Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Kylie]

And think of D not being able to mate with anything, even other D, and you see it is exactly that, the failure of evolution. If C has this much difficulty, then D or E is doomed.....

Let's assume you are correct (assume). Then Tigers and Lions are diverging to the point where they can no longer produce but barely fertile offspring.

But their mating is the ONLY time you see a new variation enter the lineage.....

Without their mating you only get Tigers and Lions, never anything new. This is why every creature in the fossil record remains exactly the same from the oldest for that creature to the youngest fossil for that creature.

New forms appear in the fossil record because A+B equaled C.

Not because A or B evolved into C.....

So we are in reality seeing not evolution, but the end of the variability already contained in the genome.

Just as 100+ breeds came from wolves, but you can not get 100 breeds from a Poodle...... The further you get from the original pair, the less and less variability remains......

Wow, you really don't get it at all...

A and B are evolving away from each other. They are NOT both evolving into C.

 

[Kylie]

Ignoring is your specialty...

Lions, Tigers and Ligers all mate with one another. They are the SAME species. You may if you wish call them subspecies...

As we have already disused:

"Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact."

Except that the fact that male ligers are sterile proves that lions and tigers are becoming separated from each other.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

And so evolution is dead, because Ligers will go extinct, not continue on despite being stronger and faster.... which is what you fail to accept.

Where in the world do you get the idea that ligers need to be viable if evolution is true?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You haven't yet justified Lions and Tigers are separate species....

The fact that their offspring are not always fertile is evidence!

That remains to be seen.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

How easily you forget that it took over 20 years in captivity and several generations born in captivity before we were able to get Tigers and Lions to even breed....

I mean it took them over 80 years to even notice those finches mating right in front of their noses.....

Is that the best you can do?

If mating was such a problem with ligers, why have the females done it so much?

No, it is evidence that they are nearing the end of the variability within the Kind.

Again, Lions only produce Lions. Tigers only produce Tigers. The only time you see variation is when A+B mate.... Just as the fossil record where A remains A until it goes extinct. B remains B until it goes extinct. C is born of A+B, it does not evolve from A or B.....

Okay then, if you have a female liger, what do you breed her with to get a liger offspring?

Exactly, it falsifies evolution as when the variation already in the genome has reached it's end, sterility is all that results......

No, it shows that when two species are sufficiently different from each other, they become less and less capable of producing fertile offspring - EXACTLY what evolution predicts.

 

[xianghua]

Except that the fact that male ligers are sterile proves that lions and tigers are becoming separated from each other.

but they still belong to the same family. so there is no evolution here.

Except that the fact that male ligers are sterile proves that lions and tigers are becoming separated from each other.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.



Where in the world do you get the idea that ligers need to be viable if evolution is true?

You have no idea what you are talking about.



The fact that their offspring are not always fertile is evidence!



Is that the best you can do?

If mating was such a problem with ligers, why have the females done it so much?



Okay then, if you have a female liger, what do you breed her with to get a liger offspring?



No, it shows that when two species are sufficiently different from each other, they become less and less capable of producing fertile offspring - EXACTLY what evolution predicts.

so evolution also predicted that two different genera can interbreed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

but they still belong to the same family. so there is no evolution here.

You can't point to a speciation event and claim "no evolution there". "Change of kind" is a creationist concept. There are no kinds. you for example are a human being because you share a common ancestor with other human beings. You are an ape because you share a common ancestor with other apes (this is a HUGE mistake that creationists make, man never stopped being an ape). You are still a mammal because you share a common ancestor either other mammals. etc. and so on. All the way to LUCA.

so evolution also predicted that two different genera can interbreed?

It predicts that they cannot interbreed successfully. And since ligers and tigons are a genetic dead end that is the case.

 

[Aman777]

You can't point to a speciation event and claim "no evolution there".

I can since the word "evolution" didn't appear "until Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 by Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification.".Wiki IOW, it was descent with modification for several thousands of years until the mid 19th Century. That's when scientists began to reject God's Truth in favor of the false ToE. Now, they wildly speculate that Humans descended from Apes. How dumb.

The first recorded report of "descent with modification" was Enoch, Cain's son.
Gen 4:17 Cain (Human) married and produced Enoch with a prehistoric woman, a member of the sons of God, who descended from water the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Cain's son inherited the superior intelligence of Adam but also inherited the DNA of a prehistoric woman. The word "evolved" doesn't explain that he descended with modifications within a population over time, but changes God's Truth into fiction.

"Change of kind" is a creationist concept. There are no kinds.

