Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet again you bring up your automobile "evolution" analogy. I find this idea of yours intriguing. May I ask where you got your original idea from - or was it your own original thinking that led to your analogy??
Others have told you that is what the ToE predicts. You never see a dog give birth to a frog - if that happened the ToE would be finished.
I have in fact read your various "arguments" regarding a "proof" of your god. None of them I'm afraid stand up to any scrutiny at all for the simple reason that non living matter does not reproduce biologically. It's really as simple as that.
But ToE does predict that fish became amphibians and amphibians became reptiles and so on
non living matter does not reproduce biologically Which though I agree, in fact it does not reproduce at all, the ToE argues that it did start to happen at least once (or in one epoch) very long ago.
I notice that you didn't produce a single conceptual barrier. Do you have one?
It has been demonstrated that individual traits in creatures can develop new expressions not found in the parents, so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.
I don't think anyone actually claims that.
Abiogenesis is something different from the ToE. One could in principle accept one but not the other (and some people do).
Sorry Rad but yes many did make this first prediction and many still adhere to it as true.
All atheist EBs I have ever spoken to assume abiogenesis and believe it is true
They also generally assume that the universe is ancient. Does that may cosmology part of the biologial sciences?Sorry Rad but yes many did make this first prediction and many still adhere to it as true.
All atheist EBs I have ever spoken to assume abiogenesis and believe it is true
Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this:
Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.
Yet again you bring up your automobile "evolution" analogy. I find this idea of yours intriguing. May I ask where you got your original idea from - or was it your own original thinking that led to your analogy??
Others have told you that is what the ToE predicts. You never see a dog give birth to a frog - if that happened the ToE would be finished.
I have in fact read your various "arguments" regarding a "proof" of your god. None of them I'm afraid stand up to any scrutiny at all for the simple reason that non living matter does not reproduce biologically. It's really as simple as that.
Speciation is not that uncommon for birds.According to the journal Science, following a 31 year study of Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands, rapid hybridization and speciation has been bserved in the wild after a migrant finch managed to breed successfully and establish a colony.
This, hopefully will provide evidence for those people who declare that speciation has never been observed - well it has now.
The BBC website has a readable outline for the study but it is free to read (after registration) at the Science Journal website.
Let the excuses and the tap dancing begin!!
BBC : Bird seen becoming new species
i actually talked about self replicating watch\robot. so in this case its very relevant to biological creatures.
Then how to you propose we got from proteins, to single called organisms, to sponges, to fish, to amphibians and reptiles, to mammals to man?I don't think anyone actually claims that.
It’s absolutely required, not separate. Without life beginning, there would be no evolution at all. It’s actually the most important step in the theory.Abiogenesis is something different from the ToE. One could in principle accept one but not the other (and some people do).
Notice how in every single animal the exact opposite has occurred. Asians became Asians because they interbreed with those with Asian traits. Instead of change over long periods, the traits became dominant and set into the genome. Same with every other race and animal species in existence. It is only when two subspecies mate that we actually see a change in variation in the species. Because it is this which adds new genetic combinations, not mutations. Every Asian born is born with around 100 mutations, as is every African. But the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. Only when Asian mates with African is a new variation in the species observed.
so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.
Notice how in humans groups with same traits when geophysicaly isolated for great lengths of time how this could cause "differences" (say between say neanderthal and denisovans) thus producing two lineages each with shared traits. But they never became "new species" they remain merely varieties of Homo-Sapien!
In fact, over "a long period of time" these differences via predominately isolated inter-breeding were overcome by shared interbreeding and the less dominant forms dying out (for example an Ice Age in Europe killing off most Neanderthals is a powerful natural selection force)
Then how to you propose we got from proteins, to single called organisms, to sponges, to fish, to amphibians and reptiles, to mammals to man?
It’s absolutely required, not separate. Without life beginning, there would be no evolution at all. It’s actually the most important step in the theory.
Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this:
You can’t have evolution unless you first have life to evolve. It’s more fundamental than the ToE.Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.
Oh we very much deny it.Speciation is not that uncommon for birds.
Molecular studies of speciation in birds over the last three decades have been dominated by a focus on the geography, ecology, and timing of speciation, a tradition traceable to Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. (Speciation in birds: Genes, geography, and sexual selection. PNAS)Creationists don't generally deny speciation just the limits beyond which living systems can evolve into another species on the level of genus and beyond.
Nonsense. We have morphological changes in sequences of species found in fossils and we have the pattern of genetic changes in modern and more recently extinct species.You haven’t yet shown a single common ancestor that split. Your own lack of evidence is your own confirmation of this barrier.
You can't even define what "Asian" means. You accept that face structure, skin colour and hair colour can be altered by mutations so what is the possible. That's all an Asian is, a human with a group of arbitrary ancestral traits that link them to the people who settled a specific region of the world.Asian remain Asian despite mutations at every birth. Husky remain Husky despite mutations at every birth. Red tailed deer remain red tailed deer. Grizzlies remain Grizzlies. And on and on for every animal in existence.
