Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Only Me]

This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"

Then perhaps you can explain why out of 12,000 different species of animal on the island of Madagascar 10,000 of them are found nowhere else on earth?

Are you just asking to ask or were you going to present an argument?

You made this claim 'evolution was an equivocation game played by evolutionists'
so I asked you about the animals in Madagascar that are found nowhere else on earth.

 

[Split Rock]

Boy, this thread has really brought put the ugly side of creationists in this forum....

 

[biggles53]

Boy, this thread has really brought put the ugly side of creationists in this forum....

There's a pretty side....?

 

[Loudmouth]

GENERAL NOTE: lifepsyop has me on ignore. If others feel this post is worth bringing to his attention, feel free to bump it. I will leave that judgement to the rest of the posters in this thread.

This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"

Simple geographic isolation of populations obviously does not necessarily drive Evolution.

In combination with random mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection, yes it does. In order to get two species you need a single population that is split into two subpopulations that do not freely interbreed. This causes different mutations to accumulate in each population, and causes the two populations to diverge. This is the mechanism of speciation, and it is directly observed in the case of geographic isolation. It is directly observed every time there is restricted gene flow between two populations.

Interestingly, in the evolutionary paradigm, jaguars and leopards (two other "Pantheras") have been separated for over a million years, yet can still produce offspring.

Why is this a problem? The definition of speciation does not require complete lack of interfertility. What it requires is restricted gene flow between the populations, and that is exactly what we observe. Any mating between jaguars and leopards in the wild populations is extremely rare compared to breeding within each population. That means population specific mutations will stay in each population, and the populations will continue to diverge over time. That is speciation.

Once again, creationists are so worried about their made up definitions that they fail to see the biological mechanisms in action.

Strange that reproductive isolation is supposed to stimulate evolutionary change yet appears to be totally ineffective.

If they are so ineffective, then why has speciation produced exactly what it was supposed to produce: genetically divergent populations.

Why do evolutionists completely misrepresent this process as if it somehow guarantees the origin of new types of animals?

Physician, heal thyself.

Division of gene pools can just as easily be tending towards lack of genetic variation, genomic degradation and eventual extinction.

Evidence? Is this yet another made up statement by creationists? Looks like it.

Can you explain why genetic diversity would decrease when every individual in every generation is born with new mutations? Can you also explain how mutations that happen in one population can get over to the other population when they are not interbreeding?

But by getting you to equate the word 'speciation' with 'evolution', evolutionists will trick you into believing there are numerous examples of "observed evolution".

Once again, creationists misrepresent our position. We equate restricted gene flow with speciation.

 

[StormanNorman]

Here is one example I just came across of molecular data failing to align with fossil data under a prediction of evolution. This is no problem of course and the authors go on to retrofit a new ad-hoc rate-change molecular model, but not before throwing out another familiar rescue device "incomplete fossil record"

Evidence for a convergent slowdown in primate molecular rates and its implications for the timing of early primate evolution
A long-standing problem in primate evolution is the discord between paleontological and molecular clock estimates for the time of crown primate origins: the earliest crown primate fossils are ∼56 million y (Ma) old, whereas molecular estimates for the haplorhine-strepsirrhine split are often deep in the Late Cretaceous. One explanation for this phenomenon is that crown primates existed in the Cretaceous but that their fossil remains have not yet been found... Here we provide strong evidence that this discordance is better-explained by a convergent molecular rate slowdown in early primate evolution.

You bring this sort of thing up often, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you .... other than the fact that you're not a big fan of evolution. Unlike you, evolutionists do not know exactly what happened in the past ... there's lots of question marks. And when new evidence comes in, it sometimes requires rethinking particular sub-hypotheses of the theory. Is that not what should happen? And, another thing, LP, there is no other game in town; that is, there is no alternative scientific theory to evolution right now. Evolution is the only working theory they have at the current time.

 

[Split Rock]

GENERAL NOTE: lifepsyop has me on ignore. .

You should be grateful. There is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with that one.

 

[Naturalism]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

Creationist mouthpiece comes along to share some timely "wisdom" once again.