There are only two kinds. Temporal and Eternal. Which would you prefer? Genesis refers to them as "His kinds" and "Their kinds". Jesus makes temporary kinds subject to death. God the Trinity creates kinds eternally. The Trinity changes His children (Humans) into the immortal sons of God. Those are the kinds in Genesis.

you for example are a human being because you share a common ancestor with other human beings. You are an ape because you share a common ancestor with other apes (this is a HUGE mistake that creationists make, man never stopped being an ape). You are still a mammal because you share a common ancestor either other mammals. etc. and so on. All the way to LUCA.

Provably incorrect, since Humans (descendants of Adam) were made billions of years before any other creature. Human blood was contaminated with the blood of the sons of God (prehistoric people) when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. No magical evolution needed. Just good old Human intelligence, which descended and modified the intelligence of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were on Earth when the Ark arrived on this planet of the LUCA.

Now, we can type and post BUT we are still a special creation by Lord God/Jesus and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes since Humans were FIRST made. That's God's Truth. Please modify your incorrect notions. Amen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can since the word "evolution" didn't appear "until Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 by Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification.".Wiki IOW, it was descent with modification for several thousands of years until the mid 19th Century. That's when scientists began to reject God's Truth in favor of the false ToE. Now, they wildly speculate that Humans descended from Apes. How dumb.

The first recorded report of "descent with modification" was Enoch, Cain's son.
Gen 4:17 Cain (Human) married and produced Enoch with a prehistoric woman, a member of the sons of God, who descended from water the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 Cain's son inherited the superior intelligence of Adam but also inherited the DNA of a prehistoric woman. The word "evolved" doesn't explain that he descended with modifications within a population over time, but changes God's Truth into fiction.



There are only two kinds. Temporal and Eternal. Which would you prefer? Genesis refers to them as "His kinds" and "Their kinds". Jesus makes temporary kinds subject to death. God the Trinity creates kinds eternally. The Trinity changes His children (Humans) into the immortal sons of God. Those are the kinds in Genesis.



Provably incorrect, since Humans (descendants of Adam) were made billions of years before any other creature. Human blood was contaminated with the blood of the sons of God (prehistoric people) when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. No magical evolution needed. Just good old Human intelligence, which descended and modified the intelligence of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were on Earth when the Ark arrived on this planet of the LUCA.

Now, we can type and post BUT we are still a special creation by Lord God/Jesus and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes since Humans were FIRST made. That's God's Truth. Please modify your incorrect notions. Amen?

When you learn the basics of science then your comments might have some weight behind them. Right now all you have is an endless supply of hot air.

So once again I invite you to discuss the basics of science so that you will not continue to make such gross errors.

 

[Aman777]

When you learn the basics of science then your comments might have some weight behind them. Right now all you have is an endless supply of hot air.

So once again I invite you to discuss the basics of science so that you will not continue to make such gross errors.

What's the matter? Is that all you've got? Either reject God's Truth and follow the changeable half/truths of godless science instead, or I won't meet your standards? Your doctrine of mortal men will soon be exposed as the biggest lie ever force taught to our innocent children. Do you have no shame?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the matter? Is that all you've got? Either reject God's Truth and follow the changeable half/truths of godless science instead, or I won't meet your standards? Your doctrine of mortal men will soon be exposed as the biggest lie ever force taught to our innocent children. Do you have no shame?

No one has rejected "God's Truth". It probably does not exist so it cannot be rejected. But if you have reliable evidence for it that would be nice to see. Sadly I do not think that you even understand the concept.

When you are ready to discuss the scientific method and the concept of evidence I will gladly help you.

 

[Aman777]

No one has rejected "God's Truth". It probably does not exist so it cannot be rejected. But if you have reliable evidence for it that would be nice to see. Sadly I do not think that you even understand the concept.

When you are ready to discuss the scientific method and the concept of evidence I will gladly help you.

Thanks, but I wouldn't follow you across the street. I understand the concept but I also refute it as incomplete, untrue and changeable because the wild eyed speculators, who think they know more than God, know that they can't prove anything. God's Truth changes not. It doesn't have to change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks, but I wouldn't follow you across the street. I understand the concept but I also refute it as incomplete, untrue and changeable because the wild eyed speculators, who think they know more than God, know that they can't prove anything. God's Truth changes not. It doesn't have to change.

Please, you clearly don't. You know that and I know that. Your fear of discussing the concept only confirms the fact that you are totally ignorant of the science. But there is good news. Ignorance is curable with education.

And you really need to quit making claims about "speculators". As a Christian you should be following the Commandments and when you make false claims about others that is an example of "Bearing false witness". It does not matter if you believe it or not. When you make a claim like that you need to to be able to support it and "because I said so" is never good enough.

By the way, these won't be my standards for evidence and the scientific method. They will be general science sites. If you deny science you really should not be here anyway since you need to rely on the sciences that you deny to even post here.

 

[Aman777]

And you really need to quit making claims about "speculators". As a Christian you should be following the Commandments and when you make false claims about others that is an example of "Bearing false witness".

