• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution conflict and division

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There are billions of them doing just that. But aside from our own species...
Oh dear, again the evols Koko/Kanzi smoke. You really have to think before you post. Three conditions proposed: Wild - Apes - Talking. And you give us zoo born apes that don't talk. Well, you got apes - that's good. But sadly missed the other two. You don't need apes. My dog Fido does as much. We call that behavior conditioning. Please try again.
The great thing about debating about things like evolution is that facts matter.
Yes, facts -- not speculations -- do matter. Got any?
... we have observed cases of macroevolution ...
Early in this thread, I asked for you to enlighten us on your observation of a macro event. Your reply: <crickets>.

Let me help you out on your obvious logic failure. Evols claim that millions of micro events must (a moral word) result in an imperceptible macro event. Kindly lookup the definition of "imperceptible".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I see you've made no attempt to support the assumptions of the study you're touting or to rebut my criticism of it. Is this your idea of a serious discussion of evolution? Answer my questions in the post you just quoted. (And lay off the ridiculous attacks like this -- they don't do you any favors.)
My question on your depth in statistics came from reading your posts.
More to the point, I've written many simulations, including simulations of natural selection acting on beneficial mutations, simulations which I then used in various studies (all of which were published in genuine scientific journals, by the way).
Can you share with us a few of your published simulations? If not, will you at least show us the portion of your code that generates a random number?
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,347
389
53
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟273,033.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The claim begs for a precise definition of "species".

Hybrids are microevolution events. My heritage has never produced a descendant with brown eyes. I married a brown eyed person and some our children have brown eyes but we don't think of them as new "species".

So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies. For example, "All triangles have three sides." A triangle being defined as a three-sided figure, we learn nothing from that statement. Contrast it with the statement, "No triangle has any diagonals," which not a tautology.
I do get what he was trying to say in his example. A lion and tiger can mate and produce offspring, a liger or tigon, depending on the genders of the individual parents involved. But the liger or tigon is always sterile because the two species, while similar enough to mate, are unable to produce viable offspring that can reproduce because of genetic incompatibilities. Horses and donkeys can also reproduce and create mules or hinnies, who, also because of genetic incompatibilities, are largely unable to reproduce.

So, his example here of a hybrid plant forming from two distinct species of the same genus is allegedly an example of speciation, since a new species of the same genus has emerged, and it is able to reproduce on its own, furthering its own species' existence.

However, I don't have the research in front of me to know whether they examined the base origins of the two separate species to determine if they were, in fact, two separate species, and not merely two micro-mutations of the same species that reproduced to create a hybrid species that is, in fact, the same base species with a complement of both sets of mutations, much like taking an African American and a Caucasian, whose offspring might be a darker skinned child with blue eyes, like Vanessa Williams, for example. It can be argued that African Americans and Caucasians are distinct species in the sense of the argument being made of these plants. An anthropologist can distinguish between the two ethnicities even by the bones. For that matter, they can tell you if the person was Oriental, African, Caucasian, or even Jewish. So, micro-evolved traits carried over from what would appear to be demonstrably different species of the same genus, while preserving the ability to reproduce and carry the combined traits forward, would only be considered speciation in a loose sense, which I would equate to be the same as the one suggested for the plants. Humans, despite their micro-evolved traits, all originate from the same source species, and I would wager that the plants did too.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,770
13,307
78
✟441,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oh dear, again the evols Koko/Kanzi smoke.
I get your discomfort with the fact that non-human apes are capable of language. But there it is.

Three conditions proposed: Wild - Apes - Talking.
Why would wild apes use human communication? I'm just pointing out that they have a rudimentary capacity to do human communication. It's only scary if you don't like God using nature to make His creatures. Once you accept it His way, your discomfort will go away.

Early in this thread, I asked for you to enlighten us on your observation of a macro event.
I pointed out a number of documented cases observed by humans. I'm beginning to suspect that your argument is that if I haven't personally observed something, it couldn't happen. Is that what you're saying?

Let me help you out on your obvious logic failure. Evols claim that millions of micro events must (a moral word) result in an imperceptible macro event.
No, you were misled about that. For example, anatomically modern humans have gone through many millions of mutations (micro events), but we are still a single species. On the other hand, a single mutation can produce a new species (macro event). Lack of knowledge about the things one is talking about, is a huge disadvantage. But it's a curable disadvantage. Why not do something about it?

