Discussion on the how it all started

[Subduction Zone]

So, there was, what? A giant leap forward or sideways in genetics and the common ancestor's descendants were suddenly two entirely different kinds?

"Kinds" is a meaningless nonsense term. It cannot be defined. Speciation occurred. And we directly observe speciation quite often. That occurs when first a population is divided by some means. Second as time passes the number of changes in the genome of each population increases to the point that they can no longer successfully interbreed. Like lions and tigers. Yes, they can have offspring but those lines do die out. Given more time their offspring will be like that of horses and mules.

And speaking of horses and mules do you remember when you claimed that a change in chromosome numbers means that there could be no more fertile interbreeding? I asked for evidence of that claim and you could not find any. You should have owned up to your failure.

To be honest it was a trap because I knew that you were wrong. It only takes one example of two populations that can still interbreed (therefore still one species by definition) that have different number of chromosomes. You really should have taken me up on my hint to check out the chromosome count of zebras and horses. You should still look that up. Of course those offspring are sterile. But the interbreeding of Przewalski's horse and the domestic horse is possible and those offspring are very fertile. Przewalski's horse has one more pair of chromosomes and it does not appear to be a problem at all:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

'The karyotype of Przewalski's horse differs from that of the domestic horse by an extra chromosome pair because of the fission of domestic horse chromosome 5 to produce the Przewalski's horse chromosomes 23 and 24. In comparison, the chromosomal differences between domestic horses and zebras include numerous translocations, fusions, inversions and centromere repositioning.[19] This gives Przewalski's horse the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring (65 chromosomes).[10]'

 

[pitabread]

This is actually hilarious. A random process, generated by nothing is constrained?

First, the process of evolution is not strictly random. Second, while there examples of HGT, for the most part the movement of gene flow is constrained through inheritance from parents to offspring.

No, God isn't going to created glow in the dark rabbits, probably because that would benefit no one but the predators and rabbits are already very low on the totem pole as far as having defenses against predation.

This is missing the point. With genetics it's possible to swap genes from extant species (even distantly related species) among one another to create hybrid organisms. However, this is not something commonly observed in nature.

Instead the pattern of genetics in modern organisms indicates hereditary constraints. Which is exactly what you would expect for an evolutionary process.

If we see common patterns in different animals, that is evidence of a common creator, not that they all came from the same ancestor.

Commonality in and of itself is not an indicator of a common creator.

The patterns we observe in nature indicate a process of evolutionary ancestry for species, not creation. Unless of course said creator was constrained in exactly the same manner as evolutionary inheritance. Which we already know from our own examples of genetic engineering is not a strict constraint.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."

"Darwin’s own opinion about eugenics is controversial. He published The Descent of Man in 1871. In it, he argues that racial extermination has brought human evolution to where it is today (Darwin, 1871). Darwin suggests that Caucasians were superior to other races, particularly Africans and Aboriginal Australians. He also discusses adversity, and how struggle is a key part of natural selection."

So according to you past abuses of Christianity refutes Christianity? Was that your point? Or are you trying to say that past abuses of Christianity prove Christianity to be evil?

I have no clue what point you are trying to make here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is actually hilarious. A random process, generated by nothing is constrained?
No, God isn't going to created glow in the dark rabbits, probably because that would benefit no one but the predators and rabbits are already very low on the totem pole as far as having defenses against predation.
If we see common patterns in different animals, that is evidence of a common creator, not that they all came from the same ancestor.

Evolution is not a random process.

You forgot that it is constrained by natural selection.

 

[pitabread]

So, there was, what? A giant leap forward or sideways in genetics and the common ancestor's descendants were suddenly two entirely different kinds?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

For the record, "kind" is not a biological term and has no biological definition. Also, organisms don't become entirely different through the process of evolution. They all bare hallmarks of their ancestry.

 

[renniks]

"Kinds" is a meaningless nonsense term. It cannot be defined. Speciation occurred. And we directly observe speciation quite often. That occurs when first a population is divided by some means. Second as time passes the number of changes in the genome of each population increases to the point that they can no longer successfully interbreed. Like lions and tigers. Yes, they can have offspring but those lines do die out. Given more time their offspring will be like that of horses and mules.

And speaking of horses and mules do you remember when you claimed that a change in chromosome numbers means that there could be no more fertile interbreeding? I asked for evidence of that claim and you could not find any. You should have owned up to your failure.

To be honest it was a trap because I knew that you were wrong. It only takes one example of two populations that can still interbreed (therefore still one species by definition) that have different number of chromosomes. You really should have taken me up on my hint to check out the chromosome count of zebras and horses. You should still look that up. Of course those offspring are sterile. But the interbreeding of Przewalski's horse and the domestic horse is possible and those offspring are very fertile. Przewalski's horse has one more pair of chromosomes and it does not appear to be a problem at all:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

'The karyotype of Przewalski's horse differs from that of the domestic horse by an extra chromosome pair because of the fission of domestic horse chromosome 5 to produce the Przewalski's horse chromosomes 23 and 24. In comparison, the chromosomal differences between domestic horses and zebras include numerous translocations, fusions, inversions and centromere repositioning.[19] This gives Przewalski's horse the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring (65 chromosomes).[10]'

A horse is a horse is a horse.
Zebras, horses, ponies, and donkeys are of the same created kind. Though we don’t have any three-toed horses around today to cross-breed with the one-toed variety, creation scientists consider a horse with three toes to still be a horse, a variant of the original created kind. In fact, the fossil record has revealed evidence of a single-toed and a three-toed horse found together.

