A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

Lol, the irony. If you weren't a creationist I'd suspect your post was an attempt at humour.

As I said, that sort of self-centred, self-important worldview doesn't usually square with wanting to be ignored.

Abssure? As you brought the subject of dictionaries up, do you happen to own one yourself?

I suspect incredulity is an argument you apply to everything you regard as complex, probably through necessity.

I don't need to now, you're doing a splendid job of showing us.

thank you, You are doing a splendid job of playing typo police. I guess that is your way of avoding a discussion on the subject.

 

[Merrily]

Just maybe.
God buried the fossils at different depths to wind up Richard Dawkins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just maybe.
God buried the fossils at different depths to wind up Richard Dawkins.

I'd say if He did, He wound up more than Richard Dawkins.

 

[Naraoia]

Just as I thought, You dont have a clue about how DNA works.

Dear me. Hero was applying your own logic to humans. So the understanding displayed in that sentence is your understanding.

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Did yo mean species? Clade? Genus? Breed (sub-species)? Or something else, entirely?

If he means "clade", then "after its kind" is the only way an organism can ever reproduce...

You need watched the linked where Noble showed the Central Dogma has been proven false.

I think you forgot the link, and whatever on earth does the central dogma (of molecular biology, I assume?) has to do with natural selection?

Also natural selection cannot detect small genetic changes require for evolution.

I think you mean small fitness changes.

As one scientist put it it's like trying to feel a pea while on top of a pile of mattresses. This is why some evolutionist scientist question how useful natural selection really is and can it select over plain bad luck.

I love this "as one scientist put it" and "some evolutionist scienist [sic]". Do you ever say anything specific enough to evaluate?

IMO, "kind" and "species" is the same thing.

In which case new kinds have most definitely been produced in observable time. See the observed speciation events list that has been offered to you, I lost count how many times.

Look, I'll even pull a couple out for you so you don't have to click any links. I've bolded key bits that indicate a new species.

"5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."​

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).​

Both of these cases meet the criterion for speciation under the biological species definition - creatures whose ancestors were able to breed with each other are no longer able to do so. If your concept of "kind" is equivalent to a different species definition, please state which one, and we can work from that.

I think evolutionist try to avoid using kind for obvious reasons.

The reason being that the definition of a "kind" is rather... ineffable.

Someone said I ignored some evidence you presented in one of you post to me. If I did, it was not intentional..

Well, this post presented it to you once again. Here's your chance to remedy your oversight.

 

[OllieFranz]

IMO, "kind" and "species" is the same thing.

But, as Naraoia has pointed out, you seem to favor the basic definition of a species, but when it comes to speciation, you argue for a clade.

I think evolutionist try to avoid using kind for obvious reasons.

Yes, there is no clear definition of the term. When there is a clear, defined term and a nebulous and vague term that can cover several different clear and defined situations and several nebulous and or vague situations, using the clear, defined term allows others to follow your paper and repeat your results.

Using the vague, nebulous term may lead to vague, nebulous results. It certainly results in vague, nebulous thinking.

Someone said I ignored some evidence you presented in one of you post to me. If I did, it was not intentional..

Not so much evidence, per se, as a clarification. For some odd reason, you seemed to think that evolutionists teach that (Natural) Selection means that the fertilized egg selects traits out of the air, rather than inheriting them by the laws of genetics. Or at least that is how I understood your "rebuttal" that if Natural Selection were true you would have "chosen" different and more personally fulfilling traits than you were born with.

I responded:

But you are not the selector, you are the product of the selection. The selector is the farmer or the rancher in the case of animal husbandry, and environmental pressures in the case of Natural Selection.

One thing you seem to miss (and I'm not singling you out, it's a common misconception among those that don't actually study evolution -- even including those who argue for it) is that evolution is not an event that happens to an individual, it is an ever-ongoing process that describes populations statistically.

Let's assume that you are a breeder of screwts. If you only have one male and one female, then you are stuck with just the four (or less, if there are duplicates) alleles for skin color. But if you have 100 males and 100 females,you can choose to only let red screwts breed.

