Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[DogmaHunter]

I'll stick with the 'if it can breed it is the same Kind' definition.

Yes, we know that is how you define it. Which is exactly why you are asked to explain ring species, because in such macro populations, your definition of "kind" fails.

We've been over this....
Let's abstract it again to make ithe problem clear once more:

Population A, splits into two branches that creeps around a geographical barrier.
One side has populations A1, A2 and A3
The other side has populations Aa, Ab and Ac
At the end of the geographical barrier, A3 and Ac meet up again.

Now:
A can breed with A1 = same "kind"

A1 can breed with A2 = same "kind"​

A2 can breed with A3 = same "kind"

A can breed with Aa = same "kind"
Aa can breed with Ab = same "kind"
Ab can breed with Ac = same "kind"

So from this follows that in terms of "kind", A = A1 = A2 = A3 = Aa = Ab = Ac
So A3 and Ac are the same "kind".

But o-ow..... A3 and Ac can not interbreed!
​

See?​

​

That's how that works.​

And since we know that ring species develop as a result of evolutionary diversification of the "branches" that wrap around the barrier over time (call it "micro evolution" if that makes you feel more comfortable), this would mean that - giver your definition of "kind"- that ring species are the result of "evolution of one kind to another".​

​

​

Whoepsie-daisy!​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't think Ophiolite was being clear with his question: can YOU explain the origin of ring species?

Although considering the above, I don't think you can.

Sure, but you first have to accept that dogs are the same species, despite variations in appearance......

You then have to accept that finches are the same species, despite variations in appearance......

You then have to accept how that happened.... that breeding was two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations.

You then have to give up your delusions that they are separate species and you’ll know how they came about....

 

[Heissonear]

Was there really a need to start another thread that just repeats the same tired argument? (i.e. "Nuh huh")

We get it, you don't consider the fossil record to contain compelling evidence for evolution, who cares?

Maybe if you could demonstrate that the fossil record shows evidence of your particular brand of creationism (whatever that is) you would really be able to achieve something.

Sadly it appears "Nuh huh" is all you've got. How dull.

It is godless evolutionists who have produced error, promoting evolution as a fact rather than a faith.

No, most people do not get this. They think evolution has plenty of proof and has no need to be recieved by belief. They do not know it is conjecture-based.

Like you, many still try to toss this issue a side., when it exposes the foundation of evolution as a belief.

It is called sweeping it (exposing a lie) under the bus.

Now to the main topic, where are the missing fossils - between every different creature we find? This is not a fluke. It is fact to be confessed. Tight lip evolutionists need to face up to what has happenned to their theory. It turns out to require faith to accept.

Many try to steer away from such exposure of evolution. Many still try to defend it as fact, not accepting it as conjecture-based. But the fossil record does not lie.

 

[Heissonear]

Yes, we know that is how you define it. Which is exactly why you are asked to explain ring species, because in such macro populations, your definition of "kind" fails.

We've been over this....
Let's abstract it again to make ithe problem clear once more:

Population A, splits into two branches that creeps around a geographical barrier.
One side has populations A1, A2 and A3
The other side has populations Aa, Ab and Ac
At the end of the geographical barrier, A3 and Ac meet up again.

Now:
A can breed with A1 = same "kind"

A1 can breed with A2 = same "kind"​

A2 can breed with A3 = same "kind"

A can breed with Aa = same "kind"
Aa can breed with Ab = same "kind"
Ab can breed with Ac = same "kind"

So from this follows that in terms of "kind", A = A1 = A2 = A3 = Aa = Ab = Ac
So A3 and Ac are the same "kind".

But o-ow..... A3 and Ac can not interbreed!

See?​

That's how that works.
And since we know that ring species develop as a result of evolutionary diversification of the "branches" that wrap around the barrier over time (call it "micro evolution" if that makes you feel more comfortable), this would mean that - giver your definition of "kind"- that ring species are the result of "evolution of one kind to another".


Whoepsie-daisy!​

Trying to explain away the missing fossils.

Whare are the missing fossils? Between each different creature unearthed?

By observation we do not see fossils showing evolution. So many rather than learn facts turn to posed arguments to keep evolution real and factual.

Face up, it is a belief. Easy to see once exposed to the fossil record.

