Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

God-did-it.
Nine months ago, Josepth and Mary were childless; now they have a baby. The baby is the evidence.

One theory says they had sexual intercourse and she got pregnant.

Another theory says God-did-it.

Two different theories, same evidence.

Are you saying that every baby born is evidence of a virgin birth?

 

[Loudmouth]

But aren't you taking this process that occurs within a species and then expanding on it into places where is shouldn't go.

Where shouldn't it go?

What is happening within the fly genus has all the info within the gnome of those flies.

If they all had the same genome, they would all be the same species. They aren't all the same species, and this is because of the differences in their genomes.

The genetics are either deleting or recombining to create new combinations that can make changes to the flies ability to grow bigger, change colour and even have a new feature or ability. But its still a fly with a new ability and doesn't change into a frog or lizard. Where is the evidence for this.

The physical differences are due to differences in DNA sequence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, Darwin was born last week. Re-creation was going on for thousands of years.

Evidence?

 

[[serious]]

Ok well thats where you begin to lose me. I can sort of understand what you are saying and I would have to investigate those points of change. But I suspect that it is still not a solid way to prove evolution. Its still based on observation as far as I can see. You can make some good cases for the similarities in those creatures and then how it can be traced to show where the possible splits may occur. But I am not sure this is no more than an interpretation of what is seen. There are also many contradiction in some of the lines of decent that I have read but I will have to go back and find them. I think from memory something about the horse is closely related to humans through genetics but the hoof and hand are so different. So genetics is actually throwing up some contradictions to the interpretation of using anatomy as a way of showing the similarities in closely related creature and therefore casting doubt on the lines of decent.

I put this together for a previous thread:

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Lizards and flies, if you trace them back, separated with a rather boring (IMO) distinction related to early development. All the subsequent changes happened independently. Flies and lizards do share those preexisting traits that define bilateria (and higher level groups). They both have cells with a nucleus, they are multicellular, they have different tissues and organs, they move around and eat things, they form 3 distinct layers of cells during early development, they have bilateral symmetry, so on and so forth. Then they split and all those other traits each have evolved independently. Insect never turned into anything but other insects. Everything remains part of each group it was ever in.

 

[Gracchus]

So then you take everything back to the common ancestor of all and then there are points at which we did have some major jumps from uncommon creatures.

Major jumps? I don't know what you mean by “major jumps”. No organism is a different species from its parents.

At one point there had to be new info that created brains, hearts, lungs out of something that never had the info to make those things in the first place.

Genetic change can involve several mechanisms. There may be insertions or deletions. For instance “red” might change to “read”. There can be shuffling. Thus, “read” might change to “dear” or “dare”.

So the mechanism for creating various adjusted features in animals that comes from genetic info that was already there is then taken by evolutionists and expanded beyond the limits of what it is capable of.

Reduplication of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes has been observed. For instance, there is a gene for one type of protein. The gene for that protein may be duplicated, giving two copies. If one of the copies then changes by mutation, the imperfect copy can code for a different protein. This is what has happened in different blood types, for instance.

Whenever they have done experiments with breeding there are limits.

Indeed! There are limits to time and funding in experiments.

That expanded mechanism that darwinian evolutionists use makes new info come from an unplanned and guided random and accidental process. Is there evidence for this.

It has been observed, more than once, by more than one scientist. Observation is evidence.

How many mutations would it take for these new features to be created.

One or more, would seem to be the obvious answer.

Remembering that primarily a mutation is a copying mistake that is mostly corrected or becomes error that is deleterious.

And an copying error that produces a deleterious mutation is selected out of the gene pool.

It also doesn't take into consideration HGT. There is plenty of evidence for horizontal transfer of genetics.

Indeed, horizontal gene transfer has been observed. It is fairly common in bacteria. Not so much, I think, in the fungi, plantae, or animaliae.

Some creature on distant branches of the Darwinian tree of life have some closely related genetics. There is evidence that HGT was rampant in the micro world which was suppose to be the beginning of everything. There is evidence for HGT in more complex creatures. How do we know that a lot of genetic info was not already there in the gnomes of many creatures waiting to be tapped into for creatures to gain new features.

We have mapped some genomes, and we know what is in them.

