Taking questions on the Creation.

[jpcedotal]

Organisms stay true to type. Farmers and breeders have known this for centuries. Sure, certain characteristics can be tweaked, but corn will always be corn and a cow will always be a cow, a monkey will always be a monkey, a man will always be a man...even when you change the size or color.

Show me "observable fact" that this is not true.....

Change from centuries of breeding have been proven to reach a certain limit and when the intense breeding is shut down the living animal or plant reverts back to the state is was before the selective pressure was introduced. There is a natural barrier that no amount of breeding is able to cross. We can not breed feathers on a mouse or scales on a bird. Also, if intense breeding is forced too far, the organism will become sterile or will die from the change (a mule is a good example of this).

 

[jpcedotal]

double post

 

[jpcedotal]

Sorry for the double post...internet glitched I guess...

 

[Thistlethorn]

Organisms stay true to type. Farmers and breeders have known this for centuries. Sure, certain characteristics can be tweaked, but corn will always be corn and a cow will always be a cow, a monkey will always be a monkey, a man will always be a man...even when you change the size or color.

Show me "observable fact" that this is not true.....

This is all true, but not for the reason you think. A human being is a human being, but also an ape, and as apes are a subset of monkeys, we are also a monkey. As monkeys are vertebrates, we are that too, and so on.

Change from centuries of breeding have been proven to reach a certain limit and when the intense breeding is shut down the living animal or plant reverts back to the state is was before the selective pressure was introduced. There is a natural barrier that no amount of breeding is able to cross. We can not breed feathers on a mouse or scales on a bird. Also, if intense breeding is forced too far, the organism will become sterile or will die from the change (a mule is a good example of this).

This isn't exactly true, though. Birds already have scales, so there's not need for us to give it to them. Mice didn't evolve from birds, so there's no reason according to the theory of evolution for them to have feathers, so if you managed to induce feathers on a mouse through turning on a gene, it would actually contradict the model for evolution we have now.

I think what you're driving at with all this, and with your mention of a "natural barrier", is that there are no examples of speciation. This is absolutely false. Read this for many examples, and also what speciation actually entails.

Finally, I would be most interested in hearing what exactly this "natural barrier" is. Can you provide empirical evidence for it's existence? Where did you get the idea? How does it work, exactly?

 

[CoderHead]

Organisms stay true to type. Farmers and breeders have known this for centuries. Sure, certain characteristics can be tweaked, but corn will always be corn and a cow will always be a cow, a monkey will always be a monkey, a man will always be a man...even when you change the size or color.

And grapes will always have seeds, right? I really wish I were a scientist or that I had more information to impart on this discussion, but I don't. I can only state my observations and try to make sense of what you guys are proposing.

You'll have to forgive me, as this is the first time in my life I've ever heard this line of reasoning on the Creation. AV seems to have extremely different views on things than what I was taught growing up in the church. And, to be honest, it's even more confusing and surreal than the simplistic reading of Genesis in the Children's Illustrated Bible.

 

[jpcedotal]

The natural tendency of organisms is not to change but to stay close to type.

 

[jpcedotal]

And grapes will always have seeds, right? I really wish I were a scientist or that I had more information to impart on this discussion, but I don't. I can only state my observations and try to make sense of what you guys are proposing.

You'll have to forgive me, as this is the first time in my life I've ever heard this line of reasoning on the Creation. AV seems to have extremely different views on things than what I was taught growing up in the church. And, to be honest, it's even more confusing and surreal than the simplistic reading of Genesis in the Children's Illustrated Bible.

Seedless grapes prove the point. Can a seedless grape be planted and other seedless grapes come from it? No, a natural grape must be tweaked every time to form the seedless grape. The seed less grape is sterile therefore is the END of the "evolutionary" line.

 

[Thistlethorn]

The natural tendency of organisms is not to change but to stay close to type.

No, it's not. Organisms cannot chose not to evolve. That's beyond their capacity. What do you base this erroneous assertion on?

 

[jpcedotal]

This is all true, but not for the reason you think. A human being is a human being, but also an ape, and as apes are a subset of monkeys, we are also a monkey. As monkeys are vertebrates, we are that too, and so on.



This isn't exactly true, though. Birds already have scales, so there's not need for us to give it to them. Mice didn't evolve from birds, so there's no reason according to the theory of evolution for them to have feathers, so if you managed to induce feathers on a mouse through turning on a gene, it would actually contradict the model for evolution we have now.

I think what you're driving at with all this, and with your mention of a "natural barrier", is that there are no examples of speciation. This is absolutely false. Read this for many examples, and also what speciation actually entails.

Finally, I would be most interested in hearing what exactly this "natural barrier" is. Can you provide empirical evidence for it's existence? Where did you get the idea? How does it work, exactly?

Thank you for the link. I will read and study it to see if it proves or disproves the arguement.

The "natural barrier" is changing one fertile organism type to another fertile organism type that can reproduce naturally (without any intelligent help - that would be cheating and would side with an intelligent being) the second organism type.

 

[jpcedotal]

No, it's not. Organisms cannot chose not to evolve. That's beyond their capacity. What do you base this erroneous assertion on?

Science....ask a breeder or farmer if this is true. Show me proof that it is not.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Thank you for the link. I will read and study it to see if it proves or disproves the arguement.

