an example please

[Randall McNally]

Wait a sec, mystery. He appears to be acknowledging that the whale transitionals are at least 10% valid. That's a remarkable admission from a YEC.

 

[Mistermystery]

Did he now?

 

[Split Rock]

that transition is pretty lame. 90% of it is made up. I think I might become a transitional fossil artist, all I would need is a copy of Maya, and the morph function. Then I would have to say things like "no one could dispute this" or "only morons would think this is wrong"..

Wow... a good example of the type of in-depth analysis of the data we have all come to expect from creationists in this forum.

 

[william jay schroeder]

The whole point is that you cannot say if there is one species or many, because these populations are in the process of diverging, which is what you asked to see. Show me the "genetic loss of information" causing this. For example, the speciation in progress with the Greenish Warbler involves a change in the songs that the birds sing (and therefore mating behavior).. there is no "loss" of information, just a change in information. Also, there is no such thing as "de-evolution," with the exception of comic books and sci-fi movies.

if evolution is the process of random mutations with natural selection, thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex. evolution should be going both ways if it is random. why does mutations always involve a species going up the scale. it should include complex species going to less complex if the environment demands it. since they are both impartial to the species. Look at the first breeding of the horse wild and a work type you breed down to subspecies, then if you breed up do you get back to a wild breed, no you cant breed race horses with pony or plain alpinos and end up with the origanal species. This would be because the infomation in the origanal is not in the subspecies. The origanals contain a much broader aray of genes which if breed out cant come back. How is change not a loss. weve breed dogs like crazy and there isnt anything close to a different species. different species as a dog to a cat or a mammal to a reptile. I know animals change a whole lot over time but never into one kingdom to another like mammal to reptile or reptile to bird or so on.

 

[Split Rock]

Go here for more information on trilobites and it's evolution. As an added bonus, here's an explaination on eye evolution on trilobies.

Origins of Trilobites
The question "Where did trilobites come from?" is not so easy to answer
last revised 11 December 2004 by S.M. Gon III
Fallotaspis is an early Cambrian trilobite. The earliest trilobites appear in the lower Cambrian record (Order Redlichiida, Suborder Olenellina, Superfamily Fallotaspidoidea) and bear all of the defining characters of trilobites

HA! This shows that evolution is wrong and therefore creationism wins again! Yahoo!

 

[william jay schroeder]

Well, we have seen changes that propagated from mutations. The rapid increase in the number of sickle-cell heterozygotes in parts of Africa, for example.
You can't defeat evolution by redefining it into something you feel no longer resembles evolution.

So this sickle cell will some day evolve into a animal. no it wont. a disease used for evolution wonderful. the hemoglobin is defective and is harmful and this is evolution in action I LAUGH. kind of like redefining mutations of perfectly functional organisms and or cell to help the animal become better. I now its possible to evolve microevolution which is about the same thing as adaptation. you dont look at the whole picture together just snipits of it so you dont come overwhelmed with the fact that its not mathmatically possible by chance to become more adaptive to the environment then eventually a whole new different animal. we are saying that mammals cant turn into reptiles then to birds.

 

[Phred]

your notice its still a gull and your notice your own wording (IF CIRCUMSTANCE ARE RIGHT) COULD GIVE RISE TO A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT SPECIES. They cant mate any more because of genetic lose of information, they have some what de-evovled. look at breeding of dogs or cats or horses. Once you breed them down you cant breed them up, same here. another attempt to use a situation to make an assumption that it if the right conditions were there it could possible do it.

Please, just own up and stop this prattle. You think the fact that life evolves and the Theory of Evolution contradict what you want to believe... you just don't have the guts to come out and say that your interpretation of the Bible is right no matter what. These posts where you display an inability to even define the playing field just waste everyone's time... including your own.

 

[h2whoa]

So this sickle cell will some day evolve into a animal.

Well done. Another one hits my Ignore List.

h2

 

[Mistermystery]

HA! This shows that evolution is wrong and therefore creationism wins again! Yahoo!

Yeah it's not like the page explains everything after that, right?

 

[Tomk80]

if evolution is the process of random mutations with natural selection, thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex. evolution should be going both ways if it is random. why does mutations always involve a species going up the scale. it should include complex species going to less complex if the environment demands it. since they are both impartial to the species.

