The evos keep saying that but they never explain how it results in a change a specie..
I did explain. Because the population is so spread out, the environment is different in different locations. Adapting to these different environments results in different breeds developing. These different breeds only mongrelize if they get together and interbreed. The longer they remain separate, the more different they become from one another, and the harder it is for them to breed with one another. Consider the horse and the donkey or the lion and the tiger.
How can the inability to mate be a mechanism for evolution?
There is no "inability to mate." There is a difficulty to interbreed with the other breed, which becomes more and more impossible, but both breeds can still breed within their own breed and with more closely related breeds.
The KIND that no longer can mate, become extinct.
So, is it horses or donkeys that are going extinct? Lions or tigers*?
*Tigers are on the endagered list, but for other issues, not for fertility.
The one that can keep producing salamnders. What did these salamanders eventujall evolve into?
They are evolving from two breeds of one species of salamander to two separate species of salamander.
Evolution is a species becoming a differet species.
That has never been a definition of evolution. It is one way of looking at one possible
effect of evolution.
That is nonsense. A group cannot evolve all at the same time. If evolution is true, an individual must change first.
Of course evolution does not happen all at once. It is an ongoing process. Two sub-populations start to divurge. At some point,
while they are still one species, we judge them different enough to give them new names. At this point, they are
different breeds of the same species. Later they start having trouble cross-breeding, but only trouble with certain other breeds. Still later, they can no longer cross-breed at all. Perhaps even later, the original mongrelized stock dies out or perhaps the breeds start having trouble cross-breeding with the original stock. Either way, after still more time, the breeds are completely separated and incompatable and have been for some time. A scientist studying the two populations who believes in Special Creation would swear that they are two different kinds and always have been. At every point during the process, however, two parents reproduced "after their own kind," that is, the offspring was the same species as the parents.
Genetically compatible parents ALWAYS produce "after its kind." That is how genetics work.
Good. We agree. That is what I just said
That is the usual evo mumbo jumbo. If the offspring is the same species as the paretns, there is no evolution and the hybrid, if it lives cannot continue the change. Not only that, the hybrid rabbit is still a rabbit.
So, is a mule a horse? Or maybe it's a donkey? The other parent plays no part? Or are you claiming that mules don't exist, that they are mass hallucinations, and evo mumbo jumbo"? Because mules are the type of hybrids that I am trying to account for here.
More mumbo jumbo. Mutations ae not a mechanism for evolution. They do not add characteristics. They only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten. The mutation did not add skin to the kid, it altered the skin the kid got.
You got research to back that claim up with? I'll gladly match your research with mine if you really want to stake a "Whose is bigger" contest on this point. Now that we've mapped the genomes for several species, we can easily track mutations and their effect on genes, and prove that mutations produce brand new, inheritable traits. It is even easier to show mutations are not the only mechanism for brand new traits. I even mentioned a few of them in this point, but you ignored them.
Whatever trait you want to take the kid with, it will still be the exact same species as its parents.
Agreed. I already said that twice. That is why speciation is population process, not an individual process.
The enviornment is not a mechanism for evolution. If the species cannot adapt, it becomes extinct. If it adapts, it is still the exact same species as its parents and will only produce kids that are "after its kind."
Even Kent Hovind and other professional Creationists have had to concede the existence and implications of Ring Species. Adapting to widely divurgent environments does lead to thriving herds, and genetic changes in those far-flung sub-populations. Hovind uses rabbits rather than salamanders, sea gulls, or warblers, but it all boils down to the same thing.
That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed wihout evidence.
Fair enough, but I need to know which part of statement 6 you are dismissing and why, so I know exactly what evidence you need.
Here is my whole problem with evolution: traits can only be given to the offspring if one or both parents have the gene for the trait. That is proven genetics and there are no exceptions.
Now if you can refute that fact, you will have a leg to stand on. If you are going to put your faith in mutations, then you need to provide the evidece that makes it possible.
OK, then. First let me say that for a mutation to affect inheritance, it must be heritable, and most mutations are not heritable. It is a point that many other adherents of evolution fail to make, making mutations seem more prevalent and powerful than they are. (Everything in this paragraph also applies to other means of altering the genome) If a mutation is going to be heritable, it has to occur in a seminal cell before it starts to produce gametes (sperm or eggs). Any where else, and the mutation dies with organism. The only exception is if the mutation occurs in the zygote (fertilized egg) before it divides too many times. Which is, by far, even less probable.
So for the most part, mutations are not heritable, but the the vast majority of the ones that are began as a mutation in one of the parent's seminal cells. So the offspring did inherit the mutation, even though the parent was unaffected by it, it was passed down.
One example is hemophilia in European royal families in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. It can all be traced back to Queen Victoria of England, but no further back. Royal and high noble bloodlines are well documented and there is no sign of hemophilia. A male with the gene has it. A female with one hemophiliac gene and one normal gene is a carrier. Half her sons will have it, half her daughters will be carriers. And there is no sign of hemophilia in any of Victoria's ancestors. So it was a mutation. And it was inherited, not only by Victoria, but by several daughters and at least two of her grandsons.
Look up "natural selection" on the internet. I'm sure you will find a definition somewhere.
