YECs perfect world:

[Melethiel]

Real science is the study of how nature works. Actually, none of it has anything to do with Evolution. When you get to the chapter on Evolution in your college intro-to-Biology text, notice it goes into pleading and story telling -- no longer is the Biology book interested in educating readers about how nature works.

Okay. Looking at my intro-to-biology text. There are two units on evolution, titled Mechanisms of Evolution and the Evolutionary History of Biological Diversity. These units cover descent with modification, population genetics, phylogeny and systematics, biodiversity, and the like. Hardly pleading and storytelling when there are examples of current research going on in the field of evolutionary biology. We had analogous lab work to be done. There is an additional unit dedicated to Ecology, which is intimately tied to Evolution.

May I ask what textbook you are looking at?

 

[steen]

When was evolution (not natural selection,

Not knowing that Natural Selection is part of evolution is a demonstration of a shocking lack of knowledge of the subject you are trying to argue against.

but actual, cross species evolution) ever observed?

Ah, you want to know if new species have ever been seen forming? Sure they have, many times. Didn't you know? And better yet, in some cases we have all the intermediate steps as well. Allow me to introduce you to ring species :
http://www.answers.com/topic/ring-species
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

And then, of course, there are other examples of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That you don't know about it is only showing that you are trying to make claims about a subject you know nothing about. I would suggest that you start arguing from a position of knowledge rather than moral fervor.

I also suggest you cease making claims from a position of believing that Scientists are just making all this up to prove creationism wrong. Most scientists couldn't care less, they see creationism as a bunch of crazy cultists running around in fortresses with guns and barbwire fences.

How did I miss this earth-shattering news?

Why is it earth shattering? This has been known for many years. You just seem to never have bothered checking into it. That is not the fault of Evolution.

 

[IisJustMe]

Not knowing that Natural Selection is part of evolution is a demonstration of a shocking lack of knowledge of the subject you are trying to argue against.

I know natural selection occurs. Calling it "evolution" is part of the "big lie" that perpetuates a scientific myth that is more religion than science.

Ah, you want to know if new species have ever been seen forming? Sure they have, many times. Didn't you know?

No, I didn't, and your web sites have done nothing to prove it to me. The first one talks about gulls with different names, but a gull is a gull is a gull. Scientists can call them Herring Gulls, Vega Herring Gulls, Lesser Black-backed Gulls, but they are still gulls of the same kind. When one of them hatches a swan or an eagle, then you'll have something. Until then, its not evolution. Your web site even says as much, saying the fact they can interbreed indicates science may have erred in classifying these different types of gulls as separate species, saying that the speciation isn't as clear cut as was assumed.

I can't believe the second one actually has the guts to speak of "Darwin's finches" without cracking a smile or posting a smilie saying "just kidding!" The fallacy of the finches "evolving beaks" has been known and discussed for over 80 years. It isn't evolution, its adaption to climatalogical conditions. In wet years, the beaks soften. In dry years, they harden. The purpose is to crack the seeds no matter what the rain, or lack of rain, has done to the husks of the seeds. Such perfect planning doesn't speak of evolution, it speaks of God's hand caring for His creation.

All of your web sites refer to "speciation" as a mechanism of evolution. Speciation is nothing more than the population of a single species being separated into two separate non-communal groups, whether by natural disaster (usually) or some other circumstance that puts up a geographic barrier between them. Because of possible different climatalogical conditions, random and variable gene pools (perhaps one population has more recessive genes among the breeders than the other population) certain changes are likely to occur in coloring, skeletal structure, even individual personalities.

The Flood and its aftermath certainly wrought speciation upon the human population of the earth. I won't go into post-Flood theory too deeply, but one thought is that for perhaps hundreds of years, the Flood continued to affect geography and perhaps even climate. Certainly the Flood, if one looks at the Biblical description with a scientific eye, would have wreaked havoc on the world.

The "founts of the deep" bursting forth could account for huge changes in the geology and the geography of the planet, perhaps even throwing it off its previous axis. Lakes created by the Flood may have broken through their earthen dams, creating canyons in a matter of hours or days as they emptied onto the landscape. Such sudden changes could have cut off Australia from the mainland of Asia, for example. Suffice it to say that populations previously able to intermingle with other humans suddenly were cut off from them. But we're all still human. The gulls are all still gulls.