How do we know that HGT played an even bigger role than we think in the transference of genes.

We continue to study. We draw no dogmatic conclusions.

I can accept that there is evolution within a kind of animals.

That is not a big concession, since it has been observed.

There may have been major types of creatures that had vast abilities within their genetics to creature many different types of animals.

In that first replicator, there was, indeed, the potential for countless forms of life.That is what the theory of evolution predicts.

But all that ability was already there in the genetics.

That is incorrect, if I understand you correctly. The possibility of many differing descendents was there, but it required mutation to introduce variation.

It didn't come from an unguided accident through mutations.

That is an unsupported assertion.

One common ancestor didn't create all of life.

Your ancestors did not “create” you. But, regardless of terminology, you are denying, without evidence, what those who have studied for the subject for years have found to be the most likely explanation. Science cannot account for miracles, because miracles are not observed.

 

[Kylie]

I provided the facts of DNA similarities, and I provided the facts of history. Any theory must be consistent with all the facts. Otherwise it's just a make-belief story like evolution theory.

lol, evolution is supported by facts. A lot of facts, actually.

Your reincarnation idea has no facts to support it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Can we try to focus on Geological Data for learners?

True. It makes one appreciate what a tough journey it must be for those who escape creationism.

Excuse me for going back this far, but as I reached back into the Lines of Evidence, I came across this response to RickG's and bhmste's comment.

Now I know you're being sarcastic about this, but understanding the difficulties involved in dealing with complex Geological data -- I'd say that a large part about showing anyone ( we don't need to bash YEC all day long, though I guess it's something you CF'rs enjoy ) is guiding them through the evidence that we have.

So, for those of us who are actually interested please get to it, if you can? (here)

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Now I know you're being sarcastic about this,

As a matter of fact I wasn't being sarcastic. I think moving away from creationism must be a very challenging and life-changing journey. Realising that something that has coloured one's every opinion and viewpoint is crumbling around you must be very frightening, or it might be exhilarating and liberating depending on your disposition and temperament, but by all accounts it is not a trivial thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you saying that every baby born is evidence of a virgin birth?

Apparently it is when you don't think about it.

 

[stevevw]

Where shouldn't it go?

It shouldn't cross species barriers or rather it cant cross species barriers. Selective breeding has limits and the further you move away from the natural original the weaker the animal becomes with reduced fitness. Selective breeding has never produced and new species or type of animal. Each species has the capacity to have great variation within its types. When they say that there are many different species of bats they are all still varieties of bats. The ability to make new varieties of bats and sub species or different breeds within a type or species of animal doesn't mean that this can be extended to take it beyond those types of animals. Just because there are many varieties of bats and they have lost the ability to breed successfully with each other doesn't mean they are going to turn into a completely different type of animal. It doesn't mean that all animals have a common ancestor. That is taking it to far.

If they all had the same genome, they would all be the same species. They aren't all the same species, and this is because of the differences in their genomes.

Yes thats right, but what some call a new species is really still the same type of animal. Like with bats there are many different types but they are all still bats. They are all still finches ect. Some animals may have had a lot of breeds or varieties and then they drifted away from the main groups and were unable to breed successfully anymore. But that doesnt mean that they will then turn into a new type of animal. I think some label variety of an animal as a new type of animal.

The physical differences are due to differences in DNA sequence.

But isn't those sequences just a recombination of the same genetics that was already there. It may have produced variety and breeds and even sub species but it doesn't produce totally new types of animals. They say that mutations are basically an error in the copying process of genes. almost all mutations either get corrected, or become something that makes an animal sick, weak and even die out. So a positive and beneficial mutation is rare thats going to add some new info and a different feature to an animal if evolution were true. Those new features and abilities happen gradually through small changes bit by bit.

So if all these creatures are classed as new species that came from mutations then how many positive mutations would be needed to make all the species that have ever walked the earth. For each individual new species there would be many positive mutations to make the types of overall changes evolution claims. Turning dinos into birds and dog like creatures into whales. You would need 100s just for one animals wouldn't you as there would be many adjustments both internally and externally to change into a completely new creature. Unless the changes came in big chunks but then that is almost saying that the process has some sort of intelligence to it and it is producing almost new creatures very fast in 2 or 3 tranformations. Its all suppose to be random and accidental isn't it. So trial and error will not produce the right sort of changes right away.

