My Graduate Challenge

[Justatruthseeker]

The example you give with the finches, Justatruthseeker, needs some qualifiers you omitted. As Darwin himself pointed out, there can be real problems defining just was a species is. This is also a problem recognized today. Hence, the fact one challenges another's definition of a species in no way invalidates evolution. it simply points to difficulties that are occupational hazards here. For example, astronomy has had trouble in defining just ws is a planet.

What real problem? They are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. Do you find that reality so hard to grasp? Now if they were not interbreeding right before your very eyes then there might be a problem - and you might have to look for other ways in defining them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."

I find it quite adequate in this situation - do you not? What ambiguity lies in the fact they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes? There is no ambiguity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
" (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification. "

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Where is the ambiguity when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes???? We are not talking about two animals not known to interbreed or that are not producing fertile offspring. I sense discomfort and avoidance of the real point being made by your own scientific definitions.


I would go further to say you have created your own problem by calling two birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring separate species - while at the same time insisting that other birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species precisely because they do so. You can't cause the problem and then complain the problem exists because you caused it. Your refusal to accept that mistakes were made simply compounds the problem, making it worse - not better.

No one is arguing that if two birds are not observed to mate and they are not recognizably the same - then there might be reason to look for other ways to tell if they are the same species or not. But even their own DNA tests could tell no difference between the six classes of birds - arguing for their being one species even more than the direct observation of their producing fertile offspring which should of settled it and solved the problem anyways.

You are making me think you are avoiding accepting the science for some strange reason? And for the life of me I can't figure out why someone that claims to follow science would so readily ignore the scientific definitions of what a species is - when there can be no doubt at all according to both the observational evidence and the DNA results?

You all talk about not understanding. I agree. I certainly do not understand your reluctance to accept the observations or the DNA evidence at all? Or even your own definitions, because I can assure you it was not a creationists that wrote those definitions - but a collaboration of evolutionary biologists. There is nothing ambiguous in the observations or the DNA, the only thing ambiguous is why you will not accept what both are telling you but continue to look for reasons to ignore both?

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, now I see where you are coming from. First, what hard evidence can you provide that evolutionists would think that way necessarily? What are your credentials? I'm big on credentials. I believe credentials make the man. If people with credentials can makes mistakes, then that is a warning that you can get into even more trouble listening to those who have none. So just was is your background in science? I ask that, because your argument still makes no sense. For example, who says that the Chinook would be found that much later in the layering? When paleontologists deal with layering, it is layering millions and millions of years old. When they say something evolved from something earlier, it is because the layering clearly indicates that oodles of time have passed between the fossils. Assuming some archaeologist from an alien planet, visits earth millions of years into the future, what says the layering between the Mastiff and the Chinook might be close enough to indicate there were both pretty much at the same time? See, you are automatically assuming you know how scientists interpret layering, when I see no evidence that you do. Credentials, please. Furthermore, where is your evidence that says if evolutionists found the skull of a Chinook and a mastiff, earlier, they would assume one evolved from the other? Having carefully studied the remains, they might well conclude that the Chinook did not directly evolve from the Mastiff, etc. The whole problem here is that you are trying to debunk evolution based on setting up imaginary counterfactual scenarios, and working that way, you can come up with all sorts of absurd and irrelevant scenarios. If you want to discredit what evolutionists have concluded from the layering, etc., then you should stick to what has actually happened. If you believe it is wrong for them to assume that such-and-such evolved from such-and-such, then give an explanation how you would reinterpret the data, why your position is far better thought out that all these scientific minds would have it.

 

[Zosimus]

What part of ignoring the observational evidence don't you understand? What part of incorrectly classifying 90% of the fossil record as separate species instead of infraspecific taxa within the species do you fail to understand?

Well, several things. First of all, I don't understand the difference between evidence and observational evidence. I also don't understand the difference between observational evidence and observed evidence.

You say that "90 [percent] of the fossil record is incorrectly classified as separate species [rather than] intraspecific taxa." However, it is not possible for us to know whether fossil A was or was not the same species as fossil B. Perhaps the creatures were able to produce fertile offspring and regularly interchanged genetic information. Perhaps they were unable to do so. How can I know just by looking at a fossil? How can you know? How can anyone know? We cannot, that's why the agnostic point of view is the most sensible one. I am certainly aware that if a chihuahua fossil were found alongside a Saint Bernard fossil and if scientists did not know any better, that these two fossils would almost certainly be classified as separate species. In that sense, I have some sympathy for your point of view.

What part of Asian does not evolve into an Afro-Asian but remains Asian do you fail to understand?

Surely you must admit that at some point in the past all Asians and all Afro-Asians descended from Adam and Eve. Thus, your point is completely lost on me. Essentially you partially agree with the Darwinist POV that all human life shares a common ancestor. So what's the problem?

What part of never once have you observed variation in the species except when two infraspecific taxa mate do you fail to understand?

This depends entirely on what you mean. It is true that I have never observed variation in the species, but I am not in the business of observing species. However, I have a rational brain and when presented with the idea that sexual reproduction involves taking a random mix of half of the alleles from the male parent and half from the female parent, I can easily calculate that the chance that the frequency of alleles remains constant is vanishingly small. If you consider two humans who have only one child, logic tells me that half of the alleles were definitely lost in that generation. Why is this controversial?

Is it really you fail to understand? Or is it you just do not want to understand?

I just don't get your point, although I must say that compared to previous posts, this point is actually intelligible.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, now I see where you are coming from. First, what hard evidence can you provide that evolutionists would think that way necessarily? What are your credentials? I'm big on credentials. I believe credentials make the man. If people with credentials can makes mistakes, then that is a warning that you can get into even more trouble listening to those who have none. So just was is your background in science? I ask that, because your argument still makes no sense. For example, who says that the Chinook would be found that much later in the layering? When paleontologists deal with layering, it is layering millions and millions of years old. When they say something evolved from something earlier, it is because the layering clearly indicates that oodles of time have passed between the fossils. Assuming some archaeologist from an alien planet, visits earth millions of years into the future, what says the layering between the Mastiff and the Chinook might be close enough to indicate there were both pretty much at the same time? See, you are automatically assuming you know how scientists interpret layering, when I see no evidence that you do. Credentials, please. Furthermore, where is your evidence that says if evolutionists found the skull of a Chinook and a mastiff, earlier, they would assume one evolved from the other? Having carefully studied the remains, they might well conclude that the Chinook did not directly evolve from the Mastiff, etc. The whole problem here is that you are trying to debunk evolution based on setting up imaginary counterfactual scenarios, and working that way, you can come up with all sorts of absurd and irrelevant scenarios. If you want to discredit what evolutionists have concluded from the layering, etc., then you should stick to what has actually happened. If you believe it is wrong for them to assume that such-and-such evolved from such-and-such, then give an explanation how you would reinterpret the data, why your position is far better thought out that all these scientific minds would have it.

