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

[frogman2x]

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.

A different kind of dog is not a separate species. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck

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.

Does it not embarrs you for me to keep saying "provide the biological evidence?

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

Always were and always will be but they all cannot mate with each other because of "after its kind."

kermit

 

[Loudmouth]

A different kind of dog is not a separate species.

Then show me a half chihuahua and half wolf.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck

"Duck" is not the name of a species. There are many species of ducks.

 

[frogman2x]

And evolution does not claim it does.

Yes it does. That is the crux of evolution---at some point, an A became a B.

What it claims is that the "a" type of Kind X and the "b" type of Kind X stop interbreeding for some reason.

WEonderful, Provide the 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.

You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

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.

FYI I have looked at the argument for ring species and the do not change species. A salamander is still a salamander. Why some who could breed and now can't is a mystery that no one has soved as far as I know. In fact, some are classified as a sub-species, and that is not a new species.

k

 

[frogman2x]

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

Yet we all come out different and you cnot link difdferend species from ghe genomes. We all hve DNA, but scientists can tell which species a lifeform is by its DNA.

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

If they share a common ancestor the EVR locus does not prove it.

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

Of course but only withing a species. That is why our gnome is unique to a species and so is the DNA. We can trace our DNA to our parents but you cannot trace any DNA of an A species to a B species, because all life forms, with a couple of excpetion, have a DNA ' it is unique and it never changes as far as we know.

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?

It is because of our difference in DNA. That is the point. The DNA in a species does not change.

I have shown that it is so.

You have not. You just said it happened.

I just showed you the intermediate forms.

You did not. You showed me 2 separate and distinct fossils. Even evolutionist admit the fossil record should nt be used to try and support evolution. I think it was Gould who admitted that ,but don't hold me to trhat.

The accumulation of species specific mutations is what prevents interbreeding.<<

Mutations DO NOT ADD NEW CHARACTERISTICS and time will not change that. You need to some study on mutations.

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

Because they all have a different gnome and DNA and you cannot link them back to that first blob you say was the first lifeform. You cannot link the DNA of homo sapian back to the DNA of apes.

k

 

[frogman2x]

Already have. You run away from it.

If you accept what you offered as evidence, you don't understand genetics, gnome or DNA. I did not run away from it, I disputed it.

kermit

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes it does. That is the crux of evolution---at some point, an A became a B.

No, as I said, an a-type of X is now called an A, and a b-type of X is now called a B

WEonderful, Provide the reason.

It depends on what the Kind X is that we are talking about. It could be a mountain, or a canyon, or a lake, an ocean or a desert. It could even be man (selective breeding, or urbaniztion splitting a large habitat into separate smaller habitats. It really does not matter what prevents interbreeding, it is only necessary that interbreeding be halted.

You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.

kermit

You are correct in that the mutation does not cause speciation. I never claimed that it does. What it does is add to the variation in the species. After the mutation, there are more and more albinos in the population, or more members with longer legs, or with loose flaps of skin, or webs between the toes, or whatever, as the mutation spreads through the generations. Then (many generations later) when the population spreads to a new environment, these variations are what Natural Selection uses to drive adaptation. It is only when two sub-populations adapt for different environments, and the adatations and newly aquired mutations make them too different physically and genetically to interbreed that we call them diferent species.

 

[frogman2x]

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?

You saying so, does not make it so. To say homo sapians and lemurs had a common anscesor is laughable.

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

No. Because evolution does not work.



Were wolves ever chihuahuas?



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



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?

This is getting monotus and circular. If you think you have, that keep on thinking that.

I did not run away from anything you said. I refutrede it all.

If you want to say I am now running away, you are right. I am getting dizzy saying the same things o the same things.

When you can explain how a dog-like animal lost it legs, get back to me> Don't ask Grinich because of he knewe, he would have old us and he hsn't yet.

Have a nice day.

kermit

 

[JWGU]

You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.

Sorry, but that isn't true. We have observed microbes--in a laboratory, under supervised conditions--evolve the ability to metabolize citrate in an oxygen-rich environment, when a defining characteristic of the species was its its inability to do this.

Again, to be clear, what you just said has been falsified beyond even unreasonable doubt. The experiment was also able to exactly trace the history of the potentiating mutations, by virtue of the fact that all of it occurred under supervised laboratory conditions. There are really only three possible explanations for your saying the opposite:

(1) You had never seen this evidence before. You now understand why what you said was wrong.
(2) You suspect fraud. Lenski has offered to send samples of the microbes to anyone interested in replicating the results, provided the person has a qualified team and lab. So far, no creationists or intelligent design proponents have taken him up on this challenge.
(3) You are being illogical.

Please let me know whether it's (1), (2), or (3).

 

[Loudmouth]

You saying so, does not make it so.

The evidence does make it so.

To say homo sapians and lemurs had a common anscesor is laughable.

Calling something ridiculous does not refute it. Try to use facts. They work a lot better.

I did not run away from anything you said. I refutrede it all.

