Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[frogman2x]

Then how were wolves able to produce chihuahuas? Wolves are not chihuahuas, and chihuahuas are not wolves.

The same way german sheperds breed with a different variety of dog. It's not a german shepherd and it is not the breed it mated with but they still produce a dog.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

You seem to misunderstand evolution. No creature every produces anything other than what they are. The offspring of animals could always mate with its close forerunners. You seem to forget that evolution is a gradual process.

I think it is you wh misunderstands evolution. If no creature ever produces anything other than what they are. evoluton cannot happen. It doesn't matter if it is gradual, if they ALWAYS produce "after its kind," they ALWAYS remain the same.

You are arguing in the same way that someone could argue that a person 70 years old could never have been two since the differences are so extreme. <<

Not at all. You are denying genetics. People naturally live longer than when they were born, that is the natural biological process. A species can live 100 years but it will ALWAYS produce "after its kind," because tge is the natural, proven, biological process, and the fossil record verifies it.

The change in species over time is very similar to the change of a person over time. The end product may look nothing like the initial product.

It is not. Aging and changing species is not a valid scientific comparison. The end produce may have differnt eye color or different hair color, etc, but the end product will be teh exact same species it starte as.

You have no proven examples that a A ever became a B.

If you do, trot it out along with the biological evidence that shows how it was possible.

k

 

[frogman2x]

No, the offspring of a dog-like animal eventually were whales.

Thatg is the tyupical ressonse----It happened, but you NEVER provide the biological evidence to support what you say.

Tell me how did this dog-like animal lose it legs, tail and nose?

Individuals do not evolved.

That comment is as silly as whale evoluiton. If individuals don't evolve, evolution does not take place and there is no evidence that a whole group evolved at once. The fossil record shows that is not correct.

Don't forget to provide the biologial evidence of how that dog-like animal lost it's means to survive for a gazillion years. Gringrich sure didn't explain how it happened.

kermit

 

[Loudmouth]

The same way german sheperds breed with a different variety of dog. It's not a german shepherd and it is not the breed it mated with but they still produce a dog.

kermit

Then show me a half-wolf, half-chihuahua.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it is you wh misunderstands evolution. If no creature ever produces anything other than what they are. evoluton cannot happen.

We are primates. Chimps are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. It is primates producing primates.

We are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. It is mammals producing mammals.

We are vertebrates. Trout are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. It is vertebrates producing vertebrates.

Evolution is fully capable of producing the biodiversity we see today while producing descendants that are what their ancestors were.

You have no proven examples that a A ever became a B.

We have plenty of evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the argument is that no one has ever observed this to happen. Your gradual evolution only exists on paper.

It is evidenced by the world around us.

 

[frogman2x]

We do mate with apes and produce other mates all of the time. Your parents are apes, they produced you. My parents are apes, they produced me.

Your problem is that you have no evidence as to how it happened. Some evo sais it did, so you accepet by fatih alone.

Now we cannot mate with other SPECIES of apes, but then chimpanzees cannot mate with gorillas, gorillas cannot mate with orangutans. Why do you think we should be able to do something that other apes cannot do?

If we came from apes, whe could still mate with them. We ae homo sapian and they are not. Why is that so hard to understand?

Chimps cant mate with gorillas because they are different species. Always was, always will be. Check the fossil record.

kermit

 

[Loudmouth]

Your problem is that you have no evidence as to how it happened.

Yeah, we do. It is written in our genomes which is a direct record of out ancestry. It happened through speciation followed by the accumulation of lineage specific mutations.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

That's why we see the signal of selection in the form of Ka/Ks ratios in genes and functional DNA. That is why we see the divergence in the LTR's of ERV's. All of the evidence supports it, including the fossil record:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

Some evo sais it did, so you accepet by fatih alone.

We have the evidence, so no faith is required.

If we came from apes, whe could still mate with them.

Chimps and orangutans can not mate, and yet they are still both apes.

Chimps cant mate with gorillas because they are different species. Always was, always will be. Check the fossil record.

You first. Please present evidence that chimps and gorillas were always different species.