Kindly lookup the definition of "imperceptible".
That's the other issue. Reproductive isolation is very perceptible. You'd be much more effective at fighting science, if you knew more about it.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,770
13,307
78
✟441,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Humans, despite their micro-evolved traits, all originate from the same source species, and I would wager that the plants did too.
The difference is that there are no biological human races.
But extensive research on human genetic variation, as well as our growing understanding of the origins of the idea of race, has led experts to conclude that the existence of biological race in humans has no scientific basis. Regardless of their race, any two humans share 99.9% of their DNA (Collins, Morgan & Patrinos, 2003; Redon et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2023). Moreover, human genetic variation does not support the division of the human species into biologically meaningful smaller groups like subspecies (Templeton, 2013). Race in humans is not biologically real.

You are as likely to be a closer genetic match for New Guinea highlander as you are to be one for your next-door neighbor. On the other hand, speciation by hybridization involves reproductive isolation from the two original species. And of course, you don't see crosses between any groups of anatomically modern humans to be reproductively isolated.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,347
389
53
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟273,033.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The difference is that there are no biological human races.
But extensive research on human genetic variation, as well as our growing understanding of the origins of the idea of race, has led experts to conclude that the existence of biological race in humans has no scientific basis. Regardless of their race, any two humans share 99.9% of their DNA (Collins, Morgan & Patrinos, 2003; Redon et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2023). Moreover, human genetic variation does not support the division of the human species into biologically meaningful smaller groups like subspecies (Templeton, 2013). Race in humans is not biologically real.

You are as likely to be a closer genetic match for New Guinea highlander as you are to be one for your next-door neighbor. On the other hand, speciation by hybridization involves reproductive isolation from the two original species. And of course, you don't see crosses between any groups of anatomically modern humans to be reproductively isolated.
I didn't disagree with this. The point being made was that I don't have the information in front of me to know if the plants in question had the same similarities. let's not forget that proponents of evolution will readily take the tooth of a pig and build an entire psuedo-human skeleton out of it just to prove their point. They are hardly known for their sincere objectivity. Most are atheists and naturalists who deny any and all existence of a divine being.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,770
13,307
78
✟441,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I didn't disagree with this. The point being made was that I don't have the information in front of me to know if the plants in question had the same similarities. let's not forget that proponents of evolution will readily take the tooth of a pig and build an entire psuedo-human skeleton out of it just to prove their point.
No. Never happened. That was a British popular magazine story; no scientists involved. Would you like to hear the real story, and how scientists solved the question? Wasn't actually a pig, BTW.

YECs peddled the um, "enhanced" story. And most people who accept the fact of evolution are theists of some kind, mostly Christian. Would you like to see what we know about that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
761
335
37
Pacific NW
✟29,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
I do get what he was trying to say in his example. A lion and tiger can mate and produce offspring, a liger or tigon, depending on the genders of the individual parents involved. But the liger or tigon is always sterile because the two species, while similar enough to mate, are unable to produce viable offspring that can reproduce because of genetic incompatibilities. Horses and donkeys can also reproduce and create mules or hinnies, who, also because of genetic incompatibilities, are largely unable to reproduce.

So, his example here of a hybrid plant forming from two distinct species of the same genus is allegedly an example of speciation, since a new species of the same genus has emerged, and it is able to reproduce on its own, furthering its own species' existence.

However, I don't have the research in front of me to know whether they examined the base origins of the two separate species to determine if they were, in fact, two separate species, and not merely two micro-mutations of the same species that reproduced to create a hybrid species that is, in fact, the same base species with a complement of both sets of mutations, much like taking an African American and a Caucasian, whose offspring might be a darker skinned child with blue eyes, like Vanessa Williams, for example. It can be argued that African Americans and Caucasians are distinct species in the sense of the argument being made of these plants. An anthropologist can distinguish between the two ethnicities even by the bones. For that matter, they can tell you if the person was Oriental, African, Caucasian, or even Jewish. So, micro-evolved traits carried over from what would appear to be demonstrably different species of the same genus, while preserving the ability to reproduce and carry the combined traits forward, would only be considered speciation in a loose sense, which I would equate to be the same as the one suggested for the plants. Humans, despite their micro-evolved traits, all originate from the same source species, and I would wager that the plants did too.
IIRC the cases that have been posted here include examples where reproductive isolation was confirmed, and in the cases of experimental speciation the history/heritage of the newly evolved species was obviously known (it's a fundamental part of the experiments).