And yours are exactly what?

What credential does it take to understand that interbreeding birds producing fertile offspring are the same species? What credentials does it take to understand that DNA tests that could tell no difference between those six classes of birds tells you they are the same species?

I mean you want to claim all men are the same species even if we can Tell From the DNA the biological differences between the existing races.

I'd say your just doing the same thing - making excuses to ignore the evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, several things. First of all, I don't understand the difference between evidence and observational evidence. I also don't understand the difference between observational evidence and observed evidence.

You say that "90 [percent] of the fossil record is incorrectly classified as separate species [rather than] intraspecific taxa." However, it is not possible for us to know whether fossil A was or was not the same species as fossil B.

And yet they do precisely that. Tell us it is quite possible and that they are separate species.

Perhaps the creatures were able to produce fertile offspring and regularly interchanged genetic information. Perhaps they were unable to do so. How can I know just by looking at a fossil? How can you know? How can anyone know? We cannot, that's why the agnostic point of view is the most sensible one. I am certainly aware that if a chihuahua fossil were found alongside a Saint Bernard fossil and if scientists did not know any better, that these two fossils would almost certainly be classified as separate species. In that sense, I have some sympathy for your point of view.

And hence we go back to the scientific definitions instead of our own opinions which are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification. "

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Surely you must admit that at some point in the past all Asians and all Afro-Asians descended from Adam and Eve. Thus, your point is completely lost on me. Essentially you partially agree with the Darwinist POV that all human life shares a common ancestor. So what's the problem?

The problem is that one species does not evolve into another species. Asian remains Asian, African remains African, Husky remains Husky, Mastiff remains Mastiff. None of them "evolved" into another infraspecific taxa or another species - despite the fact that when they interbred, variation occurred in the species. But again - you keep insisting we ignore the only cause of variation in the species we have ever observed.

This depends entirely on what you mean. It is true that I have never observed variation in the species, but I am not in the business of observing species. However, I have a rational brain and when presented with the idea that sexual reproduction involves taking a random mix of half of the alleles from the male parent and half from the female parent, I can easily calculate that the chance that the frequency of alleles remains constant is vanishingly small. If you consider two humans who have only one child, logic tells me that half of the alleles were definitely lost in that generation. Why is this controversial?

Because again - if Tom mates with Pam, neither Tom nor Pam evolves into Jenny their child. Tom stays Tom and Pam stays Pam - yet variation occurs in the species precisely because two different genomes were combined into one. But in all evolutionary trees one species evolves into two or more - the exact opposite of what you observe. Jenny is not a new species - even if Tom is an Asian and Pam is an African. Jenny simply becomes another infraspecific taxa - an Afro-Asian - in the species to which all belong. The Asian infraspecific taxa never becomes anything else, nor does the African infraspecific taxa.

So let us go back to the first single celled organism. How did it evolve into another species when all experiments with single celled organisms show this is impossible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
"Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it does not involve the fusion of gametes and almost never changes the number of chromosomes."

When it does change the number of chromosomes it is as you correctly pointed out - the LOSS of them - not the addition of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning
"In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually."

"Organism cloning (also called reproductive cloning) refers to the procedure of creating a new multicellular organism, genetically identical to another. In essence this form of cloning is an asexual method of reproduction, where fertilization or inter-gamete contact does not take place. Asexual reproduction is a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species, including most plants (see vegetative reproduction) and some insects. Scientists have made some major achievements with cloning, including the asexual reproduction of sheep and cows. There is a lot of ethical debate over whether or not cloning should be used. However, cloning, or asexual propagation,[15] has been common practice in the horticultural world for hundreds of years."

I just don't get your point, although I must say that compared to previous posts, this point is actually intelligible.

Because you don't want to get the point.

Unless there are at least two distinct infraspecific taxa capable of mating and exchanging genomes - only exact copies will be produced unless a loss of function occurs. Then at the most even if those two organisms suddenly developed the ability to exchange genomes - at the most that function lost could only be restored from one that still retained that function. But new functions will never be added that does not already exist within the genome.

Only if Adam was created genetically perfect with all of the possible combinations within his genomes already - would the splitting of that genome into two allow all the possible combinations we see today including the possibility of lost functions over time.

"23The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Only when those genomes that were separated into two unique infraspecific taxa are reunited do they become one again and a new infraspecific taxa is created. It was not a rib that was taken from Adam, despite all the misconceptions - but half of the very genetic structure itself. Then unlike single celled organisms the two were capable of reuniting those genomes and creating new combinations that did not exist previously. Unless you start with a perfect genome containing all possible combinations to begin with - what we observe is an impossibility as shown in every experiment with single celled organisms as chromosomes can only be lost and never gained.

 

[RickG]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a YEC entering a secular college or university today and graduating as a YEC after getting a degree in life sciences?

Or, from another point of view. I wonder how many YEC's entering a secular college majoring in life sciences become aware that the mainstream science is different from what his/her YEC associates have indoctrinated them into believing, thus abandoning YEC beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, from another point of view. I wonder how many YEC's entering a secular college majoring in life sciences become aware that the mainstream science is different from what his/her YEC associates have indoctrinated them into believing,

I'd say if a person like that does exist, he's had his head buried in the sand.

Even I came here knowing that the world taught one thing, and the Bible taught another.

... thus abandoning YEC beliefs.

In this thread, I'm wondering about those who refuse to do so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or, from another point of view. I wonder how many YEC's entering a secular college majoring in life sciences become aware that the mainstream science is different from what his/her YEC associates have indoctrinated them into believing, thus abandoning YEC beliefs.

How many go into the system and still retain there beliefs, despite the brain washing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

Seems to increase over time not decrease, despite your allegations to the contrary. Only in the non-Christian religions does it decrease.

 

[RickG]

I'd say if a person like that does exist, he's had his head buried in the sand.