But evolution does show a direction in both ways. Steven Gould has done some very interesting research on this. In general, if you take a species and analyze it's evolutionary pathways, you'll see both more complex and less complex species arising from it.
Now think about this for a second. If we have organisms which are pretty simple, say spunges. Now, they can evolve into something more complex and something less complex. What will the result be. Indeed, in the end we will see more complexity. Not because evolution only goes towards more complexity, but because if it goes both ways, it's bound to go up as well as down.
The reason why we see a tendency towards more complexity in the evolution of life is easy. The less complex niches had already been filled, so the more complex was the only way to go. But everytime we see organisms going back to a less complex form if it is allowed by the environment.

Look at the first breeding of the horse wild and a work type you breed down to subspecies, then if you breed up do you get back to a wild breed, no you cant breed race horses with pony or plain alpinos and end up with the origanal species. This would be because the infomation in the origanal is not in the subspecies. The origanals contain a much broader aray of genes which if breed out cant come back. How is change not a loss. weve breed dogs like crazy and there isnt anything close to a different species. different species as a dog to a cat or a mammal to a reptile. I know animals change a whole lot over time but never into one kingdom to another like mammal to reptile or reptile to bird or so on.

Indeed, you cannot breed back to the originals. However, not because of the reason you mention. We cannot breed back to the originals because in the meantime both old types have changed. This has nothing to do with being more or less complex or having more or less information, it has all to do with both being changed from the original stock, no matter which way. They have indeed lost some of the information of the original species. What you are ignoring however is that they also have gained information in becoming a new species.
Change is not a loss, change is just that, change. Change means the creature you get is different. It doesn't say anything about it being more or less complex, just about it being different.

 

[Split Rock]

All very nice, but you failed to address the point I was making about Ring Species... care to address that?

if evolution is the process of random mutations with natural selection, thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex. evolution should be going both ways if it is random. why does mutations always involve a species going up the scale. it should include complex species going to less complex if the environment demands it. since they are both impartial to the species.

As for evolution going from complex to simpler, you are actually correct! Good for you! There are numerous examples of this, in particular the evolution of parasites. In most cases, parasitic species evolved from non-parasitic ancestors, and therefore resulted in the evolution of simpler digestive and sensory systems. Another example is the evolution of the vertebrate skull which has become simpler over time, with fewer bones (compare fish and mammal skulls and you will see).

Look at the first breeding of the horse wild and a work type you breed down to subspecies, then if you breed up do you get back to a wild breed, no you cant breed race horses with pony or plain alpinos and end up with the origanal species. This would be because the infomation in the origanal is not in the subspecies. The origanals contain a much broader aray of genes which if breed out cant come back.

This is because these are inbred lines. Inbreeding will get you subspecies very quickly, but at a cost. This is not the way nature usually does the job... which is one of the reasons she is slower.

How is change not a loss. weve breed dogs like crazy and there isnt anything close to a different species. different species as a dog to a cat or a mammal to a reptile. I know animals change a whole lot over time but never into one kingdom to another like mammal to reptile or reptile to bird or so on.

Change does not necessitate a loss of information. And you are correct that animals do not change from one kingdom to another... populations change, not individuals. Any evolutionary line of descent is made up of species... it is speciation that drives such lines... therefore, you will not see a lizard evolve into a rodent. If you like, I can direct you to infomation on the reptile-mammal transition, which is well documented in the fossil record. Do you know what therapsids were? http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/400Therapsida/000.html

 

[Tomk80]

So this sickle cell will some day evolve into a animal. no it wont. a disease used for evolution wonderful. the hemoglobin is defective and is harmful and this is evolution in action I LAUGH. kind of like redefining mutations of perfectly functional organisms and or cell to help the animal become better. I now its possible to evolve microevolution which is about the same thing as adaptation. you dont look at the whole picture together just snipits of it so you dont come overwhelmed with the fact that its not mathmatically possible by chance to become more adaptive to the environment then eventually a whole new different animal. we are saying that mammals cant turn into reptiles then to birds.

Maybe you should stop laughing and start thinking. It might help in this. Your rants indicate to me that you are not trying to understand even the basics. You might actually start thining and stop making errors like these.

 

[Split Rock]

Yeah it's not like the page explains everything after that, right?

You don't really expect creationists to read the whole link, do you?? That might lead to "dangerous knowledge" the bible warned about...

 

[Mistermystery]

Yup seems like the whole page is pretty much ignored.. Oh well. same old same old I geuss.

 

[Dracil]

What else did you expect from someone who posted an OP that's nothing more than arguing in bad faith?

