey, or a man. Nothing more, nothing less, brother.

Fail. First of all, that's just the common creationist deceptive tactic of grouping animals as needed to deny evolution. You could just as well say, about monkey to man evolution, that "they are still a mammal, nothing more, nothing less", or about amoeba to man evolution "they are still a eukaryote, nothing more, nothing less."

Secondly, didn't you notice that the whole thread was about one species evolving into another? Since that's what the thread is about, speciation is all that is needed. Do you or do you not accept speciation?

@Papias- Did the fruit flies change from having 4 pair of chromosomes? Do they have more, less, or do they still have 4 pair of chromosomes?

Irrelevant. The question was speciation. The same species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and very different species can have the same number of chromosomes. Here are some species that have 23 pairs of chromosomes just as we do.

• Red uakari (Cacajao calvus)
• Coppery titi monkey (Callicebus cupreus)
• Emperor and red-handed tamarin (Saguinus imperator and S. midas)
• Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)
• Lion tamarins (Leontopithecus species)
• Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)
• Ethiopian narrow-headed rat (Stenocephalemys albipes)
• Hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius)
• New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)
• Big-eared bat (Macrotus waterhousii)
• Bamboo bat (Tylonycteris robustula)
• Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
• Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi)
• Nilgai antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

Also - you have still not shown that you understand that the species in the speciation examples are not sterile within their own species. Do you understand that?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Commander]

I looked at the picture. There is a femur (leg bone) and no patella (knee bone). Look, if you can't even tell that there is no knee bone there, maybe that's a hint that you should be listening to what the experts say, since you don't know these bones?



Irrelevant. If you read our discussion, you'd know that we were discussing your claim that the knee bone was found someplace else, when in fact there is no knee bone to discuss.



Um, sfs is an expert in genetics, a practicing scientist in this very area of expertise. Your statement is like that of a 6 year old telling a brain surgeon to study more. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?



Fail. First of all, that's just the common creationist deceptive tactic of grouping animals as needed to deny evolution. You could just as well say, about monkey to man evolution, that "they are still a mammal, nothing more, nothing less", or about amoeba to man evolution "they are still a eukaryote, nothing more, nothing less."

Secondly, didn't you notice that the whole thread was about one species evolving into another? Since that's what the thread is about, speciation is all that is needed. Do you or do you not accept speciation?



Irrelevant. The question was speciation. The same species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and very different species can have the same number of chromosomes. Here are some species that have 23 pairs of chromosomes just as we do.

• Red uakari (Cacajao calvus)
• Coppery titi monkey (Callicebus cupreus)
• Emperor and red-handed tamarin (Saguinus imperator and S. midas)
• Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)
• Lion tamarins (Leontopithecus species)
• Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)
• Ethiopian narrow-headed rat (Stenocephalemys albipes)
• Hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius)
• New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)
• Big-eared bat (Macrotus waterhousii)
• Bamboo bat (Tylonycteris robustula)
• Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
• Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi)
• Nilgai antelope (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

Also - you have still not shown that you understand that the species in the speciation examples are not sterile within their own species. Do you understand that?

In Christ-

Papias

You should not be inhaling jenkem anymore, it has messed with your perception of reality. The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well with you, there is also some cognitive dissonance there, brother. Have a blessed day.

 

[RickG]

You should not be inhaling jenkem anymore, it has messed with your perception of reality. The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well with you, brother. Have a blessed day.

Wow! Just wow. That coming from someone who has zero background in any physical science. And especially telling a professional geneticist (sfs) he needs to learn more about genetics.

 

[Commander]

Wow! Just wow. That coming from someone who has zero background in any physical science. And especially telling a professional geneticist (sfs) he needs to learn more about genetics.

Rick-how do you know I don't have any back ground in any physical science? Did I tell you? BTY-I told sfs to study more about what he believes in(evolution, as in where it came from).

 

[RickG]

Rick-how do you know I don't have any back ground in any physical science? Did I tell you? BTY-I told sfs to study more about what he believes in(evolution, as in where it came from).

How do I know, because you already told me that you have a degree in criminal justice in a another thread, discussing Global Average Temperatures. You tripped all over the D-K telling me, a person with an academic background and some professional experience in an area climatology, that I didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[Commander]

How do I know, because you already told me that you have a degree in criminal justice in a another thread, discussing Global Average Temperatures. You tripped all over the D-K telling me, a person with an academic background and some professional experience in an area climatology, that I didn't know what I was talking about.

I also have a Bachelor of Science in Safety. I have a liberal education, that means I have been educated in many different fields, including science and psychology(minor). Like I said we will see this winter, when according to scientist, it is the coldest winter on record.

 

[RickG]

I also have a B.S. in Safety. I have a liberal education, that means I have been educated in many different fields, including science and psychology(minor). Like I said we will see this winter, when according to scientist, it is the coldest winter on record.

Globally, not even a ghost of a chance.

 

[Commander]

Globally, not even a ghost of a chance.

And we shall see, then the debate will continue.

 

[sfs]

Rick-how do you know I don't have any back ground in any physical science?

We read your posts.

 

[RickG]

We read your posts.

Which are quite revealing.