So by the time you factor in all the negative mutations as well as the rare positive ones and then times that by all the individual mutations needed for each and every animals and then times that by the millions of species. Your going to need an awful lot of those rare positive mutations. I think some scientists have done calculations and they have found there just isn't enough time to produce the amount of species that have ever walked the earth. So thats why most of what we see is variety, breeds and sub species within the same kinds/types of creatures. The genetics needed for a lot of the changes were already there and the original creatures could pass on a lot of the capacity to change as time went on. Then creatures went their own ways and became isolated from the original ones which more or less made species. If there was any process that could introduce new genetic info into an another animals genetics from a different one it would be HGT. There is evidence that there was much more HGT in the distant past. This could account for a lot of genes jumping from one type of animal to another.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It shouldn't cross species barriers or rather it cant cross species barriers.

Well which is it? Shouldn't or can't?

Selective breeding has limits and the further you move away from the natural original the weaker the animal becomes with reduced fitness.

Which means if the process happens naturally, it would never move away from the "natural" original and thus not weaken.

Selective breeding has never produced and new species or type of animal.

1: That was never the goal of selective breeding.
2: AFAIK, nobody has ever committed long enough to try.

Each species has the capacity to have great variation within its types. When they say that there are many different species of bats they are all still varieties of bats. The ability to make new varieties of bats and sub species or different breeds within a type or species of animal doesn't mean that this can be extended to take it beyond those types of animals.

Doesn't mean that it can't, either.

Just because there are many varieties of bats and they have lost the ability to breed successfully with each other doesn't mean they are going to turn into a completely different type of animal. It doesn't mean that all animals have a common ancestor. That is taking it to far.

IOW, it's still a bat, not a potato, therefore speciation doesn't happen.

Yes thats right, but what some call a new species is really still the same type of animal. Like with bats there are many different types but they are all still bats. They are all still finches ect. Some animals may have had a lot of breeds or varieties and then they drifted away from the main groups and were unable to breed successfully anymore. But that doesnt mean that they will then turn into a new type of animal. I think some label variety of an animal as a new type of animal. [/QUORE]

So.... "type" -- because the Biblical "kind" wasn't vague enough?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The bottom line is that if evolution were false we would find fossils of whales and horses in layers of geologic strata.

You say that a lot, RickG. I'd still love you to fully unpack your thoughts in this regard. (perhaps another time?)

It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.

If they invoke the flood, they typically go with one of three explanations:

1) Fossils are sorted by the areas they lived in when they died
2) They're sorted by how fast they ran.
3) They're ordered by their ability to float

Each of these have their problems, but NONE of them explain the fact that the higher fossils inevitably return younger dates and lower ones return older dates. I've never seen a real explanation for why that is, if not for them being laid down chronologically. If dating techniques didn't work, you wouldn't expect that to be. And you can't fall back on the whole 'God made the universe old' argument because the flood happened after that.

The Earth is old. I really cannot fathom how much you have to torture you mind not to get that.

The reality is though, the torture they would endure to admit the earth is old, is even greater.

True. It makes one appreciate what a tough journey it must be for those who escape creationism.

As a matter of fact I wasn't being sarcastic. I think moving away from creationism must be a very challenging and life-changing journey. Realising that something that has coloured one's every opinion and viewpoint is crumbling around you must be very frightening, or it might be exhilarating and liberating depending on your disposition and temperament, but by all accounts it is not a trivial thing.

My apologies, Mr Strawberry -- though I can imagine experiencing fear of rejection by fellow YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS, the only reason I could imagine torture would be if a person was terrified of something more dire. Something I recall that Glenn Morton talked about, when he struggled with coming to terms with his own position.

It's just that a word like torture seems a tad extreme. Perhaps the flair to use words like this, would serve to further throw a YEC off the scent?

Anyway, the reason I was going back was in an attempt to re-introduce the point which RickG referred to in the first posts on this thread. (refer my quoted parts, above)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The bottom line is that if evolution were false we would find fossils of whales and horses in layers of geologic strata.

You say that a lot, RickG. I'd still love you to fully unpack your thoughts in this regard. (perhaps another time?)