If red is a dominant trait, then there are probably parents with alleles for recessive colors. Not only is one generation not enough to eliminate the recessive alleles from the next generation, but there is a chance that there will be offspring that inherit only recessive allels and do not get red skin at all. On the other hand, while only 40% of the original herd are red-skinned, 90% of the first generation offspring have red skin. Using the same breeding strategy, we get a second-generation herd of 95% red skinned. If the percentage were a smooth funtion, it would approach 100% red as a limit, but never reach that limit, but since the percentage is calculated from discrete, whole numbers of offspring, there will be a time when they other alleles are eliminated entirely.

If it is not a breeder, but the environment that is selecting for red skin, then there is nothing but opportunity that "forces" two red-skinned screwts to breed, or "prevents" non-red screwts from breeding. There will still be the occasional blue-skin or green-skin mating. The first generation will be 75% instead of 90%. The second generation will be 80% instead of 95%. A much slower approach to the goal.

Bred breeds reach uniformity before the number of changed genes present a cross-breeding problem. Great Danes can still (in principle) be bred with chihuahuas. But "wild" breeds will often accumulate enough changes that they can't cross breed. For example, Herring Gulls cannot cross-breed with Black-backed Gulls.

At what point do we decide that Herring Gulls are a different species from Black-backed Gulls? We could say that when we reach the point where there is no chance whatsoever of cross-breeding the two. But there are two problems with that idea. First, there is no way to determine exactly what generation that degree of separation occurs, so we can only declare the sub-populations to be new species some time long after the split occurs. Plus, there is the problem of hybrids.

Horses and donkeys are so different that they are clearly labelled as different species, and yet, they can hybridize. At one time it was claimed that because the hybrid offspring were sterile (not "impotent") , it didn't matter that the hybridization was possible. But a significant number of female hinneys are not only fertile, but can concieve and bear the fetus to term. And among the Great Cats (genus Panthera) all of the female hybrids are fertile and can be re-hybridized.

In conclusion, there is never a single, one time historic "event" which produces a new species, it is a slow, generational, statistical process with no clear ending points.

 

[StormanNorman]

Just maybe.
God buried the fossils at different depths to wind up Richard Dawkins.

That wouldn't be a very nice god.

 

[frogman2x]

Dear me. Hero was applying your own logic to humans. So the understanding displayed in that sentence is your understanding.

That may be, but my statement still stands. He does not understandDNA.

If he means "clade", then "after its kind" is the only way an organism can ever reproduce...<<

After it kind is the only way any clade, kind or species can ever reporduce.

I think you forgot the link, and whatever on earth does the central dogma (of molecular biology, I assume?) has to do with natural selection?

I don't think I used "central dogma." So I hve no idea wht it has to do wtih natural selecdtion.

I think you mean small fitness changes.

No. I mean natural selecdtion is not a mechanims for evolution.

I love this "as one scientist put it" and "some evolutionist scienist [sic]". Do you ever say anything specific enough to evaluate?

Well how about this. Offer some biological evidence that makes natural selection a mechanims for evolution.

In which case new kinds have most definitely been produced in observable time. See the observed speciation events list that has been offered to you, I lost count how many times.<<

It has not . It is ALWAYS been statements like you just said---new kinds have mostly been produced in observable time. Where is the biological HOW?

Look, I'll even pull a couple out for you so you don't have to click any links. I've bolded key bits that indicate a new species.

"5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."​

When man tinkers and causes something to haen that will not happen naturally, I see little evidence to support evolution. If they were not infertile and could produce a plant. They must be the same species.
​

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Both of these cases meet the criterion for speciation under the biological species definition - creatures whose ancestors were able to breed with each other are no longer able to do so. If your concept of "kind" is equivalent to a different species definition, please state which one, and we can work from that.

First I beleive "kind" and "species" are the same. If thye can mate and producue offspring, they are the same whatever you want to call ie. If they can't they are not the same.

The reason being that the definition of a "kind" is rather... ineffable.

Why?

Well, this post presented it to you once again. Here's your chance to remedy your oversight.

When you can show me how natural selection is a mechainism for evolution, get back to me. Just bring alone the biological HOW.

One more thing. Give me the definition of speciation and explain, biologically of course, how it is a mechanism for evolution.

 

[frogman2x]

Probably because there's nothing even approaching a consistent definition of it.

How strange. Scientist with all of the knowledge cannot find a consistgent definition of sp;ecies or kind.