Just as in the fossil record across hundreds of millions of years every distinct type of fossil remains the same for that type.
That barrier exists right in front of your eyes, you just won’t open them and actually look at what the emperical data is telling you.
But then that’s why every single common ancestor where this magic split occurred is missing for every single one of them. They don’t exist, never existed, and will never exist.
If you can look beyond the evolutionary PR, you’ll find your answer.
Baffling Genetic Barrier Prevents Similar Animals from Interbreeding
“Genome analysis suggests that the two species are swapping genes at a surprising rate. But each species has genome segments unique to its own kind, which seem to persist despite the mixing of the rest of the genome. It’s as if these parts of the genome were made of oil and the rest of water; the water easily mixes but the oil remains in distinct droplets.
Scientists have dubbed such regions of the genome “islands of speciation.””
Although the simple fact is that they are both the same species to begin with, just different subspecies within the same species. But that’s because evolutionists can’t follow their own definitions so that species has become useless as a definer because it is now in the “eye of the beholder” and solely depends on what any person wants to say, because none of them can follow scientific definitions....
The barrier is right there in front of your eyes, confirmed by every living creature and across hundreds of millions of years by every fossil ever found for any creature.
And I love the headline, they are interbreeding at a “surprising rate”, yet they make it sound as if they can’t. Lol, evolutionary PR at its finest.....
It takes 26 weeks for a Husky and Mastiff to produce a Chinook.
Prove it. Every single fossil found for any creature remains the same over hundreds of millions of years. Is this the point where you point to non-existent common ancestors and claim divergence?
So your evidence is no evidence at all?
No, it’s been demonstrated that those changes do nothing. How many millions more fossils remaining exactly the same across hundreds of millions of years do you need to show your beliefs are wrong? Your claims rely solely on common ancestors that are each and every one, missing....
But so lost in theory are they, they are unable to “see”.
No, you have nothing, that’s why you haven’t yet provided a single common ancestor where this split occurred.Nonsense. We have morphological changes in sequences of species found in fossils and we have the pattern of genetic changes in modern and more recently extinct species.
And that is exactly what a polar bear is. An animal with a group of arbitrary ancestral traits that link them to the animals who settled a specific region of the world. So since you claim a polar bear is a separate species from the grizzly bear, despite mating, uphold your beliefs and argue Asians should be a separate species....You can't even define what "Asian" means. You accept that face structure, skin colour and hair colour can be altered by mutations so what is the possible. That's all an Asian is, a human with a group of arbitrary ancestral traits that link them to the people who settled a specific region of the world.
Only in your fantasies. The Chinook never existed either. It came from simple interbreeding of Husky and Mastiff. If your claims were true then we wouldn’t get a Chinoook every time we bred a Husky and Mastiff. So we can conclude mutations are irrelevant.Also, huskies were't always huskies, because they didn't used to exist. ALL dogs are descended from wolves and all the uniquely "dog" traits don't exist in wolf genetics, they came from mutations.
Mutations did nothing. Interbreeding with others with the same traits is what defined them. It’s how we got over 100 breeds of dogs. It’s how we create new breeds today. Never by mutation, always by breeding for specific traits.Also humans. There didn't used to be Africans, or Asians as distinct groups, there used to be a smaller less diverse population of humans and only after we spread across the world did the mutations that define them appear.
Apparently they can, since all 100 breeds of dogs were created by interbreeding wolves.And before you repeat you silliness about "inbreeding" reducing genetic diversity, that is about the population, not the individual. A human or wolf can't hold all the genetics for the diversity of modern populations.
Agreed, and all dogs are the same species. And wolves never split or evolved into anything. So accept what you know to be true and stop trying to regurgitate common ancestors that split to become new species. We agree these common ancestors, the only one that can be found, falsify your theory.WHERE DID HUSKIES AND MASTIFFS COME FROM IF THEY AREN'T WOLVES!
Wolves are a blatant example of a common ancestor to every variation of dog.
Your stories start from one, and then with every mutation that is shared in a population requires all others go extinct, and only the descendants of that one person become the population. Over and over and over again. You are worse off than I am...Your stories also claim all modern human variations come from the genes of exactly 5 people, so only a maximum of ten variations for any given trait.
You have excuses. We have over a billion fossils in museums around the world. Whatever excuse floats your boat and allows you to live with your beliefs.We have a valid explanations for limited fossils, we have plenty of possible common ancestors for many of hominid variations.
You refuse to accept inbreeding causes genetic reduction in diversity. Even if both the Asian and African have less genetic diversity than their offspring the Afro-Asian.If you don't think mutations cause genetic diversity either explain where it comes from, or explain how ancient humans passed on their genes if it didn't work they way all modern mammals do it today?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?