Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[no1nose]

You've been given example after example.

So not true. . . how can you live with yourself. I just want one - please?

no1nose, you still haven't answered my question. How would you define a "species"?

Rainbow Jeremy?

Or

This guy would qualify: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU8HeV-r8uQ

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Example two:

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
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Shall I continue?

 

[Melethiel]

Definition of a species, please. I'm still waiting. In a few sentences, in English, a definition I can work with, since you apparently reject the scientific definition.

Or are you incapable of doing so, and are rejecting the scientific examples given you because it doesn't fit your paradigm?

 

[no1nose]

Shall I continue?

QUOTE]

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. "

Would you classify different dog breeds as different "species"? What what this sounds like.

Here I found this with 3 clicks of the mouse:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?
Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!
Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.
Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher&#8221. Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

Figure 22. Change? Yes—but which kind of change? What is the more logical inference, or the more reasonable extrapolation, from our observations: unlimited change from one kind to others (evolution), or limited variation within kinds (creation)? Given the new knowledge of genetics and ecology, even Darwin, I believe, would be willing to “think about it.”

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).
If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). (Fig. 22.)
Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!
Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.
We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus (Fig. 9), for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.
Perhaps God used a design in living things similar to the one He used in the non-living world. Only about a hundred different elements or atoms are combined in different ways to make a tremendous variety of non-living molecules or compounds. Maybe creationists will one day identify a relatively few genes and gene sets that, in unique combinations, were used to make all the different types of life we see. It would take a tremendous amount of research to validate this “mosaic or modular” concept of a created unit, but the results would be a truly objective taxonomy that would be welcomed by all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists. We might even be able to write a “genetic formula” for each created kind, as we can write a chemical formula (a unique combination of non-unique atoms) for each kind of compound.
But why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? Stephen Gould,25 eloquent evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the “folk classifications” of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, each type has a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries at all times and all places: “A Quahog is a Quahog,” as the title of his editorial reads.
“But,” says Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.
In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton26 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linne’ (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit Biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind.
“Actually,” concludes Gould,27 “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.” (Emphasis added.) I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.
But what about Darwin? He tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed. The neo-Darwinists tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and mutation, and mutations failed. The post-neo-Darwinists are turning to “hopeful monsters,” instead of simple mutations, and to “survival of the luckiest,” instead of selection. These new ideas have little basis in observation or scientific principle at all, and it remains to be seen whether the evolutionist’s faith in future discoveries will also fail.
One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence. That’s the conclusion of two insightful lawyers, Norman MacBeth (Darwin Retried28) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial29). Neither man is arguing for the Bible; both are simply writing in their field as experts in the rules of evidence and the rules of logic. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California (Berkeley), challenge college students to weigh the so-called evidence for evolution and to consider alternatively the concept that life (and, hence, each of their lives) is instead the gift of Intelligent, Purposeful Design.
The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, we’ll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to “think about it.”
References

1. Gould, Stephen Jay, A Quahog is a Quahog, Natural History, August/September 1979. Also published in: Species Are Not Specious, New Scientist, August 2, 1979. Return to text.
2. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, chapters 5–9, 1985. Return to text.
3. Gould, Stephen Jay, A Quahog is a Quahog, Natural History, August/September 1979. Also published in: Species Are Not Specious, New Scientist, August 2, 1979. Return to text.
4. MacBeth, Norman, Darwin Retried, Gambit, Boston, 1971. Return to text.
5. Johnson, Phillip, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington D. C., 1991. Return to text.

This chapter from the book Creation: Facts of Life is published and graciously provided at no charge to Answers in Genesis by Master Books, a division of New Leaf Press (Green Forest, Arkansas).
By downloading this material, you agree to the following terms with respect to the use of the requested material: AIG grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to print or download one (1) copy of the copyrighted work. The copyrighted work will be used for non-commercial, personal purposes only. You may not prepare, manufacture, copy, use, promote, distribute, or sell a derivative work of the copyrighted work without the express approval of AIG. Approval must be expressed and in writing, and failure to respond shall not be deemed approval. All rights in the copyrighted work not specifically granted to you are reserved by AIG. All such reserved rights may be exercised by AIG. This Agreement, and all interpretations thereof, shall be deemed to be in accordance with Kentucky law. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with Kentucky law in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, which court shall be deemed to be the court of proper jurisdiction and venue.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. "

Would you classify different dog breeds as different "species"? What what this sounds like.

A species is a group of organisms that can breed together to give often-fertile offspring. A chimp and a horse are not of the same species since they cannot produce fertile offspring. A horse and a donkey are not of the same species because, although they can mate and bear you, the offspring is very rarely fertile (and never yields a fertile line).

Thus, dog breeds are of the same species. Though it should be mentioned that, because the smallest Chihuahua and the largest Great Dane cannot reliably interbreed, they are likely to form a ring species of sorts: A can mate with B can mate with C can mate with D, but A cannot mate with D. This is exemplified with Larus gulls.