Even I came here knowing that the world taught one thing, and the Bible taught another.
In this thread, I'm wondering about those who refuse to do so.

Oh really? Just so you don't misunderstand, what I was specifically suggesting is not that that individual changes their religious beliefs, but comes to the realization that creation science is full of deliberate misrepresentations and stuff just plain made up. Even you have said before that creation science is the devils workshop. Understand?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh really? Just so you don't misunderstand, what I was specifically suggesting is not that that individual changes their religious beliefs, but comes to the realization that creation science is full of deliberate misrepresentations and stuff just plain made up. Even you have said before that creation science is the devils workshop. Understand?

Just like evolution - only evolution requires we ignore all observations of how life propagates and variation occurs in the species.

Except evolutionists never come to the realization their beliefs are full of mistakes and contradictions - or never admit it when they do.

And may I ask why your faith is listed as Presbyterian when it is clear you have none?

 

[AV1611VET]

Understand?

No, not really.

 

[Zosimus]

And yet they do precisely that. Tell us it is quite possible and that they are separate species.

They? Who the f@#! is they? Scientists? Scientists tell us it is quite possible and that they (scientists) are separate species? I'm really trying to follow this conversation, but please... you have to help me out here!!!!

And hence we go back to the scientific definitions instead of our own opinions which are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification. "

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Since I didn't get the first part of the convo, I'm missing the point of the second half. I know most of the common definitions for species. Why is this relevant?

The problem is that one species does not evolve into another species. Asian remains Asian, African remains African, Husky remains Husky, Mastiff remains Mastiff. None of them "evolved" into another infraspecific taxa or another species - despite the fact that when they interbred, variation occurred in the species. But again - you keep insisting we ignore the only cause of variation in the species we have ever observed.

I don't insist that at all. I think you are confused. Variation happens for a variety of reasons, but certainly among bacteria interbreeding is not one of them.

Because again - if Tom mates with Pam, neither Tom nor Pam evolves into Jenny their child. Tom stays Tom and Pam stays Pam - yet variation occurs in the species precisely because two different genomes were combined into one. But in all evolutionary trees one species evolves into two or more - the exact opposite of what you observe. Jenny is not a new species - even if Tom is an Asian and Pam is an African. Jenny simply becomes another infraspecific taxa - an Afro-Asian - in the species to which all belong. The Asian infraspecific taxa never becomes anything else, nor does the African infraspecific taxa.

Until a specific, clear test exists for Asian vs. African that is generally agreed upon and shown to work at least 95 percent of the time, I can neither agree nor disagree with this statement.

So let us go back to the first single celled organism. How did it evolve into another species when all experiments with single celled organisms show this is impossible?

Well, since the definition of species is rather vague, as soon as some scientists claim that a new strain of bacteria is a new species...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
"Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it does not involve the fusion of gametes and almost never changes the number of chromosomes."

Almost never is not the same as never.

When it does change the number of chromosomes it is as you correctly pointed out - the LOSS of them - not the addition of them.

Down Syndrome occurs when a child receives an extra 21st chromosome. Accordingly, it is possible for extra chromosomes to be added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning
"In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually."

Relevance?

"Organism cloning (also called reproductive cloning) refers to the procedure of creating a new multicellular organism, genetically identical to another. In essence this form of cloning is an asexual method of reproduction, where fertilization or inter-gamete contact does not take place. Asexual reproduction is a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species, including most plants (see vegetative reproduction) and some insects. Scientists have made some major achievements with cloning, including the asexual reproduction of sheep and cows. There is a lot of ethical debate over whether or not cloning should be used. However, cloning, or asexual propagation,[15] has been common practice in the horticultural world for hundreds of years."

Relevance?

Because you don't want to get the point.

I don't know what the point is!!!!

Unless there are at least two distinct infraspecific taxa capable of mating and exchanging genomes - only exact copies will be produced unless a loss of function occurs. Then at the most even if those two organisms suddenly developed the ability to exchange genomes - at the most that function lost could only be restored from one that still retained that function. But new functions will never be added that does not already exist within the genome.

What about horizontal gene transfer? Have you never heard of that?

Only if Adam was created genetically perfect with all of the possible combinations within his genomes already - would the splitting of that genome into two allow all the possible combinations we see today including the possibility of lost functions over time.

Possibly, but I remain agnostic on that point.

"23The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Only when those genomes that were separated into two unique infraspecific taxa are reunited do they become one again and a new infraspecific taxa is created. It was not a rib that was taken from Adam, despite all the misconceptions - but half of the very genetic structure itself. Then unlike single celled organisms the two were capable of reuniting those genomes and creating new combinations that did not exist previously. Unless you start with a perfect genome containing all possible combinations to begin with - what we observe is an impossibility as shown in every experiment with single celled organisms as chromosomes can only be lost and never gained.

Please show me where in the Bible it says that half of the very genetic structure itself was taken from Adam. Until you show me that, I will not believe your claim.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Justatruthseeker, you can insult, make derogatory remarks, call others liars, you name it, until Hell freezes over. That does not alter the fact that if you are gong to launch outlandish attacks on science and evolution, then you better have some big, bug credentials and big, big evidence. The problem I have with your comments is that they make it obvious you are lacking these big guns you desperately need. You asked me about my credentials. Fair question. I had a strong scientific education and earned a master's degree in a major scientific field at a Big 10 U. I'm not naming names here, to protect my identity. After that, I switched fields and went back to graduate school to earn by doctorate in theology from a conjoint program between a major university and a PCSUA seminary. The focus area of my dissertation, later published ass a book by Susquehanna University Press, was upon God and evolution. it is my contention that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. Incidentally, this was a central point in the Christian mystical tradition, which, unfortunately gets ignored in contemporary theological education. I am listed in "Scholars of Early Modern Europe" and "Who's Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology." If I knew you better, I'd give you the exact page. I am humble enough to realize I don't know everything, but I am honest enough to recognize I definitely have strong expertise in science, the Bible, and theology. OK, since you asked, how about yours?

Next, I find your arguments unsatisfying. You seek to down evolution by conjuring up a counterfactual scenario in which you imagine how an evolutionary thinker would respond, this conveniently in such a way as to make a fool out of him. This is a weak argument. Are you a mind reader? How do you know what an evolutionary thinker would do in a situation such as your imagination conjured up? In the first place, it is illogical to use imaginary counterfactual situations as a basis upon which to judge what happens in the real world.

