Upvote
0
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.
It has been observed that one species can evolve into a different breed within its species. That is what creationists expect to see. It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.
Those are all examples of one species evolving within itself. The last example is how three different varieties bred together and eventually we got a self-reproducing variety. That's not support for the theory of evolution at all.
Those are all examples of one species evolving within itself. The last example is how three different varieties bred together and eventually we got a self-reproducing variety. That's not support for the theory of evolution at all.
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium(Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
None of those is proof of macroevolution. It is proof that a species can change over time, but regardless of those changes, each species is still genetically its own.
This is an example of a hybrid between a donkey and a horse that produces sterile offspring. A hybrid that can't reproduce. It's not a species because it can't sustain itself.I don't think you read it properly.
If two species can't produce offspring, they're typically defined as a new species. Are you using some different definition of species? If so, please let me know. How do you determine if two animals are the same species or not?
That's not the example I provided in the text you're quoting.This is an example of a hybrid between a donkey and a horse that produces sterile offspring. A hybrid that can't reproduce. It's not a species because it can't sustain itself.
I said it was like the example of the horse/donkey hybrid. Regardless, this is not evolution. There was no mutation, no steady transition from one species to another. No evidence of the terms evolutionists claim to happen to support evolution. This is just am example of two compatible species breeding. That has no bearing on evolution, and is completely within the biblical framework of animals/plants reproducing after their kind.That's not the example I provided in the text you're quoting.
The example I quoted showed a new species of fireweed. It couldn't produce offspring with the stock it came from. How is that not a species.
I said it was like the example of the horse/donkey hybrid.
Regardless, this is not evolution. There was no mutation, no steady transition from one species to another.
No evidence of the terms evolutionists claim to happen to support evolution. This is just am example of two compatible species breeding.
That has no bearing on evolution, and is completely within the biblical framework of animals/plants reproducing after their kind.
My apologies. A species is a specific class of genus. All species within a genus are usually sexually compatible. Their reproduction produces hybrids. Their little evolutionary quirks (natural selection) produces varieties.But it's not like that.
You said that there were no examples of one species giving rise to another, which evolution predicts
I produced an example of one species giving rise to another.
But they're NOT compatible. They WERE, but not they're NOT anymore. How are they not different species?
You're changing the goal posts a bit, here. A moment ago, you were talking about species, now you're talking about 'kind'. So I guess the question now is: What's a kind? How can we tell if two animals are the same kind or not?
My apologies. A species is a specific class of genus. All species within a genus are usually sexually compatible. Their reproduction produces hybrids. Their little evolutionary quirks (natural selection) produces varieties.
Occasionally, two species can hybridize and create a hybrid sexually incompatible with the parent species.
The Bible speaks in kinds. And commands that living organisms reproduce after their kind. This would suggest that most species that reproduce within their genus are a "kind".
The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms ahorseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.
Your original article gave examples of new species based on hybridization. This is exactly how creationists explain how we got all the various species within each genus.But that's not what's going on with the example I provided, so I'm confused why you keep bringing it up.
Why most?
And how does that work with animal that form ring species, like the ensatina?
Your original article gave examples of new species based on hybridization. This is exactly how creationists explain how we got all the various species within each genus.
Two compatible animals bred and produced offspring. The genetic diversity of the ancestors of the animals we see today was much greater then. So, as these kinds bred within their taxonomic bracket, they spawned multiple breeds. Ancestors of the cat produced tigers, lions, etc.
The breeds stabilized and, through "survival of the fittest" depending on climate and geography, hybridized and became adapted to their own habitat. During this process, we see different genetic traits purified to the point where two species can no longer breed, although they do share a common ancestor.
None of these examples support the evolutionary theory of the tree of life. Where plants and fish share a common ancestor. Or where amoebas gave rise to birds. The ancestor of the lion was a cat. The ancestor of the panther was a cat. They are all cats, just different breeds.
Ok.Are you saying that lions and tigers are two different breeds? What cat did they come from?
And what about cheetahs, panthers, ocelots, and other cats?
But didn't you say that couldn't happen? If they're genes have differed to the point where they can't breed, they're clearly not the same species anymore, and since you seem to be saying that kind and species mean the same thing, that would indicate a new kind. If two populations being inable to interbreed doesn't make them a separate kind, what does?
But not all cats can interbreed.
I'm sorry, but it feels like you're all over the place. One moment, you're saying that new species can't produce, then you're talking about kinds, now you're saying that new species CAN be made, but you just said that evolution can't produce new speices, so...
Let's try and simplify this. You said that, if two animals can bring forth, their the same kind. Okay?
With this in mind, how does that apply to the ensatinas I mentioned? The species at the end of the ring CAN'T have offspring with each other, but they can have offspring with every species between them. Are they the same kind? If so, how can they be when they can't bring forth the same kind?
It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.
Ok.
What I'm saying is that the genetic diversity of the ancestor(s) of cats contained the information for all future species/breeds of cats.
Evidence? How would that even work?
When the offspring of those ancestors migrated to other areas, natural selection gave rise to the specific characteristics necessary for survival unique to each area. This genetic information was not added to the DNA, but was essentially distilled from what was already present.
How are you quantifying this 'information' Does a housecat have less information than lion? Does a lion have more information than a panther? Does a cheetah have more information than a tiger?
Now, while the inability to breed may seem to indicate evolution, it is a loss of information, and not an addition.
You're moving the goal posts, again. I'm sorry, but it bears pointing out.
Let's take the ensatinas again. The ensatinas at the end of the chain can't interbreed with one another. Which one has less information? How would you even determine that?
It's the loss of an ability to reproduce with certain other related species.
What other species? How do you determine that?
According to the theory of evolution, information is added genetically and obtained from an environment.
I've never read that anywhere. Source?
So, through breeding, a new species can be produced through the narrowing down of information already present. This type of new species would fall within creation theory.
So when you said that new species couldn't be produced, you didn't actually mean that?
Evolution posits a new species based on gradual accumulation of information producing a new species. This type of new species would fall within evolutionary theory.
It would help if you defined what you mean by 'information'.
The examples you first gave were all examples of breeding producing a new species, that by definition, falls within the creation theory.
But I distinctly recall you saying that breeding CAN'T produce species, and that if it did, it would support evolution. It feels like you're just changing your argument to suit whatever comes your way.
Foxes are dogs. They're all of the same kind. Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.Last time I looked horses and donkeys were considered separate species. Hence, their offspring would be a new species. That doesn't take rocket science, just common sense to figure out. Also, evolution has a far, far wider range of data to draw upon than just he example you gave here. You might take a look at the fox program in Russia. Since the early 50's, they have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, there have been very impressive results, and the experiment is still going on. Who knows what they will find in the end?
Foxes are dogs.
They're all of the same kind.
Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.
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?