Hi RickG,

I been reading articles at the GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA -- and think I'm about ready to hear what you have to say.

Kindly,
Sgt. Pepper

 

[Gracchus]

It shouldn't cross species barriers or rather it cant cross species barriers.

And it doesn't. Every organism is the same species as its parents, assuming it is not a hybrid.

Selective breeding has limits and the further you move away from the natural original the weaker the animal becomes with reduced fitness.

A Cocker Spaniel is not as fit to survive in the wild as a wolf. It has, however, been bred for specific traits that make it more likely to survive in an environment with humans.

Selective breeding has never produced and new species or type of animal.

That is not correct. New species of fruit flies have been produced, incapable of breeding with the parent species. Chihuahuas cannot reproduce with Great Danes without human intervention and perhaps not even then.

Each species has the capacity to have great variation within its types.

Some species have more variety than others.
One more thing: What are "types"? In biology there is a classification system, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. And because the real world does not fit into neat boxes, there can be taxons like Sub-phylum, or Super-family. But "types", "varieties" and "kinds" are not part of the classification system.

When they say that there are many different species of bats they are all still varieties of bats.

And all apes are still apes. That includes humans.

The ability to make new varieties of bats and sub species or different breeds within a type or species of animal doesn't mean that this can be extended to take it beyond those types of animals.

Nor does it mean that it can't. Your objections are as tenuous as your definitions. You just assert without the justification of evidence or argument.

Just because there are many varieties of bats and they have lost the ability to breed successfully with each other doesn't mean they are going to turn into a completely different type of animal. It doesn't mean that all animals have a common ancestor. That is taking it to far.

There is lots of evidence of common ancestry. There are shelves of volumes and publications of evidence.
...

I will delete here more blathering about "types", "breeds", and "varieties", none of which you define or differentiate. Example:

I think some label variety of an animal as a new type of animal.

How, exactly, is a "variety" different than a "type"?

But isn't those sequences just a recombination of the same genetics that was already there.

It is the same genetics in the sense that the same chemistry, the same laws of genetics apply, but mutations to the genome are observed. New alleles appear, some genes are mutated to different forms, and some genes can be deactivated, or even vanish from the gene pool, extinguished by a favorable mutation.

It may have produced variety and breeds and even sub species but it doesn't produce totally new types of animals.

No one but you, and your coreligionists say that they have to be "totally new". Evolution says that they cannot be totally new. Whales and hippopotami still have traits in common. You are still an ape.

They say that mutations are basically an error in the copying process of genes. almost all mutations either get corrected, or become something that makes an animal sick, weak and even die out.

That means that natural selection removes the failures.

So a positive and beneficial mutation is rare thats going to add some new info and a different feature to an animal if evolution were true.

How rare is "rare"? You have several hundred mutations that you got from neither of your parents.

Those new features and abilities happen gradually through small changes bit by bit.

That's what Darwin thought. That's what scientific observation finds.

So if all these creatures are classed as new species that came from mutations then how many positive mutations would be needed to make all the species that have ever walked the earth. For each individual new species there would be many positive mutations to make the types of overall changes evolution claims. Turning dinos into birds and dog like creatures into whales. You would need 100s just for one animals wouldn't you as there would be many adjustments both internally and externally to change into a completely new creature.

It would not be a completely new creature. We still share some basic genetics with bacteria, with fish, with reptiles, and with all other mammals.

You erect in your mind all sorts of straw men, completely imaginary, and then argue against them.

Unless the changes came in big chunks but then that is almost saying that the process has some sort of intelligence to it and it is producing almost new creatures very fast in 2 or 3 tranformations.

You say the "changes came in big chunks" but no biologist says that. Two hundred generations of fruit flies isolated in differing environments produces species that cannot interbreed.

Its all suppose to be random and accidental isn't it.

Variation is random, in limits. Selection is not random.

So trial and error will not produce the right sort of changes right away.

Evolutionary theory does not say that speciation occurs "right away".

So by the time you factor in all the negative mutations ...

Negative mutations are selected out. They need not be "factored in".

...as well as the rare positive ones ...

Again, how "rare" is "rare"?

...and then times that by all the individual mutations needed for each and every animals and then times that by the millions of species.

