A Question for Creationists

[OllieFranz]

For the gazillion time. warblers remaining warblers and squirrels remaing sqirrels is not evidencde of evolution.

Why not? Because you don't like the idea?

Since urbanization wiped out the habitat of the intermediate breeds, the Western Greenish Warbler and the Eastern Greenish Warbler cannot now interbreed nor can they ever be mongrelized withintermediate breeds to enable future cross-breeding. They are, by your own definition separate "kinds."

It is the same with the squirrels. The gulls and the salamanders are on the way as well, and are only considered to be one species because of the intermediate breeds.

Define "glade."

A glade is a clearing in a forest. A clade is a root population and all of its descendents. All domestic dogs are descended from the first group of dogs to be domesticated, and so they could form a clade. A clade is functionally the same as a "kind" as some creationists intend the word. Just as every member of the "domesticated dog clade" is descended from the original domesticated dog, every descendent of that original population is and always will be a member of the clade. Domestic dogs breed "after their own" clade.

Don't need research. Just a basic understanding of what mutations can and cannot do.

Then how did you acquire this "basic understanding of what mutations can and cannot do? Especially since they have been observed doing things you say they can't do.

Mutation do not add characteristics, they ony alter a characterisic the kid would have gotten without he mutation. Iwill lgfive you the same example I always give and am sure you have read: The albinp ws going to get sdkin(teh characteristic). The mutation altered the skin it got, but it will never change the kid into somewthing its parents were not.

That is the case only if the mutation creates a new allele of the existing gene. If it makes, breakes or replaces a gene, that is not the case. You get different (and in the first and third possibilities, brand new) genetic sequences, and, likely new and different traits.

Do you have any research to show a mutation actually changed the species of the offspring?

Yes. All sorts of brand new species of cuciferous vegetables have been created in the lab. One of the important steps was mutating the aloploidy of the genes. I lost my bookmarked link and have to find it again, unless another poster is kind enough to post a link. Also, because I am going from memory in a field I am not an expert in, I apologize if I have oversimplified the answer out of all recognition.

It does not have to pretend, it has actually proven many hhings, In fact science advances on what has been proven in the past.

Again, science is inductive, not deductive. Evidence used in testing theories may be called "proof" but it remains only evidence.

In the same way, jurisprudence is inductive, not deductive. A prosecutor might say that he is going to "prove" the defendent is guilty, but if real proof was available, a trial would not be necessary. Everyone could see the truth. At some point the evidence may become overwhelming, so that everyone is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt," but even so, convicted men have been exhonerated. Nothing is ever proved.

That is not about science, but the analogy is good: that there were black swans is a proven fact, just like there is more than one blood type is a proven fact.

"Observed fact," not "proven fact." Facts are observed, and are the starting point of proof, not the product of one. How would you go about "proving" that a black swan is black?

I can't comment on the rest of the post. You say one thing and then turn right around and say exactly the opposite. Until you decide whether you belive in mutation and what it has been observed to do or not, we'd only be talking in circles

I have told you many tiems and you keep offering statements that it has happened. I will tell you one more time; presenet the BIOLOGICAL evidendce as to HOW, what you says is possible.

If you are saying mutation ae a mechanims mfor evolution. Thell me HOW it is biologically possible.

>>Have you decided that you no longer believe that mutation is real?<<

Of course they are real. It has been scientifically proven.



Okay, wonderful. If the grandparent did not have the gene for a trait, neither did the parents and neither will the kids. That is irrelevant. Whatever genes the parents have can mutate, but the mutation will not cause the kids to become a species sits parents were not.



That is nonsense. If an A does not become a B at soem point in the progression, there is no evolution The basic idea in evolution is CHANGE throuth time.



You have not said HOW. You just gave me an example as if that proved itg.



First, all of the kinds you mention are all the same kind.species if your prefer. All you have done is reinforce "after it kind." Second, nature cannot do what you say. It is controlled by the gene of the parents. If you mix a collie with a shepherd, you don't get either one, but you still get a dog.



Why can't they breed? We know that to much inner breeding in dogs cause them not to be able to breed, but they are still dogs.