 

[renniks]

The patterns we observe in nature indicate a process of evolutionary ancestry for species, not creation.

If you are inclined to interpret the evidence that way. But the same evidence fits into totally different theories of origin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A horse is a horse is a horse.
Zebras, horses, ponies, and donkeys are of the same created kind. Though we don’t have any three-toed horses around today to cross-breed with the one-toed variety, creation scientists consider a horse with three toes to still be a horse, a variant of the original created kind. In fact, the fossil record has revealed evidence of a single-toed and a three-toed horse found together.

Nope, that was not what was being discussed. You are trying to change the topic. You claimed that a change in chromosome number meant that fertile interbreeding was impossible when chromosome counts were different. I showed that not to be the case. I know that you are losing to several people right now but you should at least try to remember your own claims.

 

[pitabread]

But the same evidence fits into totally different theories of origin.

Assuming you are talking about supernatural creation, everything fits with supernatural creation. Because a supernatural creator is completely unbounded. Of course, such philosophical views are infringing on Last Thursdayism territory.

The question, though, is why a supernatural creator would create living things to look like they share common ancestry when they didn't have to. Seems odd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are inclined to interpret the evidence that way. But the same evidence fits into totally different theories of origin.

Really? (Well of course not really. We know that there is no such theory). Okay the fact is that there is no such theory. But there may be a hypothesis. Let's see if you know that there is one. What reasonable test (which means the "theory" has to be tested on its own merits) could possibly refute the "theory"? If you cannot come up with one then you do not have a theory. You do not even have a hypothesis.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."

"Darwin’s own opinion about eugenics is controversial. He published The Descent of Man in 1871. In it, he argues that racial extermination has brought human evolution to where it is today (Darwin, 1871). Darwin suggests that Caucasians were superior to other races, particularly Africans and Aboriginal Australians. He also discusses adversity, and how struggle is a key part of natural selection."

You've never read Darwin.

 

[pitabread]

Zebras, horses, ponies, and donkeys are of the same created kind.

What is the basis for this? If zebras and donkeys were separately created, how would you determine that they weren't?

 

[Larniavc]

No and how does a computer being alive have meaning to the conversation? A computer is not nearly as complex as a living organism. That's the point.

It’s not the point. You can not compare two things that are not the same and draw conclusions on one based on the other.

I have a pair of shoes that were designed. Therefore my cats were designed.

Again: did you read the paper I linked you to?

 

[Larniavc]

You've never read Darwin.

They won’t even read the link I found for them.

Funny: the second person on this site who refuses to read links.

 

[Larniavc]

A random process, generated by nothing is constrained?

It’s not random. Mutation is, but selection provides the constraint.

That’s very basic.

 

[renniks]

Evolution is not a random process.

You forgot that it is constrained by natural selection.

Who is natural and how is he selecting? If he selects wrong, the whole organism doesn't pass go, it doesn't get another chance, it just dies out. And "he"

The point, buddy, is that geniuses in one area aren't geniuses in all areas. Darwin was right about evolution; to the extent he was an advocate of eugenics, he was wrong. So?

So? He understood the implications of his theory, but his followers want to pretend those implications don't exist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A horse is a horse is a horse.
Zebras, horses, ponies, and donkeys are of the same created kind. Though we don’t have any three-toed horses around today to cross-breed with the one-toed variety, creation scientists consider a horse with three toes to still be a horse, a variant of the original created kind. In fact, the fossil record has revealed evidence of a single-toed and a three-toed horse found together.

Chapter and verse please. I need scriptural evidence of the zebra-horse-donkey kind. (Since kinds are only a biblical concept and not a scientific one.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is natural and how is he selecting? If he selects wrong, the whole organism doesn't pass go, it doesn't get another chance, it just dies out. And "he"

So? He understood the implications of his theory, but his followers want to pretend those implications don't exist.

Natural selection is a natural process. There is no "he". And yes, it does fail at times and species go extinct.

And those were not implications of Darwin's theory. Why would you make that claim?

 

[renniks]

Evolution is not a random process.

You forgot that it is constrained by natural selection.

Oh come on even, evolutionists don't really believe this.
Most change is due to random genetic drift rather than positive selection. It could be called the survival of the luckiest.

Read more: Evolution myths: Natural selection is the only means of evolution

 

[renniks]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

For the record, "kind" is not a biological term and has no biological definition. Also, organisms don't become entirely different through the process of evolution. They all bare hallmarks of their ancestry.

A horse is a dog is a pig is a boy? You just told me that isn't so. So which is it? Again you can't get there without intermediate " species"