Debate....

[Follower of Christ]

''there's no term to describe such a limit. ''


This one is hilarious.
Scientists couldnt figure out what holds the nucleus of an atom together, so they come up with a thing called ''strong force''
So now its science?
Now they understand?

Terms are words to convey ideas to another individual. They do not dictate reality.
I am sure there are a great many thing that have no ''terms'' branded to them yet.
Do they cease to be because someone in a white jacket hasnt considered them yet? I hardly think so.

Just because all the brainiacs hevent got together and put a lable on the limitation of rabbits producing only rabbits, doesnt change the fact that it is so.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #160

And in the end its just a confusing little play on words that amounts to nothing as a rabbit will never be anything but a rabbit.

Nope, that's not true. As speciation continues, the characteristics of the species on the different branches will diverge and become more and more different. In the end the species on one or both branches will no longer be "rabbits". 

You never commented on the Kilias et al paper, but there the new species were no longer fruit flies, but "meat" or "bread" flies instead.  Now, you can retreat and say they were still "flies" but flies are a huge order with characteristics as widely divergent as rabbits and humans.

In evolution, if you want to go to the extreme, all life belongs to one "kind" and all we have are "variations in a kind".  I'm quite willing to life with that. So was Darwin.  After all, we are talking the Origin of the Species.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 12:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #160

And in the end its just a confusing little play on words that amounts to nothing as a rabbit will never be anything but a rabbit.

Let me ask you a direct question: What prevents a rabbit species, through the process of compounded speciation events, from diversifying to produce something we might no longer consider to be a "rabbit"?

In other words, where is the barrier in nature that prevents such a thing from occurring?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #161

Just because all the brainiacs hevent got together and put a lable on the limitation of rabbits producing only rabbits, doesnt change the fact that it is so.

The reason there is no label for it is because no one has observed such a limitation. You insist that this limitation exists, but you haven't provided one single shred of evidence to support your assertation.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #161

Terms are words to convey ideas to another individual. They do not dictate reality.

The reality is that there is no barrier such that one "kind" cannot turn into another.  Scientists have looked for one. The latest attempt is phylogenetic analysis.

Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.

So now we can compare DNA between species in widely different organisms: yeast, bacteria, fish, flies, frogs, people, etc.  Now, if there is such a barrier, then those sequences are going to be independent observations, since one "kind" with its specific DNA sequences can't turn into another kind with its specific DNA sequences.

What was found?  "As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along:  Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

No barrier.  No independent observations.  Instead, DNA sequences are related through history -- descent with modification.

Creationism is falsified. Again.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 11:25 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #153



Oh no, there is a important difference here. God created Adam and Eve, they did not evolve from stone age men. God created domesticated animals along with Adam and Eve, they did not evolve from wild animals.

If anything, you should be able to prove that wild animal evolved into domestic animals. After all DNA and cattle is BIG business. They do lots of research and development in this area. But they can offer no proof that domesticated cattle have been around for longer than 6000 years or so.

Domesticated animals were created? Please elaborate.

Where did 'stone age men' come from? You mentioned them but not their origin.

 

[Jon]

Today at 10:05 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #163



Let me ask you a direct question: What prevents a rabbit species, through the process of compounded speciation events, from diversifying to produce something we might no longer consider to be a "rabbit"?

In other words, where is the barrier in nature that prevents such a thing from occurring?

Say you have to rabbits, they have babies.

The babies are going to be a mix between the two oringinal rabbits.

No mater how many times you do this they are never going to become something other than a rabbit, never will any of the rabbit become part dog or cat, no mater how many times you do it.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 11:32 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #155



A rabbit is still a rabbit. Even if you can classify them into 50 different groups. You can classify people into lots of different groups, but people are still people.

The only real difference I have found, is that some have blond hair, and some have red hair. If you put peroxide on my hair, it is going to come out red. On someone else, it could come out blond. Otherwise, I can not find any difference in people.

People are just people, I agree..

But how do you, John, explain the diversity among the human race? (and leave hair color out of it.) I'm referring to Asians, Africans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Anglo Saxons, etc.. etc.. How do you explain that diversity?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #109

Again, I ACCEPT WHAT YOU ALL CALL '' MICRO-EVOLUTION''

I really dont know how many times this will need to be repeated.

The problem is that you think there is some barrier between what you call microevolution and what you call macroevolution.  There is not. The same processes involved in "microevolution" cause new species.

I DO NOT BELIEve (EVEN GIVEN 10,000,000,000 YEARS) THAT A RABBIT WILL EVER EVOLVE INTO A NON-RABBIT.

What you believe has nothing to do with reality.  Believe what you want.  But it has been demonstrated both in contemporary species and in the fossil record that cumulative changes do result in changing the descendents of an organism such that the old name doesn't apply anymore.

Lucaspa,

Your opinion of my beliefs and whether or not you thinkI contradict myself is of no concern to me.

