Ring Species. How do creationists account for this?

[SkyWriting]

Uh... OK, so?

That whole sentence is essentially a euphemism for "never".

Gee I'm sorry. But logically that's what it would take if I was a biologist.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?"

OHHH.....evolution of a species through natural selection.
Of course. It's a fine example of that.

Species do change over time due to environmental pressures.
If fact, the changes can be amazingly rapid.
Just a few generations in some cases.

Experiments with dogs have produced stunning changes in size and
temperament within the dog handlers lifetime.
One of the largest factors for change in the size of the dog
was caused by selecting for temperament.

 

[Naraoia]

Gee I'm sorry. But logically that's what it would take if I was a biologist.

If you were a biologist, you might understand that "reasonable ideas" don't always require complete evidence.

But given your impossible standards of evidence, it logically follows that (in your eyes) you don't have a reaonable idea of such limitations either. Can we agree on that?

 

[SkyWriting]

If you were a biologist, you might understand that "reasonable ideas" don't always require complete evidence.

But given your impossible standards of evidence, it logically follows that (in your eyes) you don't have a reasonable idea of such limitations either. Can we agree on that?

OH. lol "Reasonable Ideas"! lol lol.....Know I know......I'm still laughing....

Kind of like a tire is "reasonably round", or a "carburetor is "reasonably explosion proof" or an eyeball is "reasonably" free of leaks, or a brain is "reasonably" free of tumors. That sounds exactly like my home church I've never (spiritually) returned to and the reason I have my faith. My God doesn't reason with humans and never has.

So biology is just a smutch-bunch of people making "reasonable ideas" at each other with no solid plan of action for nailing anything down.

Now if you had told me that you guys had about 10% of what I detailed and were working to nail down the rest, I'd have a lot of respect for biology. But you just tossed the entire branch of "Science" in the trash can for me. What a waste of resources.

Fortunately for you, people like my Uncle at Abbot Labs put a lot more into their work on Pharmaceuticals. I'm going to ask him about "reasonable ideas" and see if that phrase ever comes up in drug research. I hope not.


OK....Never mind what I just said. I did a search for "Reasonable ideas" plus "biology". Basically the 4000 results that came back were bad books about Star Trek, blogs, pdf's and chat forums.

OK ....so Biology has nothing to do with "reasonable ideas" in any formal sense. Nobody out there is teaching the concept or talking about it.

And it follows that...your current "biology training" is very far from formal. More like chat forums. Point Taken.

 

[SkyWriting]

For example. Lizards developing new organs after being faced with a new diet. (Looking for the citation on this. I apologize.)

(I need to teach people how to search.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Search for stuff
-Highlight some keywords that look basic yet unique to any text or subject.
- In this case "Lizards developing new organs". Highlight then Right click and select "copy"
- Then click for a new tab. Then paste "Lizards developing new organs" into GOOGLE search and enter.
- I think it was the second result.
- If you don't see what you want in the first page, change your search a little. "Quotes" will give you a
better match for "Exactly the phrase you are looking for" but no quotes will give you less "exact match"
and usually sites with more authority. Non-Authority sites are blogs, personal pages, chat forums
and such. Authority sites get "higher" on the Search Engine Results Pages because more sites are
linking to them. This gives them more authority by popular opinion. Sadly WIKI sites get lots of
links without a lot of oversight on the content. Some. But the oversight is all volunteer as well as
all the Wiki information posted.
For Biblical references, I add "Bible.cc" to the text in my search box. That brings up results from a large number
of bible versions on the topic I'm checking on. The multiple versions at bible.cc ADD the clarity of multiple
groups of people translating the same text sources. That's my opinion anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

But now that you bring up the point that "evolution" can happen very quickly....
I'll follow up on that point and make a list that proves much evolutionary thinking
is bologna.

I contend that the ability to quickly "evolve" is engineered
into the DNA language of organisms by the Creator in the first place.
There never has been any millions of years or random mutations needed
for a species to quickly change to fit it's environment:

Evolution to the rescue: Researchers offer hope that species may adapt quickly to rapid environmental change

Rapid evolution seen in Tibetans - USATODAY.com

Toxic river means rapid evolution for one fish species

Discovery Shows Rapid Evolution of Bacterial Genomes Over the Course of a Single Chronic Infection

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5877/800.abstract

...it is becoming clear that almost all traits show some plasticity.

Of the many intriguing features of Daphnia biology, the hallmark is their amazing phenotypic plasticity

 

[SkyWriting]

...Your kind of barrier would mean that A and Z would reach a certain level of differentness (geez, is that even a word?),

We Biologists call them "Darwin Units."

 

[Orogeny]

lololol

 

[Naraoia]

OH. lol "Reasonable Ideas"! lol lol.....Know I know......I'm still laughing....

Glad to make you happy. Rest assured, I nearly fell off my chair reading what followed

OK....Never mind what I just said. I did a search for "Reasonable ideas" plus "biology". Basically the 4000 results that came back were bad books about Star Trek, blogs, pdf's and chat forums.

Weren't you the one who committed that beautiful Pubmed search fail with new information a while back?

OK ....so Biology has nothing to do with "reasonable ideas" in any formal sense. Nobody out there is teaching the concept or talking about it.

And it follows that...your current "biology training" is very far from formal. More like chat forums. Point Taken.

And here I thought a BSc with honours at one of the UK's top universities was a formal training in biology. They never told me it was a chat forum. Am I not a real PhD student now? Should I sue?

We Biologists call them "Darwin Units."

Whoops, a darwin is actually an existing unit, which happens to measure the rate of phenotypic evolution. I didn't know a "Darwin Unit" represented any sort of limit