Edited to add:

Or is it maybe that you don't know what a mutation is? Otherwise how could you say "Of course they are real. Its been scientifically proven," and immediately follow it up wit the statement about if the grandparents don't have it, neither will the parents or the kids -- directly denying the very mutations that you just agreed are real? Just what is it that you think a mutation is?

 

[AV1611VET]

The above are all people from various fields who affirm the thing we're trying to nail into your head.

John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

 

[OllieFranz]

That is nonsense. If an A does not become a B at soem point in the progression, there is no evolution

OK you are a dog breeder. You start with a mongrelized pack and start breeding for racing characteristics. At what point did a mongrel puppy grow up into a grayhound dog? Or at what point did a mongrel mother give birth to a grayhound puppy? Yes, the current generation is clearly different from the original generation, but when and how did the one "become" the other.

First, all of the kinds you mention are all the same kind.species if your prefer. All you have done is reinforce "after it kind." Second, nature cannot do what you say. It is controlled by the gene of the parents. If you mix a collie with a shepherd, you don't get either one, but you still get a dog.

Unless they can no longer interbreed.

Why can't they breed? We know that to much inner breeding in dogs cause them not to be able to breed, but they are still dogs.

When it reaches that point, when collies and shepherds cannot interbreed, then they have become separate species, just like the Greenish Warbler and the Abert's Squirrel.

 

[lasthero]

Or is it maybe that you don't know what a mutation is? Otherwise how could you say "Of course they are real. Its been scientifically proven," and immediately follow it up wit the statement about if the grandparents don't have it, neither will the parents or the kids -- directly denying the very mutations that you just agreed are real? Just what is it that you think a mutation is?

I showed him a picture of a dolphin with an atavism, and he called that a 'mutation' at post #362. So I'm just as confused as anyone as to why he keeps saying that mutations don't happen, when he acknowledged one, clear as day. Personally, I'm starting to lean towards him being a poe - maybe even someone actually trying to make creationism look bad (like it needed help) It's hard to imagine someone being this obtuse and this embarrassing and this wrong simply by ignorance.

 

[FatBurk]

It's hard to imagine someone being this obtuse and this embarrassing and this wrong simply by ignorance.

Not if they are a creationist because it's all part of their upbringing, they are designed to be like that.

 

[bhsmte]

I showed him a picture of a dolphin with an atavism, and he called that a 'mutation' at post #362. So I'm just as confused as anyone as to why he keeps saying that mutations don't happen, when he acknowledged one, clear as day. Personally, I'm starting to lean towards him being a poe - maybe even someone actually trying to make creationism look bad (like it needed help) It's hard to imagine someone being this obtuse and this embarrassing and this wrong simply by ignorance.

I understand, but it isn't unusual behavior for many creationists and is really quite normal to dig in your heels, as opposed to accepting evidence that goes against your strongly held belief. Cognitive dissonance and all the offshoots of the same, come into play.

When you have held a belief so tightly and it is part of your being, your mind is going to generate as many defense mechanisms as it can to protect the belief. To outside observers, his responses appear to be blatantly ignorant, but to him, they get the job done that needs to be done.

If given time to contemplate on their own, the evidence presented may present some doubts to them, but they will almost never admit this in an environment like this forum.

Or, he could be a poe who just enjoys the attention the ignorant posts gather from others.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand, but it isn't unusual behavior for many creationists and is really quite normal to dig in your heels, as opposed to accepting evidence that goes against your strongly held belief. Cognitive dissonance and all the offshoots of the same, come into play.

When you have held a belief so tightly and it is part of your being, your mind is going to generate as many defense mechanisms as it can to protect the belief. To outside observers, his responses appear to be blatantly ignorant, but to him, they get the job done that needs to be done.

If given time to contemplate on their own, the evidence presented may present some doubts to them, but they will almost never admit this in an environment like this forum.

FAITH

It's just not a word, is it?

CF is the HowStuffWorks of faith.

 

[bhsmte]

FAITH

It's just not a word, is it?

CF is the HowStuffWorks of faith.

It is what it is, but it can be very entertaining to watch in action.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is what it is, but it can be very entertaining to watch in action.