Your statements are demonstrably contradictory.  That you don't see that is your problem. 

If you're dense enough to think I believe in evolution, that is entirely your problem.
I wont play word games with you

Nor will you show how your statements are not contradictory.  Sorry, FoC, but your statements show that you don't reject evolution altogether.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 01:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #161

''there's no term to describe such a limit. ''


This one is hilarious.
Scientists couldnt figure out what holds the nucleus of an atom together, so they come up with a thing called ''strong force''
So now its science?
Now they understand?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:15 PM Jon said this in Post #167

No mater how many times you do this they are never going to become something other than a rabbit, never will any of the rabbit become part dog or cat, no mater how many times you do it.

I'll ask you the same question: What prevents rabbits, through compounded speciation events, from diversifying to the point where we might no longer consider them "rabbits"?

Keep in mind, FoC has already stated that he accepted the idea that current rabbit species diversified from a common rabbit-like ancestor. All I'm proposing is further diversification via the same mechanisms.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 11:25 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #153


If anything, you should be able to prove that wild animal evolved into domestic animals. After all DNA and cattle is BIG business. They do lots of research and development in this area. But they can offer no proof that domesticated cattle have been around for longer than 6000 years or so.

It has been shown conclusively cattle evolved from an earlier, un-domesticated ancestor:

Source: http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/

Remains of domesticated cattle dating to 6,500 B.C. have been found in Turkey and other sites in the Near East approach this age also. Some authorities date the domestication of cattle as early as 10,000 years ago, and others almost half that amount of time. Regardless of the time frame it is generally accepted that the domestication of cattle followed sheep, goats, pigs and dogs.

Modern domestic cattle evolved from a single early ancestor, the aurochs. In addition to prehistoric painting that help us identify the appearance of the auroch the species actually survived until relatively modern times. It is believed the last surviving member of the species was killed by a poacher in 1627 on a hunting reserve near Warsaw, Poland. The species may have survived in small number in other parts of the world until a later date but there is no evidence to support this theory.

Early cattle served a triple-purpose. They provided meat, milk and labor to their owners. Eventually their draft purposes were largely replaced by horses and much later by machinery so they were selected more for single or in some cases dual purposes.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:44 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #124

Boy, I am glad I am trying to not be the person I was a few years ago. I may have some very have some very intelligent sounding insults for a few folks.

Whereupon you go on to deliver some unintelligent sounding insults. 

Guess whats folks? Evolution (OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS) is a bold faced lie !

It has never happened, it never will happen and you have absolutely NO evidence beyond things like a rabbit having the God given ability to adapt to its environment (smart God I have there, huh?) or maybe a mutation here and there.

So sad.  FoC, start with Darwin:  http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/  Origin of the Species has lots of evidence.  Read it. Then go to PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed and enter the word "evolution" as your search term.  Take a look at the sheer number of papers that show up.  In a medical database that only goes back to 1965.  Start reading the abstracts.  Then try that pitiful "no evidence" thing again.

If anyone doensnt know what they are saying, its brainwashed evolutionists who buy into anything that some man in a little white uniform tells them to believe, regarless of his ungodly beliefs, that wil probalby be debunked ina few years by another guy in a white uniform with more ''evidence'' with an even more ungodly attitude.

Here we go.  Scientists are "ungodly".  FoC, at least half the evolutionary biologists in history have been Christians. Go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_01.html and see the faith statements of such prominent evolutionary biologists as Francisco Ayala.  Then read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.

What you don't realize is that scientific enquiry works in layers.  Answer one question and 3 or 4 new ones pop up out of the answer.  Common ancestry and natural selection have not been "debunked" nor are they likely to be, since we are running out of tests that could possibly debunk them. We've already tried all the tests possible to debunk them and failed. What you are whining about is simply wishful thinking on your part.

You guys just dont know what to believe.

Our personal beliefs about deity are our own.  They vary from individual to individual. We all accept descent with modification.

And Christian Evolutionists are the worst off.
They cant accept the beliefs of either group, so they make up their own rules to reality based on what they want to believe.

Poor baby!  It's terrible having Christians accept evolution.  Just blows your whole strawman argument away, doesn't it?  Actually, theistic evolutionists accept both Christian belief and science.  Unlike you, who lives in constant fear that science will overthrow God, theistic evolutionists get to relax, open a coke, make some popcorn, and watch science tell them how God created.   I think you are envious.

COME ON GUYS, BE EITHER HOT OR COLD BEFORE HE SPEWS YOU OUT. [/B] [/QUOTE]

Since you are the one denying God, I would look to your own salvation before urging others to follow down your false prophet path.

 

[Jon]

Today at 10:22 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #171



I'll ask you the same question: What prevents rabbits, through compounded speciation events, from diversifying to the point where we might no longer consider them "rabbits"?

Keep in mind, FoC has already stated that he accepted the idea that current rabbit species diversified from a common rabbit-like ancestor. All I'm proposing is further diversification via the same mechanisms.