Next, you attack those who hold with evolutionary thinking, purely on religious grounds. How can you be a true Presbyterian and believe in evolution? Well, who says you are the judge of what is Presbyterian and what not. I am Presbyterian and I have no trouble at all reconciling God with evolution. Years ago, true, many denominations grilled their ministerial candidates on the belief about evolution. However, in most church, including the mainline Presbyterian, that was declared as illegal years ago. If you look at the current P and P for the PCUSA, it clearly states that clergy have considerable theological freedom in such matters.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They? Who the f@#! is they? Scientists? Scientists tell us it is quite possible and that they (scientists) are separate species? I'm really trying to follow this conversation, but please... you have to help me out here!!!!

Now, now, no need to get belligerent because you know you are on shaky ground and are left with no choice but to continue ignoring science to support your beliefs and trying to confuse the subject and pretend always someone else is at fault.

Because you can't even follow your own discussion. You just made it a point to tell me how we can not tell the difference between those fossils. Then you are confused when I tell you (they) scientists tell us they can do exactly that. I guess I need to start spelling things out since you can't follow your own conversation from post to post???

Your words: "You say that "90 [percent] of the fossil record is incorrectly classified as separate species [rather than] intraspecific taxa." However, it is not possible for us to know whether fossil A was or was not the same species as fossil B."

Don't get mad at me because you can't follow your own conversation. And then you get confused when I respond with: "And yet they do precisely that. Tell us it is quite possible and that they are separate species."

As I said - the confusion is of your own making which this conversation is quite clearly corroborating. I mean - I even separated that statement and answered it separately from the others so there would be no confusion. You are doing the same thing you do with species - confusing the issue by your own making and then complaining that you are confused.

Since I didn't get the first part of the convo, I'm missing the point of the second half. I know most of the common definitions for species. Why is this relevant?

You didn't get the first half because you didn't even read your own words and my response to them together. You separated what I said as the response to what you said then wonder why you got confused, instead of reading the post before answering. Instead you just clicked the quote button and then when your response didn't show up got completely lost. And then you blame your lack of comprehension on me instead of where it rightly belongs - on you.

I can't tell you know them, or we wouldn't be having this discussion of two birds interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes as being separate species or not. Nor the tiny little fact that no DNA test could tell any difference between them. If you can't understand how the fact that we go back to the scientific definitions when two personal opinions differ - then there is no hope for you at all. Lost in the brainwashing so deep you can't even see your own contradictions.

I don't insist that at all. I think you are confused. Variation happens for a variety of reasons, but certainly among bacteria interbreeding is not one of them.

And because interbreeding is not one of them those E coli (or any other - let me clarify that before you throw the strawman of another name of a different one in again) never become anything but E coli (or any you care to name).

Until a specific, clear test exists for Asian vs. African that is generally agreed upon and shown to work at least 95 percent of the time, I can neither agree nor disagree with this statement.

We call it DNA testing - are you now ignoring the DNA results too along with the observational evidence? It has been used in many court cases to both convict suspects and exclude people from being a suspect based precisely on the fact that they could tell a person of African, Asian, Caucasian, Spanish descent etc from the others. It couldn't be any clearer.

Well, since the definition of species is rather vague, as soon as some scientists claim that a new strain of bacteria is a new species...

Would be lying through his teeth. Or just as confused as you are - since they only inherent the gene of their parent - it is after all called cloning for a reason.

Almost never is not the same as never.

And then you ignore your own statement about chromosomes. I agree they almost never change chromosomes - but as you correctly pointed out chromosomes are only observed to be lost and never gained. So we agree - almost never are chromosomes lost. But NEVER are they gained. If you wish to flutter around that fact then you can simply show one single time when a chromosome has been observed to be gained where it did not exist before? And please - no claims of billions of years ago where no one has ever observed anything.

Down Syndrome occurs when a child receives an extra 21st chromosome. Accordingly, it is possible for extra chromosomes to be added.

Because a third COPY of chromosome 21 is present - a new chromosome was never added. Do you understand the difference between a new chromosome and a copy of an existing chromosome. And I would have avoided that example had I been you - since it flies in the face of the organism becoming fitter from such mutational occurrences.

"Down syndrome is a genetic disorder in which, most often, a third copy of chromosome 21 is present in cells because of an abnormal cell division when the egg and sperm first meet"

Is that "most often" kinda like "almost never" ????

"Human cells normally contain 23 pairs of chromosomes. One chromosome in each pair comes from your father, the other from your mother."

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/causes/con-20020948

What about horizontal gene transfer? Have you never heard of that?

I sure have - it's the cause of the confusion between species, when those ERV bring foreign genomes over into the host and you confuse that as afterwards being vertical inheritance through familial relationship. And lets clarify that those foreign genomes are simply used for the production of proteins.

Possibly, but I remain agnostic on that point.

Please show me where in the Bible it says that half of the very genetic structure itself was taken from Adam. Until you show me that, I will not believe your claim.

I just did, it's not my problem you an others confuse "part of his side" with a rib. And since indeed half of the genome is within the female and half is within the male and until those two genomes reunite and become one - no babies are ever produced, I'd say my interpretation is far closer to reality than any you might propose to counter with. Even if you just chose refusing to make a decision one way or another as your decision. You choose to simply remain agnostic on the point - not willing to take one stance or the other - which is not a counter to any stance I put forth. You simply refuse to agree or disagree. But then you seem to take a stance anyways by refusing to believe my claim even if you just claimed you were remaining agnostic on the issue.

But I believe all of science has already proved my point - by the simple fact that half the genome resides within the female and half resides within the male. I certainly see nothing in science to disagree with my interpretation.

"Human cells normally contain 23 pairs of chromosomes. One chromosome in each pair comes from your father, the other from your mother."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look, Justatruthseeker, you can insult, make derogatory remarks, call others liars, you name it, until Hell freezes over. That does not alter the fact that if you are gong to launch outlandish attacks on science and evolution, then you better have some big, bug credentials and big, big evidence. The problem I have with your comments is that they make it obvious you are lacking these big guns you desperately need. You asked me about my credentials. Fair question. I had a strong scientific education and earned a master's degree in a major scientific field at a Big 10 U. I'm not naming names here, to protect my identity. After that, I switched fields and went back to graduate school to earn by doctorate in theology from a conjoint program between a major university and a PCSUA seminary. The focus area of my dissertation, later published ass a book by Susquehanna University Press, was upon God and evolution. it is my contention that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. Incidentally, this was a central point in the Christian mystical tradition, which, unfortunately gets ignored in contemporary theological education. I am listed in "Scholars of Early Modern Europe" and "Who's Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology." If I knew you better, I'd give you the exact page. I am humble enough to realize I don't know everything, but I am honest enough to recognize I definitely have strong expertise in science, the Bible, and theology. OK, since you asked, how about yours?