The fact is, I've put a lot of study into the issue (as I've said before, I have a Masters in engineering, and before I became a believer in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord, I "knew" evolution was as true as you "do") to know what I'm talking about.

The facts are that both creationism and evolution are just theories, unproven and perhaps unprovable. You can claim you have "proof" all you want, but you won't even convince a lot of secular scientists you are correct.

That you don't know about it is only showing that you are trying to make claims about a subject you know nothing about.

There's a huge difference in not knowing about something (which is not the case here) and not calling it "evolution" which is in fact what I am doing, because as defined by the proponents of the theory, this isn't, though they apparently insist in violating their own precepts and refer to it as such anyway.

I would suggest that you start arguing from a position of knowledge rather than moral fervor.

I would suggest the same to you, since apaprently you will join the theory supporters in calling anything "evolution" that suggests "change" whether it actually is, or not.

I also suggest you cease making claims from a position of believing that Scientists are just making all this up to prove creationism wrong.

What else can I or other creationists assume, when science lays out the definitions of their own theory, and then proceeds to trample them in the dust by labeling observations like these "evolution" when they clearly do not fall under the theory's own definitions?

Fact: No cross species evolution -- in other words, a definitive change from one kind of plant or animal to another -- has ever been observed, in any venue, be it the fossil record, empirical observation, genetic mapping, or any other research mechanism.

Most scientists couldn't care less, they see creationism as a bunch of crazy cultists running around in fortresses with guns and barbwire fences.

Interesting ideogram. Is that how you see us? It explains a lot, if that's the case.

 

[shernren]

Fact: No cross species evolution -- in other words, a definitive change from one kind of plant or animal to another -- has ever been observed, in any venue, be it the fossil record, empirical observation, genetic mapping, or any other research mechanism.

What do you make of this statement?

Evolution fully expects that all new species will be members of the same clade their ancestors were members of.

Is it true, or false? And why? The reason I ask is because the terms you associate with evolution - "cross species", "from one kind to another" - seem to denote a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, where evolution serves to make dogs into cats for instance. If you know what evolution really is you will know why I use that example.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In wet years, the beaks soften. In dry years, they harden

can you point me to a reference for this assertion please? it is the first time i've heard this claim. thanks.

 

[Willtor]

No, I didn't, and your web sites have done nothing to prove it to me. The first one talks about gulls with different names, but a gull is a gull is a gull. Scientists can call them Herring Gulls, Vega Herring Gulls, Lesser Black-backed Gulls, but they are still gulls of the same kind. When one of them hatches a swan or an eagle, then you'll have something. Until then, its not evolution. Your web site even says as much, saying the fact they can interbreed indicates science may have erred in classifying these different types of gulls as separate species, saying that the speciation isn't as clear cut as was assumed.

I remember that the creationist literature says that this is what evolution requires, but evolution, as understood by the scientists who work in that field, actually prohibits a gull hatching a swan or an eagle. Such an occurrence would prove evolution as creationists understand it and disprove evolution as evolutionists understand it. So you can see the pickle you put us in by requiring it.

As for calling a gull a gull, that's certainly what people have called these things. But there may be different species of gulls. That is, humans may call two different species by the same name, but it doesn't make them the same species. Species is a scientifically defined word. The names we apply to the animals we see are not at all rigorous.

You, also, use the word, "kind." Unfortunately, nobody has ever defined this in a scientific way, AFAIK. Maybe you've done it a dozen times and I simply haven't seen. If that's so, I apologize. But either way, would you be willing to do it once more? I don't know what a "kind" is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Fact: No cross species evolution -- in other words, a definitive change from one kind of plant or animal to another -- has ever been observed, in any venue, but it fossil record, empirical observation, genetic mapping, or any other research mechanism.

your are right. parents and children are the same species. but evolution is over time, you compare 100's of generations not a few. 10K generations of H.sapiens is about 200K years. it is at that level that evolution makes comparisons that result in saying that there is a species difference somewhere alone that line of people, from the ancestor 200K years ago and us. (although plants with polypoidy pose an exception)

 

[Mallon]

Fact: No cross species evolution -- in other words, a definitive change from one kind of plant or animal to another -- has ever been observed

But according to your own definitions, it has...

What is a kind?

According to the Bible, it is essentially any taxon that reproduces after itself (e.g., Gen 1: 11, 12, 24, etc.).