Say you have two rabbits

the first rabbit has this DNA patturn: '1 2 3 4 5'

the seccond rabbit has this DNA patturn: '6 7 8 9 10'

you may end up with

'2 5 9 1 10'

'3 10 7 3 6'

etc

you will never end up with:

'20 1 4 92 13'

 

The rabbit is no longer a rabbit when it contains something other than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:33 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #113

I ACCEPT VARIATION WITHIN THE ''KIND''

God created kind with the ability to vary.
My mutt rabbits can produce quite a variety of sizes, shapes and colors of young.
I can very easily select attributes I like and narrow these down in less than 5 generations.

I could take a mutt rabbit and create literally hundreds of different breeds within just a couple years and they would all still be rabbits.

Exactly which Biblical verse says that "God created kind with the ability to vary"?  This is a human theory devised by creationists to get around observed speciation.

Since "rabbit" is a genus of over 50 species, you are probably right.  However, continue that over several thousand generations, separating the new species of small from the large, those that eat lettuce and carrots from those that eat grass, etc. At the end of that time, the descendents won't be "rabbits" anymore, but so different from your original rabbits that you will have to give them a new name. Just like Kilias et al's flies weren't "fruit" flies anymore.

Change is cumulative. 

 

[Jon]

Unlike you, who lives in constant fear that science will overthrow God, theistic evolutionists get to relax, open a coke, make some popcorn, and watch science tell them how God created.   I think you are envious.

I am not in fear that science will overthrow God.

If I was then I would not be here.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:34 PM Jon said this in Post #174




Say you have two rabbits

the first rabbit has this DNA patturn: '1 2 3 4 5'

the seccond rabbit has this DNA patturn: '6 7 8 9 10'

you may end up with

'2 5 9 1 10'

'3 10 7 3 6'

etc

you will never end up with:

'20 1 4 92 13'

 

The rabbit is no longer a rabbit when it contains something other than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

Let's take this correctly, Jon.

You have two populations of rabbits.  Species A has DNA 1,2,3,4,5 while species B has 6,7,8,9,10.  Now they are separate and don't interbreed.  Species A has a mutation to give it DNA 5a while Species B has a mutation to give it DNA 6a.  Species A splits into a new species A1 with DNA 1,2,3,4,5a.  Species B splits into a new species B1 with DNA 6a,7,8,9,10.

Now, another change in DNA in species A1 so that you have A2 with 1a,2,3,4,5a and B2 with 6a,7a,8,9,10.

Continue this over 4 more speciation events in each lineage.  Now you have A5 with 1a,2a,3a,4a,5a and B5 with 6a,7a,8a,9a,10a.

Now you have two species who are not rabbits, since none of them have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.  Not only that, but Species A3-6 and Species B3-6 are now in their own genus and only connected to the original rabbit at the level of family.

Go read about phylogenetic analysis. There is no barrier to changing DNA sequences so that you end up not having rabbits anymore.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:03 PM lucaspa said this in Post #162



Nope, that's not true. As speciation continues, the characteristics of the species on the different branches will diverge and become more and more different. In the end the species on one or both branches will no longer be "rabbits". 

You never commented on the Kilias et al paper, but there the new species were no longer fruit flies, but "meat" or "bread" flies instead.  Now, you can retreat and say they were still "flies" but flies are a huge order with characteristics as widely divergent as rabbits and humans.

In evolution, if you want to go to the extreme, all life belongs to one "kind" and all we have are "variations in a kind".  I'm quite willing to life with that. So was Darwin.  After all, we are talking the Origin of the Species.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

Did someone MISS the fact that THEY ARE STILL FLIES ???

What, do you think the next generation will produce geese or something???

This is unbelievable !

Is this all you can come up with?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:38 PM Jon said this in Post #176



I am not in fear that science will overthrow God.

If I was then I would not be here. 

If you weren't, you wouldn't be denying the evidence God left in Creation that evolution is how He created.

Creationists have all tied the existence of God to the particular how of creation that is creationism.  Giving up creationism means giving up God for them.  If it weren't they wouldn't be labeling all evolutionists as atheists or evolution as atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:46 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #178

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

Did someone MISS the fact that THEY ARE STILL FLIES ???

What, do you think the next generation will produce geese or something???

This is unbelievable !

Is this all you can come up with?

Nope. Didn't miss that at all. But you missed that I predicted your exact response: " Now, you can retreat and say they were still "flies" but flies are a <B>huge</B>&nbsp;order with characteristics as widely divergent as rabbits and humans."

And you did exactly that.&nbsp; Do you realize that the new "flies" differed from the original in their DNA by 3%?&nbsp; That's twice as much difference as between chimps and humans.

What we have is observed evolution producing more difference in DNA than that between chimps and humans, which you call different "kinds".

So much for your barrier past which evolution can't go!