 

[Naturalism]

This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring.

Way to not address any of the observed instances of speciation, heck yeah!

It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"

Yes, leave it to creationists to project their own equivocation and overly simplified views in biology onto the science. Much like "kind" or as more recently suggested that species are genetically static.

Simple geographic isolation of populations obviously does not necessarily drive Evolution.

Genetic isolation, that drives speciation and evolution too. It's really hard to have gene flow and shared mutations across separate populations of species as they can no longer form a viable zygote.

Division of gene pools can just as easily be tending towards lack of genetic variation, genomic degradation and eventual extinction.

You mean like the Cheetah?

This is most certainly the actual long-term trajectory... instead of some mythical arrival of new types of life that evolutionists believe in.

Well if what you say is true, that all species tend towards lack of genetic variation and genomic degradation and eventual extinction, why does the fossil and genetic attest to a different history where after major extinction event occur life diversifies in taking up new biomes and niches?

You need to get in a time machine and go tell all those organisms to stop diversifying and start degrading into extinction after major extinction events.

But by getting you to equate the word 'speciation' with 'evolution', evolutionists will trick you into believing there are numerous examples of "observed evolution". They will present you with a wall of references, as Split_Rock did earlier, hoping you will swallow the false idea that you're rejecting a mountain of empirical data if you reject Evolution.

Yeah, there go those unreasonable scientists again citing evidence again. Creationist, since you're finding the currently classification of life troublesome, what is a "kind"? Does "kind"= species?

 

[Naturalism]

One explanation for this phenomenon is that crown primates existed in the Cretaceous but that their fossil remains have not yet been found...[/I] Here we provide strong evidence that this discordance is better-explained by a convergent molecular rate slowdown in early primate evolution.

Why exactly is this a problem of the ToE given what we know of the rarity of fossils being preserved in general?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why exactly is this a problem of the ToE given what we know of the rarity of fossils being preserved in general?

Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as separate species when they were actually babies of those adults, and in Triceratops, it's the adult form you had as another species.

This isn't a rare occurrence and is happening today right before your eyes with Felidae and thousands of others, and you allow it. All because the ToE is not a valid theory. All fossils are the same of every kind with only minor variation. The T-Rex is a T-Rex, from the first one found to the last. As are ALL of them. All of them.

The data dictates a theory that is in-line with variation of distinct kinds, not one kind evolving into another. The missing link isn't missing, it was never there to begin with as the data is beginning to show.

Neither fossils nor DNA is supporting ToE any longer as technology continues to advance. It's pointing you in one direction, so finally there will be no excuse.

Edit:

Mainstream's own cash cow "mutation in plant and animal husbandry", was basically abandoned because it failed to produce results, yet we hear mutation this and mutation that, while in those lifeforms we are supposed to see evolution happening through mutation, the experts abandoned it.

 

[lasthero]

Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as separate species when they were actually babies of those adults, and in Triceratops, it's the adult form you had as another species.

You cite a handful of occurrences when literally MILLIONS of fossils have been found and classified. In what way, shape, or form is that the VAST MAJORITY?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You cite a handful of occurrences when literally MILLIONS of fossils have been found and classified. In what way, shape, or form is that the VAST MAJORITY?

And how many of those other millions of your precious fossils have you cut open and looked at? The few Mr. Horner and a couple others decided to look into??? I'd say we got a few million to cut into yet to show another 85% misclassified as well. We have only seen the pitiful few examined so far that has made the headlines.

 

[lasthero]

And how many of those other millions of your precious fossils have you cut open and looked at? The few Mr. Horner and a couple others decided to look into??? I'd say we got a few million to cut into yet to show another 85% misclassified as well. We have only seen the pitiful few examined so far that has made the headlines.

Many fossils are broken when their found. They're rarely in pristine condition. And do you have any data to suggest that scientists aren't checking inside fossils? Anything? No? Okay then.

Your claims lack merit.

 

[Naturalism]

Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as.