Have we ever seen instances where one parent "kind" has given rise to a new daugther "kind" that cannot reproduce with its parent?

Yes.

For example, the evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana has given rise to O. gigas, with which it cannot reproduce given their different chromosome numbers.

See also Dobzhansky's work in which he managed to generate a new species from a stock of Drosophila paulistorum...

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science 177:664-669.

(Please don't come back with "evening primrose and fruit flies are kinds in their own right" unless you can offer an alternative definition of what a kind is.)

 

[IisJustMe]

The sites provided direct examples of the formation of new species, which was what you asked about. You now denying solid, DIRECT evidence to your question/claim shows you to be starkly dishonest..

I can't believe how much space you used up to say the same thing over and over and over ad infinitum. Your web sites don't show new species. One of your web sites, as I pointed out, went to great pains to point out that the gulls you think represent evolution are probably not as different as biologists have thought in the past.

Your own example says the speciation you wanted me to admit was evolution doesn't even say its evolution.

You go into great lengthy rants about "kind" versus "species" as though your evidence introduces new species, when nothing of the sort is true.

You claim I have been proven wrong in simply restating what your own web site example said.

You claim natural selection is evolution, when in reality, the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before. It is the entire basis of argument between evolutionists and creationists. Natural selection is part of God's plan within the species. [Evolution] does not represent a change of species, it only represents an improved species -- providing the mutation is useful. If it isn't, the animal dies and then it isn't even "natural selection" as defined by Darwin, because he considered natural selection to be only that which improved a species.

You even go so far as to attempt to restate the facts as outlined on your first web site so it fits with what you believe, but your web site never uses the term "hybridization" and no matter how you try to reword what that web site says, it refutes, not confirms, what you believe.

You ask for proof of my statement about the variation of Darwin's finches' beaks. Here it is, on an evolution web site:

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html

Quoting from the first section of the page:

"Because of the small, isolated environment of the Galápagos, the finches have become the topic of extensive study into natural selection. The studies that have been conducted on the finches show strong selection for larger beaks during droughts."

You insist that speciation is evolution. It isn't (for something along the lines of the 10th time, I refer you to your own web site stating that scientists should not have classified these gulls as different species because the evidence is they are simply showing different dominant genetic traits within the same species) implying that your hollering over and over again that natural selection is evolution is no such thing.

You claim to know more about evolution vs. creation than I do. Yet you don't even know that evolution requires actual change from on species to another, and that calling one gull that is slightly different from another gull a separate species is nothing more than manipulation of public opinion by a political faction of the evolutionist movement desperate to provide proof for a theory that still, to this day -- despite your wishful thinking -- has never been proved.

 

[steen]

I can't believe how much space you used up to say the same thing over and over and over ad infinitum. Your web sites don't show new species.

That's a peculiar claim. The sites directly shows speciation, directly demonstrates new species.

One of your web sites, as I pointed out, went to great pains to point out that the gulls you think represent evolution are probably not as different as biologists have thought in the past.

No, it merely pointed out hybridization, which can occur between related species.

You accuse me of "bearing false witness" when you own example says the speciation you wanted me to admit was evolution doesn't even say its evolution.

Evolution is the change in alleles over generations, so that very much is Evolution. Evolution goes way beyond speciation.

You go into great lengthy rants about "kind" versus "species"

No, I merely asked you what a "kind" is. Could you again please clarify this? How does a Biblical "kind" relation in the cladistic system compared to a species? Are they the same?

as though your evidence introduces new species, when nothing of the sort is true.

Hmm, the sites provided scientific documentation of new species having been observed and documented. So I am not sure what your accusation is all about?

You claim I have been proven wrong in simply restating what your own web site example said.

No. You asked for an example of speciation. IN fact, what you said was: "When was evolution (not natural selection, but actual, cross species evolution) ever observed? How did I miss this earth-shattering news?"

I merely provided documented examples of exactly such speciation. That's all there is to it.

Why don't you call up the sponsor of the web site and complain to them that the web site doesn't say what you want it to say?

Because they actually are saying what I pointed out. They provide examples of the formation of new species.

You claim natural selection is evolution,

Correct, it is part of if.

when in reality, the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before.

Actually, no it isn't. The premise of Evolution is that alleles in a population changes between generations.