Next, I find your arguments unsatisfying. You seek to down evolution by conjuring up a counterfactual scenario in which you imagine how an evolutionary thinker would respond, this conveniently in such a way as to make a fool out of him. This is a weak argument. Are you a mind reader? How do you know what an evolutionary thinker would do in a situation such as your imagination conjured up? In the first place, it is illogical to use imaginary counterfactual situations as a basis upon which to judge what happens in the real world.

Next, you attack those who hold with evolutionary thinking, purely on religious grounds. How can you be a true Presbyterian and believe in evolution? Well, who says you are the judge of what is Presbyterian and what not. I am Presbyterian and I have no trouble at all reconciling God with evolution. Years ago, true, many denominations grilled their ministerial candidates on the belief about evolution. However, in most church, including the mainline Presbyterian, that was declared as illegal years ago. If you look at the current P and P for the PCUSA, it clearly states that clergy have considerable theological freedom in such matters.

No such thing as hell first of all.



I seek to counter evolution because not once in the entire history of human observation has one infraspecific taxa or even onse species been observed to evolve into another. The only time you have EVER observed variation in the species is when two separate infraspecific taxa in the species mate.

Stop ignoring the fact that the Asian does not evolve into an Afro-Asian but remains an Asian. Stop ignoring the fact that the African does not evolve into the Afro-Asian but remains an African.

Stop ignoring the fact that the Husky does not evolve into the Chinnok but remains a Husky. Stop ignoring the fact that the Mastiff does not evolve into the Chinook but remains a Mastiff.

Yet in both cases a new variation of the species occurs.

You seem to miss the entire point. No one is arguing variation does not occur in the species - I simply state as FACT - that it is not from one creature evolving into another. If you wish to come up with a new theory based upon the observational evidence - I would indeed be willing to read it and give it consideration????

Until then do not ask that I ignore how we observe variation to occur in the "species" itself in favor of something never once observed and that can not be fitted to any experiment or observation of single celled organisms becoming more complex.

Are you proposing a new theory based upon the observations? If so I would indeed be willing to read anything you might put forth - as long as it does not require how we actually observe that variation does occur in the species.

Paul Marmet is listed in who's who in science - has over 100 published papers - invented the first mass spectrometer - but if we were discussing cosmology instead you'd dismiss him as being of any consequence at all - despite your using just that to claim your own veracity.

Shall we now discuss redshift in cosmology and watch how you dismiss the scientific paper even if he is listed in the Who is who in science? Even if he was given the highest award offered by the Canadian government as well? So apparently what you claim for yourself will be dismissed by you yourself as soon as we talk about something you don't agree with.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It should never have existed in the first place. Let's all be honest with each other. It was those finches that led to acceptance of the theory - because they were labeled as separate species and so were the living evidence that evolution was true. The sad thing is that Darwin believed they were reproductively isolated and therefore separate species - when he simply had not stuck around long enough to do a proper scientific investigation. Now we know they are interbreeding right before our eyes and producing fertile offspring, yet they refuse to correct their mistakes, because this would take away the entire basis of the theory itself. The simple fact is it was founded on a mistake in classification - one which evolutionists still refuse to admit to, despite the definitions of their own science.

And for this reason they no longer have any standing, because if we cant trust them in such a little thing as correcting and admitting to a mistake in classification, they can not be trusted with greater truths.

You misunderstand the history. Scientists all over were already accepting evolution. Darwin's contribution was to give a viabe, scientific theory as to how evolution can happen.

 

[Zosimus]

Now, now, no need to get belligerent because you know you are on shaky ground and are left with no choice but to continue ignoring science to support your beliefs and trying to confuse the subject and pretend always someone else is at fault.

I'm not belligerent. I just don't like people using pronouns without antecedents, because doing so makes it impossible to follow the conversation. Since you don't seem to get why that's important, for the remainder of the post, I will provide no antecedents for my pronouns.

Because you can't even follow your own discussion. You just made it a point to tell me how we can not tell the difference between those fossils. Then you are confused when I tell you (they) scientists tell us they can do exactly that. I guess I need to start spelling things out since you can't follow your own conversation from post to post???

I can follow it just fine. It's that you cannot understand it when they say it doesn't work the way you think it works. It turns out that they cannot determine when they are different because they don't know whether they can interbreed with them. That's why it's important that they have a clear definition of what they are and how we can determine when they are of the same species or different species.

Your words: "You say that "90 [percent] of the fossil record is incorrectly classified as separate species [rather than] intraspecific taxa." However, it is not possible for us to know whether fossil A was or was not the same species as fossil B."

Yes, that's exactly what I said. It's impossible for them to determine when it is different or the same as it, because there's no way for them to determine whether it can interbreed with it.

Don't get mad at me because you can't follow your own conversation. And then you get confused when I respond with: "And yet they do precisely that. Tell us it is quite possible and that they are separate species."

I can follow it just fine. You are the one who cannot understand it when what they are saying has nothing to do with it in the first place. They have clearly shown that it can be determined by them when they do it the way they have always done it! Get it?

As I said - the confusion is of your own making which this conversation is quite clearly corroborating. I mean - I even separated that statement and answered it separately from the others so there would be no confusion. You are doing the same thing you do with species - confusing the issue by your own making and then complaining that you are confused.

No, it's not of my own making. It is clearly confusing the way you speak of them, because it has nothing to do with it in the first place. They have ways of determining it that are distinct from the way they used to do it. If you don't understand it, you should ask them why they do it that way and stop pretending that you don't understand why they do it and how they figure out the difference between them by doing it that way.

You didn't get the first half because you didn't even read your own words and my response to them together. You separated what I said as the response to what you said then wonder why you got confused, instead of reading the post before answering. Instead you just clicked the quote button and then when your response didn't show up got completely lost. And then you blame your lack of comprehension on me instead of where it rightly belongs - on you.