But debators do not learn, they try to "Argue their way out."

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution is based on conjecture. It takes belief to accept.

We cannot argue against the fossil record.

Between every different creature there are missing fossils. Zero fossils showing evolution happened.

This is evolution's brick wall.

 

[Jimmy D]

Evolution is based on conjecture. It takes belief to accept.

We cannot argue against the fossil record.

Between every different creature there are missing fossils. Zero fossils showing evolution happened.

This is evolution's brick wall.

So you keep saying.

So what now?

How do you explain the fossil record?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Many of them haven't been found yet. Although in many cases on this forum, you have been shown them repeatedly and yet you just flat out ignore them.

Except you haven’t shown any.

In each and every claim, they are distinct kinds that appear suddenly and during the entire time of their existence never change at all.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you keep saying.

So what now?

How do you explain the fossil record?

Explain the fossil record?

Accept it as it is. Each fossil found appears abruptly, then remains the same for its entire span of existence......

It is you all that refuse to accept it as it is and keep postulating missing creatures to connect the various creatures......

It doesn’t need explaining, just for you to stop adding imaginary creatures that do not exist.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now to the main topic, where are the missing fossils - between every different creature we find?

Between EVERY creature we find?
So indeed, just like I said, for every inbetween we find, you'll demand 2 more inbetweens.

Tell you what, I'll show you a fossil of EVERY creature of a lineage, right after you can show me a photograph of your face of every second you were alive - otherwise I won't accept the claim that you are aging.

This is not a fluke. It is fact to be confessed.

Yes, it is a fact that we do not have fossils of every single generation of creatures going back some 3.8 billion years. Yes, yes... I "confess".

Tight lip evolutionists need to face up to what has happenned to their theory. It turns out to require faith to accept.

Uhu, uhu.

And "faith" is bad, I bet? ;-)

Many try to steer away from such exposure of evolution.

Yes, most people don't really care about creationist propaganda. When some YEC "street preacher" is annoying bystanders on the streets, I do my best to avoid them as well. It's really annoying.

But the fossil record does not lie.

Indeed it doesn't. The same can't be said of you.[/quote]

 

[DogmaHunter]

Trying to explain away the missing fossils.

There's no "trying".

The idea that a lineage has left a fossil behind of EVERY SINGLE generation going back 3.8 billion years, is beyond ridiculously unreasonable.

And to say that we would require such an absurd amount of fossils to be able to accept evolution, is just another lie.

Whare are the missing fossils? Between each different creature unearthed?

Where are the pictures of your aging face between all the different pictures of your face that you can present?

By observation we do not see fossils showing evolution.

Except that we do as you have been shown so many times.

But debators do not learn, they try to "Argue their way out."

I respect someone argueing their way out a lot more then lying their way out though.

 

[Jimmy D]

Explain the fossil record?

Accept it as it is. Each fossil found appears abruptly, then remains the same for its entire span of existence......

It is you all that refuse to accept it as it is and keep postulating missing creatures to connect the various creatures......

It doesn’t need explaining, just for you to stop adding imaginary creatures that do not exist.....

I don’t recall adding imaginary creatures, what post was that?

“It doesn’t need explaining” indeed, I wonder why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is based on conjecture. It takes belief to accept.

We cannot argue against the fossil record.

Between every different creature there are missing fossils. Zero fossils showing evolution happened.

This is evolution's brick wall.

You quoted my post, but you didn't actually respond to the points being made, nore did you answer the questions being asked.

Instead, you just restated the same old tired claims, which -ironically- are actually addressed in the post you are quoting and supposedly "responding to".

If you are just going to continue trolling like this, then I'm going to have to conclude that I was right all along: having an adult conversation with you is not possible.

 

[Jimmy D]

Explain the fossil record?

Accept it as it is. Each fossil found appears abruptly, then remains the same for its entire span of existence......

It is you all that refuse to accept it as it is and keep postulating missing creatures to connect the various creatures.....

Hold on there chief, didn’t you say, this very morning....

“A Afarenis degenerated into A Africanus, which degenerated into our modern apes family......”

Those two statements appear to be contradictory.