How many did Horner state again? Was it the vast majority for all known specimens? I have not looked at the vid (yet) but I presume you have since you are citing it and can quantity each so it's clear it was indeed the vast majority.

This isn't a rare occurrence and is happening today right before your eyes with Felidae and thousands of others, and you allow it. All because the ToE is not a valid theory.

All fossils are the same of every kind with only minor variation. The T-Rex is a T-Rex, from the first one found to the last. As are ALL of them. All of them.

But a T-Rex is not a Giganotosaurus. How many "kinds" exist in Dinosauria?

Or is just Dinosauria a "kind""

Is Archeopteryx part of that Dinosauria "kind" or or part of another "kind"?

What "kind" does it belong to based on it's morphology?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Many fossils are broken when their found. They're rarely in pristine condition. And do you have any data to suggest that scientists aren't checking inside fossils? Anything? No? Okay then.

Your claims lack merit.

Yah I do, your own Highly Proclaimed Archeologist who just doesn't need your grants any longer.

Jack Horner: Where are the baby dinosaurs? | Talk Video | TED.com

It's not my problem you ignore it, it's yours. It's called "faith", of which you have greater than I. Faith that is clearly misplaced, as jagged, weathered fossil ends are not the same as clean new cuts, or apparently someone would of noticed the obvious in Triceratops and the other 12 major dinosaurs of North America that has been looked into, long ago. Hmmm, go figure.

New Study Says Torosaurus=Triceratops | Science | Smithsonian

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil « CBS Los Angeles

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus


You can't "see" the obvious inability to detect the right from the left???? That would not just be faith, but blind faith in that line of reasoning.

 

[lasthero]

Yah I do, your own Highly Proclaimed Archeologist who just doesn't need your grants any longer.

My grants? I've never met the man.

But okay, you trust Horner. I assume you're fine with his research on evolution?

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube

 

[Naturalism]

New Study Says Torosaurus=Triceratops | Science | Smithsonian

The thing I would like to add is that with fossils we know that based on the processes around fossilization and preservation we're only getting a small% of all the flora or fauna that was once living. As such, whatever fossils are found should be understood as a representative of the species that were living at a specific time. It's frankly remarkable we find fossils at all given the number of processes that need to occur for them to be around for so long as well.

In regards to examining the fossils here for triceratops, while it's possible that the torosaurus was actually a juvenile of the triceratops species what cannot be ignored is the variability that is possible in the same species. take for instance the variation alone in dog exhibited in their skulls.

 

[Split Rock]

Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as separate species when they were actually babies of those adults, and in Triceratops, it's the adult form you had as another species.

This isn't a rare occurrence and is happening today right before your eyes with Felidae and thousands of others, and you allow it. All because the ToE is not a valid theory. All fossils are the same of every kind with only minor variation. The T-Rex is a T-Rex, from the first one found to the last. As are ALL of them. All of them.

The data dictates a theory that is in-line with variation of distinct kinds, not one kind evolving into another. The missing link isn't missing, it was never there to begin with as the data is beginning to show.

Neither fossils nor DNA is supporting ToE any longer as technology continues to advance. It's pointing you in one direction, so finally there will be no excuse.

Edit:

Mainstream's own cash cow "mutation in plant and animal husbandry", was basically abandoned because it failed to produce results, yet we hear mutation this and mutation that, while in those lifeforms we are supposed to see evolution happening through mutation, the experts abandoned it.

One more time since you ignored the question I asked:
Do you agree that lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor?
Yes or no, please. It isn't a hard question.

 

[Split Rock]

Yah I do, your own Highly Proclaimed Archeologist who just doesn't need your grants any longer.

I would love to see you show us Jack Horner claiming that he was coerced into accepting common descent because he needed grant money. Go ahead. Or do you have nothing but baseless innuendo to back up your dogma?

 

[lasthero]

I would love to see you show us Jack Horner claiming that he was coerced into accepting common descent because he needed grant money. Go ahead. Or do you have nothing but baseless innuendo to back up your dogma?

Not just grant money. MY grant money. I didn't even know I had it, much less that Horner was getting any.