The thing is though, some people view it as frustrating; and end up putting some people on IGNORE.

 

[bhsmte]

The thing is though, some people view it as frustrating; and end up putting some people on IGNORE.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get a firm believer in whatever it is they believe in to accept contradictory evidence on this board is fooling themselves and they don't understand the psychology of belief and how it works in most people. It can be frustrating when people refute very objective verifiable evidence, but we aren't dealing with normal circumstances here. If people change their minds in regards to their beliefs, it will be on their own time, under their own terms and it is possible some of what they are exposed to on CF contributed to that.

I have only put one person on ignore for a couple days and I don't any longer, because it is simply too entertaining to observe how people respond on this board.

 

[FatBurk]

When you have held a belief so tightly and it is part of your being, your mind is going to generate as many defense mechanisms as it can to protect the belief. To outside observers, his responses appear to be blatantly ignorant, but to him, they get the job done that needs to be done.

That is all so true, I would just like to add that people who are submerged in their belief to the exclusion of all other possibilities want so desperately to believe they will do anything to destroy (to their own satisfaction) any argument that might however remotely jeopardise that belief, that's why any change of mind or heart must always come from themselves, no one can light things up for them they must do it for themselves, thankfully hundreds of thousands are doing it every year.

Scaring children to death can have an effect that can last a lifetime, (which of course is the plan) some deep seated fears might never be completely removed, how many times have we heard, 'what if you're wrong'? that's the fear talking.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Anyone who thinks they are going to get a firm believer in whatever it is they believe in to accept contradictory evidence on this board is fooling themselves and they don't understand the psychology of belief and how it works in most people. It can be frustrating when people refute very objective verifiable evidence, but we aren't dealing with normal circumstances here. If people change their minds in regards to their beliefs, it will be on their own time, under their own terms and it is possible some of what they are exposed to on CF contributed to that.

I have only put one person on ignore for a couple days and I don't any longer, because it is simply too entertaining to observe how people respond on this board.

Well bhsmte, put yourself in a Christian's position.

They have spent their entire lives living in fear. Their leaders keep them in fear by threatening them with eternal torture to ensure the money keeps rolling in. Some of these leaders are extremely wealthy. That's why they are the ones reading the bible, and interpreting it for the congregation.

If the congregation actually read the bible for themselves, they would realize how little sense it actually makes. Most Christians haven't even read the entire bible. According to numbers published at Christianity Today
only 1 in 5 Americans have actually read the bible cover to cover (Sorry, I haven't made enough posts to post a link, but you can google it yourself).

It is a much easier path for Christians to be gullible and pay their "Get out of Hell" fee every week, rather than being brave and seeking truth, wherever it may lead.

 

[lasthero]

Yes. All sorts of brand new species of cuciferous vegetables have been created in the lab. One of the important steps was mutating the aloploidy of the genes. I lost my bookmarked link and have to find it again, unless another poster is kind enough to post a link.

Maybe it's this?

Ploidy, Crucifers, Wormwood, and You | Musings from the Chiefio

Even if it's not, it's an interesting article. I didn't know coyotes and wolves could make fertile offspring. I guess that means coyotes and wolves are the same kind. Except coyotes and dogs can't make very fertile offspring, and their offspring have numerous genetic problem. So maybe it's like a half-kind. Or something.

And I'd still like to know how this definition of kind applies to organism that don't mate at all.

 

[OllieFranz]

Maybe it's this?

Ploidy, Crucifers, Wormwood, and You | Musings from the Chiefio

Even if it's not, it's an interesting article. I didn't know coyotes and wolves could make fertile offspring. I guess that means coyotes and wolves are the same kind. Except coyotes and dogs can't make very fertile offspring, and their offspring have numerous genetic problem. So maybe it's like a half-kind. Or something.

And I'd still like to know how this definition of kind applies to organism that don't mate at all.

Not the same site, but it does make my point. Thanks.

Coyote/wolf/dog is similar to a Ring Species. In Scotland and Western Scandinavia, where the two groups meet, Herring Gulls and Black-backed Gulls can't interbreed. But in Siberia where they overlap with an older, related breed, both can freely interbreed with that third breed.