You say it's synonymous with 'species', some creationists say it's broader than that, others say it's less specific. I've heard creationists say that there are only two kinds of bird 'kinds' (flying and non-flying), I've heard them say all bacteria are a kind, where there are millions of different species of them, and I've never, NEVER, seen any creationist even attempt to make a real list of kinds. There are multiple definitions for species, true, but at least you could make a list of 'species' that, for the most part, everyone will agree on. If you ask two creationists what a kind is, chances are you'll get two answers that would force you to create two completely different charts to describe it. 'Kind' basically seems to be whatever the creationist in question wants it to.

All of what creationist say is irrelevant to what a species is.

Also, if 'kind' means 'species' then you need to answer how Noah got so many different species on the Ark, because there are literally millions of different species on this planet today, and that's before we get into all the ones we know have gone extinct.

Why couldn't he have gotten them all on the ark? Many of them culd have survived the flood and some we know lived in the past may be become extinctd before the flood.[/QUOTE]

 

[CabVet]

How strange. Scientist with all of the knowledge cannot find a consistgent definition of sp;ecies or kind.

Kind is not a scientific term. As for species, there are many very precise and consistent definitions. Here is one:

Species: members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.

 

[CabVet]

Many of them culd have survived the flood and some we know lived in the past may be become extinctd before the flood.

Give me the example of one species that could have survived the flood.

 

[lasthero]

How strange. Scientist with all of the knowledge cannot find a consistgent definition of sp;ecies or kind.

Yeah. It's almost like life is fluid and hard to fit into neat boundaries.

Even though there are different definitions for species, they fall within a range - scientists would agree on the vast majority of classifications as species, and only quibble over a few minor exceptions here and there. The definitions of species are not that different, and under any definition you pick, speciation has occurred.

Many of them culd have survived the flood and some we know lived in the past may be become extinctd before the flood

The Bible specifically says that everything that wasn't on the Ark - excluding fish and marine animals, of course - died. It very, very explicitly says that, several times, I believe. It's almost as if the writer really wanted to hammer that point home and leave no ambiguity on the matter. It also says that every 'kind' of animal that God created was on there.

 

[frogman2x]

No, it doesn't. You're putting words in his mouth.

I didn't ;say he said that. I said that would be the case.

No. Abiogenesis does not speculate that the precursor to life on this planet had 'DNA'.<<

If all life forms we have today, have DNA, what are the chances the dirst one did not also have it?

No one ever proposed that. You're just adding that in.

Sure they have.

No, you don't, because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about DNA popping out of nowhere, which is not what abiogenesis proposes.

Yes it is, you just dn't recognize it.

Yeah, I make typos, from time to time. The difference, of course, is that people can still read and understand what I'm saying. You mess up words so badly that, at times, it's impossible to even tell what you mean.

I think you would be happier if you put me on ignore, but then you would not get promoted in the typo police as fast.

It is a mechanism for evolution, and it's been observed. If natural selection was impossible, selection of any kind would be impossible - including breeding. If you accept that we can breed animals for specific traits, then why can't you accept that the same thing happens in nature?

I did not sasy it was impossib le. I said it has not been proven and it is not a mechanism for evolution.

No, it hasn't.

Yes it has.

If something is 'proven', then it's not up for debate, it can't be changed, it can't be shown to be wrong. Everything is science is subject to change, so nothing is ever said to be 'proven', no matter how well supported it is.

It is not. Th fact there is more than one blood type will never change. The fact that DNA exists will never change.

As Naranoia pointed out, there is no 'stronger leg' gene. Regardless, there doesn't need to be. That's where mutations come in.

Then prove a mutation has ever cause a rabbit to have a stronger leg.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
It is not. Th fact there is more than one blood type will never change. The fact that DNA exists will never change.

It appears you are confused about the meaning of a scientific theory.

Google "Scientific Theory" for an explanation.

 

[lasthero]

If all life forms we have today, have DNA, what are the chances the dirst one did not also have it?

It wouldn't need to. All it needs to be is a self-replicating molecule.

Sure they have.

No, they haven't.

Yes it is, you just dn't recognize it.

Then actually produce something to back up your claim.

It is not. Th fact there is more than one blood type will never change. The fact that DNA exists will never change.