I don't see any equation there, and certainly no numbers. Nor do I see any premisses or logical conclusion. In fact:

So by the time you factor in all the negative mutations as well as the rare positive ones and then times that by all the individual mutations needed for each and every animals and then times that by the millions of species.

That isn't even a sentence!

Your going to need an awful lot of those rare positive mutations.

How many is "an awful lot"?

I think some scientists have done calculations and they have found there just isn't enough time to produce the amount of species that have ever walked the earth.

Is that what you think, or what you want to believe. Which scientists were those and where are their calculations?

So thats why most of what we see is variety, breeds and sub species within the same kinds/types of creatures.

What "we see" is only what you want to see.

The genetics needed for a lot of the changes were already there and the original creatures could pass on a lot of the capacity to change as time went on.

The changes were already there. There is genetic variation within a species. Further changes are possible, and such changes have been observed.

Then creatures went their own ways and became isolated from the original ones which more or less made species.

And then the new species could further subdivide until you have several species all descended from the same ancestral population. Reflect this common ancestry you would place them all in the same Genus.

If there was any process that could introduce new genetic info into an another animals genetics from a different one it would be HGT.

It is found in retroviruses.

There is evidence that there was much more HGT in the distant past.

It is still common in bacteria. I am not certain about the Archaea.

This could account for a lot of genes jumping from one type of animal to another.

Perhaps you can cite some animals where horizontal gene transfer has occurred?

You make much use of argument with undefined terms whose definitions are crucial to the argument. You talk of mathematics without producing a single equation or calculation. If I didn't realize that you were religious I would have to question either your intelligence or your sanity. But you are merely religious. It seems to be endemic in the human species. Perhaps, one day, we will find a cure.

 

[Blue Wren]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

Is there a 12 Step Programme for that?

 

[stevevw]

Well which is it? Shouldn't or can't?

As far as I understand they can cross a species barrier but they will either not produce or weaken the offspring's. The further you get away from the original the more it weakens.

Which means if the process happens naturally, it would never move away from the "natural" original and thus not weaken.

And therefor evolution becomes doubtful as it requires species to move away from their original into another type of creature that has a different genetic makeup. Even one mutation has a great chance of weakening a species.

1: That was never the goal of selective breeding.
2: AFAIK, nobody has ever committed long enough to try.

Its not just selective breeding. They have also done experiments and found that they can make changes such as recombination in the genetics but it is mainly something that takes away from the strength of the original genetic makeup of a creature.

Doesn't mean that it can't, either.

Maybe that is something I would have to see evidence for. The trouble is the evidence is up for interpretation. Scientists can explain a mechanism for it to possible happen. But that mechanism is what many call micro evolution which every one acknowledges happens but with a species. They then take that process and extend it to make new creatures from existing ones. The whole idea is that originally there was a common ancestor to all and then over time this branched out to maybe a few lines of ancestors which then produced all living creatures. So there had to be events in that process that created info from something hat wasn't there in the first place and thats the key. You can make a case to extend micro evolution to do this but it moves beyond what the limited evolution is within a species type. It gives it almost God like ability. I dont think they have shown the evidence for this independently in tests.

IOW, it's still a bat, not a potato, therefore speciation doesn't happen.

Yes and all the animals are still their original types as well. But there is a great ability to make different variety with the genetics in the first place. Maybe a lot more than we think. All that so called junk DNA maybe something that has purpose and has been there in all creatures from the beginning. It has just become weakened or lays dormant. The genetics of creatures is getting weaker as time goes by. Thats why we are getting more viruses.

Yes thats right, but what some call a new species is really still the same type of animal. Like with bats there are many different types but they are all still bats. They are all still finches ect. Some animals may have had a lot of breeds or varieties and then they drifted away from the main groups and were unable to breed successfully anymore. But that doesn't mean that they will then turn into a new type of animal. I think some label variety of an animal as a new type of animal. [/QUORE]

So.... "type" -- because the Biblical "kind" wasn't vague enough?

