Speciation

[Danyc]

Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark.

Beginning your line of reasoning with an assumption; nice.

I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different.

Guys, these are all the same animals! They just can't breed with each other and their DNA is different. But they're still the same animals....

except they're...different,...but...the same?



No more questions!

 

[Blayz]

Do all of these mutations occur at once, or do they occur over a period of time?

If they occur over a period of time, then what do you call all those animals inbetween Species A and Species B?

Or is this the transitional fossil debate that everyone harps about?

This is the sorites paradox (again). Can you tell me the exact precise number of grains of rice I need to go from "some grains of rice" to "a heap of rice" ?

Just because we cannot define a clear boundary does not mean that there are no discrete states.

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to happened because of no other ideas.

I'd post the huge list of speciation events observed by man...but I am not sure that this level of ignorance is penetrable.

I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different. Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark. so speciation is from sudden triggers that radically change creatures and not from slow selection and evolution.

And yet the marsuial mouse is genetically closer to a kangaroo than it is to Mus musculus

 

[Split Rock]

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to happened because of no other ideas.

Speciation has been observed and common descent is inferred from the physical evidence.

Yet the different creatures on earth have not divered because of time and distance but because of dramatic sudden changes in their bodies and lifestyles. Seldom have creatures just drifted apart and then can't reproduce.

Hold on to that thought.

The amazon is testamont to the fact that speciation is due to healthy envirorments in which creatures can change very quickly originally to for evey possible angle of living.

This is called Evolution.

I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different.

BINGO! You just contradicited yourself. "Seldom have creatures just drifted apart and then can't reproduce." your own words.

Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark. so speciation is from sudden triggers that radically change creatures and not from slow selection and evolution.

Tell us what the mechanism of this "sudden change" is and how it causes gross changes in DNA, or admit you are just making stuff up that you think sounds good.

 

[Draconic]

Robert Byers-

1. Please explain how it is possible that a population of animals, reduced to 2 individuals, will be able to survive.

Bottlenecking leads to inbreeding, and with two individuals, it goes to an extreme. After very few generations, negative mutations build up. Soon, the species submit to genetic diseases and simply are not likely to survive.

If you are able to fully answer this question, based on EVIDENCE and FACTS, NOT ASSERTIONS, and are able to REFUTE ALL contradicting evidence, then we can go on to question 2.

2. Please explain to me how a few "kinds" of animals can speciate into several millions of species within 4,000 years. Again, facts and evidence, no assertions, refute contradicting evidence.

2a. Please define "kind". THis has been asked multiple times. Please comply.

 

[Blackrend]

I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different. Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark.

Rob, please watch this video... Then stop and rethink the whole Ark story...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to happened because of no other ideas.

I'm afraid that it is not correct to claim it was only presumed to have happened because of no other ideas. Actually there were any amount of other ideas. This one was arrived at as the correct one because we were able to observe the evidence left behind by the event. In much the same way we do in forensic science.

In forensic science, although we do not witness the crime, we are able to discern the facts by examining the clues. From that we determine the possible explanations for the clues we have observed. Then we set about trying to disprove each possible explanation. Eventually only one explanation remains which explains all the clues and which we can not falsify.

We arrived at evolution the same way.

The amazon is testamont to the fact that speciation is due to healthy envirorments in which creatures can change very quickly originally to for evey possible angle of living.

Sorry to trouble you further, but would you be so kind as to explain in what way the Amazon evidences your rapid speciation hypothesis please?

Ghost

 

[Bombila]

Juvenissun may be confused about punctuated equilibrium as an evolutionary mechanism, thinking it is a refutation of evolution itself.

 

[Vene]

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to happened because of no other ideas.
Yet the different creatures on earth have not divered because of time and distance but because of dramatic sudden changes in their bodies and lifestyles. Seldom have creatures just drifted apart and then can't reproduce. The amazon is testamont to the fact that speciation is due to healthy envirorments in which creatures can change very quickly originally to for evey possible angle of living.
I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different. Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark. so speciation is from sudden triggers that radically change creatures and not from slow selection and evolution.

Can somebody please translate this for me?

 

[Split Rock]

Can somebody please translate this for me?

Sure.... "blahh, blahh, blah....The Flood.....blahh,blahh......blahh.... Marsupials and placental mammals are the same but they are very different.... blahh, blahh, blahh.....unknown sudden trigger... blahh, blahh... blahh.....The ark..... blahh, blahh, blahh,....I have no idea what I am talking about.... blahh, blahh, blahh.....The colors!... The colors!... blahh, blahh....blahh.."

