Evolution's Brick Wall

[Justatruthseeker]

The part where there was once water to cover the entire world, including the highest mountain tops. And then not.



Ow okay. So, magical otherwise-cataclysmic sudden rise of mountains?
Mega hyper tectonic activity then?

So the Tibet Plateau.... what, that formed in like a week or so, according to your YECism?



The "hyper evolution" that by definition would have been necessary (and which demonstrably never happened) to go from a few thousand "kinds", which is apparantly "genus", to millions upon millions of species in only 4000 years.



You mean, like the "kangaroo kind" and "koala bear kind" that hopped all the way from the middle east to australia over a non/never-existing landbridge without leaving a single trace?




Myeah, that central point was africa and it happened just a tiny bit longer ago then 4000 years ago.

PS: I told you once to participate in the Genographic Project. They'll actually also be able to tell you in which migration wave your ancesters move out of Africa and give an estimate to how long ago that happened ;-)
Spoiler alert: A LOT MORE then just a mere 4000 years ago.



Are you again accusing all biologists, geneticists, botanists, paleontologists, etc of not having a clue of what they are doing?

Study and learn some....

You wouldn't have so many questions if you did......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Regarding hyper evolution, things get even more crazy when you consider things like records of derived species in ancient civilizations. Thinks like certain species of cat or lion or tiger statues in ancient Egypt and china. But then again, these ancient civilizations go back longer than 6000 years anyway.

But if we were to assume ancient Egypt and the pyramids were built after the flood, then we might only have perhaps 100 years for diversification of all cats. Which is pretty crazy when you think about it.

But young earthers have already demonstrated that they're detached from reality, so no surprise here.

Study and learn.... Almost every single one created within the last 150 years or so....

Breeds by Year Recognized – American Kennel Club

Most dog breeds emerged from a shockingly recent moment in history

"We can trace the beginning of most dog breeds only about 150 years, back when breeds were first registered and codified during the Victorian Era in England"

You won't have so many questions if you read facts instead of listen to evolutionary PR.....

 

[Job 33:6]

Study and learn.... Almost every single one created within the last 150 years or so....

Breeds by Year Recognized – American Kennel Club

Most dog breeds emerged from a shockingly recent moment in history

"We can trace the beginning of most dog breeds only about 150 years, back when breeds were first registered and codified during the Victorian Era in England"

You won't have so many questions if you read facts instead of listen to evolutionary PR.....

Dogs do not have the genetic diversity that we find between say...a lion and a lynx. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Dogs diversifying in the past thousand years is not super evolution because they're genetically still relatively similar.

Cats diversifying however, such as lions and lynx, these cats which are both cats, are far more genetically different from one another which would constitute a larger number of mutations, ie super evolution.

Its ok though, most young earthers miss the obvious and just repeat the same old nonsense. We are all quite used to these misconceptions.

If you have any questions about why lions and lynx evolving in 150 years would be super-evolution, whereas certain breeds of dogs being artificially selected over 150 years would not be, feel free to ask.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dogs do not have the genetic diversity that we find between say...a lion and a lynx. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Dogs diversifying in the past thousand years is not super evolution because they're genetically still relatively similar.

Cats diversifying however, such as lions and lynx, these cats which are both cats, are far more genetically different from one another which would constitute a larger number of mutations, ie super evolution.

Its ok though, most young earthers miss the obvious and just repeat the same old nonsense. We are all quite used to these misconceptions.

If you have any questions about why lions and lynx evolving in 150 years would be super-evolution, whereas certain breeds of dogs being artificially selected over 150 years would not be, feel free to ask.

Please show me the genetic comparison tests done between a lion and a lynx????

But it wouldn't surprise me since the lynx has undergone vast mutational genetic erosion...

Extreme genomic erosion after recurrent demographic bottlenecks in the highly endangered Iberian lynx

"We also find multiple signatures of genetic erosion in the two remnant Iberian lynx populations, including a high frequency of potentially deleterious variants and substitutions, as well as the lowest genome-wide genetic diversity reported so far in any species."

But since no actual comparison between Lynx and lion exists, I'd say your claims are pretty well baseless as usual.....

According to the tests house cats share 95.6% of their DNA with Tigers.....

House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

And dogs share around 99% with wolves.

It isn't super evolution or even hyper evolution. It is simply your evolution - i.e. your mutation that has caused genetic deterioration in some lynx...... But then that's what mutations do, so we should not be all that surprised......

I mean please people. Finches changed seasonally as their food supply changed? Are you telling me you don't believe the Grants when they tell you that new species of finch appeared within years? I don't blame you, it's simply a misclassification, but evolutionists are known for their waffling when it comes to saying one thing with all other species then another when it comes to finches..... For some reason evolutionists can accept finches evolve seasonally, but other animals simply can't....

 

[Job 33:6]

You just supported my position with your own sources pointing out that tigers and cats (or lynx or any other non panthera cat) are more genetically different from one another (95%) than different breeds of dogs amongst themselves (99.99%).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70a7/ac41c769713c5ac8549b89313ea91d8f3b36.pdf

And no, my argument isnt baseless. I dont think you would find any biologist, even young earth biologists who would actually argue that lynx and tigers/lions were more genetically similar than say...a huskie and an akita. And quite frankly, anyone who actually targets this point is a fool, whether the lynx genome has been sequenced or not.

Husky - Wikipedia
Akita (dog) - Wikipedia
Lynx - Wikipedia
Lion - Wikipedia


Now to get to your actual response...

it is hyper evolution that you are suggesting. Because you are suggesting that (in the case of cats) 5% of the cats genome has changed in...what is perhaps just a few generations.