People who believe in the false assumption of evolution are speculating on the fact that they know more than God. In their arrogance, they forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's world. 2 Peter 3:3-7 In the end, they will be held up as examples of those who offend little children who believe in Jesus. Their punishment is increased to a hideous extent.

By the way, these won't be my standards for evidence and the scientific method. They will be general science sites. If you deny science you really should not be here anyway since you need to rely on the sciences that you deny to even post here.

No, that's due to the FACT that Jesus made Adam with a mind like God's Genesis 3:22 since ONLY Humans (descendants of Adam) and God have the intelligence necessary to post. If you don't believe me, then have a Monkey send me a post. I once paid a quarter to see a Chicken play a piano. Have a Chicken reply if you can.

 

[Kylie]

but they still belong to the same family. so there is no evolution here.

Once again, you are demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

If lions and tigers had no evolutionary distance between them, they would be able to produce completely fertile offspring. The fact that males are infertile proves that you are wrong.

so evolution also predicted that two different genera can interbreed?

Where did I say that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

People who believe in the false assumption of evolution are speculating on the fact that they know more than God. In their arrogance, they forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's world. 2 Peter 3:3-7 In the end, they will be held up as examples of those who offend little children who believe in Jesus. Their punishment is increased to a hideous extent.



No, that's due to the FACT that Jesus made Adam with a mind like God's Genesis 3:22 since ONLY Humans (descendants of Adam) and God have the intelligence necessary to post. If you don't believe me, then have a Monkey send me a post. I once paid a quarter to see a Chicken play a piano. Have a Chicken reply if you can.

Please, we know that you are wrongly biblically and scientifically. If you wish to learn people here will help you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Where in the world do you get the idea that ligers need to be viable if evolution is true?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The irony is that he has spent most of his time telling us that all the diversity we see is due almost exclusively to hybridization.

 

[Aman777]

Please, we know that you are wrongly biblically and scientifically. If you wish to learn people here will help you.

Evolutionists don't have anything to teach me, but I have a lot to teach them. If you wish to learn I will be happy to help you. Your life depends on it.

 

[xianghua]

There are no kinds.

so human and fish arent different kinds of animals?

You are an ape because you share a common ancestor with other apes

so you are a fish since you share a common ancestor with a fish?

 

[xianghua]

If lions and tigers had no evolutionary distance between them, they would be able to produce completely fertile offspring. The fact that males are infertile proves that you are wrong.

but you gave this as evidence for evolution. right? and if so since they are still in the same family there is no evidence for evolution here.

 

[Kylie]

but you gave this as evidence for evolution. right? and if so since they are still in the same family there is no evidence for evolution here.

I am constantly amazed that you are unable to grasp basic points.

Lions and tigers both evolved from a common ancestor. As lions and tigers continue to evolve, they become more and more different.

A long time ago, shortly after lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor, they would have been able to still interbreed, because their differences were quite small.

• Example: The finches on the Galapagos islands which are able to interbreed quite easily.

Now, more time has passed since lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor. They are still similar enough to interbreed, but there are more differences now, and that makes it harder for them interbreed successfully.

• Example: Ligers, the males are completely sterile even though the females are fertile.

And in the future, lions and tigers will keep getting more and more different. Perhaps one day they may be able to produce offspring, but they will ALL be sterile offspring, both males and females.

• Example: mules and hinnies, which are both the result of breeding between horses and donkeys. They are almost invariably sterile in both sexes.

After that, lions and tigers will continue to diverge until eventually they won't be able to interbreed at all. They won't be able to produce any offspring at all.

• Example: Dogs and cats, which can't interbreed at all.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't understand this, you really have no business trying to discuss evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your doctrine of mortal men will soon be exposed as the biggest lie ever force taught to our innocent children

Any day now....

 

[DogmaHunter]

so human and fish arent different kinds of animals?

That would depend on how you personally define "kind". Because it's quite clear that in this forum, there are as many definitions of that word as there creationists.
You say it's a family, AV says it's a genus, other ignorant folk are saying it's "whatever can interbreed" etc.

So, I'll just respond to your question by using my own personal definition as well.
To me, "kind" is context related.

I can say humans and fish are the same kind and I can say they aren't the same kind. And in both cases I'ld be correct, but using "kind" in different contexts.

The same kind: they are both vertebrates and build from eukaryote cells.
Not the same kind: humans are mammals, fish are not.

so you are a fish since you share a common ancestor with a fish?

We also share ancestors with chimps, but we aren't chimps.
Both chimps and humans are primates.

We also share ancestors with lions, but we aren't lions.
Both humans and lions are mammals.

Likewise, we share ancestors with fish, but we aren't fish.
Both humans and fish are vertebrates though...