 

[OllieFranz]

The same way german sheperds breed with a different variety of dog. It's not a german shepherd and it is not the breed it mated with but they still produce a dog.

kermit

And if some of the more exotic breeds, say toy poodles or, yes, chihuahuas, become so inbred that they can no longer mate with German shepherds? Yes, they are still dogs, but they become a different kind of dog, a separate species. Just as you said rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits are all different kinds of lagomorphs.

It is the same way a Carnivore population split up into various weasel-like kinds which eventually became weasels, ferrets, badgers and wolverines, and two larger kinds, felines, which in turn split into the various cat kinds, and hemicyons, which split into bears and canines, which split into jackals, foxes, wolves, and dogs. Dogs are still canines, and carnivores. Cats are still felines and carnivores. Skunks, weasels, ferrets, badgers, and wolverines are still carnivores.

All carnivores are still placental mammals. All mammals are still vertebrates. All vertebrates are still chordates. And so on.

 

[frogman2x]

We have shown you the fossil record many times, but you refuse to believe it. But we don't need the fossil record. we can see it happening in our own time.

You have not shown me the fossil record tha links rabbits to anything else. Do you really not know that thre ae n o intermedaite fossils? Where do y ou see it happening tgoday?

Fifty years ago, there was a species of bird, the Greenish Warbler, that was spread out over most of Siberia. It was a single species, albeit a ring species. This means that although if you take a male from one flock and a female from another, distant flock, they probably will not be able to mate. But if you try to mate birds from nearby flocks, they can mate easily all throughout the population, so theoretically it would be possible to mongrelize the flocks until all could interbreed again.

Ring species is not a mechanism for evolution. If they can't mate, they are different species. If they can mate, they are the same species. It is the same as breeding different variety of dogs.

But in the last fifty years there has been a lot of urbanization in Siberia and large sections of Warbler habitat has been lost, and with it the flocks from those habitats. In some cases that isolates other flocks, and there is no longer a "bridge" from them to the main group of flocks. There are no flocks in the main group with which they can interbreed. They are a separate population and as the generations pass, the differences between them and the others will only grow.

Interestisng but no applicalbe.

This is exactly how the lagomorphs split up into rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits.<<

You have not real evidence that they were not created different, You have no evidence they split up. You have no biological evidence and you have not fossil evidence.

It is how equines split up into horses, donkeys and zebras. It is how panthers split up into lions, tigers and leopards. And it is how African Apes split up into gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Yes, the Greenish Warblers are all still Greenish Warblers, even the isolated flocks. But then the lagomorphs are all still lagomorphs. The equines are all still equines. The panthers are all still panthers, and the apes (including humans) are all still apes.

If they are all still the same, where is the evolution? You do drealize that evolution respires a change of species, right?

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

No, we have observed small changes happen with every generation. In fact we can even measure the rate of those changes your genome has roughly 150 mutations from the genome supplied by your parents.

To deny that we have not seen the small changes is obviously false. To say that we have not observed major changes is false too.

We can see small changes, eye color for example, but that is not evolution. What major changes have you observed?

Why do you keep making laughable mistakes?

I don't know about him, but I laugh when you make a dogmatic statements(we have seen major changes) and do not produce the evidence.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Then show me a half-wolf, half-chihuahua.

Isn't it obvious, wolves and chihuahua's are not the same species.

kermit

 

[OllieFranz]

You have no proven examples that a A ever became a B.

k

And evolution does not claim it does. What it claims is that the "a" type of Kind X and the "b" type of Kind X stop interbreeding for some reason. Each type continues to undergo mutations, and each type continues to adapt to its separate environment. Eventually the differences become so great that we don't call them 'the "a" type,' but just "a" or "b." At some point, not only do they not breed with one another, they no longer can breed with one another. Some time after that, we consider "a" to be Kind A, and "b" to be Kind B. But they both continue also to be Kind X.

 

[frogman2x]

We are primates. Chimps are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. It is primates producing primates.

Of course primae produce primatres, but ONLY in their same species. Lemurs are primates. Did we descent from them? Can a lemur produce a maremoset?