This is something that many people dont get. Its vague with evolutionists as well. A species is classed as a new animals yet many look exactly like the original animals. So you can get 100 different species of bat or butterfly yet they look the same. Thats because the more species the better for the TOE as it can create links for showing how creatures change into others. The more changes they can show within a species the better to show how that process can then be taken to create new types of animals that look completely different. But these changes we see are mostly within the same species. Then some will turn what is a variation of the same species into a new species as was seen with the skulls at Georgia. They found 5 skulls of varying shapes which covered many of the species that were previously names which were found in Africa and around the world. So it could wipe out several species of so called ape man and bring it back to one. So there goes several links.

To my way of thinking and Darwins there would be a blending of creatures so that you found it hard to tell them apart. Just like with the many bat breeds which they call new species show a similarity in features that can be blended back to the original. That should be the case with all creatures so you can show a blending of one type and its breeds going into another type and its breed and so on all the way though to every animals alive. But what we see is distinct types that have separation between them. There is similarity close to that type but that is the variations of the genetics within that type of creature.

Then they are pulling apart the tree of life that Darwin had made because genetic research is throwing doubt on some of the connections that evolutionists had made with their anatomical observations. They linked creatures because they may have had some similar features. Esp if they had a feature of a past species and then a feature of a new and different species. This was their case for transitional evolutions of creatures turning into new ones. But genetics has broken many of those links and has also connect unrelated and distant creatures on the tree of life. So HGT is at work as well. It may also be that these similarities are just variations of common design. So a case can be made for both evolution and common design. Its up fro interpretation and so thats why many are confused about species, kind and types.

 

[lasthero]

A species is classed as a new animals yet many look exactly like the original animals. So you can get 100 different species of bat or butterfly yet they look the same. Thats because the more species the better for the TOE as it can create links for showing how creatures change into others

You have a LOT of messed up stuff in your post, but this caught my attention.

Where have you seen species classed as just a 'new animal'? Typically, species are defined by their ability to interbreed, not the way they look.

And why is it that, when people point out how vague 'kinds' are, creationists point to species? Even if species were the most nebulous concept ever, that doesn't make 'kinds' any less vague, does it?

 

[Gracchus]

Well which is it? Shouldn't or can't?

As far as I understand they can cross a species barrier but they will either not produce or weaken the offspring's.

Weak offspring are selected out. They do not "weaken" the species.

The further you get away from the original the more it weakens.

What evidence can you cite for this somewhat dubious claim?

And therefor evolution becomes doubtful as it requires species to move away from their original into another type of creature that has a different genetic makeup. Even one mutation has a great chance of weakening a species.

Mutations do not happen to species. Mutations happen to individual organisms. Organisms with deleterious mutations have less chance to breed, and so are selected out. That leaves only those organisms with neutral mutations, and those with favorable mutations. A favorable mutation will give an organism an advantage in successful breeding over an organism without it. Thus, favorable mutations will spread through the succeeding generations. You seem to have some trouble comprehending that. It is very simple. Here it is again: Organisms with unfavorable mutations have less chance to reproduce than those without that mutation. So that unfavorable mutation tends to vanish from the gene pool. Organisms with favorable mutations have more chance to successfully breed than those without the favorable mutation and so that favorable mutation will tend to spread through the gene pool in following generations. It is very simple.

Its not just selective breeding. They have also done experiments and found that they can make changes such as recombination in the genetics but it is mainly something that takes away from the strength of the original genetic makeup of a creature.

Who have done what experiments? You appeal, as support for your position, to unknown scientists doing unknown experiments, with unknown protocols. You might as well cite what the leprechauns told you.

Maybe that is something I would have to see evidence for. The trouble is the evidence is up for interpretation.

In other words, if the evidence contradicts your opinion, you will "ad hoc" it away, you will move the goalposts, you will, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, just ignore it.

Scientists can explain a mechanism for it to possible happen.

Yes, such explanations, when well supported by evidence and reasoning are called "theories". If the explanation, the theory, doesn't make sense, if it doesn't correspond to observations of the real world it must be corrected or rejected. Actually, science evolves to fit the facts just as animals evolve to fit the environment. New facts lead to new and better theories, just as new environmental conditions lead to new adjustments in the fitness of populations.

But that mechanism is what many call mircro evolution which every one acknowledges happens but with a species.

If the term is used at all it means variation within a species.

They then take that process and extend it to make new creatures from existing ones.