I got it just fine because I read them and remembered them even though you didn't mention it again when you referred to them. It's just that it has nothing to do with it because they didn't do it the way you claimed they did it.

I can't tell you know them, or we wouldn't be having this discussion of two birds interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes as being separate species or not. Nor the tiny little fact that no DNA test could tell any difference between them. If you can't understand how the fact that we go back to the scientific definitions when two personal opinions differ - then there is no hope for you at all. Lost in the brainwashing so deep you can't even see your own contradictions.

You can't tell me that I know them, because although you think I understand it, if you hadn't talked about them in such a confusing way, then we would see that when they produce it right in front of them, it cannot be determine whether they are part of it or not. Now I realize that you think that it can tell the difference between them, but there's no way for it to determine it without clear ways of distinguishing between them. Don't you get it? It's quite clear what they refer to, so when they differ, it's not surprising that they don't get it! So you see, there's no contradiction between them, and I don't know why you say that it is.

And because interbreeding is not one of them those E coli (or any other - let me clarify that before you throw the strawman of another name of a different one in again) never become anything but E coli (or any you care to name).

Of course, it's not one of them because they don't interbreed in order to change it, because they don't underbreed. Everyone knows that. So how can you claim that it changes when they don't even do it the way that you claim they do?!

We call it DNA testing - are you now ignoring the DNA results too along with the observational evidence? It has been used in many court cases to both convict suspects and exclude people from being a suspect based precisely on the fact that they could tell a person of African, Asian, Caucasian, Spanish descent etc from the others. It couldn't be any clearer.

Of course I have heard of it, but you don't explain how they use it to determine whether they confirm or deny it. It is not conclusive and as much as you refer to them, they have nothing to do with it! Yes, they can be excluded from it, but that doesn't mean that it can be used to determine whether they are part or not part of it. That's why they cannot determine exactly how it works or doesn't work or whether it is part of them or not. That's why it doesn't matter how you use it because if you don't have them clear in your mind, then it's all just inconclusive no matter how many times you do it! Get it?

Would be lying through his teeth. Or just as confused as you are - since they only inherent the gene of their parent - it is after all called cloning for a reason.

I know that they inherit it from it, but it doesn't have anything to do with it for any reason that you might try to justify it. It doesn't matter which of them they get it from it doesn't mean that they are or aren't part of it and I don't see why you don't get it!

And then you ignore your own statement about chromosomes. I agree they almost never change chromosomes - but as you correctly pointed out chromosomes are only observed to be lost and never gained. So we agree - almost never are chromosomes lost. But NEVER are they gained. If you wish to flutter around that fact then you can simply show one single time when a chromosome has been observed to be gained where it did not exist before? And please - no claims of billions of years ago where no one has ever observed anything.

I didn't ignore it at all. They almost never change them, sure, but they are gained more often that you think they are. It turns out that they can be gained when it occurs, although sometimes they can have a fusion event, like what happened to them resulting in 23 of them when clearly they used to have 24 of them before it happened. The fact that they are in the middle of them show that they used to be separate and you cannot deny it because it is as clear as day, and you just don't want to admit it.

Because a third COPY of chromosome 21 is present - a new chromosome was never added. Do you understand the difference between a new chromosome and a copy of an existing chromosome. And I would have avoided that example had I been you - since it flies in the face of the organism becoming fitter from such mutational occurrences.

I completely understand that you don't understand it, but it clearly shows that your claim that it never happens is wrong. It happens to them more often than they want to admit, and certainly you cannot deny it now that you have it in front of your eyes. If you don't believe me, google it, and they will show you that they all that it and you cannot deny that they have it. It's obvious that they are not better off for it, but that doesn't mean that they don't experience it, and more of them may be out there waiting for them to discover them. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it may not be observed by them tomorrow. Get it?

"Down syndrome is a genetic disorder in which, most often, a third copy of chromosome 21 is present in cells because of an abnormal cell division when the egg and sperm first meet"

I know exactly what it is, but the fact that they have it in them regardless of the reason for it refutes your claim that it never happens and that they have never observed it. Don't you see it?

"Human cells normally contain 23 pairs of chromosomes. One chromosome in each pair comes from your father, the other from your mother."

Yes, I know how many of them they contain and that they get them from them when it happens. Everyone knows it. Why is it important to them?

I sure have - it's the cause of the confusion between species, when those ERV bring foreign genomes over into the host and you confuse that as afterwards being vertical inheritance through familial relationship. And lets clarify that those foreign genomes are simply used for the production of proteins.

No, it's no source of confusion between them because when they do bring them into it, it doesn't make a difference as to how fit they are to continue to do it and you cannot say that it only happens in that way. They are used not only to make them but also for other purposes, which they simply haven't figured out what they are yet.

I just did, it's not my problem you an others confuse "part of his side" with a rib. And since indeed half of the genome is within the female and half is within the male and until those two genomes reunite and become one - no babies are ever produced, I'd say my interpretation is far closer to reality than any you might propose to counter with. Even if you just chose refusing to make a decision one way or another as your decision. You choose to simply remain agnostic on the point - not willing to take one stance or the other - which is not a counter to any stance I put forth. You simply refuse to agree or disagree. But then you seem to take a stance anyways by refusing to believe my claim even if you just claimed you were remaining agnostic on the issue.

Well you say say it all you want, but that's no reason for me to believe it or that it is contained in it when you haven't showed it to me or even where they can find it. You should say which one of them it is in and how I can find it–or at least quote it to me so that I can google it for myself. I don't see why I should make it when you provide no evidence for it or even a reference to it that I can use to distinguish between them. It's obvious that it's the most logical way of approaching it, and I don't care how much you denigrate it because you have provided no alternative to it or even a reason for me to rethink it.

But I believe all of science has already proved my point - by the simple fact that half the genome resides within the female and half resides within the male. I certainly see nothing in science to disagree with my interpretation.

As I'm sure you know, it's hardly conclusive and certainly hasn't proved it in any way. Even though half of it is within her and the other half within him doesn't make it certain that it agrees with it by any stretch of the imagination!

"Human cells normally contain 23 pairs of chromosomes. One chromosome in each pair comes from your father, the other from your mother."

Yes, I know that, but just because they contain them doesn't mean that it has anything to do with whether it comes from him or from her. Why is it relevant anyway?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You misunderstand the history. Scientists all over were already accepting evolution. Darwin's contribution was to give a viabe, scientific theory as to how evolution can happen.

