Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[lasthero]

It has been observed that one species can evolve into a different breed within its species. That is what creationists expect to see. It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Those are all examples of one species evolving within itself. The last example is how three different varieties bred together and eventually we got a self-reproducing variety. That's not support for the theory of evolution at all.

 

[lasthero]

Those are all examples of one species evolving within itself. The last example is how three different varieties bred together and eventually we got a self-reproducing variety. That's not support for the theory of evolution at all.

I don't think you read it properly.

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium(Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

If two species can't produce offspring, they're typically defined as a new species. Are you using some different definition of species? If so, please let me know. How do you determine if two animals are the same species or not?

 

[RickG]

None of those is proof of macroevolution. It is proof that a species can change over time, but regardless of those changes, each species is still genetically its own.

For evolution to be false we would find fossils of all life forms, both fauna and flora, in a layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is they are found exactly in the order evolution would show. If not by evolution, then how did they get distributed like that?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I don't think you read it properly.



If two species can't produce offspring, they're typically defined as a new species. Are you using some different definition of species? If so, please let me know. How do you determine if two animals are the same species or not?

This is an example of a hybrid between a donkey and a horse that produces sterile offspring. A hybrid that can't reproduce. It's not a species because it can't sustain itself.

 

[lasthero]

This is an example of a hybrid between a donkey and a horse that produces sterile offspring. A hybrid that can't reproduce. It's not a species because it can't sustain itself.

That's not the example I provided in the text you're quoting.

The example I quoted showed a new species of fireweed. It couldn't produce offspring with the stock it came from. How is that not a species.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

That's not the example I provided in the text you're quoting.

The example I quoted showed a new species of fireweed. It couldn't produce offspring with the stock it came from. How is that not a species.

I said it was like the example of the horse/donkey hybrid. Regardless, this is not evolution. There was no mutation, no steady transition from one species to another. No evidence of the terms evolutionists claim to happen to support evolution. This is just am example of two compatible species breeding. That has no bearing on evolution, and is completely within the biblical framework of animals/plants reproducing after their kind.

 

[lasthero]

I said it was like the example of the horse/donkey hybrid.

But it's not like that.

Regardless, this is not evolution. There was no mutation, no steady transition from one species to another.

You said that there were no examples of one species giving rise to another, which evolution predicts

I produced an example of one species giving rise to another.

No evidence of the terms evolutionists claim to happen to support evolution. This is just am example of two compatible species breeding.

But they're NOT compatible. They WERE, but not they're NOT anymore. How are they not different species?

That has no bearing on evolution, and is completely within the biblical framework of animals/plants reproducing after their kind.

You're changing the goal posts a bit, here. A moment ago, you were talking about species, now you're talking about 'kind'. So I guess the question now is: What's a kind? How can we tell if two animals are the same kind or not?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

But it's not like that.



You said that there were no examples of one species giving rise to another, which evolution predicts

I produced an example of one species giving rise to another.




But they're NOT compatible. They WERE, but not they're NOT anymore. How are they not different species?



You're changing the goal posts a bit, here. A moment ago, you were talking about species, now you're talking about 'kind'. So I guess the question now is: What's a kind? How can we tell if two animals are the same kind or not?

My apologies. A species is a specific class of genus. All species within a genus are usually sexually compatible. Their reproduction produces hybrids. Their little evolutionary quirks (natural selection) produces varieties.
Occasionally, two species can hybridize and create a hybrid sexually incompatible with the parent species.

The Bible speaks in kinds. And commands that living organisms reproduce after their kind. This would suggest that most species that reproduce within their genus are a "kind".

Now, according to evolutionary theory, we all come from the same ancestor, and evolved into plants, animals, people, etc. This was through a series of mutations which gave rise to new characteristics and eventually new kingdoms, phylums, and classes, etc.

Simply breeding within a species is not evidence of evolution. If anything, it supports the creationist view of reproduction producing new breeds instead of the evolutionary theory of mutation.

 

[lasthero]

My apologies. A species is a specific class of genus. All species within a genus are usually sexually compatible. Their reproduction produces hybrids. Their little evolutionary quirks (natural selection) produces varieties.
Occasionally, two species can hybridize and create a hybrid sexually incompatible with the parent species.

But that's not what's going on with the example I provided, so I'm confused why you keep bringing it up.

The Bible speaks in kinds. And commands that living organisms reproduce after their kind. This would suggest that most species that reproduce within their genus are a "kind".

Why most?