It is the entire basis of argument between evolutionists and creationists.

Well, then there is no argument. Because the creationist idea of what evolution is, does then appear to be incorrect and miscomprehended.

Natural selection is part of God's plan within the species.

I also happens to be one of the two major components of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Calling it "evolution" is dishonest,

Not at all, as it has always been one of the two big, basic components of the process of Evolution (the other being mutations)

because it does not represent a change of species,

It doesn't have to. On the other hand, Natural Selection certainly can lead to speciation, esp. in combination with mutations, as my links clearly showed.

it only represents an improved species -- providing the mutation is useful.

And thus a specific mutation can spread throughout a population. yes, this is standard Evolution.

If it isn't, the animal dies and then it isn't even "natural selection" as defined by Darwin, because he considered natural selection to be only that which improved a species.

Evolution happens in populations, not individuals. So could you please clarify your claim here?

You even go so far as to attempt to restate the facts as outlined on your first web site so it fits with what you believe, but your web site never uses the term "hybridization" and no matter how you try to reword what that web site says, it refutes, not confirms, what you believe.

Hybridization is a common occurrence when species are closely related. I am not quite sure what your problem with this is?

You ask for proof of my statement about the variation of Darwin's finches' beaks. Here it is, on an evolution web site:

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html

Quoting from the first section of the page:

"Because of the small, isolated environment of the Galápagos, the finches have become the topic of extensive study into natural selection. The studies that have been conducted on the finches show strong selection for larger beaks during droughts."

Yes? that certainly doesn't say that the species arose from this? The point relating to Darwin's Finches is that all the different species of finches on the different island are all related to one common ancestor species. So your point really doesn't address speciation at all.

You claim I have been dishonest, that I have lied, and you use the subtitle "Lie Detector" on your character board, but in reality, it is you who have lied. You insist that speciation is evolution. It isn't

Actually it is. I really can't help it if you never learned what Evolution is to begin with. The best I can suggest is that you type in quotes in Google "what is Evolution?" I would think that just about any site there, which has some kind of credibility to it would show you the same. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles (or the proportion of alleles) in a population between generation. That is what Evolution is. Even if there never had been any new species, it would still be Evolution as long as the genetic makeup of a population changes between generations.

I really don't understand your opposition against this? This is basic biology, it should be the very first thing anybody learns in any lecture on Evolution.

(for something along the lines of the 10th time, I refer you to your own web site stating that scientists should not have classified these gulls as different species because the evidence is they are simply showing different dominant genetic traits within the same species -- implying that your hollering over and over again that natural selection is evolution is no such thing.

Actually, what the first link stated was this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/ring-species
...However, the Lesser Black-backed gull and Herring gull are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a ring species. A recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here....

The second and third link about ring species talked about the Ensatina salamanders and Greenish Warbler of the Himalayas, and thus doesn't seem to say anything about the different Gull species.

So I am not quite clear where your argument comes from. Could you clarify a bit, please?

You claim to know more about evolution vs. creation than I do. Yet you don't even know that evolution requires actual change from on species to another,

Well, that's because it doesn't. Again, Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations.

and that calling one gull that is slightly different from another gull a separate species is nothing more than manipulation of public opinion by a political faction of the evolutionist movement

But then, that is also not the claim made. The two species truly are two different species, because that is what the research and the biological evidence shows us. The European Herring Gull truly is different than the European Lesser Black-Backed Gull. They really are two different species. For kicks, check out any European bird guide. I will guarantee that they are listed as different species.

desperate to provide proof for a theory that still, to this day -- despite your wishful thinking -- has never been proved.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution was developed through the application of the Scientific Method, and thus carried sufficient evidence to warrant making it a Scientific Theory. I see no wishful thinking or lack of evidence in any of that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yet you don't even know that evolution requires actual change from on species to another

ya'll misunderstand one of the major ideas behind evolutionary theory.

with animals (plants are a bit different) one individual of a species does not give birth (or lay an egg or whatever) to another different species. It is a process over time, where if the original creature where still alive it would not be able to breed with it's great-grand----children because so many changes had accumulated (or a few large) in the genome.

when ya'll look at things like ring species in gulls, ya'll are using the data to reconstruct a clade that relates the two (or more) species via a recent common ancestor. But all of this is long after the RCA is dead. There was no point where the proposed RCA gave birth to one child of one species and another child of the second species. this is a misunderstanding of the theory.

it is not if speciation occurs. it has been observed. but rather how that information relates to how we build cladograms and hypothesis the relationships between the leaf species (metaphor of the tree of life) which exist when all the twigs and branches are gone.

btw:
http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html

has nothing about finch beaks getting softer or harder over time.
i am unable to find any such reference via google.


after posting edit.
modified 2nd personal plural pronoun to reflect actual usage and intention.