And that "so-called viable scientific theory" (Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory) was based upon observations that were false. They are not separate species - have never been separate species and will never become separate species. No matter how many locally adapted traits they undergo - they will only be infraspecific taxa in the species to which they belong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Just start following your own science definitions and the confusion will simply fade away.

Scientists all over the world were not already accepting the theory - debate over debate ensued until Darwin brought forth those Finches as definitive proof that evolution was viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches#Darwin.27s_theory

"During the survey voyage of HMS Beagle, Darwin was unaware of the significance of the birds of the Galápagos. He had learned how to preserve bird specimens while at the University of Edinburgh and had been keen on shooting, but he had no expertise in ornithology and by this stage of the voyage concentrated mainly on geology. In Galápagos he mostly left bird shooting to his servant Syms Covington. Nonetheless, these birds were to play an important part in the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection....

....Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented the finches to the Geological Society of London at their meeting on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and bird specimens that he had collected. The bird specimens, including the finches, were given to John Gould, the famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould set aside his paying work and at the next meeting, on 10 January, reported that the birds from the Galápagos Islands that Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks" and finches were actually "a series of ground Finches which are so peculiar [as to form] an entirely new group, containing 12 species". This story made the newspapers."

That entire misconception by Gould is what led Darwin down the false road of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin's_theory

"At Darwin's geological début, the anatomist Richard Owen's reports on the fossils showed that extinct species were related to current species in the same locality, and the ornithologist John Gould showed that bird specimens from the Galápagos Islands were of distinct species related to places, not just varieties. These points convinced Darwin that transmutation of species must be occurring, and in his Red Notebook he jotted down his first evolutionary ideas. He began specific transmutation notebooks with speculations on variation in offspring "to adapt & alter the race to changing world", and sketched an "irregularly branched" genealogical branching of a single evolutionary tree....

...On 19 December 1838 as secretary of the Geological Society of London Darwin witnessed the vicious interrogation by Owen and his allies including Sedgwick and Buckland of Darwin's old tutor Robert Edmund Grant when they ridiculed Grant's Lamarckian heresy in a clear reminder of establishment hatred of evolutionism."

Without those finches and Gould's convincing Darwin they were separate species - the idea would have died the death it rightly deserved. The public would not have accepted it nor the scientific establishment.

It is similar to Piltdown man being used to shove the theory into schools - the only difference is that the finches were a mistake in classification and not a deliberate fraud.

My only confusion is why evolutionists continue to support them as separate species when the observational evidence and the DNA evidence clearly show it was a mistake of gigantic proportions. If they were not crucial to the theory then why is everyone fighting so vigorously to defend the indefensible?????

You contradict yourself by refusing to admit to what should be a simple mistake if it is not crucial to the theory and the very inception of the theory itself.

It's a big deal because it is an error they refuse to admit to, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their very eyes. So if they refuse to admit to and correct this mistake - how many others are there that they also refuse to admit to and correct? If one can not be trusted in the little things - one certainly can not be trusted with the larger things.

The reason they refuse to admit to this mistake is as Weiner claims "that in light of the Grants' studies, the Galápagos finches now constitute the Number One example of evolution in action. "

Even if those same studies showed that ""These finches are clearly not showing themselves to be different species: "Life would be so much simpler if lines of animals would only keep to themselves, [evolutionist Jeremy] Searle writes, only half-jokingly. That should not be too much to ask: it is the zoologist's standard working criterion of a good species . . . . 'It is disappointing that even Darwin's finches do not seem to quite fit the bill.' " (Weiner, p. 201).

And the DNA studies could tell no differences between them.

""As well, it has been demonstrated that even at the molecular level, the various "species" of Geospiza are indistinguishable. Studies involving both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA were unable to separate finches of this "genus" into their six "species." This result is "uncharacteristic of nearly all other avian species and genera. . . . there is little evidence for clear species limits within Geospiza . . . irrespective of whether one uses biological, phylogenetic, genealogical, or evolutionary species concepts. . . . [It might be that] each genus is [just] a polymorphic species" (Zink, pp. 867-868)."

But they are your number one example - so will continue to be parrotted as such despite the fact they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes and no DNA test can tell the differences between them as it can for all other species of bird, animal, man, insect, etc, etc, etc....

 

[Butterfly99]

Or, from another point of view. I wonder how many YEC's entering a secular college majoring in life sciences become aware that the mainstream science is different from what his/her YEC associates have indoctrinated them into believing, thus abandoning YEC beliefs.

Well from what I understand of it they know that mainstream science supports evolution but they've been taught all this junk about mainstream science being against God or something. Basically any mistake ever made by mainstream science is brought out to try to make it seem like mainstream science is usually wrong so you'd be a fool to trust it. I talked w my Sunday School teacher about this. He teaches at GMU now but he used to teach HS in South Carolina a long time ago. He knows about this stuff. These kids are even taught that the Holocaust was caused by evolution!!!! It's not much of a wonder they act like learning about evolution is drinking poison. They just don't know their minds have been poisoned about it all along.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not belligerent. I just don't like people using pronouns without antecedents, because doing so makes it impossible to follow the conversation. Since you don't seem to get why that's important, for the remainder of the post, I will provide no antecedents for my pronouns.

And I will understand every word of what you say, because I remember what I say from one post to the next and I read your responses before answering - along with my response to which you are replying.

And you are still trying to avoid the point. THEY still claim THEY can tell the differences between THOSE fossils, based merely on THEIR appearance. Now you just keep pretending you can't understand that all you want. Try whatever avoidance tactics makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

I can follow it just fine. It's that you cannot understand it when they say it doesn't work the way you think it works. It turns out that they cannot determine when they are different because they don't know whether they can interbreed with them. That's why it's important that they have a clear definition of what they are and how we can determine when they are of the same species or different species.

THEY do not agree with YOU.

http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/fossil_identification.html
"Fossils of animals are classified, as are living specimens, by observing the body structures and functions. While there are a few unique challenges in classifying fossils, the basic scheme of organization is the same. Going one step at a time can make fossil identification possible for anyone."

Yes, that's exactly what I said. It's impossible for them to determine when it is different or the same as it, because there's no way for them to determine whether it can interbreed with it.

And yet consistently THEY disagree with YOU.

http://www.k5geosource.org/1content/1sc/fossils/pg10.html
"Fossils with very similar geometry are assumed to belong to a single species. Fossils with somewhat different geometry are assumed to belong to a different species."