In all likelihood, it won't. But to state it's 100% fact is dogma, not science. Just because something CAN change doesn't mean it WILL.

Then prove a mutation has ever cause a rabbit to have a stronger leg.

No one ever said it did. It was a hypothetical example.

 

[OllieFranz]

Froggy--

Repeatedly people have given you examples of speciation (species that have split into subspecies and eventually into separate new species ). You have rejected them because, supposedly, those examples did not explain how the speciation happened. In most cases the documentation offerred to you does explain how, in the sense that it tells how sub-populations became genetically isolated from one another (usually by distance), and different traits emerge as prominant in each sub-population. That covers the macro-biology (animal behavior, animal husbandry, etc) side of the "how."

It has also been explained to you how new alleles, new variations on traits (e.g., a new hair color), and brand new genes, new traits are produced by mutaions (though mutation is not the only source of suc new or altered SNA sequences), which ensuresthat there is always a variety of traits for evolution to work with. It has also been shown (most recently by me in a post which I quoted again recently --at your request -- and to which you have again decided not to respond) how selection, including Natural Selection chooses certain of those traits to increase (or decrease). Together they cover the micro-biology (genetics, bio-chemistry, etc,) side of the of the "how."

So what other "how" is there? What, exactly, are you looking for by way of an answer to your "how" question?

 

[frogman2x]

By the way, quick question that's been bugging me lately - how does the 'after its kind' thing apply to organism that reproduce asexually and can't mate with other members of their species at all?

What do you think they reproduce? Let me give you a clue---they reproduce after their kind.

Let me ask you a quesion. If the first life form was, as the evo's guess, a single celled something it must have been asexual. How did it ever become something that was not asexual? Please provide the biological evidence that made it possible.

Here is one that has been bugging me, what did the first life form evolve into?

 

[lasthero]

What do you think they reproduce? Let me give you a clue---they reproduce after their kind.

Yeah, but I seem to recall you saying that we determine what a kind is by a creature's ability to reproduce with another. Which bacteria never do, because they reproduce asexually. No bacteria reproduces with another bacteria. Ever. They don't mate.

Unless you're seriously saying that all bacteria on one kind. Which, if you believe 'kind' means the same thing as 'species', is both inane and insane.

How did it ever become something that was not asexual?

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

What do you think they reproduce? Let me give you a clue---they reproduce after their kind.

Let me ask you a quesion. If the first life form was, as the evo's guess, a single celled something it must have been asexual. How did it ever become something that was not asexual? Please provide the biological evidence that made it possible.

Here is one that has been bugging me, what did the first life form evolve into?

Froggy,

Curious as to your response to post 856.

 

[frogman2x]

But, as Naraoia has pointed out, you seem to favor the basic definition of a species, but when it comes to speciation, you argue for a clade.

I don' targue for anything. I say that life forms that can mate and produce off spring are the same what ever you want to call them. Inkd, species, clade, take yo ur pick

Yes, there is no clear definition of the term. When there is a clear, defined term and a nebulous and vague term that can cover several different clear and defined situations and several nebulous and or vague situations, using the clear, defined term allows others to follow your paper and repeat your results.

It seems amazing to me that science with all of its knoweldge has not settled on a definition of "species."

Using the vague, nebulous term may lead to vague, nebulous results. It certainly results in vague, nebulous thinking.

Then not defining "species" has led to vague nebulous thinking

Not so much evidence, per se, as a clarification. For some odd reason, you seemed to think that evolutionists teach that (Natural) Selection means that the fertilized egg selects traits out of the air, rather than inheriting them by the laws of genetics.

I dont know wher you got that idea. I think just the opposite. The eggs do not select the characteristics. They are dependent on the genes. If a gene is recessive, the kid will not get that characteristic. Skin color seems to be dominant when whits and browns mate. So the gener for skin color for dark skin must be dominant.

Or at least that is how I understood your "rebuttal" that if Natural Selection were true you would have "chosen" different and more personally fulfilling traits than you were born with.

Someone said the offspring chooses the chracteristic. At least that is how I understood their statement. That is completely wrong.

 

[lasthero]

It seems amazing to me that science with all of its knoweldge has not settled on a definition of "species."

The vagueness of a term does not necessarily imply invalidity.

How many beans are in a heap of beans?