Ring Species. How do creationists account for this?

[SkyWriting]

If you had watched the video you would have known that this was an ignorant thing to say.

Video's are not a source of wisdom. The wise man sees that DNA language does not spring from ignorance but from infinite intelligence.

There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm. They should constitute the bulk of biological study.

 

[Naraoia]

Video's are not a source of wisdom. The wise man sees that DNA language does not spring from ignorance but from infinite intelligence.

Nice. Evidence?

The wise man also knows a good point when he sees one, regardless of who or what makes it.

There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm. They should constitute the bulk of biological study.

Why should they?

 

[SkyWriting]

Nice. Evidence?

The evidence is in the infinite depth of the sophistication in DNA and the lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code. Symbolic code/DNA/Language has only intelligent sourcing. The "words" or "letters" may be found lying around anywhere. But only intelligence has been found to string the words into symbolic code that can be "read" to reproduce a final product.

The wise man also knows a good point when he sees one, regardless of who or what makes it.

In a pigs ear. Even if there is tasty chicken in the bottom of a dumpster, I'll pass.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why should they?

Because: There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm.

 

[MoonLancer]

The evidence is in the infinite depth of the sophistication in DNA and the lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code. Symbolic code/DNA/Language has only intelligent sourcing. The "words" or "letters" may be found lying around anywhere. But only intelligence has been found to string the words into symbolic code that can be "read" to reproduce a final product.

Gosh... Dna is really complex and too sophisticated for people to understand. A god must have done it... yeah no.

 

[Naraoia]

The evidence is in the infinite depth of the sophistication in DNA and the lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code. Symbolic code/DNA/Language has only intelligent sourcing. The "words" or "letters" may be found lying around anywhere. But only intelligence has been found to string the words into symbolic code that can be "read" to reproduce a final product.

You are, quite simply, assuming your conclusion. There is only a "lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code" if the code(s) in DNA is (are) produced by an intelligent source.

In a pigs ear. Even if there is tasty chicken in the bottom of a dumpster, I'll pass.

Was that supposed to be a witty comeback?

Because: There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm.

Repeating your stance doesn't qualify as supporting it. Again: why should ring species be the norm?

 

[daviddolphin]

I came here seeking real information. I would like to know how Christians claim that speciation and macro-evolution does not exist, yet ring species are real and tons of examples of them exist.

I came here wondering what the educated intelligent christian would say and all I am faced with is three pages of complete and total nonsense.

Is any christian out there brave enough to even consider answering this?

The species at the end of the rings are different species, they are different types, they are completely different animals. They look different, they act different, they have loads of differences. Just because they are both categorized under the same generic name of salamander or warbler doesn't matter. I could label all fish as fish. Or even better, all trees as trees. This isn't helpful in talking about different types of life.

Please someone try to answer this question: "How does examining the evidence for ring species not confirm evolution by natural selection?"

 

[Naraoia]

Just a quiet little note: creationists =/= Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, and nice to meet you. Welcome to CF!

I came here seeking real information.

I'll be glad to help, if I can.

I would like to know how Christians claim that speciation and macro-evolution does not exist, yet ring species are real and tons of examples of them exist.

And here's my answer: 2

You may not agree with it, but you said you would like to know how we can claim that, and that's how I can claim that.

Anything else I can help you with, or are you here just to vent?

I came here wondering what the educated intelligent christian would say ...

And here's what I say: 2

Although I don't claim to be 'educated and intelligent'.

You may not agree with it, but nevertheless, it should answer your question.

... and all I am faced with is three pages of complete and total nonsense.

And herein lies what I think is the real reason you're here.

Not to learn our mindset, but to rant and vent against our mindsets.

I could be wrong though -- YMMV.

Is any christian out there brave enough to even consider answering this?

I don't normally back down from tough questions ... I am capable of thinking "outside the box", and can give a tough question a tough answer, and a goofy question a goofy answer.

I know when to hold 'em ... when to fold 'em ... when to walk away ... and when to run. I never count my posts, sitting at the table; there will be time enough for counting, when the answering is done.

 

[Greg1234]

I came here seeking real information. I would like to know how Christians claim that speciation and macro-evolution does not exist, yet ring species are real and tons of examples of them exist.

I came here wondering what the educated intelligent christian would say and all I am faced with is three pages of complete and total nonsense.

Is any christian out there brave enough to even consider answering this?