And how does that work with animal that form ring species, like the ensatina?

The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms ahorseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

But that's not what's going on with the example I provided, so I'm confused why you keep bringing it up.



Why most?

And how does that work with animal that form ring species, like the ensatina?

Your original article gave examples of new species based on hybridization. This is exactly how creationists explain how we got all the various species within each genus.

Two compatible animals bred and produced offspring. The genetic diversity of the ancestors of the animals we see today was much greater then. So, as these kinds bred within their taxonomic bracket, they spawned multiple breeds. Ancestors of the cat produced tigers, lions, etc. The breeds stabilized and, through "survival of the fittest" depending on climate and geography, hybridized and became adapted to their own habitat. During this process, we see different genetic traits purified to the point where two species can no longer breed, although they do share a common ancestor.

Now, again, all of this falls well within the creationist view. Firstly, because it is all based on reproduction and not evolution. Secondly, because the only real "evidence" for evolution is based on reproduction fine-tuning the genetic information that was already present.

None of these examples support the evolutionary theory of the tree of life. Where plants and fish share a common ancestor. Or where amoebas gave rise to birds. The ancestor of the lion was a cat. The ancestor of the panther was a cat. They are all cats, just different breeds.

 

[lasthero]

Your original article gave examples of new species based on hybridization. This is exactly how creationists explain how we got all the various species within each genus.

Two compatible animals bred and produced offspring. The genetic diversity of the ancestors of the animals we see today was much greater then. So, as these kinds bred within their taxonomic bracket, they spawned multiple breeds. Ancestors of the cat produced tigers, lions, etc.

Are you saying that lions and tigers are two different breeds? What cat did they come from?

And what about cheetahs, panthers, ocelots, and other cats?

The breeds stabilized and, through "survival of the fittest" depending on climate and geography, hybridized and became adapted to their own habitat. During this process, we see different genetic traits purified to the point where two species can no longer breed, although they do share a common ancestor.

But didn't you say that couldn't happen? If they're genes have differed to the point where they can't breed, they're clearly not the same species anymore, and since you seem to be saying that kind and species mean the same thing, that would indicate a new kind. If two populations being inable to interbreed doesn't make them a separate kind, what does?

None of these examples support the evolutionary theory of the tree of life. Where plants and fish share a common ancestor. Or where amoebas gave rise to birds. The ancestor of the lion was a cat. The ancestor of the panther was a cat. They are all cats, just different breeds.

But not all cats can interbreed.

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're all over the place. One moment, you're saying that new species can't produce, then you're talking about kinds, now you're saying that new species CAN be made, but you just said that evolution can't produce new speices, so...

Let's try and simplify this. You said that, if two animals can bring forth, their the same kind. Okay?

With this in mind, how does that apply to the ensatinas I mentioned? The species at the end of the ring CAN'T have offspring with each other, but they can have offspring with every species between them. Are they the same kind? If so, how can they be when they can't bring forth the same kind?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Are you saying that lions and tigers are two different breeds? What cat did they come from?

And what about cheetahs, panthers, ocelots, and other cats?



But didn't you say that couldn't happen? If they're genes have differed to the point where they can't breed, they're clearly not the same species anymore, and since you seem to be saying that kind and species mean the same thing, that would indicate a new kind. If two populations being inable to interbreed doesn't make them a separate kind, what does?



But not all cats can interbreed.

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're all over the place. One moment, you're saying that new species can't produce, then you're talking about kinds, now you're saying that new species CAN be made, but you just said that evolution can't produce new speices, so...

Let's try and simplify this. You said that, if two animals can bring forth, their the same kind. Okay?

With this in mind, how does that apply to the ensatinas I mentioned? The species at the end of the ring CAN'T have offspring with each other, but they can have offspring with every species between them. Are they the same kind? If so, how can they be when they can't bring forth the same kind?

Ok.

What I'm saying is that the genetic diversity of the ancestor(s) of cats contained the information for all future species/breeds of cats.

When the offspring of those ancestors migrated to other areas, natural selection gave rise to the specific characteristics necessary for survival unique to each area. This genetic information was not added to the DNA, but was essentially distilled from what was already present.

After many years of this process, then it would be natural that some would be unable to reproduce with others. Not because they are adding information and evolving, but because they are losing their original genetic diversity through interbreeding.

Now, while the inability to breed may seem to indicate evolution, it is a loss of information, and not an addition. It's the loss of an ability to reproduce with certain other related species.