 

[Bombila]

Can somebody please translate this for me?

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to have happened because of no other ideas.
Yet the different creatures on earth have not diverged because of time and distance but because of dramatic sudden changes in their bodies and lifestyles. Seldom have creatures just drifted apart and then can't reproduce. The amazon is testament to the fact that speciation is due to healthy environments in which creatures can change very quickly originally to for evey possible angle of living (to fill each ecological niche, maybe?).
I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different. Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark. so speciation is from sudden triggers that radically change creatures and not from slow selection and evolution. - Robert Byers, with changes for clarity by B marked in green (no offense, Robert, you seem to leave words and letters out quite often in your typing).

Again, as with juvenissun, I wonder if RB has gotten hold of some articles where punctuated equilibrium is being debated and has confused the issue to the point of thinking PE is an argument against evolution.

As for the bit about marsupials being the same as their 'name/superficial appearance' counterparts, I can only assume Robert knows zero about marsupials and how they differ from other mammals, and has not even looked at many photos of animals of any kind. To look at, say, a Tasmanian Tiger and a Siberian Tiger side by side, without even going so far as to examine their respective anatomy, and think they are the same, or only differentiated in four thousand years, is not even wrong. Boggles the mind. I would think this is where even most dedicated YECs would draw the line, and at least assign Australian marsupials their own 'kind'.

(I assume your question was rhetorical, Vene, but it seemed like an interesting quick exercise.)

 

[tcampen]

When examining the probability of any specific mutation, the probabilities of such are incredibly low. But that is an intellectually dishonest approach. It is looking backwards as if that mutation had to happen exactly how, where, and when it did. But the odds that some mutation will occur is 100%.

AVET's talk about a coyote giving birth to a lion would DISPROVE biological evolution. Thus, such arguments are not only false, but extremely telling of the fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[Vene]

(I assume your question was rhetorical, Vene, but it seemed like an interesting quick exercise.)

Semi-rhetorical, semi-'I recognize those words, but that made no sense.'

 

[RobertByers]

Yet all this was never observed by man but only presumed to have happened because of no other ideas.
Yet the different creatures on earth have not diverged because of time and distance but because of dramatic sudden changes in their bodies and lifestyles. Seldom have creatures just drifted apart and then can't reproduce. The amazon is testament to the fact that speciation is due to healthy environments in which creatures can change very quickly originally to for evey possible angle of living (to fill each ecological niche, maybe?).
I say that marsupial cats, dogs, bears, moles, etc are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. yet they can't interbreed, it seems, and their dna is quite different. Yet they are from the same pairs off the ark. so speciation is from sudden triggers that radically change creatures and not from slow selection and evolution. - Robert Byers, with changes for clarity by B marked in green (no offense, Robert, you seem to leave words and letters out quite often in your typing).

Again, as with juvenissun, I wonder if RB has gotten hold of some articles where punctuated equilibrium is being debated and has confused the issue to the point of thinking PE is an argument against evolution.

As for the bit about marsupials being the same as their 'name/superficial appearance' counterparts, I can only assume Robert knows zero about marsupials and how they differ from other mammals, and has not even looked at many photos of animals of any kind. To look at, say, a Tasmanian Tiger and a Siberian Tiger side by side, without even going so far as to examine their respective anatomy, and think they are the same, or only differentiated in four thousand years, is not even wrong. Boggles the mind. I would think this is where even most dedicated YECs would draw the line, and at least assign Australian marsupials their own 'kind'.

(I assume your question was rhetorical, Vene, but it seemed like an interesting quick exercise.)

I wrote an essay called "post flood marsupial migration explained" by Robert Byers. just goggle.

 

[RobertByers]

Robert Byers-

1. Please explain how it is possible that a population of animals, reduced to 2 individuals, will be able to survive.

Bottlenecking leads to inbreeding, and with two individuals, it goes to an extreme. After very few generations, negative mutations build up. Soon, the species submit to genetic diseases and simply are not likely to survive.

If you are able to fully answer this question, based on EVIDENCE and FACTS, NOT ASSERTIONS, and are able to REFUTE ALL contradicting evidence, then we can go on to question 2.

2. Please explain to me how a few "kinds" of animals can speciate into several millions of species within 4,000 years. Again, facts and evidence, no assertions, refute contradicting evidence.

2a. Please define "kind". THis has been asked multiple times. Please comply.

God told the creatures to fill the earth after the flood. So your mutation problem is not important to creationism. We are not bound by these ideas. Just as I say a marsupial mouse was first a regular mouse and changed with friends upon entering a new land.
There is no evidence to say the past is like the present in these matters. There is no evidence that this could even be a problem.