This has been explained to you before. They are not "whole new creatures". You are still a monkey, albeit you are a monkey who can use a keyboard.

The whole idea is that originally there was a common ancestor to all and then over time this branched out to maybe a few lines of ancestors which then produced all living creatures. So there had to be events in that process that created info from something hat wasn't there in the first place and thats the key.

Information theory concerns itself with signal degradation. A degraded signal produces more uncertainty or less accuracy. Sometimes you know there is a signal there but there is no way to know what it means. Your posts are kind of like that. There is some sort of intelligence there, but it can't seem to communicate anything sensible. Moreover, it doesn't seem to respond to communication directed to it, except with almost meaningless noise.

You can make a case to extend micro evolution to do this but it moves beyond what the limited evolution is within a species type. It gives it almost God like ability. I dont think they have shown the evidence for this independently in tests.

And there it is. You think evolution is god-like. Anything you don't understand is god-like. But it not like your god, because evolution won't tell you to punish your children for the sins of their parents, or forgive an offender by punishing an innocent, a scapegoat. Evolution doesn't do that, so it must be a false god?

You are not honest. Perhaps the dishonesty begins with your self: You lie to yourself and deceive yourself because you are afraid not to. It's a pity. But what can you expect from a monkey at a keyboard?

stevevw -- Pity 9/10, Respect 1/10

I hope you get better, but you probably won't.

 

[stevevw]

A Cocker Spaniel is not as fit to survive in the wild as a wolf. It has, however, been bred for specific traits that make it more likely to survive in an environment with humans.

Yes and if you tried to continue that process of breeding to make that dog (cocker spaniel) into a cat or goat you cant and thats the limitations of one animal becoming another. They have tried with bacteria and after thousands of generations its still bacteria.

That is not correct. New species of fruit flies have been produced, incapable of breeding with the parent species. Chihuahuas cannot reproduce with Great Danes without human intervention and perhaps not even then.

Yeah this is where it gets a bit suspect for me. You say they produce a new species but its still a fly. They then take that process they say makes the new fly species and say thats the same mechanism that will turn a fly into a lizard or butterfly eventually. But then when they try they cant and its still a fly. Thats because it has limits. What they call a new species to men is still the same type of creature. It may not be able to reproduce but is that the only criteria for new species. It makes it very blurry and you can then make anything a new species just about, But at the end of the day evolution is about changing shapes through a common ancestor. And in the end the fly is still shaped like a fly and the dogs are still shaped like dogs even though they will have a lot of variation within those dogs which could make someone think that a Chihuahua was a completely different type of animals to a great Dane if they were dug up as fossils. Thats where I think it gets confused and up for interpretation.

Some species have more variety than others.
One more thing: What are "types"? In biology there is a classification system, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. And because the real world does not fit into neat boxes, there can be taxons like Sub-phylum, or Super-family. But "types", "varieties" and "kinds" are not part of the classification system.

I use type as a way of saying its a completely different creature from the original one. So you have one type of animal like a cat and another type like a elephant. I know they have the classifications but I think its confusing especially when it comes to species.

And all apes are still apes. That includes humans.

I see apes as apes with a lot of variety, breeds like chimps, baboons ect. I see humans as humans with a lot of variety. That variety includes some similarities with animals such as apes. But this can be common design. There is dispute about what certain features that are used to link apes and humans and a lot of it is up for interpretation. Thats because they do have similar features. But fossil humans can be made out to be slightly more ape like and fossil apes can be made out to be slightly more human like. The fossils are always old and fragmented and the difference up for debate is always slight and is always disputed by just as many scientists. So nothing is a straight forward as they say.

Nor does it mean that it can't. Your objections are as tenuous as your definitions. You just assert without the justification of evidence or argument.

Anything I have said is normally something I have read or researched and is not my own assertions. I just may not be able to explain it as good as they do. I will include some links at the end as to what I have been talking about. But evolution hasn't been able to prove with testable direct evidence that one type of animals can transform into another. Such as the ability to create new info to make lungs or a heart from nothing that was there in the first place. They try to explain how this might happen but there is no evidence. How did the first male and female sex organs come about. Did they evolve at the same time coincidentally as an accident. Male without female cannot survive and produce any offspring's.