 

[Randall McNally]

So this sickle cell will some day evolve into a animal. no it wont.

Brilliant deduction.

a disease used for evolution wonderful. the hemoglobin is defective and is harmful and this is evolution in action I LAUGH.

It's only defective in recessive homozygotes. Heterozygotes have about 80% of the functionality of normal hemoglobin, plus the increased resistance to malaria.

kind of like redefining mutations of perfectly functional organisms and or cell to help the animal become better. I now its possible to evolve microevolution which is about the same thing as adaptation. you dont look at the whole picture together just snipits of it so you dont come overwhelmed with the fact that its not mathmatically possible by chance to become more adaptive to the environment then eventually a whole new different animal. we are saying that mammals cant turn into reptiles then to birds.

That's a fairly representative summary of every falsehood you've ever written about evolution.

 

[AirPo]

thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex. evolution should be going both ways if it is random. why does mutations always involve a species going up the scale. it should include complex species going to less complex if the environment demands it. since they are both impartial to the species.

You haven't got a tail have you?

 

[FieryBalrog]

Creationist: "Show me speciation, all these mini changes are just micro evolution."

Evolutionist: Here.

Creationist: "Well... uh thats not evolution either its still mini changes still micro evolution!"

Evolutionist: What do you want to see?

Creationist: "Show me a monkey giving birth to a man! Ha! You cant do that, can you! Evolution is false, hallelujah."

I think this about sums up the creationist position.

 

[Gracchus]

if evolution is the process of random mutations with natural selection, thaen if the environment decides it is easier to be less complex than it should become less complex.

Evolution does not require, nor even imply, an increase in complexity. Parasites, for instance, are often simpler than the ancestors from which they evolved. There is a species of barnacle that, in its adult form, is a formless mass of digestive and reproductive cells. It doesn't look anything like a barnacle in its adult form. But its larval form is still that of a barnacle.

evolution should be going both ways if it is random.

The opposite of evolution is stasis.

why does mutations always involve a species going up the scale.

The "scale" (scala naturae, ladder of nature) was discarded long ago. It was supplanted by the concept of adaptive radiation.

it should include complex species going to less complex if the environment demands it.

And so it does as I have pointed out above. We are more closely related to some bacteria than those bacteria are to some other bacteria. And indeed most life is still bacteria, different from, though not necessarily more complex than its ancestors.

since they are both impartial to the species. Look at the first breeding of the horse wild and a work type you breed down to subspecies, then if you breed up do you get back to a wild breed, no you cant breed race horses with pony or plain alpinos and end up with the origanal species.

This is not inconsistent with evolution. It is only inconsistent with your misperception of evolution.

This would be because the infomation in the origanal is not in the subspecies.

It is true that selection edits out some alleles. But mutation continually gives rise to new variations.

The origanals contain a much broader aray of genes…

What is the basis of this assertion?

… which if breed out cant come back.

Nor does evolutionary theory imply that such a thing is other than extremely unlikely.

How is change not a loss.

Change may involve loss, gain, substitution or recombination, or some mix of these processes.

weve breed dogs like crazy and there isnt anything close to a different species.

If we were today to discover two organisms as different as a dane and a daschund, I doubt we would assign them to the same species. We might classify the Canidae as a web species, just as we classify some populations as ring species.

different species as a dog to a cat or a mammal to a reptile.

Evolution does not predict this. Indeed, such a change would be evidence against evolution as science now understands it.

I know animals change a whole lot over time but never into one kingdom to another like mammal to reptile or reptile to bird or so on.

First the Animalia is one kingdom. Mammalia, Reptilia, and Aves are different classes of phylum Chordata.

Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species are taxonomic levels, taxa being arrangements determined by morphological, developmental and genetic similarities and differences. It is important to note that while one taxon does not change suddenly to another, two quite different taxa may have a common ancestral taxon. Birds have indeed been differentiated from other reptiles, but they are more closely related to the dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to turtles.

It seems obvious, william jay schroeder, that nearly everything you know about evolution is wrong, that your knowledge of biology is scanty, and that your thought processes are uncritical and irrational. These defects can be corrected, with some trouble. I encourage you to take the trouble if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[gluadys]

so you will believe we evolve at the same rate and time so as no one will actually no its happening. speciation is a variety of the same animal, though it may be rather large in some its not actually proof of evolution just a great range of adaptation.

Every adaptation of a species is a consequence of evolution. So it is a proof that evolution is happening.