A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

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.

I am going to have to review the definition of speciation. I still don't see how it is a mechanims for evolution.

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.

Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.

 

[lasthero]

Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.

...yeah. That's my point. The birds that were on the Ark died along with everything else, according to the story. So your contention that something that wasn't on the Ark could have survived is dead from the start. There's no even any Biblical support for it.

 

[frogman2x]

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

I can't think of any right off hand, but what species do you think were not in the ark?

 

[bhsmte]

I can't think of any right off hand, but what species do you think were not in the ark?

Post 856

 

[frogman2x]

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

Google "Scientific Theory" for an explanation.

My discussin was not about scientific theory. It was about if science proves things. He says they don't, I gave him 2 examples of things science has proved and I could give him many more.

 

[frogman2x]

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

Since you have no idea wha the fdirst life from was , you have no evidence it had a self-replicating molecule. IMO, a self-replicating mocule will not cause DNA.

No, they haven't.


Then actually produce something to back up your claim.

I gave you some obvious examples and you rejected them.

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.

To say that there is more than 1 blood type has not been scientificlly proven is the dogma in this discussion.

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

Let's stick to what we know. Hypothetical proves nothing.

 

[CabVet]

I am going to have to review the definition of speciation. I still don't see how it is a mechanims for evolution.

Yeah, let us know when you do that. While at it, please also review the definition of evolution.

Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.

Yes, so?

 

[lasthero]

Since you have no idea wha the fdirst life from was , you have no evidence it had a self-replicating molecule.

Journal of Cosmology

IMO, a self-replicating mocule will not cause DNA.

What does your opinion have to do with anything?

I gave you some obvious examples and you rejected them.

No, you didn't.

To say that there is more than 1 blood type has not been scientificlly proven is the dogma in this discussion.

NOTHING is proven in science. Everything is subject to change in the light of new data. Why can't you understand this incredibly simple thing? Yes, the evidence for there being more than 1 blood type is massive. No, that's not likely to change anytime soon. But that doesn't mean it's proven. That doesn't mean it CAN'T change. That doesn't mean we couldn't learn something that changes our current understanding.

Hypothetical proves nothing.

I didn't say it did. But it demonstrates how the process works.

 

[CabVet]

I can't think of any right off hand, but what species do you think were not in the ark?

That's not the point. You said (and I quote):

Many of them culd have survived the flood

All I am asking is which species you think could have survived the flood, since the Bible specifically mentions that everything that was not in the ark was destroyed.

 

[lasthero]

My discussin was not about scientific theory.

It actually is, you just don't realize it.

He says they don't, I gave him 2 examples of things science has proved

No, you haven't. You gave two examples of something science has provided extensive evidence for. But that's not the same thing as 'proving' them.

 

[frogman2x]

Froggy--

Repeatedly people have given you examples of speciation (species that have split into subspecies and eventually into separate new species ).

Instead of me saying not hey haven't and yo saying yes they have , give me one specific example.

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.

Sub populations are the same species.

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.

Not true. All anyone has sid is that it happened. There is always a variety of traits but they NEVER result in evolution. No mutation has ever produced a lifeform that was not the same as its parents. Hair color, skin color etc are the result of dominant and recessive genes and mutation are not necessary for them to change in the offspring.

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."

Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits. Traits are preprogramed by the genes. If a gene is dominant, the kid will het the traint. If it is recessive, he will not.

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

How does naturel selection, even if it is true, cause an A to become a B? Explain the biology that makes it possible.

 

[lasthero]

Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits

I'll ask again - do you understand how breeding works? Do you understand that we can select for traits in an animal, and through successive generations, cause different varieties of that animal which emphasize these traits?

 

[frogman2x]

...yeah. That's my point. The birds that were on the Ark died along with everything else, according to the story. So your contention that something that wasn't on the Ark could have survived is dead from the start. There's no even any Biblical support for it.

You are misreading it. All life forms NOT IN THE ARK were destroyed. The Bible says Noah sent out doves and a raven. The did not die and neither did any other bird in the ark.

 

[frogman2x]

Froggy,

Curious as to your response to post 856.

Be specific.

 

[frogman2x]

Post 856

That post was not about the flood.

 

[lasthero]

All life forms NOT IN THE ARK were destroyed. The Bible says Noah sent out doves and a raven. The did not die and neither did any other bird in the ark.

...yeah. Because they went out AFTER it had stopped flooding, when the waters were receding. If they hadn't been on the Ark when it was flooding, they would have died with everything else.

 

[frogman2x]

It actually is, you just don't realize it.



No, you haven't. You gave two examples of something science has provided extensive evidence for. But that's not the same thing as 'proving' them.

I am tired of giving you obvious examples. If you dogma will not allow you to see the truth, so be it. Wallow in your ignorance

 

[lasthero]

I am tired of giving you obvious examples

Saying something is 'proof' doesn't make it so. All you're doing is finding examples of things that science has provided strong evidence for, but that doesn't mean they're proven, and especially not just because you say so. What do you even think the word 'proven' means?

 

[CabVet]

I am tired of giving you obvious examples. If you dogma will not allow you to see the truth, so be it. Wallow in your ignorance

You don't seem to know what proof is and how the scientific method works.

 

[OllieFranz]

Instead of me saying not hey haven't and yo saying yes they have , give me one specific example.

For the umpteenth time: Greenish Warblers

Plus, for the third time, Abert's squirrel.

Sub populations are the same species.

Yes, until they are not. Decide now. Are you equating "kind" with "species" or with "clade"?

Not true. All anyone has sid is that it happened. There is always a variety of traits but they NEVER result in evolution. No mutation has ever produced a lifeform that was not the same as its parents. Hair color, skin color etc are the result of dominant and recessive genes and mutation are not necessary for them to change in the offspring.

"Never"? "No mutation has ever...."? Pretty strong statements. Do you have the research to back that up?

Science is inductive, not deductive. It does not pretend to have discovered everything. If you asked a naturalist in 1600 whether there were any black swans, he would say no, but he would not say that they could "never" be discovered. In fact, they were. They are Australian

Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits.

We have, or at least, we have presented evidence we believe shows it. If it is not the kind of evidence you want, you have to tell us what the kind of evidence you want looks like.

Traits are preprogramed by the genes. If a gene is dominant, the kid will het the traint. If it is recessive, he will not.

Have you decided that you no longer believe that mutation is real? What you are describing is true (or would be if stated more clearly) when the genes are inherited without mutation. Even with mutation, it is mostly true, but the allele or gene the offspring inherits is on that in the parent is only in the seminal cell. All of the parent's other cells are unmutated. The grandparent did not have it, and the parent did not inherit it.

How does naturel selection, even if it is true, cause an A to become a B? Explain the biology that makes it possible.

An A does not become a B. No one who knows anything about evolution believes that. I even stated so at the begining of the post in which I explained how breeding and Natural Selection work.In that post, you accept that over time, with controlled breeding a pack of dogs can become a pack of foxhounds, or bloodhounds, or a pack of collies or shepherds. You also accept that nature can shape this breeding or at least you seemed to.

So what scientific reasoning can you give me for claiming that with even more time, more separation from other breeds, more specialization two different breeds can never become so separate as to become separate species. And then explain exactly why the Eastern and Western breeds of the Greenish Warbler are, in your opinion, not separate species. They cannot breed with one another and in time they will only continue to become less and less similar.