 

[Poke]

Rmwilliamsll, you should address or quote the person you are replying to. And, try not to call others ignorant. That's so trite of Evolutonists.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You're accusing someone of being ignorant. That means you must be an Evolutionist (accusing others of being ignorant is almost like the signature of Evolutionists).

Don't worry, by this forum's double standards, such personal attacks on Creationists are acceptable. I get my posts censored even for accusing biology textbooks of pleading. Maybe you Evolutionists just whine all the time that someone is being a meanie (I've seen some examples of that). I'd like to know the reason for the disparate treatment.

BTW, you should address or quote the person you are replying to.

one of the unfortunate things about modern English is the loss of the you plural except in the American South. i will edit my posting to reflect this.

 

[laptoppop]

one of the unfortunate things about modern English is the loss of the you plural except in the American South.

That is SO true! Its amazing how many Scriptures take on a different light when you realize that the "you" in them is actually plural. Time after time, the Lord through Paul was talking about and to the entire community not just one individualistic believer.
-lee-

 

[gluadys]

This whole post is a perfect illustration of how creationists accept evolution, but continue to deny it by changing the definition of evolution to exclude the part they accept.

The basics of evolution are variation, natural selection and speciation. But according to today's creationists, none of these, or even all taken together, are not evolution.

I know natural selection occurs. Calling it "evolution" is part of the "big lie" that perpetuates a scientific myth that is more religion than science.

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. Discovering natural selection is what Darwin is famous for. Whenever natural selection occurs, the result is evolution. You cannot have natural selection and not have evolution along with it.

When one of them [gulls] hatches a swan or an eagle, then you'll have something. Until then, its not evolution.

Until then it is evolution. But when a gull hatches a swan or an eagle, that is the opposite of evolution. Evolution does not provide for a parent producing a child of a different species. (Except in the rare case of plant hybrids with polyploidy)

...saying that the speciation isn't as clear cut as was assumed.

In fact, speciation in closely-related species is not clear-cut and evolution explains why.

In wet years, the beaks soften. In dry years, they harden. The purpose is to crack the seeds no matter what the rain, or lack of rain, has done to the husks of the seeds.

No, the beaks don't soften. It is the seeds that soften. In dry years the seeds are hard to prevent dessication. When all the seeds are hard only finches with larger beaks can crack the seeds. When seeds are softer, finches with smaller beaks can eat them easily, and they thrive better than large-beaked finches because they don't need as much food to survive. It's all explained very well in The Beak of the Finch.

Such perfect planning doesn't speak of evolution, it speaks of God's hand caring for His creation.

Such perfect planning speaks of God's hand caring for His creation by giving it the capacity to evolve in response to changing circumstances.

All of your web sites refer to "speciation" as a mechanism of evolution. Speciation is nothing more than the population of a single species being separated into two separate non-communal groups, whether by natural disaster (usually) or some other circumstance that puts up a geographic barrier between them. Because of possible different climatalogical conditions, random and variable gene pools (perhaps one population has more recessive genes among the breeders than the other population) certain changes are likely to occur in coloring, skeletal structure, even individual personalities.

And that is evolution. When one of the consequences is that the two populations will or can no longer mate or produce viable and fertile offspring, that is speciation.

The Flood and its aftermath certainly wrought speciation upon the human population of the earth.

So why is there only one human population today? Which of the human populations descended from Noah no longer exist?

But we're all still human. The gulls are all still gulls.

But humans are all one species. Gulls are not.

This isn't evolution, and calling it by that name is dishonest.

On the contrary, the dishonesty is denying that this is evolution. This is evolution as scientists have defined it for over 100 years. It is creationists who call it by different names to avoid admitting that they accept evolution.

What else can I or other creationists assume, when science lays out the definitions of their own theory, and then proceeds to trample them in the dust by labeling observations like these "evolution" when they clearly do not fall under the theory's own definitions?