I really don't understand why some creationists argue against speciation since we've seen it occur many times, it's required for YEC flood scenarios, and most YEC organizations admit it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I do get what he was trying to say in his example. A lion and tiger can mate and produce offspring, a liger or tigon, depending on the genders of the individual parents involved. But the liger or tigon is always sterile because the two species, while similar enough to mate, are unable to produce viable offspring that can reproduce because of genetic incompatibilities. Horses and donkeys can also reproduce and create mules or hinnies, who, also because of genetic incompatibilities, are largely unable to reproduce.

So, his example here of a hybrid plant forming from two distinct species of the same genus is allegedly an example of speciation, since a new species of the same genus has emerged, and it is able to reproduce on its own, furthering its own species' existence.

However, I don't have the research in front of me to know whether they examined the base origins of the two separate species to determine if they were, in fact, two separate species, and not merely two micro-mutations of the same species that reproduced to create a hybrid species that is, in fact, the same base species with a complement of both sets of mutations, much like taking an African American and a Caucasian, whose offspring might be a darker skinned child with blue eyes, like Vanessa Williams, for example. It can be argued that African Americans and Caucasians are distinct species in the sense of the argument being made of these plants. An anthropologist can distinguish between the two ethnicities even by the bones. For that matter, they can tell you if the person was Oriental, African, Caucasian, or even Jewish. So, micro-evolved traits carried over from what would appear to be demonstrably different species of the same genus, while preserving the ability to reproduce and carry the combined traits forward, would only be considered speciation in a loose sense, which I would equate to be the same as the one suggested for the plants. Humans, despite their micro-evolved traits, all originate from the same source species, and I would wager that the plants did too.
Thanks for your input.

The evolutionists' arguments often reverses the order of logic which asserts that truth resides in a mind that conforms to reality. Not realizing that reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind, their arguments are based on a "reality must conform to their (fallible) minds".

This fundamental error begins with their ambiguous and amorphous definition of the word "species". This ambiguity allows many of their arguments to fail as they employ the fallacy of begging the question. They attempt to force reality to comply with their unproven notions.

This hybrid plant is a good example. As you point out, it is quite difficult to understand the sentence, " ... [Did] they examined the base origins of the two separate species to determine if they were, in fact (in realty), two separate species, and not merely two micro-mutations of the same species that reproduced to create a hybrid species" without a clear and concise definition of the word "species".

We must allow that posters who have invested and dedicated much of their lives to the failed theories of macro-evolution will resort to snarky responses.

I believe we all agree that God initiated life but disagree as to how the diversity of life came about. Was it entirely microbes to man absent God's hand or God's hand that brought about that diversity.

I recommend for serious, open-minded readers watch:
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,770
13,307
78
✟441,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The evolutionists' arguments often reverses the order of logic which asserts that truth resides in a mind that conforms to reality. Not realizing that reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind, their arguments are based on a "reality must conform to their (fallible) minds".
1757180823144.png

You've gotten it backwards, again.
This fundamental error begins with their ambiguous and amorphous definition of the word "species".
This is a huge problem for YEC. You see, if creationism were true, there would be nice, definable boundaries between species. Instead, we see all sorts of transitional populations, half-species, quarter-species, and so on. Which Darwin predicted. It makes perfect sense for evolving populations to be like this, but it could not be, if creationism were true.

I believe we all agree that God initiated life but disagree as to how the diversity of life came about. Was it entirely microbes to man absent God's hand or God's hand that brought about that diversity.
Why would it anger you, if God chose to use nature to create living things? He specifically says that He did so in Genesis. Even Darwin supposed that God did it.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
... non-human apes are capable of language. But there it is.
Nope.
Why would wild apes use human communication?
You mean why would apes use language. Back-pedaling, I see.
I'm beginning to suspect that your argument is that if I haven't personally observed something ...
... we call that lack of evidence natural faith. Of which you apparently invest heavily in.
... anatomically modern humans have gone through many millions of mutations (micro events), but we are still a single species
There's that multi-purpose "species" word again. If the evol says it's so then it must be so.
Reproductive isolation is very perceptible.
So what? My wife and I reproduced human beings isolated from our parents.
This is a huge problem for YEC.
Strawman alert!
... if creationism were true, there would be nice, definable boundaries between species.
Are you not a Christian? Add looking up "creationism" to your homework assignments.
Why would it anger you ...
Who's angry? It appears that would be you .... you self-identify as "crabby". No more evidence needed of that.