The species at the end of the rings are different species, they are different types, they are completely different animals. They look different, they act different, they have loads of differences. Just because they are both categorized under the same generic name of salamander or warbler doesn't matter. I could label all fish as fish. Or even better, all trees as trees. This isn't helpful in talking about different types of life.

Please someone try to answer this question: "How does examining the evidence for ring species not confirm evolution by natural selection?"

In case you are unaware, this is what constitutes a "ring species" Where and when does a ring start and end? Testing the ring-species hypothesis in a species complex of Australian parrots

Four criteria strictly define circumstances for an ‘ideal’ ring-species hypothesis of speciation: (i) two distinctive forms coexist today in sympatry, (ii) gene flow through a chain of populations has connected them before and since sympatry that came about through a range shift, (iii) the chain forms a complete ring, and (iv) the terminal differentiates are connected by gradual geographical variation
​

 

[AV1611VET]

In case you are unaware, this is what constitutes a "ring species" Where and when does a ring start and end? Testing the ring-species hypothesis in a species complex of Australian parrots

Four criteria strictly define circumstances for an ‘ideal’ ring-species hypothesis of speciation: (i) two distinctive forms coexist today in sympatry, (ii) gene flow through a chain of populations has connected them before and since sympatry that came about through a range shift, (iii) the chain forms a complete ring, and (iv) the terminal differentiates are connected by gradual geographical variation
​

I think he's already made up his mind, that if the answer comes from a Christian icon, you're going to be wrong somewhere -- even if the answer agrees with him.

(But I could be wrong.)

 

[Greg1234]

I think he's already made up his mind, that if the answer comes from a Christian icon, you're going to be wrong somewhere -- even if the answer agrees with him.

(But I could be wrong.)

From his quote it seems like he thinks that they cannot produce fertile offspring when they interbreed as opposed to geographical isolation and behavioral preferences.

 

[Deaver]

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).

The two greenish warblers that do not interbreed could not have been initially created as two separate groups reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates.

There is no reason to believe that the differences between the two warbler species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding warbler population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).

The two greenish warblers that do not interbreed could not have been initially created as two separate groups reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates.

There is no reason to believe that the differences between the two warbler species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding warbler population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.

Based on what you have written, I'm not entirely sure you would understand or appreciate this, but I think you should start here.

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ETA: I invite you to take a run at my ERV challenge. What is a cdesign proponentsists best explanation for ERVs?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7570648/

 

[Deaver]

Based on what you have written, I'm not entirely sure you would understand or appreciate this, but I think you should start here.

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to make sure I understand this correctly. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence. They will have inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. So, we are, then, talking of different species or kinds or whatever term is best,

I find it interesting that the author of the article is assuming the chimpanzee is the closest “human relative” when he or she says, “The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.”

They go on to say “Chromosome 2 thus presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes”. It is also possible that, in fact, all it may prove is that God created them differently.

 

[Deaver]

I invite you to take a run at my ERV challenge. What is a cdesign proponentsists best explanation for ERVs?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7570648/

Here is an opposing viewpoint.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_16.pdf

Please read it with an open mind, just as I try to do when presented with information providing a different view point than mine. Afterall that is how we learn.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Here is another viewpoint.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_16.pdf

Please read it with an open mind, just as I try to do when presented with information providing a different view point than mine. Afterall that is how we learn.

In science, viewpoints are a dime a dozen. What matters most is what is the BEST inference from the data collected?

Further information: Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site in chimpanzees
All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[3][4]
Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere


The evidence for this includes:

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[5][6]
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[7]
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[8]

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [8]

 

[Deaver]

So, you have your evidence, facts, opinions, viewpoints (just as I do) and no matter what I offer you will continie to deny that everything we see, hear, touch, smell and taste was created by a all-mighty, all-powerful, soveriegn God. Okay, your choice.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So, you have your evidence, facts, opinions, viewpoints (just as I do) and no matter what I offer you will continie to deny that everything we see, hear, touch, smell and taste was created by a all-mighty, all-powerful, soveriegn God. Okay, your choice.

And it's your choice to cut yourself with Occam's razor.

I have no problem accepting anything, so long as it's reasonable and based on reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no problem accepting anything, so long as it's reasonable and based on reality.

Ya -- for years I thought Pluto was our 9th planet.

It sounded reasonable & realistic to my science teacher, who graded me on it.