Everything you have claimed is not evolution does fall under the theory's own definitions. Variation, natural selection, adaptation, speciation: these are all features of evolution.

Fact: No cross species evolution -- in other words, a definitive change from one kind of plant or animal to another -- has ever been observed, in any venue,

Speciation has been observed. If that does not qualify as a change from one kind to another, what does? Or rather what change from one kind to another would be possible given evolution? Evolution does not envision any change that would take the daughter species outside the clade of its parent. If you understand that sentence you will understand why the types of "evolution" creationists clamour for cannot be, not in spite of evolution, but because of it.

 

[gluadys]

You claim natural selection is evolution, when in reality, the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before.

No, the premise of evolution is that today's' species are descendants of earlier species. Nothing in the ToE requires new species to be anything other than modifications of earlier species. In fact, that is required. Darwin consistently referred to "descent with modification" as the consequence of variation and natural selection.

If by "new species" you mean something that is more than a modification of a previous species, you are chasing a will-o'the-wisp.

This is the set of blinkers creationists wear to avoid seeing evolution. The changes, including speciation, which science recognizes as evolution are passed off as being too small--mere variations--not really evolution. And much greater changes are demanded--the sort that would be impossible under evolution. So one way or the other there is, in creationist parlance, no evolution. It is all a semantic game that has nothing to do with the science of evolution.

It is the entire basis of argument between evolutionists and creationists. Natural selection is part of God's plan within the species. Calling it "evolution" is dishonest, because it does not represent a change of species, it only represents an improved species -- providing the mutation is useful.

A species is changed when the distribution of alleles is changed. A change in the distribution of alleles is the definition of evolution. Sometimes, the accumulation of changes amounts to the descendant being a different species than the ancestor. That is also evolution. Sometimes, a species is split into separated populations, and the accumulation of different sets of alleles leads to permanently separated species. That is speciation and it too is evolution.

Speciation is the end point of the process of evolution. Nothing happens after speciation except a repetition of the same process.

If it isn't, the animal dies and then it isn't even "natural selection" as defined by Darwin, because he considered natural selection to be only that which improved a species.

Another canard. He considered natural selection to be the means by which a species adapted more fittingly to its environment. That doesn't make it "improved" in comparison to a species adapting to a different environment. Nor does it make it "improved" if the environmental conditions change. Is it the large beaked or the small beaked finch which is more improved? Depends on the weather doesn't it?

You ask for proof of my statement about the variation of Darwin's finches' beaks. Here it is, on an evolution web site:

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon7finches.html

Quoting from the first section of the page:

[/FONT][/COLOR]"Because of the small, isolated environment of the Galápagos, the finches have become the topic of extensive study into natural selection. The studies that have been conducted on the finches show strong selection for larger beaks during droughts."

As you see Wells speaks of larger beaks not harder or softer beaks. Are you willing to admit your error now?

You insist that speciation is evolution.

Beause it is. In fact it is the end product of the process of evolution. The final act after all the variation and selection and adaptation. Speciation is macro-evolution for it is as macro as evolution ever gets.

You claim to know more about evolution vs. creation than I do. Yet you don't even know that evolution requires actual change from on species to another, and that calling one gull that is slightly different from another gull a separate species is nothing more than manipulation of public opinion by a political faction of the evolutionist movement desperate to provide proof for a theory that still, to this day -- despite your wishful thinking -- has never been proved.

What about all the other examples?

 

[Poke]

This is the set of blinkers creationists wear to avoid seeing evolution.

Not accepting strawmen as Evolution is not a "set of blinkers". It's being smart enough to recognize a con.

Speciation is macro-evolution for it is as macro as evolution ever gets.

Speciation has nothing to do with Evolution.

Speciation may be defined as "macro-evolution", but an arbitrary definition doesn't effect reality. If you define the moon as green, that doesn't make the moon green.

Speciation means an animal (and its offspring) can't reproduce with its parent's population. It doesn't mean that animal is any less then same kind of animal.

Any expert on Evolution would know this, so why do they deny this? As IisJustMe said, "the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before." The key word is different.

 

[IisJustMe]

No, the premise of evolution is that today's' species are descendants of earlier species.