 

[Ophiolite]

It’s all right there in Wikipedia:
<snip>
Ring species looks like another TicTac type argument to me... a whole lot of 'questionable stuff' as far as proving anything. I'll stick with the 'if it can breed it is the same Kind' definition.

I asked you to explain ring species, not quote another source. I didn't require an explanation and had I done so I would hardly have addressed my enquiry to someone who denies evolutionary theory and has almost no knowledge of it.

As Warden of the Storm notes, it is clear from your response that you do not understand ring species. You say if they breed they are the same kind, but the end members of the ring cannot interbreed with each other. So how does your non-evolutionary hypothesis explain that?

In your own words!

No quoting of creationist websites.

Justify your rejection of evolutionary theory regarding ring species in your own words. (By now you should be aware of the alternative.)

 

[inquiring mind]

I asked you to explain ring species, not quote another source. I didn't require an explanation and had I done so I would hardly have addressed my enquiry to someone who denies evolutionary theory and has almost no knowledge of it.

I think your biggest problem is just not listening to contrary explanations.

As Warden of the Storm notes, it is clear from your response that you do not understand ring species. You say if they breed they are the same kind, but the end members of the ring cannot interbreed with each other. So how does your non-evolutionary hypothesis explain that?

In your own words!

No quoting of creationist websites.

Justify your rejection of evolutionary theory regarding ring species in your own words. (By now you should be aware of the alternative.)

It’s all about ‘connectors.’ In the case of fossils there simply are not enough connectors available to prove macro evolution. With ring species there is a double whammy in which the existence or lack of a ‘connecting population’ poses a problem.

“The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours)…” Wikipedia

Scientists and evolutionists will get nowhere with ring species either. My guess the Lord has allowed them to confuse and hamstring themselves with their own definitions. On the other hand, like Kinds breed (or don’t in some cases at the Lord’s discretion), different Kinds don’t (and never do)... simple and straight-forward.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think your biggest problem is just not listening to contrary explanations.


It’s all about ‘connectors.’ In the case of fossils there simply are not enough connectors available to prove macro evolution. With ring species there is a double whammy in which the existence or lack of a ‘connecting population’ poses a problem.

“The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours)…” Wikipedia

Scientists and evolutionists will get nowhere with ring species either. My guess the Lord has allowed them to confuse and hamstring themselves with their own definitions. On the other hand, like Kinds breed (or don’t in some cases at the Lord’s discretion), different Kinds don’t (and never do)... simple and straight-forward.

That last line of logic doesn't make sense. A lion can't breed with a house cat, even though, according to people such as yourself, they are the same kind.

 

[Heissonear]

So you keep saying.

So what now?

How do you explain the fossil record?

Good question.

I would not be here on this forum if I had not finally grasp that evolution requires faith. Including faith in how life started on Earth.

I was a godless naturalist, so I could still be one but on bases of belief.

But a second option became open. A Creator could have done it all. An awesome Being.

 

[Heissonear]

There's no "trying".

The idea that a lineage has left a fossil behind of EVERY SINGLE generation going back 3.8 billion years, is beyond ridiculously unreasonable.

As in the prior post you misunderstood - "between ever creature".

We have zero evidence of evolution by the fossil record.

Not one instance, two instances, three .... of not seeing fossils gradationally change from one creature into another, - but between every creature we have unearthed.

You thought evolutionists had to have gradational fossils between every different creature for proof. No. That is not the meaning.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think your biggest problem is just not listening to contrary explanations.

If you ever get around to giving a contrary explanation I shall be happy to consider it. Please note that raw assertions, devoid of supporting evidence and reasoned argument are not contrary explanations.

Your attempt to "explain" ring species is fatuous, filled with further assertions that are not only unfounded, but contradicted by volumes of evidence. I suggest that your opening remark, quoted above, applies much more to you than to me. By your own admission your beliefs are determined by the Word of God as reveled in scripture. That word does not change, so your beliefs cannot change. Not exactly the position from which to truly listen to a contrary explanation.

 

[Heissonear]

I don’t recall adding imaginary creatures, what post was that?

“It doesn’t need explaining” indeed, I wonder why?

The fossil record looks like creatures were Created. And stayed the way they were Created. None morphed into different creature. No evolution seen. No evolution to claim.