No, you didn't. You are still running away from it.

When you can explain how a dog-like animal lost it legs, get back to me>

It did so through the accumulation of species specific mutations. Already explained multiple times now, and never refuted by you.

 

[OllieFranz]

FYI I have looked at the argument for ring species and the do not change species. A salamander is still a salamander. Why some who could breed and now can't is a mystery that no one has soved as far as I know. In fact, some are classified as a sub-species, and that is not a new species.

k

It is not a mystery. Due to the different ways they have adapted to their environments, they are no longer compatable as mates.

In some cases, it might be because they are no longer physically compatable (I would not want to try mating a Great Dane with a chihuahua, except maybe by artificial insemination)

In most cases, though it is because they have become genetically incompatible. They are on the way to being considered to be separate species.(sub-species is just the first step)

 

[Loudmouth]

If you accept what you offered as evidence, you don't understand genetics, gnome or DNA.

I understand it ten times better than you do which is why I can cite and discuss peer reviewed papers on genetics while you ignore those same papers.

Where did you refute that the 200,000 shared ERV's between chimps and humans came from a common ancestor? Oh, that's right . . . you didn't. You ran away from it.

 

[frogman2x]

No, as I said, an a-type of X is now called an A, and a b-type of X is now called a B

Talk is cheap and so are examples.

It depends on what the Kind X is that we are talking about. It could be a mountain, or a canyon, or a lake, an ocean or a desert. It could even be man (selective breeding, or urbaniztion splitting a large habitat into separate smaller habitats. It really does not matter what prevents interbreeding, it is only necessary that interbreeding be halted.

You are right. Teh cause doe snot matter, but he lack of the ability to breed is ot a mechanism for evolution. The salamaner is still a salamander.

You are correct in that the mutation does not cause speciation. I never claimed that it does.

I don' think I accused you of that.

What it does is add to the variation in the species. After the mutation, there are more and more albinos in the population, or more members with longer legs, or with loose flaps of skin, or webs between the toes, or whatever, as the mutation spreads through the generations.

There may not be more. The mutation may not be present in the next gneration. Even if it is in all the next generation, th species does not change.

Then (many generations later) when the population spreads to a new environment, these variations are what Natural Selection uses to drive adaptation. It is only when two sub-populations adapt for different environments, and the adatations and newly aquired mutations make them too different physically and genetically to interbreed that we call them diferent species.

Environment is not a mechanism for a species too change. It may make a species becomeextinct but it will not make them evolve into a different species. Same with natural selection, which has never been proven. The rabbit with the stroenge legs may keep that species from becoming extinct, but it will never make it into anything other than a rabbit. Also, because of the gene mix, the stronger legs are not guarented in the next generation.

k

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet we all come out different and you cnot link difdferend species from ghe genomes. We all hve DNA, but scientists can tell which species a lifeform is by its DNA.

We can tell which species a life form is by its DNA. We can even tell which person a DNA sample came from if that DNA is found at a crime scene. You are simply ignorant of how genetics works, and this is a prime example. Perhaps you should check this out:

BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

Have you ever done a BLAST search? I'm guessing not.

If they share a common ancestor the EVR locus does not prove it.

Why not?

also our DNA is different. How did that take place? Mutations do not

Why not?

Of course but only withing a species. That is why our gnome is unique to a species and so is the DNA. We can trace our DNA to our parents but you cannot trace any DNA of an A species to a B species, because all life forms, with a couple of excpetion, have a DNA ' it is unique and it never changes as far as we know.

With ERV's we have done just that. I have shown you that we can trace DNA back to a shared ancestor. Also, you have yet to explain how having unique DNA disproves common ancestry.

It is because of our difference in DNA. That is the point. The DNA in a species does not change.

That is completely false. Every human is born with about 50 mutations. Those mutations are happening to every person and in every species. Every human, outside of identical twins, has a genome sequence that is different from all other humans. Having different and unique DNA does not prevent you from sharing a common ancestor.

You have not. You just said it happened.

The evidence demonstrates that it did.

You did not. You showed me 2 separate and distinct fossils.

How can they be distinct when they share so many features? Obviously, they aren't distinct.

Are you saying that a transitional fossil has to be identical to modern humans in order to be transitional? Really?

Even evolutionist admit the fossil record should nt be used to try and support evolution.

No, they say that fossils are but one piece of evidence with genetics being the bulk of the evidence.

I think it was Gould who admitted that ,but don't hold me to trhat.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[/FONT]--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Mutations DO NOT ADD NEW CHARACTERISTICS and time will not change that.

The facts say otherwise. Different characteristics in different species are due to differences in genome sequence, otherwise known as mutations.

You need to some study on mutations.

Says the person who denies the facts.

Because they all have a different gnome . . .

Yes, and mutations produce different genomes. Therefore, mutations are responsible for the differences between species.

Can you show me a single sequence difference between chimps and humans that could not be produced by mutations? Just one?