As you are now repeating your same flawed arguments, I suspect that you may be just an AI posting here. The behavior of an AI system is entirely determined by it programming and training set. That peculiarly defines you. No point in continuing.
 
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
761
335
37
Pacific NW
✟29,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Reproductive isolation is very perceptible

So what? My wife and I reproduced human beings isolated from our parents.
I'm sorry but that is soooooo funny!

Sometimes people ask me what it's like to interact with fundamentalist creationists and my usual answer is "You have to prepare yourself for weapons-grade Dunning-Kruger". And here it is. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,455
3,209
Hartford, Connecticut
✟361,159.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They are reproductively isolated and they have undergone a chromosome duplication, making them significantly genetically unique and distinct from their ancestors.
@o_mlly did you have any further comment on this?
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sometimes people ask me what it's like to interact with fundamentalist creationists and my usual answer is "You have to prepare yourself for weapons-grade Dunning-Kruger". And here it is.
Congrats! As predicted, evols resort to either -- "You're ignorant" or the strawman. And you've combined the two in a single post.
@o_mlly did you have any further comment on this?
Need some clarification first. Who is "they" and what is the measure of "significant" in context.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,455
3,209
Hartford, Connecticut
✟361,159.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Need some clarification first. Who is "they" and what is the measure of "significant" in context.
The new species mentioned in my prior post. Chromosome duplication and reproductive isolation.

One of the clearest examples of observed speciation is found in the goat’s beard plant (Tragopogon). In the early 1900s, European settlers introduced three species of Tragopogon into North America. When they grew together, hybrids formed, but normally these would be sterile. Instead, a chromosome-doubling event (polyploidy) restored fertility, creating two brand-new species: Tragopogon miscellus and Tragopogon mirus. These species did not exist in Europe, they originated in America within the last century, have been studied and documented by botanists since their appearance, and are reproductively isolated from their parent species. This is speciation that scientists have directly observed, genetically confirmed, and can still see in nature today.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,455
3,209
Hartford, Connecticut
✟361,159.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Anyone have that clear, concise, and testable definition?
Reproductive isolation as a product of genetic change is a conservative definition.

"a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

A species, in the biological sense, is a group of living things that can successfully mate with each other in the wild and produce fertile offspring, but are naturally separated from other groups by barriers that prevent mixing. This means that all members of a species share a common “gene pool,” while different species remain distinct because they don’t (or can’t) regularly exchange genes. For example, all domestic dogs belong to one species because they can breed with each other, but horses and donkeys are different species because, although they can produce a mule, the mule is sterile and cannot continue the lineage
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,184
579
Private
✟127,490.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Reproductive isolation as a product of genetic change is a conservative definition.

"a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

A species, in the biological sense, is a group of living things that can successfully mate with each other in the wild and produce fertile offspring, but are naturally separated from other groups by barriers that prevent mixing. This means that all members of a species share a common “gene pool,” while different species remain distinct because they don’t (or can’t) regularly exchange genes. For example, all domestic dogs belong to one species because they can breed with each other, but horses and donkeys are different species because, although they can produce a mule, the mule is sterile and cannot continue the lineage
Thank you.

May I begin with understanding the first part of your definition: the phrase: "... a group of living things ...".

A biological "group" is composed of biological individuals. Right?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,455
3,209
Hartford, Connecticut
✟361,159.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you.

May I begin with understanding the first part of your definition: the phrase: "... a group of living things ...".

A biological "group" is composed of biological individuals. Right?
Yes. Like a population.

Like if you had a population of fish, maybe you have some thousands of fish. And they interbreed. But something happens, and then they stop interbreeding. Some subset separates from the group. And so their DNA drifts apart, slowly over time. Kind of like a boat drifting off to sea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0