Big Cats go one step further. Panthera hybrids are clearly hybrids, and the males are all sterile. But the females are fertile and can hybridize not only with their parental species, but in some cases with one or both of the other two. Pantherines (Asian leopards) can only hybridize with one another or with tigers. Of the Panthera genus, only (African) leopards can hybridize with cougars (genus Puma).

 

[lasthero]

In Scotland and Western Scandinavia, where the two groups meet, Herring Gulls and Black-backed Gulls can't interbreed. But in Siberia where they overlap with an older, related breed, both can freely interbreed with that third breed

So...the Siberian Gulls must be the same kind as the Herring and the Black Gulls...but the Black and the Herring gulls can't interbreed, so they can't be the same kind...but they can interbreed with the Siberian Gulls, so they must be the same kind...but they can't interbreed with each other, so...I...just...it...ugh.

 

[biggles53]

Anyone who thinks they are going to get a firm believer in whatever it is they believe in to accept contradictory evidence on this board is fooling themselves and they don't understand the psychology of belief and how it works in most people. It can be frustrating when people refute very objective verifiable evidence, but we aren't dealing with normal circumstances here. If people change their minds in regards to their beliefs, it will be on their own time, under their own terms and it is possible some of what they are exposed to on CF contributed to that.

I have only put one person on ignore for a couple days and I don't any longer, because it is simply too entertaining to observe how people respond on this board.

Well said...

The other thing to consider is that, while it is unlikely that the closed minds of the ignorant and hopelessly brainwashed are going to be changed (no matter how much evidence is presented), these forums are also frequented by those who are genuinely in search of knowledge and who doubt the myths they have been fed from their childhood. I think that our interaction with some of the hardcore creationists may help them to come to a better understanding of their world...........at least I hope so...

 

[USincognito]

Have you not noticed that none of your evo buds have come to your defense in this? I have and I know why.

Then you must be reading very selectively because at least two of us have agreed with him (me and Ollie Franz).

 

[biggles53]

Then you must be reading very selectively because at least two of us have agreed with him (me and Ollie Franz).

He makes an art form of ignoring evidence....

 

[OllieFranz]

It is amazing that anyone with a 3 diget IQ would say science doe not prove things. How is something proven? Let me tell you. Through OBSERVATION and being able to repeat it.

Repeating an observation is still just observing a fact.

If you need a blood transfusion, if they can PROVE wha type you have, you may die. "Something else real science has PROVEN.

If science had proven what your blood type was, then doctors who knew your parents blood types would not have to test and observe it. they would already know it.

>>The genetics of blood types is simply an example of genetics in general. You can use it to say that, because of his parents' genes, a child has a 25% chance of having AB blood, but to see what type he actually has, you still have to draw it, and observe how it reacts. Blood type remains an observed fact.<<

You are trying to change the subject. Nothing you said refutes the proven fact that there is more than one blood type. Not only that, facts are not facts unless they have been proven. Ther is no such thing as a fasle fact.

Exactly! There is no such thing as a false fact. That is because a fact is a description of an observed single event. It cannot be proved or disproved. It simply is. Before observing the fact, we can't predict it. In many cases we can assign a probability to its likelihood. Knowing your parents blood types, and the genes that produced them, we can say, for example, that there is a 25% chance that your blood type is AB. After obsevation, that probability does not matter. We know, whatever the odds might have been, that you are, indeed AB.

 

[OllieFranz]

So...the Siberian Gulls must be the same kind as the Herring and the Black Gulls...but the Black and the Herring gulls can't interbreed, so they can't be the same kind...but they can interbreed with the Siberian Gulls, so they must be the same kind...but they can't interbreed with each other, so...I...just...it...ugh.

I'm on my mobile, so I can't cut and paste (or at least I have not been able to work it out), but YouTube regular potholer54 has a nice video which makes the same point, entitled "Ring Species -- the Abridged Version." He uses the Greenish Warbler as his example. The middle group on the Eastern side has since gone extinct due to urbanization destroying their habitat, so the northeastern group is now isolated and can no longer be linked to the others.

You might also want to check out his video "Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not Like That!)."