 

[Loudmouth]

but he lack of the ability to breed is ot a mechanism for evolution. The salamaner is still a salamander.

First, salamander is not the name of a species. There are thousands of salamander species, and they do not interbreed. Funny that you would use that as an example.

Secondly, speciation is most definitely a mechanism of evolution. It causes different mutations to accumulate in each population which leads to divergence over time. Speciation is one of the most important evolutionary mechanisms. Do you even understand the theory you are trying to falsify?

There may not be more. The mutation may not be present in the next gneration. Even if it is in all the next generation, th species does not change.

What prevents a mutation from changing the species?

Environment is not a mechanism for a species too change.

It most certainly is. Are you rejecting natural selection now?

It may make a species becomeextinct but it will not make them evolve into a different species.

Based on what evidence?

 

[OllieFranz]

Talk is cheap and so are examples.




You are right. Teh cause doe snot matter, but he lack of the ability to breed is ot a mechanism for evolution. The salamaner is still a salamander.

First, it is not a lack of ability to breed. They can easily breed within their own groups and with their neighbors (except the ones that came from the other side of the obstruction). It is an incompatability with that one other group.

Second, it is not a mechanism for evolution, it is a result of evolution. The adaptation that the population on the east side underwent was diffrent from the adaptation that the population on the west side underwent.

Third, yes, a salamander is a salamander. A gull is a gull. A Greenish Warbler is a Greenish Warbler. A horse is a horse, of course, of course. They are also evidence for evolution

I don' think I accused you of that.

No, you didn't. At least not directly. But you implied that mutation is the main driving force of evolution, which it is not.

There may not be more. The mutation may not be present in the next gneration. Even if it is in all the next generation, th species does not change.

True, but trivial. The mutations that do "take" will spread though the population as I said, and will be available as variations for adaptation as I said.

Environment is not a mechanism for a species too change.

You yourself provide a counter-example later in this same paragraph (the strong-legged rabbit) which disproves this statement.

It may make a species becomeextinct but it will not make them evolve into a different species.

We have seen species split off from other species. Even most Creationsts have accepted this and have abandoned the kind = species stance.

Same with natural selection, which has never been proven.

What do you think Natural Selection is? Your rabbit example in the next sentence is practically the definition of Natural Selection.

The rabbit with the stroenge legs may keep that species from becoming extinct, but it will never make it into anything other than a rabbit.

No it won't. But Evolution does not say it will.

Also, because of the gene mix, the stronger legs are not guarented in the next generation.

k

No it is not guaranteed, but since more strong-legged rabbits survived to adulthood to mate than weaker-legged rabbits, more of the warren will have inherited the stronger-leg gene. As long as the environment strongly favors stronger legs, each generation will have a higher percentage of strong-legged rabbits. There is a non-trivial chance that the weaker-legged gene will die out. If the environment no longer favors strong legs as highly, and the weaker-leg gene has not died out, it may begin to reassert itself. But if it has died out, it will take a new mutation -- which will not be the same as the old gene -- to produce the weaker leg again.*

*I wish you had chosen another trait, such as a heavy coat. Traits become favorable or unfavorable depending on the environment, and in general are not better or worse, except in relationship to those requirements. This is more obvious in a trait like a heavy coat, which is good when its cols, but bad when its hot, than in muscle strength, which we are prejudiced to se as "objectively" better than weakness.

 

[EternalDragon]

We see the gradual stuff all the time, like the Greenish Warbler example. When we show you that, you guys demand to see a lizard give birth to a bird.

Well, that is because you are just describing variety within a species. Not a creature that say didn't have wings, light bones, internal navigation, feathers, etc. gradually gaining those capabilities over long time. That would produce lots of fossil evidence of all the gradual transitions. The evidence does not show that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that is because you are just describing variety within a species. Not a creature that say didn't have wings, light bones, internal navigation, feathers, etc. gradually gaining those capabilities over long time. That would produce lots of fossil evidence of all the gradual transitions. The evidence does not show that.

That is because evolution in action looks exactly like variation in a species.

What you ask for would not prove evolution, it would disprove it. The fact that we can't find it is evidence that evolution is correct.

Once again, what you are demanding is to be equal to someone pointing to a young child and demanding the exact date and hour when it was no longer a baby.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why do you think there would be lots of fossil evidence for transitional species?

Very often a species in transition has a small population. Since the odds of fossilization are extremely low, that works against us finding those transitionals.


Small animals are more likely to have their bodies destroyed before fossilization than large animals.

Light bones will break down faster than heavy bones.

Bird fossils in general are extremely rare. With all of those factors working against preservation we are lucky to have the very few that we do.

 

[EternalDragon]

That is because evolution in action looks exactly like variation in a species.

What you ask for would not prove evolution, it would disprove it. The fact that we can't find it is evidence that evolution is correct.

Once again, what you are demanding is to be equal to someone pointing to a young child and demanding the exact date and hour when it was no longer a baby.

Wrong analogy. A baby is still a human.