That's the same thing! Why restate it? That makes no sense. Evolution contends that enough natural selection makes a new species. You're absolutely right, it is a requirement. But at some point, taking that to Darwin's own ends, all the birds share one common ancestor, all the bipeds share one common ancestor, all the reptiles share one common ancestor. Why do you run from stating that obvious fact? Could it be because there is absolutely no evidence supporting the contention? I suspect so.

If by "new species" you mean something that is more than a modification of a previous species, you are chasing a will-o'the-wisp.

I'm not sure you realize that statement surrenders the evolutionary theory to the creationists and says, "You're right, we're wrong, let's all go home now." And I'm not sure you realize steen and others will absolutely reject that statement as being accurate from their viewpoint.

This is the set of blinkers creationists wear to avoid seeing evolution.

That's not a set of blinkers (and I think you'll find the term is "blinders") but an insistence on being honest about what is being observed. Speciation and natural selection is not evolution as traditionally defined. They are both examples of microevolution, which is just another term for natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection. Examples of it can be found throughout nature, throughout history. I outlined the major one -- differing characteristics among humans and the probable triggers for them -- in my post to steen, which he of course absolutely refused to accept because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions, and its against his religion, which is evolution.

The changes, including speciation, which science recognizes as evolution are passed off as being too small--mere variations--not really evolution.

There's a good reason for that. They aren't evolution. Evolution does not occur.

And much greater changes are demanded--the sort that would be impossible under evolution.

Thank you for admitting the obvious. Now, if we can just get you to stop calling it evolution and begin calling it natural selection, because that is what it is. This is not semantics. These are the facts. Only evolutionists play semantic games, because they desperately need there to be an answer other than the God they claim doesn't exist.

Quote

If it isn't, the animal dies and then it isn't even "natural selection" as defined by Darwin, because he considered natural selection to be only that which improved a species.

Another canard. He considered natural selection to be the means by which a species adapted more fittingly to its environment.

If it dies, how is it "more fittingly" adapted to its environment? Seems to me "dead" is a decidedly negative vote against the mutation that killed it. What you did here was again restate what I said in a tome more poli-scientifically more palatable to you, calling my statement a canard. Do you see the irony there?

As you see Wells speaks of larger beaks not harder or softer beaks. Are you willing to admit your error now?

Obviously, you didn't read far enough into the article. Go back and try again. The beaks change with the amount of rain in a given year, not by genetic encoding. Moreover, all 13 finch varieties (an aside: most modern scientists say the only reason their still called "Darwin's finches" is because the great evolution visionary called them finches, but they are actually larks and sparrows) display the beak variations, not just a couple of the varieties as Darwin initially reported.

What about all the other examples?

There are none. No one can show any, because they do not exist. Claiming evolution happens is as ludicrous as claiming UFO's are from Mars -- or any other planet.

 

[shernren]

Misc:

I doubt steen will disagree with what gluadys said. But I'll let him speak for himself. Also, blinkers and blinders are the same thing. I'll ask you to consider this statement and respond to it again:

Evolution fully expects that all new species will be members of the same clade their ancestors were members of.

or, to be simpler:

Evolution fully expects all new species to be detectably descended from their ancestral species.

What do you think these statements imply? Do you think that they are true?

 

[gluadys]

Not accepting strawmen as Evolution is not a "set of blinkers". It's being smart enough to recognize a con.

In fact, a strawman version of evolution is what creationists insist on. So they can claim it never happens. Time and again they are shown real examples of evolution and get around them by saying "But that's not evolution." when they fit the scientific understanding of evolution to a T.

Speciation has nothing to do with Evolution.

Speciation may be defined as "macro-evolution", but an arbitrary definition doesn't effect reality. If you define the moon as green, that doesn't make the moon green.

Speciation is the end product of evolution. It is what happens when a population is divided and the two populations diverge. Speciation is the source of diversity which is eventually classified as generic, familial, order, class and other taxonomic differences. That is evolution.

Speciation means an animal (and its offspring) can't reproduce with its parent's population. It doesn't mean that animal is any less then same kind of animal.

Agreed. It means the animal and its related species come from a common ancestor. Evolution does not show a change from one clade to another. All speciation is within the clade.

Any expert on Evolution would know this, so why do they deny this? As IisJustMe said, "the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before." The key word is different.

It doesn't show the emergence of new species which cannot be related to an existing or formerly existing species. It doesn't show newness without ancestry. There is always similarity as well as difference.