We are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. It is mammals producing mammals.

Of coures our ancestor was a mammal. We call them homo sapians. Bears NEVER produce a homo sapian and neither did a chimp.

]We are vertebrates. Trout are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. It is vertebrates producing vertebrates.

You keep shooting yourself in the head. Of course our common ancestor was a vertebrate. The wer homo sapians. Were trout ever homo sapian?

Evolution is fully capable of producing the biodiversity we see today while producing descendants that are what their ancestors were.

The usual evo comment. You say it happened but NEVER provide the biological evidences that tells HOW it can happen.

We have plenty of evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Then produce it.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

They did not produce any biological evidence that would make it possible.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

It is evidenced by the world around us.

Wonderful. Then it should ber easy for you to produce some of it.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Yeah, we do. It is written in our genomes which is a direct record of out ancestry. It happened through speciation followed by the accumulation of lineage specific mutations.

Our genomes are diffeerent an there is no biological evidence that they wee eve the same. also our DNA is different. How did that take place? Mutations do not add characteristics, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mustation.


Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

That's why we see the signal of selection in the form of Ka/Ks ratios in genes and functional DNA. That is why we see the divergence in the LTR's of ERV's. All of the evidence supports it, including the fossil record:[/QUOTE]

AGain, all you have done is say it is so. The fossil record sdhow no such thing. Do oyou really not know that ehre are no intermediate fossils?

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

We have the evidence, so no faith is required.

Wonderful, produce it.

Chimps and orangutans can not mate, and yet they are still both apes.<<

That is because thee are several "kinds" of apes. If all apes came from the same seed, what cause those 2 "kinds" not to be able to mate?

You first. Please present evidence that chimps and gorillas were always different species.

They can't mate.

Your turn. Please provide the evidence that chimps and gorillas wer ever the same species.

k

 

[OllieFranz]

My laptop is down and I can't easily cut and paste on my mobile. Can someone please post the YouTube clips "Ring Species," and "Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not Like That)" both by Potholer54? They provide some of the evidence Kermit is asking for.

Thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Our genomes are diffeerent an there is no biological evidence that they wee eve the same.

Yes, there is. We share over 200,000 retroviral insertions at the same position in our genomes.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We have the evidence in spades. It is in our genomes which is the directly written history of our ancestry.

also our DNA is different. How did that take place? Mutations do not add characteristics, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mustation.[/qutoe]

Then why are chimps and humans different? How do you explain that? If it isn't due to differences in our DNA, then what causes us to be different?

AGain, all you have done is say it is so.

I have shown that it is so.

The fossil record sdhow no such thing. Do oyou really not know that ehre are no intermediate fossils?

I just showed you the intermediate forms.

That is because thee are several "kinds" of apes. If all apes came from the same seed, what cause those 2 "kinds" not to be able to mate?

The accumulation of species specific mutations is what prevents interbreeding.

They can't mate.

How does that prove that they do not share a common ancestor?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wonderful. Then it should ber easy for you to produce some of it.

kermit

Already have. You run away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course primae produce primatres, but ONLY in their same species. Lemurs are primates. Did we descent from them? Can a lemur produce a maremoset?

Humans are primates. Lemurs are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. It is just primates producing primates. So why do you have a problem with this?

Of coures our ancestor was a mammal. We call them homo sapians. Bears NEVER produce a homo sapian and neither did a chimp.

So you really don't know how evolution works, do you. Did wolves come from chihuahuas? Did great danes come from chihuahuas?

You keep shooting yourself in the head. Of course our common ancestor was a vertebrate. The wer homo sapians. Were trout ever homo sapian?

Were wolves ever chihuahuas?

The usual evo comment. You say it happened but NEVER provide the biological evidences that tells HOW it can happen.

Already presented the genetic and fossil evidence. You run away from it.

They did not produce any biological evidence that would make it possible.

Yes, they did. They gave evidence of the accumulation of lineage specific mutations and lineage specific morphology. They showed that LTR's within the same ERV diverge as expected due to the accumulation of mutations. The fossils show the accumulation of modern human features over time. How is this not evidence?