So it is all based upon assumptions of people that believe in evolution in the first place. Even if one needs but look at dogs, cats, or humans, etc to know that mere physical differences does not constitute a species. And hence THEY have incorrectly classified 90% of the fossils based upon their pre-concieved beliefs of animals evolving over time into separate species. THEY fit the data to their beliefs and not THEIR beliefs to the data. If they fit their beliefs to the data - then they would understand that infraspecific taxa within the species vary widely in appearance and would have come to the logical conclusion that almost every one they label as separate species is in reality most likely a separate infraspecific taxa within the species. But that would not fit their beliefs of creatures evolving into other species over time.

I can follow it just fine. You are the one who cannot understand it when what they are saying has nothing to do with it in the first place. They have clearly shown that it can be determined by them when they do it the way they have always done it! Get it?

And they way they have always done it is to rely on little differences in appearance - when we know from direct observational evidence and DNA tests - that appearance has very little to do with it when it comes to infraspecific taxa within a species. They would classify Husky as a separate species than a Pit Bull if they hadn't ibserved or didn't know the lineage thereof. Get it?

No, it's not of my own making. It is clearly confusing the way you speak of them, because it has nothing to do with it in the first place. They have ways of determining it that are distinct from the way they used to do it. If you don't understand it, you should ask them why they do it that way and stop pretending that you don't understand why they do it and how they figure out the difference between them by doing it that way.

I know why they do it already. Because it fits their pre-conceived beliefs of one species evolving into another species - so anything slightly different is labeled as a separate species. Even if the difference between between Father and son are not what we use to distinguish if they belong to the same family or not - but the similarities.

I got it just fine because I read them and remembered them even though you didn't mention it again when you referred to them. It's just that it has nothing to do with it because they didn't do it the way you claimed they did it.

Exactly - they too ignore their own scientific definitions. We agree wholeheartedly!!!!!

You can't tell me that I know them, because although you think I understand it, if you hadn't talked about them in such a confusing way, then we would see that when they produce it right in front of them, it cannot be determine whether they are part of it or not. Now I realize that you think that it can tell the difference between them, but there's no way for it to determine it without clear ways of distinguishing between them. Don't you get it? It's quite clear what they refer to, so when they differ, it's not surprising that they don't get it! So you see, there's no contradiction between them, and I don't know why you say that it is.

And you refuse to accept that clear way. Those finches can not be told apart by the DNA data - even if for every other infraspecific taxa within a species such as African or Asian - we can tell they are different infraspecific taxa by the DNA data. But now your wanting to ignore that too along with the observational evidence.

You can't tell if two things are separate species by looking at the differences - but only the similarities - as one of thier top evolutionary supporters is trying to tell them.


The "science" says they have even gotten babies and adults of the same species wrong - because they only look for differences and label everything different a different species.

You seem to be arguing on one hand they can't tell the difference between species - and then argue they have to be correct because that's they way they do it anyways. Contradiction after contradiction and you do not even see it being blinded by that Fairie Dust.

Of course, it's not one of them because they don't interbreed in order to change it, because they don't underbreed. Everyone knows that. So how can you claim that it changes when they don't even do it the way that you claim they do?!

Because the very fact they do not interbreed shows they have no other source of genes and they always remain the same. I don't claim it changes - I claim it NEVER changes. That E coli will forever remain E coli. Just as those 2 billion year old bacteria they found remained the same over those 2 billion years. Suddenly no evolution is proof of evolution. Although only an evolutionists would make such wildly conflicting claims. Especially when no one believes the conditions on the earth never changed, yet their non-evolution is claimed as merely proving they adapted to their environment. Yet we know the conditions today are not the same as they were 2 billion years ago.

Of course I have heard of it, but you don't explain how they use it to determine whether they confirm or deny it. It is not conclusive and as much as you refer to them, they have nothing to do with it! Yes, they can be excluded from it, but that doesn't mean that it can be used to determine whether they are part or not part of it. That's why they cannot determine exactly how it works or doesn't work or whether it is part of them or not. That's why it doesn't matter how you use it because if you don't have them clear in your mind, then it's all just inconclusive no matter how many times you do it! Get it?

Go look up how they use DNA evidence to determine guilt or innocence or exclude suspects - don't expect me to baby sit you. I expect you to have some knowledge of the subject if you are going to participate in the discussion. They claim 99.99% accuracy - but you claim it isn't - so which is it? Get it?

I know that they inherit it from it, but it doesn't have anything to do with it for any reason that you might try to justify it. It doesn't matter which of them they get it from it doesn't mean that they are or aren't part of it and I don't see why you don't get it!

On the contrary - it supports my claim. If that chromosome never existed - they would never receive a third copy of it. It would never exist to get copied incorrectly. There would be nothing for the mutation to incorrectly copy. Why don't you get it?

I didn't ignore it at all. They almost never change them, sure, but they are gained more often that you think they are. It turns out that they can be gained when it occurs, although sometimes they can have a fusion event, like what happened to them resulting in 23 of them when clearly they used to have 24 of them before it happened. The fact that they are in the middle of them show that they used to be separate and you cannot deny it because it is as clear as day, and you just don't want to admit it.

Prove it!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

"Another kind of error that can happen with a low frequency is a duplication, where the machinery of the cell accidentally repeats itself when copying, and you get an extra copy of a piece of a chromosome, like so:"

It's the fact that it is rare and almost always corrected by the repair mechanism which makes a species viable. If it happened all the time you would end up with deformity after deformity.

http://www.rarechromo.org/html/chromosomesanddisorders.asp
"Rare chromosome disorders include extra, missing or re-arranged chromosome material but do not include the more common chromosome conditions such as Down's Syndrome."

So it really isn't as common as you are trying to make it sound, is it.



I've run out of time for the rest of your nonsense and avoidance tactics. All your double-talk is just that double-talk to avoid the facts. You and I both know this.

You and I both know you are merely arguing to argue and have nothing to support you - which is why I always seem to be the only one that presents scientific data in these posts. And every-time I do it contradicts every claim you just made. But you go on ignoring it as if it didn't exist - because it won't fit your pre-conceived beliefs which have become religious in nature. Like a zealot defending his religion. The difference is I admit my belief in God is a religion. You just try to add veracity to yours by calling it science while ignoring the science itself.