It disproves your argument. We have seen speciation happening. It doesn't get much more devastating to creationism than that.

The "natural barrier" is changing one fertile organism type to another fertile organism type that can reproduce naturally (without any intelligent help - that would be cheating and would side with an intelligent being) the second organism type.

How do you know this barrier exists? Have you got any evidence for it at all? How did you learn about it? Exactly how does it work? I mean, how does it discern when an organism has strayed (evolved) too far from its original form?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Science....ask a breeder or farmer if this is true. Show me proof that it is not.

No, you have to provide evidence for your assertion. You are trying to move the burden of evidence, much like dad is always doing. YOU made an assertion about how evolution works. YOU provide evidence for it.

 

[CoderHead]

The "natural barrier" is changing one fertile organism type to another fertile organism type that can reproduce naturally (without any intelligent help - that would be cheating and would side with an intelligent being) the second organism type.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that evolution is nothing more than interbreeding two species (like a horse and a donkey). It's not.

 

[jpcedotal]

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that evolution is nothing more than interbreeding two species (like a horse and a donkey). It's not.

No, the premise of evolution has to do more with mutations within an organism.

 

[jpcedotal]

It disproves your argument. We have seen speciation happening. It doesn't get much more devastating to creationism than that.

Not sure what I was supposed to see. Looked more like a belief system than an actual scientific theory. If all one is going to do is present facts that support his/her theory and disregard facts that disprove the same theory without a legitimate explanation, then the person should start a church not a lab.



How do you know this barrier exists? Have you got any evidence for it at all? How did you learn about it? Exactly how does it work? I mean, how does it discern when an organism has strayed (evolved) too far from its original form?

A dog is always a dog and will stay true to type.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Not sure what I was supposed to see. Looked more like a belief system than an actual scientific theory. If all one is going to do is present facts that support his/her theory and disregard facts that disprove the same theory without a legitimate explanation, then the person should start a church not a lab.

If you can honestly look at that and claim it's a belief system, I cannot help you, <staff edit> If you feel that there is evidence that would make us unsee the speciation events we HAVE seen, please present it. I'd say you're trying to irrationally hand-wave evidence that destroys your position.

If you have questions about speciation, I would be delighted to answer them, <staff edit>

A dog is always a dog and will stay true to type.

I have already explained this. Please read my posts if you wish to discuss this with me. <staff edit>

 

[jpcedotal]

Mutations of the genetic code:

Most mutations are harmful even lethal to the organism...the result is devolution, not evolution. In order for Darwinism to work, scientists have to hope somewhere there is proof of a positive mutation.

Let's do the fruit fly. The 5 day period between larva and reproducing adult makes the this fly a good organism to tweak and should be easily pushed down the evolution path. So what did scientists find out?

They made flies with different color eyes, larva with bristles, ones without wings....but the species stayed the same. They could not change the type. Mutations altered details but did not create a new organism only minor changes. Also, these minor changes did not accumilate to form a major change.

It was still a fruit fly.

Mutations just don't do it for evolution.

Wanna do fossils?

 

[jpcedotal]

If you can honestly look at that and claim it's a belief system, I cannot help you, <staff edit> If you feel that there is evidence that would make us unsee the speciation events we HAVE seen, please present it. I'd say you're trying to irrationally hand-wave evidence that destroys your position.

If you have questions about speciation, I would be delighted to answer them, <staff edit>



I have already explained this. Please read my posts if you wish to discuss this with me. If you don't, we can safely dismiss you as just another lying creationist.<staff edit>

So your argument is that I am just a liar?

Nice

 

[Thistlethorn]

Mutations of the genetic code:

Most mutations are harmful even lethal to the organism...

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral to the organism. Further reading...

the result is devolution, not evolution.

Wrong. The result of your assertion would be mass extinction. Thankfully, your assertion is wrong.

In order for Darwinism to work, scientists have to hope somewhere there is proof of a positive mutation.

First of all, it's called the Theory of Evolution, not Darwinism. Darwinism is a social model, not a biological one.

Here's a brief list of beneficial mutations:

* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Let's do the fruit fly. The 5 day period between larva and reproducing adult makes the this fly a good organism to tweak and should be easily pushed down the evolution path. So what did scientists find out?

They made flies with different color eyes, larva with bristles, ones without wings....but the species stayed the same. They could not change the type. Mutations altered details but did not create a new organism only minor changes. Also, these minor changes did not accumilate to form a major change.

The experiments you refer to were never intended to demonstrate speciation. They DO demonstrate evolution, though. Speciation has been observed. Refer to the list I provided you with.

It was still a fruit fly.

Had it turned into something else, everyone would have been really surprised, and that would have completely demolished the theory of evolution. That didn't happen though. As you say, it remained a fruit fly, thus affirming the theory of evolution.

Mutations just don't do it for evolution.

Wanna do fossils?

Go ahead. Your list of argument is from the list of PRATTs so inane and oft debunked that even most creationists have stopped using them. I would love to see you fumble around with fossils though, so feel free.

 

[Thistlethorn]

So your argument is that I am just a liar?

Nice

No, my argument is in my post. That you are dishonest is also apparent in your post. If you are willfully dishonest, you are a liar. That has yet to be determined.