According to the theory of evolution, information is added genetically and obtained from an environment. This information is used to modify the genetic code and enhance or add to the function of a species. Hypothetically, this will produce a whole new species one day.

So, through breeding, a new species can be produced through the narrowing down of information already present. This type of new species would fall within creation theory.

Evolution posits a new species based on gradual accumulation of information producing a new species. This type of new species would fall within evolutionary theory.

The examples you first gave were all examples of breeding producing a new species, that by definition, falls within the creation theory.

However, they are being passed off as examples of evolution because they have hybridized themselves enough to become recognized as a new species.

There is no evidence of any sequence of events not expected or predicted by creationist theory, and no evidence expected or needed to back up the evolutionary theory.

When I originally said new species would not be possible, I meant through the evolutionary process. They are obviously possible through the distillation of genetic information, which is indicative of creation.

 

[lasthero]

It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.

Ok.

What I'm saying is that the genetic diversity of the ancestor(s) of cats contained the information for all future species/breeds of cats.

Evidence? How would that even work?

When the offspring of those ancestors migrated to other areas, natural selection gave rise to the specific characteristics necessary for survival unique to each area. This genetic information was not added to the DNA, but was essentially distilled from what was already present.

How are you quantifying this 'information' Does a housecat have less information than lion? Does a lion have more information than a panther? Does a cheetah have more information than a tiger?

Now, while the inability to breed may seem to indicate evolution, it is a loss of information, and not an addition.

You're moving the goal posts, again. I'm sorry, but it bears pointing out.

Let's take the ensatinas again. The ensatinas at the end of the chain can't interbreed with one another. Which one has less information? How would you even determine that?

It's the loss of an ability to reproduce with certain other related species.

What other species? How do you determine that?

According to the theory of evolution, information is added genetically and obtained from an environment.

I've never read that anywhere. Source?

So, through breeding, a new species can be produced through the narrowing down of information already present. This type of new species would fall within creation theory.

So when you said that new species couldn't be produced, you didn't actually mean that?

Evolution posits a new species based on gradual accumulation of information producing a new species. This type of new species would fall within evolutionary theory.

It would help if you defined what you mean by 'information'.

The examples you first gave were all examples of breeding producing a new species, that by definition, falls within the creation theory.

But I distinctly recall you saying that breeding CAN'T produce species, and that if it did, it would support evolution. It feels like you're just changing your argument to suit whatever comes your way.

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree, Sister in Christ. A popular argument is to say microevolution does not prove macroevolution. However, this is not accurate. You said yourself that you are seeing changes within a species. Well, that being the case, it appears that the species is in fact changing. You can't point to the same species twice. Now that's exactly what evolution claims. Put another way, the laws of physics do not stop at your stove. If we see key changes taking place within a species, then this must also hold in the relationship between different species as well. It is purely arbitrary and uncalled-for to assume there is any stopping point here.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can you show us, Sister in Christ, just one example of an institute or research program populate by major scientists interested in proving the assumptions of creation science?

 

[Hoghead1]

Last time I looked horses and donkeys were considered separate species. Hence, their offspring would be a new species. That doesn't take rocket science, just common sense to figure out. Also, evolution has a far, far wider range of data to draw upon than just he example you gave here. You might take a look at the fox program in Russia. Since the early 50's, they have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, there have been very impressive results, and the experiment is still going on. Who knows what they will find in the end?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Last time I looked horses and donkeys were considered separate species. Hence, their offspring would be a new species. That doesn't take rocket science, just common sense to figure out. Also, evolution has a far, far wider range of data to draw upon than just he example you gave here. You might take a look at the fox program in Russia. Since the early 50's, they have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, there have been very impressive results, and the experiment is still going on. Who knows what they will find in the end?

Foxes are dogs. They're all of the same kind. Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Foxes are dogs. They're all of the same kind. Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.

You really need to educate yourself on the theory of evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Foxes are dogs.

Foxes are NOT dogs. They belong to the same FAMILY, canidae, as do coyotes and racoon dogs (which aren't dogs, either) and wolves and domestic dogs. But they're not even close to being the same species as dogs.

They're all of the same kind.

You're moving goalposts, again. Before, you said kind was equivalent to species, but now you seem to be saying that it's equivalent to family. No offense, but it almost seems like a 'kind' is just whatever you need it to be at any given moment to deny evolution.

Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.

If a fox turned into a bird, that would invalidate evolution. Foxes and birds are on completely different brances. No one expects foxes to turn into birds.