To that end, I do not see what you objection is. It is only with very primitive organisms (bacteria, etc) that the notion of 'species' becomes blurred, and even then only because of genetic drift and things.

What, exactly, is your objection?

 

[no1nose]

Ah so its not really about me "getting it" It more about The Theory of Evolution not having it. If you want me I'll be watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iAaxOAHCM

 

[no1nose]

What, exactly, is your objection?

As Gould says: “A Quahog is a Quahog,”

 

[Melethiel]

Still waiting for that definition of a species.

 

[no1nose]

Not sure what you are achieving here other than a cut and paste war. Don't you have any words of your own on the subject? I believe that all people have a limited ability to grasp the real world (if there really is one) and often our perceptions are clouded by cultural influences. The Theory of Evolution is more of a narrative of 20th century western culture than a statement of absolute truth. Any problems with that?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Not sure what you are achieving here other than a cut and paste war.

Sorry... just can't help but laugh that YOU calling out someone else for copy/pasting.

For those that didn't know... just about anything he posts in this thread, he posts in another thread he has going on this same forum... and usually on a number of other forums as well.

Kinda makes you wonder who he's actually responding to in the first place.

 

[no1nose]

Sorry... just can't help but laugh that YOU calling out someone else for copy/pasting.

For those that didn't know... just about anything he posts in this thread, he posts in another thread he has going on this same forum... and usually on a number of other forums as well.

Kinda makes you wonder who he's actually responding to in the first place.

Its Jester the stalker. Mark my words Jester - stalking people will get you into a lot more trouble than my reposting stuff that I have written

 

[Assyrian]

Ah so its not really about me "getting it" It more about The Theory of Evolution not having it. If you want me I'll be watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iAaxOAHCM

Oddly enough one of the things Woody Allen and Billy Graham would have agreed on is Evolution.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

 

[lemmings]

Its Jester the stalker. Mark my words Jester - stalking people will get you into a lot more trouble than my reposting stuff that I have written

Most people here use a thing called Google. It allows us to search for arguments (or evidence), find rebuttals you your arguments, and even find PRATTs. It is not stalking, it is the pursuit for knowledge (about an individual).

 

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by no1nose

All this seems very vague to me and open to other interpretations.

In a recent video Dr. Ali G refers to a person known as Rainbow Jeremy. Turns out he is a real person. Would you consider him an example of "speciation"?
​

A guy who retreats from technology? No, that has nothing to do with changes in DNA (mutation). Nor do mutations constitute the whole process of evolution. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon. You can't study evolution by studying just one individual at a time. Nothing happens to an individual between conception and death that is relevant to evolution.

If it all seems vague, it is because you haven't learned what evolution is and how it works. Like, to me, what my mechanic says about my car all seems vague because I don't understand most of what he says. If I studied auto mechanics, it would become clear and precise to me. Just so, biology and evolution will become clearer and clearer to you the more you study it.

This guy would qualify:

No, still a freak individual. Freak individuals are not species. (And Rainbow Jeremy, as far as I could tell, was not even a sf freak. Just an ordinary human who prefers to live without modern technology.)

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Yes, it is. AiG can play around with semantics all it likes, it doesn't change what is actually happening in nature.

 

[Steve Petersen]

[/size][/font]

Do you not also recognize the fact that we must use our minds to interpret the Bible? Are we not therefore just as likely to misinterpret the Bible as we are the world around us? 99% of biologists agree that the evidence favours an evolutionary interpretation of life. But Christians are all over the board when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I think we're much closer to understanding the history of life than we are the Bible. And since it's math that concerns you, I also think the numbers attest to this.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There isn't one. The problem comes when you butcher Christianity, evolution, evolutionary theory, and common descent, in order to find parallels. You ended up with strawmen of each concept.


Source? I'm not aware of any 'Messiah' claims before Jesus.


Is that any surprise? Western cinema arose in a Christianised civilisation. Even the English language has hallmarks of Christianity. But that's just a historical curio. What does it have to do with anything?


Not really. The concept of a 'hero' is both vague and ancient, and arises from the fact that suffering exists in the world. Heroes emerged first as ledgendary warriors, then as divinities. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed,


Except, he didn't: there is nothing in evolutionary theory that involves a 'saviour'. It is simply an explanation for biodiversity using evolution by natural seletion.


Evolutionary theory has existed since antiquity. The Greek philosophers Anaximander and Empedocles proposed non-supernatural origins of life (the former even suggested that life existed in the oceans, and only later emerged on land). This sentiment is echoed in Chinese and Roman thinkers. Indeed, Lamarck's ideas were the first 'modern' ideas as to how species changed.
Darwin is remarkable among these philosophers and scientists for two reasons. First, his work on the subject was far more popular than those of his predecessors. Second, his theory was accurate enough to kickstart modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, a mere two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was uncovered in Germany.

There is rarely a root source for any major scientific idea.

You hit on something that has always fascinated me. Virtually every origins story has life first starting in the sea. As does the evolutionary theory. It's ALMOST as if we have some sort of genetic memory of this stuff.