Young earthers believe that the events of noahs ark had occurred perhaps 3000 years ago?

Well we have statues from china of tigers and statues of small cats from egypt, dating back 2500-3500 years ago (and beyond).

So literally, what young earthers believe is that cat diversity from the smallest to the largest, with 5% change in their genome, occurred within perhaps no time at all (or even negative time unless they ignore archaeological finds).

Which is crazy.

But then...for whatever reason, these animals just stopped hyper evolving and are evolving at relatively slow rates today.

Cats in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

See above for a cat statue dated to 650 BCE

Bastet - Wikipedia

Here is an image of a cat goddess dated back to...2890 BCE

Did all cats diversify in 110 years?

And China has tiger tally and lion statues of the zhou dynasty dating back at least to 500 bce

And there are lion statues of sekmet dated back to 1400 BCE.

-------------------------------------------------------

So we literally had both lions and house cats back before the flood even allegedly occurred.

 

[Job 33:6]

So back to the original point. Either young earthers believe that the ark was crowded with hundreds of cats and millions of other species....in some sort of weird tardis booth ark in which the inside of the ark was infinitely bigger than the outside of the ark (i know...it doesnt make sense).

or young earthers believe that all archaeological history is wrong (and all other fields of science), and life super evolved in perhaps just a few generations in which 5% of a proto cats genome was changed overnight.

Which is super evolution.

Both scenarios are ridiculous and an embarrassment to christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either young earthers believe that the ark was crowded with hundreds of cats and millions of other species....in some sort of weird tardis booth ark in which the inside of the ark was infinitely bigger than the outside of the ark ...

The ... um ... tardis booth PREVENTED crowding.

... (i know...it doesnt make sense).

That's because you don't understand.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The ... um ... tardis booth PREVENTED crowding.That's because you don't understand.

No, its because he DOES understand.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You are mixed up in the creature sequences that compiled shows morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record.

I'm not in any of the fossil sequences - honest, I'm not even a fossil yet, so I'm definitely not mixed up in the fossil sequences. Why would think I am?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, its because he DOES understand.

Then I'm Genghis Khan.

I guess you don't understand either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, we simply accept the facts. That mutations are random and can’t be calculated on a time table. That the effects of deleterious mutations can not be predicted. That a harmful change to a loci can cause the changes in several other loci as they attempt to adapt to the changes.

What, finding your own theory of mutation not palatable anymore since it leads to harmful affects?

We also simply accept the facts that breeding is two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations. A fact which biologists accept but you deny for some reason.... probably because it produces variation over a larger portion of the genome due to several loci being affected simultaneously during recombination.....

I know it’s hard to let go of your false belief that mutation is the only cause of change, but it’s time to face up to reality....

House cats have simply not been stringently bred as have dogs. Dogs are bred within pedigrees which prevents the natural mixing of genomes from other breeds. All for the privilege of winning contests. For years they were bred for specific uses, unlike cats. So one would naturally expect less variation in dogs than cats. There’s nothing mysterious about it, just you don’t want to have to accept the facts....

 

[Heissonear]

Study and learn.... Almost every single one created within the last 150 years or so....

Breeds by Year Recognized – American Kennel Club

Most dog breeds emerged from a shockingly recent moment in history

"We can trace the beginning of most dog breeds only about 150 years, back when breeds were first registered and codified during the Victorian Era in England"

You won't have so many questions if you read facts instead of listen to evolutionary PR.....

Very solid evidence of how one Kind has in only 150 years by man's guidance generate after its Kind a spectrum of breeds.

 

[pitabread]

Both scenarios are ridiculous and an embarrassment to christianity.

Creationism in general is an embarrassment to Christianity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Very solid evidence of how one Kind has in only 150 years by man's guidance generate after its Kind a spectrum of breeds.

Except that's not correct since there are other types of canines that exist that cannot crossbreed. Dingoes, coyotes, jackals, foxes, raccoon dogs, dholes, maned wolves, culpeos, bush dogs, African wild dogs...

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism in general is an embarrassment to Christianity.

In my opinion, one of the things that creationism does is expose academians as non-thinkers.

They don't think things through.

They don't proofread their posts.

They don't make proper distinctions.

They don't put two and two together.

They don't investigate before they communicate.

They apply the scientific method, only if it makes their point.

Oh, they might be a whiz kid in the secular classroom; but when it comes to the Bible ...

Well, I'll let the Bible speak for Itself:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[pitabread]

In my opinion, one of the things that creationism does is expose academians as non-thinkers.

Like I've said before, while you keep slagging on science and academia, you're in no hurry to give up the benefits thereof.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I've said before, while you keep slagging on science and academia, you're in no hurry to give up the benefits thereof.

Who gave us the ingredients to those benefits?

 

[pitabread]

Who gave us the ingredients to those benefits?

Not even sure there is a "who".

But that is completely beside the point. Regardless of what you personally believe about the origin of things, the scientific and technological advancements you enjoy are a result of people being curious about things and figuring out how the universe works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless of what you personally believe about the origin of things, the scientific and technological advancements you enjoy are a result of people being curious about things and figuring out how the universe works.

And who gave some of us that curiosity about things and the ability to figure out how the universe works?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In my opinion, one of the things that creationism does is expose academians as non-thinkers.
. . .
They don't proofread their posts.

You wrote "academians" and it should have been "academicians".