Speciation this creationist sees as instant changes in creatures in order to fill the earth. The amazon is a example of the way the world was after the flood in fauna/flora. Every tree has a different kind of a general kind. This is from a healthy rich world and literally the kids start a new species with no problem. this world is now gone but we see its remnants in the amazon.
The diversity of the amazon is not a aberration but a revealation of the original rich life on earth.

 

[RobertByers]

I'm afraid that it is not correct to claim it was only presumed to have happened because of no other ideas. Actually there were any amount of other ideas. This one was arrived at as the correct one because we were able to observe the evidence left behind by the event. In much the same way we do in forensic science.

In forensic science, although we do not witness the crime, we are able to discern the facts by examining the clues. From that we determine the possible explanations for the clues we have observed. Then we set about trying to disprove each possible explanation. Eventually only one explanation remains which explains all the clues and which we can not falsify.

We arrived at evolution the same way.



Sorry to trouble you further, but would you be so kind as to explain in what way the Amazon evidences your rapid speciation hypothesis please?

Ghost

The Amazon is the way it was on earth after the flood after a few decades. Great diversity on a single acre. The amazon now is a remnant of that.
The amazon today is static but whefauna/flora first moved into virgin land life took off and filled every possible chance to survive. Species are just cousins or brothers and sisters who did so well they didn't need to mingle anymore. Included in this is a innate trigger that allowed all life to thrive.

 

[USincognito]

I wrote an essay called "post flood marsupial migration explained" by Robert Byers. just goggle.

Most everyone here has graduated and doesn't appreciate being given reading assignments. A more polite way of doing this would be "I wrote an essay called 'post flood marsupial migration explained'. If you'd like to read it, a copy is {link}here{/link}.

Just as I say a marsupial mouse was first a regular mouse and changed with friends upon entering a new land.
There is no evidence to say the past is like the present in these matters. There is no evidence that this could even be a problem.

Oh my. I just want to be clear on this. You're claiming that after the flood (4,000 years ago) a popluation of placental mice moved into a new territory and they evolved into marsupial mice within a short time? And then you have the audacity to say "there is no evidence that this could even be a problem"?

The mind boggles.

 

[MarcusHill]

Every tree has a different kind of a general kind.

A "different" kind of a "general" kind? There are layers of kinds? That's a new one on me. Before we get on to that, here's a request I've made here on occasion, never to any success.

Define what you mean by "kind".

I want to be clear about what I mean by "define". You need to provide a definition that is clear and unambiguous. That is, if you took a group of intelligent people, each armed with your definition, and gave them any collection of extant animals* then each of the intelligent people would unambiguously place each of the animals into the same "kind" as every other intelligent person. You could either give a list of "kinds" or simply a set of criteria whereby, given any two species A and B, the intelligent person could determine whether A and B are the same "kind".

You'll notice that definition by exemplification just won't do here - unless you list every animal species and assign it to a kind, that is. Nor will any appeal to "common sense", since that will differ from individual to individual.

*For bonus points, you could include extinct animals and non-animal organisms. For further extra credit, you could extend the exercise to defining your "general kind". Alternatively, if you want an easier job, you could restrict yourself to a subset of the animalia, say mammals or birds (that's assuming that there are no "kinds" that overlap out of these categories).

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The Amazon is the way it was on earth after the flood after a few decades. Great diversity on a single acre. The amazon now is a remnant of that.
The amazon today is static but whefauna/flora first moved into virgin land life took off and filled every possible chance to survive. Species are just cousins or brothers and sisters who did so well they didn't need to mingle anymore. Included in this is a innate trigger that allowed all life to thrive.

Rob, even by your standards this is quite an amazing statement.

So in only a few decades the following animals all migrated to the Amazon for the Middle East.


So Rob you have some explaining to do to get the flora and fauna to the Amazon for the Middle East in a coupe of decades, how fast do earthworms walk?

Rob your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker, I suppose the most amazing thing about them is that you believe them.




APPLE SNAIL

The apple snail (in the mollusc family Ampullariidae) is among the Amazon's largest land snails, hence its name, being about the size of an apple. It is aquatic, living in freshwater in shallow slow-moving rivers and ponds, but can survive a short time out of water. It feeds on soft vegetation, but will feed on almost anything including detritus. Predators include fishes, birds, caiman and turtles among other creatures




Silver-gray millipede in eating leaf Amazon rainforest
Location: Tambopata rainforest

ORB WEAVER SPIDER



http://junglephotos.net/amazon/amanimals/aminvertebrates/aminvertebrates4.shtml

The golden orb weaver (Nephila sp., possibly N. clavipes) belongs to a widespread group of similar-looking spiders. These species build large webs comprised of golden strands—hence the common name. The webs can catch large insects and even small vertebrates such as hummingbirds and frogs. The large body size (an inch or so long) is characteristic of the females only. The males are much smaller, as you can see in the photograph (upper right). The male courts a female with great caution. He plucks the strands at a specific tempo and must get it exactly right to avoid triggering the female's predatory instinct. If the male gets it wrong, he is promptly eaten by the female.