There is lots of evidence of common ancestry. There are shelves of volumes and publications of evidence.

That may just be interpretation of what they think is common ancestor. It can also be argued that the evidence fits common design.
...

I will delete here more blathering about "types", "breeds", and "varieties", none of which you define or differentiate. Example:
How, exactly, is a "variety" different than a "type"?

I use type as a way to try and say that it is completely different from the original. Not the same. I find that the meaning of species is ambiguous as it can mean the same shape and characteristics of an animal and yet its a different species. Many people thing a different species is like a cat to a dog where they are completely different shapes and kinds of animals.

It is the same genetics in the sense that the same chemistry, the same laws of genetics apply, but mutations to the genome are observed. New alleles appear, some genes are mutated to different forms, and some genes can be deactivated, or even vanish from the gene pool, extinguished by a favorable mutation.
No one but you, and your coreligionists say that they have to be "totally new". Evolution says that they cannot be totally new. Whales and hippopotami still have traits in common. You are still an ape.
That means that natural selection removes the failures.
How rare is "rare"? You have several hundred mutations that you got from neither of your parents.
That's what Darwin thought. That's what scientific observation finds.
It would not be a completely new creature. We still share some basic genetics with bacteria, with fish, with reptiles, and with all other mammals.

Yes but if you look at the difference in shape and then the difference in a lot of the systems that are needed for each creature there are some big differences. Like a fish has gills and land animals lungs. The difference in reproduction systems as well. But in saying that the basic similarities we share in our genetics doesn't necessarily point to common ancestor. It could also be a common design. All creatures are made from the same basic blue print.

You say the "changes came in big chunks" but no biologist says that.

I didn't say that evolution comes in big chunks. I said how do mutations that are suppose to make small gradual changes account for the many changes needed in an animal. If they are mostly non beneficial then there would have to be a lot of things going right many times to account for the amount of change that is required. Some scientists say that there isn't enough evidence for the required amount of beneficial mutation or enough time for it to occur.

Two hundred generations of fruit flies isolated in differing environments produces species that cannot interbreed.

But aren't they still fruit flies. Do you think if they continued to do the testing that they could eventually cause the fruit flies to begin to change from fruit flies into something else like evolution says happens in nature. Or is there a limit and a barrier that you cant go past which will render the fly useless. I cant understand how they call the flies a new species. To me they are still a fly. Just because they cant breed anymore with each other doesn't mean they are a different creature. They may lose the ability to breed to always remain flies for ever. It just becomes a difference in those flies genetic makeups that stops them breeding with each other. But thats where it ends they cant then continue and become a new creature just because they moved away from the original genetic makeup. Anyway thats my understanding and I'm not going to say that I'm right but thats what I understand fro0m what I have read. But I am not a geneticist.
I will leave it there as the post is getting long. I will do some more research regarding the next reply and get back to you.

Except for this one I seen at the end.

You make much use of argument with undefined terms whose definitions are crucial to the argument. You talk of mathematics without producing a single equation or calculation. If I didn't realize that you were religious I would have to question either your intelligence or your sanity. But you are merely religious. It seems to be endemic in the human species. Perhaps, one day, we will find a cure.

No what I am doing is inquiring and bringing up my objections the way I understand things. Like I said I am not a geneticist. It is not just about religion. These are questions that others bring up who are not religious as well. They are common sense questions about some of the things evolution says that dont make sense to me and others. Maybe there is a fundamental difference in belief between the two parties involved. I tend to think despite you and others saying that evolutionists are purely basing the evidence on truth is a bit of a fallacy. There can be faith in what evolutionists think just as much as religion and I believe there are many things they say or have come to believe that are not based on fact. But they tell it like it is fact. There is evidence for scientists and evolutionists being bias like with circular reasoning. The fossil is old because the ground is old. The ground is old because the fossil is old type of stuff. I could show you plenty of evidence for this but thats another topic.

 

[lasthero]

Yes and if you tried to continue that process of breeding to make that dog (cocker spaniel) into a cat or goat you cant and thats the limitations of one animal becoming another. They have tried with bacteria and after thousands of generations its still bacteria.

So bacteria is a 'kind'? Or a 'type'? You accept that evolution which produces bacteria is acceptable and happens?