Well, as soon as they were submitted to new environmental pressure they changed back to their previous phenotype. So, no genetic information change took place.
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.
Well, as soon as they were submitted to new environmental pressure they changed back to their previous phenotype. So, no genetic information change took place.No hereditary change of any kind took place? So how did new generations of moths get their colour? Was it painted on them instead of written in their genes? Don't talk nonsense.
No hereditary change of any kind took place? So how did new generations of moths get their colour? Was it painted on them instead of written in their genes? Don't talk nonsense.
Colour is inherited. Melanism is governed by the expression of an inherited gene. The predominant colour of the species changed--twice--once to black and once back to white. Both changes were hereditary and illustrated differential reproductive success.
That's like saying a demonstration of a slapshot is not a demonstration of hockey.
We all know that the biological species concept does not work for all species. However, where you do have exclusively sexual reproduction, it seems to work well. If separate gene pools do not indicate separate species, what, in your opinion, does?
Actually, evolution seems to do quite well with duplicated, rearranged and modified genetic material.
The reason why most biologists define species as a "set of interbreeding populations" is because this is a much less subjective definition than "a bunch of animals that look similar".Separated pools of identical genes do not constitute different species. In the old days, no one questioned the fact that a species was a distinct life form, different from all other life forms. But evolutionists like yourself have blurred this distinction.
Only when using your definition of a species.
Well, as soon as they were submitted to new environmental pressure they changed back to their previous phenotype. So, no genetic information change took place.
Do you realize how foolish this sounds? The only change observed (even assuming the published data is correct) is two changes in the predominant color of the species. No new genetic material changed, and the proof that it had not changed was that the moths reverted to their original predominant color as soon as the environmental pressure was removed. This is conclusive proof that no genetic change took place.
Separated pools of identical genes do not constitute different species.
In the old days, no one questioned the fact that a species was a distinct life form, different from all other life forms.
But evolutionists like yourself have blurred this distinction.
The irony is that science itself presupposes that there is a higher order. The appeal to logic itself, is that there is indeed logic and order. This again is a presupposition, a belief.
But there could be no science as we know it, if there was no order, no natural laws, etc.. One cannot prove that there must be order in a scientific sense, but one needs to suppose it exists, otherwise science cannot take place.
But I don't.When you argue that the world is not rational or not intelligible or knowable
But I don't.
But I wonder why you posted the bit about the foundational presuppositions of science if you agree there is nothing wrong with them?
But did I say there is nothing wrong with them? I first would have to know what they are.
To the extent that science discovers the order (also called "laws") of the ceated nature, I feel confident that they will discover that there must somehow be a "law giver". In other words if science remains conscient of the transcendent origin of origins, one can remain hopeful. It might even make it easier..... to believe in creation.
Because they must be assumed and therefore admittingly cannot be proven, they can be discovered. But not discovered in a scientific sense, but in transcedental sense. We're back to faith.The presuppositions are presuppositions and in themselves cannot be proven but must be assumed. So they cannot lead to discovering a deity.
I didn't say that.Why do you think people need more than faith to believe?
Do you remember Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus? I think it a good caution. When the man pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers, Abraham replies, "If they do not believe Moses, they will not believe even if one should rise from the dead." If people do not believe in God with the evidence we already have, what good will more evidence do?
Because they must be assumed and therefore admittingly cannot be proven, they can be discovered. But not discovered in a scientific sense, but in transcedental sense. We're back to faith.
But the question is how can you know?Note, however, that there is considerable difference between accepting the presuppositions by faith and accepting the conclusions of science. If the presuppositions are true, then what we learn of the physical world by sense and reason is also necessarily true.
This seems to happen every once in a while but because of paradigm constraints it takes a lot of new evidence to make anybody even listen. Remember Galileo?There are only two bases on which scientific conclusions can be opposed:
a) new evidence which contradicts conclusions reached on the basis of current evidence. Such new evidence calls for at least a revision of current theory, sometimes for a replacement of current theory with a better theory.
What do you mean?b) denial of the truth of the presuppositions.
Creationists have come to the point where they cannot deny evolution via route a) so they are trying route b). But this puts them at odds with historic Christian theology about God and creation.
This seems to happen every once in a while but because of paradigm constraints it takes a lot of new evidence to make anybody even listen. Remember Galileo?
But the question is how can you know?
What do you mean?
I don't recall anyone ever using such a loose definition of a species. I suppose the most accurate definition as we used to use the word would be a set of lifeforms that share a common genetic structure. I well remember an old article about a flower species that grew in the Alps. A biologist brought some of them to his laboratory in the lowlands of France, and was surprised to find them growing as a common species of the lowlands. The conclusion was that the alpine species and the lowland species were really the same species. The difference was only in how it expressed itself in the different environments.The reason why most biologists define species as a "set of interbreeding populations" is because this is a much less subjective definition than "a bunch of animals that look similar".
What definition of species did you use in the "old days", Biblewriter?
"A set of lifeforms that share a common genetic structure"?I don't recall anyone ever using such a loose definition of a species. I suppose the most accurate definition as we used to use the word would be a set of lifeforms that share a common genetic structure. I well remember an old article about a flower species that grew in the Alps. A biologist brought some of them to his laboratory in the lowlands of France, and was surprised to find them growing as a common species of the lowlands. The conclusion was that the alpine species and the lowland species were really the same species. The difference was only in how it expressed itself in the different environments.
"A set of lifeforms that share a common genetic structure"?
How did you determine their genetic structure, back in the "old days"?
It sounds to me, from your alpine flower example, like you used the same definition we use today. That is, populations capable of interbreeding.
That is an alternate definition that I had thought of using. But that is not the definition that is being used by evolutionists in this discussion. If the capability of interbreeding is not the definition, but only the fact of physical interbreeding, it is very easy to demonstrate speciation. But if the capability of interbreeding is the definition, all the purported examples of speciation break down.
That is an alternate definition that I had thought of using. But that is not the definition that is being used by evolutionists in this discussion. If the capability of interbreeding is not the definition, but only the fact of physical interbreeding, it is very easy to demonstrate speciation. But if the capability of interbreeding is the definition, all the purported examples of speciation break down.
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?