Terrestrial Flatworm, Amazon Basin, Peru 2004

Phylum Annelida, Order Haplotaxida, Suborder Lumbricina, Family Megascolecidae?: giant Amazon earthworm

Giant Amazon earthworms reach lengths of 50 cm (~20") or more, and are found in upland (never flooded) habitats. These worms are rarely observed except when driven from their tunnels by heavy rain or perhaps by maurading ants.
@ Project Amazonas, Inc., photo by Devon Graham

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The Amazon is the way it was on earth after the flood after a few decades. Great diversity on a single acre. The amazon now is a remnant of that.
The amazon today is static but whefauna/flora first moved into virgin land life took off and filled every possible chance to survive. Species are just cousins or brothers and sisters who did so well they didn't need to mingle anymore. Included in this is a innate trigger that allowed all life to thrive.

Did these marsupials swim from Australia to the Amazon (South America)?


The Opossum Family

More than 60 different kinds of oppossums live in South America and 1 in North America, the Virginia opossum didelphis virginiana. The name opossum is sometimes shortened to possum, which actually is the name for an Australian group of marsupials. These are distinct from opossums which are only found in North and South America. The Virginia opossum is probably best know for its last resort to escaping predators, "playing possum". As a last resort it can fake death to lose interest of its predator. The Virginia opossum is the only marsupial living in the wild in the US. They come in different shapes and sizes. They are marsupials meaning that they have a pouch in which they can carry their young. They all belong to the family didelphidae. (more)

The grey short-tailed opossum is a small nocturnal marsupial found in South America. (Image: Paul Samollow, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio)

Shrew Opossum genus Caenolestes (Photo courtesy of : nysm.nysed.gov)
The yapok, or water opossum (Chironectes minimus), is the only true amphibious marsupial, living half its life in water and half on land. The female gives birth to 5 to 6 young. By tightening her muscles she makes her pouch waertight and take her babies swimming with her as she hunts for food in freshwater lakes and streams. The yapok has webbed back feet that paddle wih a running motion. Because its eyes are shut tight while it is under water, the yapok feels for soft animals at the bottom of freshwater lakes and streams with its sensitive fingers.
The 7 species of shrew opossum live in the cool, misty forests of Andes Mountains in South America. They are the size of mice or rats. two long incisors (cutting teeth) stick froward from their bottom jaw and are used to stab the large insects and small animals upon which they prey.

Thylacosmilus, a saber-tooth marsupial
that lived in South America during the Pliocene epoch, 1.6 to 5.3 million years ago
Thylacosmilus ("pouch sabre") was a genus of sabre-toothed marsupial predators that first appeared during the Miocene. Remains of the animal have been found in parts of South America, primarily Argentina. It was not a relative of the true saber-tooth cat, but rather a prime example of convergent evolution.
Thylacosmilus had long, sabre-like upper canines and short, blunt, peg-like lower canines. The incisors were missing altogether and the other teeth were severely reduced, but, as distinct from machairods, their number was complete. [1]
Thylacosmilus' sabre-teeth kept growing throughout its life, unlike the sabres of true saber-tooths. It also had a pair of elongated, scabbard-like flanges growing from the lower jaw, which protected the sabre-teeth when it closed its mouth. The cervical vertebrae were very strong and to some extent resembled the vertebrae of machairods. [2]
It became extinct during the early Pleistocene as a result of the Great American Interchange, being outcompeted by true sabre-tooth cats such as Smilodon.


Rob; the evidence will always show creationism to be nothing more than the crazy dreams of the indoctrinated fundamentalist.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

The Amazon is the way it was on earth after the flood after a few decades. Great diversity on a single acre. The amazon now is a remnant of that.
The amazon today is static but whefauna/flora first moved into virgin land life took off and filled every possible chance to survive. Species are just cousins or brothers and sisters who did so well they didn't need to mingle anymore. Included in this is a innate trigger that allowed all life to thrive.

Thank you for clarrifying your point, but what II was actually asking for was the evidence upon which you base teh assumption, I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough.

Ghost