Hybrids Prove New Species are Possible

[Dale]

You are claiming evolution is fact so it is your responcibility to produce the evidence.
Just because I am not fooled by your claiming that change within a species is not evolution ( goo to you ) means you have to work harder at finding the 'non exsistant evidence.'

While you are doing so please read this extract from a statistical analysis of evolution:-

" Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years."
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/
Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University. A paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, “The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population.”

In simple words the universe has no been herelong enough for evolution to have happened.

Tolworth: << " Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years."
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/
Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University. A paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, “The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population.” >>



This isn't the way it works. I'm not an expert but I'll try to explain what I know about it. Take the length of a bird's beak, for instance. You could argue that it would take many genes to dictate every detail of a bird's beak. What biologists are finding is that some genes control the expression of other genes. What does this mean in practice? One gene determines when another gene is turned on, for instance, whether a gene that controls beak length is turned on early in the life of the bird or later. A "long beak" gene can be turned on early or later, and so have less effect or more effect. It can be turned on early in fetal development, or later, for instance. This can result in a shorter beak or longer beak. Both short beaks and long beaks can have advantages depending on the food source. The end result is that it takes only a couple of genes, and sometimes only one mutation, to change the size or length of a bird's beak. One mutation can produce considerable changes in the actual bird.

 

[The Barbarian]

That sort of reasoning is quite treacherous. In a college biochemistry class, I was taught that if a typical protein had to try out every possible way of folding back on itself, it would take billions of years, in short, longer than life has been on the earth. Obviously this does not happen. What does happen is that electrical forces within the molecule cause it to fall into the conformation that the protein will be found in. I suggest that you avoid this type of reasoning. There are forces that move things along.

You see all sorts of clever reasoning against reality from YE creationists, but reality keeps right on going, oblivious to all of it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The end result is that it takes only a couple of genes, and sometimes only one mutation, to change the size or length of a bird's beak. One mutation can produce considerable changes in the actual bird.

Exactly. Some people have a sixth finger. There is no "sixth finger" gene. What happens is that the timing of sequences in the embryo determines the number of digits. The cells that produce fingers move across the front of the limb bud, and as they extend, they produce digits. If the process goes on long enough, a sixth digit forms.

A lot of biology is like that. With only about 30,000 working genes, humans can't have individual genes for all of this. I'm puzzled why this would be a surprise to people like Sanford.

 

[hiwaystar]

Look--if you wanna impress us creationists, show me a bear-tiger or a croc-monkey. A man-goat would be better. Then I will consider your crazy delusional ''theory''.

 

[Tolworth John]

There are forces that move things along.

What forces are they in a material non supernatural world view?

 

[Tolworth John]

, the mutation for sickle cell trait is harmful unless one is in an area endemic for malaria, where is it a favorable trait.

As you say a harmfull mutation if not inan area endemic for malaria.
Point proved.

 

[Tolworth John]

"Suddenly" there means 20-25 million years span. Also, no creature from the cambrian era lives today, life developed to be more complex afterwards.

Not all agree it was that long, some argue it was only 5 million other go as high as 10-14, which is far to short a period of time for evolution to take place in.

 

[trophy33]

Not all agree it was that long, some argue it was only 5 million other go as high as 10-14, which is far to short a period of time for evolution to take place in.

Its the most short period of evolution we know of, many basic families of organisms evolved quite rapidly in this cambrian "explosion". But we are not talking about dogs or humans to evolve from one cell in this era.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Favorable or unfavorable" matters only in terms of environment. For example, the mutation for sickle cell trait is harmful unless one is in an area endemic for malaria, where is it a favorable trait.

As you say a harmfull mutation if not inan area endemic for malaria.

And favorable if in a malaria area. What is favorable depends on the environment.

Point proved.

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not all agree it was that long, some argue it was only 5 million other go as high as 10-14, which is far to short a period of time for evolution to take place in.

Nope. And since many of the body plans of the Cambrian had appeared in the Precambrian, (bilaterans, legs, trilobite forms, etc) it's not much of a mystery. The big cause of the Cambrian explosion seems to have been the evolution of whole-body exoskeletons. And yes, sclerites appeared in the Precambrian, so that had antecedents as well

 

[The Barbarian]

Look--if you wanna impress us creationists, show me a bear-tiger or a croc-monkey.

If we found such a thing, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. You'd be more effective against science if you knew what it is.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Yes but what you are discribing is not evolution, the change into a new species but devolution the decent into a geneticaly limited species.

It's like you asked them to prove if Rapunzel was a historical tale, and they keep showing you the story-book.

"No, it's a demonstrated fact that fairy tales exist. I'm asking for proof that it actually happened."

I doubt you'll get an answer to your question (you'll get lots of responses that don't answer your question), because Evolutionism is built on equivocation, and people's ignorance.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's like you asked them to prove if Rapunzel was a historical tale, and they keep showing you the story-book.

That pretty much describes what we see from YE creationists. Asked to show us that Genesis is a historical account rather than a figurative description of creation, they keep showing us their new alteration of Genesis.

"No, it's a demonstrated fact that YE earth creationism exists. I'm asking for proof that it actually happened."

We'll never get an answer to that question (you'll get lots of responses that don't answer your question), because YE creationism is built on equivocation, and people's ignorance.

On the other hand, even professional creationists now admit that new species evolve. Some, like the ICR, admit new species, genera, and families.

If they retreat a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

 

[Tolworth John]

Its the most short period of evolution we know of, many basic families of organisms evolved quite rapidly in this cambrian "explosion". But we are not talking about dogs or humans to evolve from one cell in this era.

And your evidence is?

 

[Brightmoon]

The evidence for common descent in fetal development
By the way goo to zoo to you is an reasonably accurate description of the last 600 million years . But keep in mind that life’s been on this planet for 3,800 million years

 

[trophy33]

And your evidence is?

My evidence is that the "Cambrian explosion" is not what you think it is. It was a very rapid era, yes, but still just one era in a row of many others.

 

[The Barbarian]

My evidence is that the "Cambrian explosion" is not what you think it is. It was a very rapid era, yes, but still just one era in a row of many others.

Something that takes millions of years is not what we'd ordinarily call "very rapid." Relative to the age of the Earth, perhaps. But longer than we've been here as a species.

 

[Tolworth John]

My evidence is that the "Cambrian explosion" is not what you think it is.

Evidence of evolution in fossils= a reasonable series of forms that can trace the changes to the forms in the fossils that have been found.

Do you have any?
If not can you explain why you believe that evolution happened?

 

[trophy33]

Evidence of evolution in fossils= a reasonable series of forms that can trace the changes to the forms in the fossils that have been found.

Do you have any?
If not can you explain why you believe that evolution happened?

Do you see any trilobits around? Or dinosaurs?
Therefore there were different life forms in various time spans in history. And because these life forms in the fossil record began as simple ones and grew more and more complex, its only a logical conclusion that they evolved.

Or, maybe, you can believe in an old Earth together with a progressive creation.

But fossil records are not compatible with the YEC and one immediate creation of everything at once.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evidence of evolution in fossils= a reasonable series of forms that can trace the changes to the forms in the fossils that have been.

In the words of YE creationist Kurt Wise:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Do you have any?

Kurt Wise has dozens. And he's a YE creationist.

If not can you explain why you believe that evolution happened?

Aside from that "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory?" Yep.

Observed macroevolution.
Genetic data verifying the family tree of organisms first noted by Linnaeus.
Numerous confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory.
Biochemical data.
Dinosaur molecules, confirming affinity to birds.
sequencing of fossils in the geologic column

Among others. Want to learn more?