Creation vs. Evolution

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 8, 2014

Barbie Girl;

LOL!!!!

Why don't you tell me a Little more about that O. lamarckiana fruit Fly.
Since you decided to Cite a Paper about a Plant instead, Why don't you cite the Actual Information about the O. Lamarckiana Fruit Fly, and Not the O. Lamarckiana Plant.

=M=

Oh, I found your Fruit Fly!!!! Here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenothera

From Plant Article;
In 1905, while studying the genetics of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered a variant with a chromosome number of 2n = 28 compared with 2n = 24 for O. lamarckiana. DeVries was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the variant Oenothera gigas.[16]

Barbie!!! How did you Confuse a Plant for a Fruit Fly?

========================================

All Nineteen of the Species of Salamanders around that Horse Shoe in Cali can Interbreed, just Two of the Species are Kept from Multiplying, because the Environment is Keeping them apart, which is the Definition of, "Incipient speciation", which just means;

See the First Part of this Article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipient_speciation

Which is what happened with those Salamanders, which you said Changed to A Different Kind of Animal. Even though they all Are Still Salamanders, given they can All Interbreed.

See Here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina

From this Salamander article;

The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of Incipient Speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5] Richard Highton argued Ensatina is a case of multiple species and not a continuum of one species (meaning, by traditional definitions it is not a ring species)[6]

They are All the Same Species. Given they can All interbreed.

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 8, 2014

Incipient Speciation is not Speciation at all;

in·cip·i·ent
inˈsipēənt/
adjective
adjective: incipient

in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop.
"he could feel incipient anger building up"
(of a person) developing into a specified type or role.
"we seemed more like friends than incipient lovers"
synonyms: developing, growing, emerging, emergent, dawning, just beginning, inceptive, initial, inchoate; More

See, Incipient means initial Stage, No Speciation has taken Place in Incipient Speciation.

Animals that Can Reproduce with Each other, Even if it takes Artificial Insemination, Are the Same Species.

That's Why Man is not an Ape, even with Artificial Insemination, it just doesn't happen, and Evolutionists have tried this in Labs, and Failed.

================================

And

We don't look Like Lucy, Whatsoever. Lucy looks like an Ape, though.

=M=

Barbie said:
That isn't speciation. Speciation is like those salamanders, according to your definition. Two organisms unable to sexually reproduce.

You've confused speciation and hybridization. Very occasionally, a hybrid will be able to breed with other hybrids, but not with either parent species. So sometimes, hybridization can amount to speciation, but that's not the usual route.

But they Can Reproduce, as you have Just Seen.

Now what are you Going to do, Girl?

MichaelCadry · Aug 8, 2014

NOTE TO MODERATORS:

To The BARBARIAN,

QUIT SCREWING WITH ALL OF MY THREADS, WRITING AND TWISTING ALL OF MY POSTS AND WORDS AROUND and what you are doing is VERY ILLEGAL)!!

The Barbarian said:
If you had stopped with what was written, it would have been better for you.

Some of your best friends are black, right?

Dear Barbarian, Yes, some of my best friends ARE black, Mexican, Vietnamese and Arabic, American Indian, Israeli (also Jewish). Love has no racial limits!!

The Barbarian said:
What you write is a window into your mind. You might remember that.

The only thing my window in my mind said was what was written in the Bible. (See Gen. 9:24, 25, 26). It plainly says that Canaan (Ham's son) shall be servants of Shem and Japheth. It's nothing I'm saying out of my own mouth.

The Barbarian said:
The Bible says nothing at all about the current mess, or the people living there.

That would be pretty stupid if one accepted Islam. Martyrdom is praised, but suicide is condemned in the Qu'aran without any mentioned exception. It also absolutely condemns killing of the innocent. Hence the terrorist claim "no one is innocent" as a way of avoiding the issue.

And...

If so, you probably have a few statements to correct.

No comment for now. Because it is meant to give secrets to those who aren't suppose to know yet. This has nothing to do with the color of your skin.

Michael

:idea:

MichaelCadry · Aug 8, 2014

Dear noguru and alwight,

Why haven't I heard from you two guys for so long? I do miss you! Did DavisBJ have something to do with it?? Just curious. Well, hope to hear from you soon.

Best Regards And Love,

Michael

6days · Aug 8, 2014

The Barbarian said:
But you're fighting a battle creationists have already surrendered:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

Sorry but thats false history taught by evolutionists.
It was a creationist, Edward Bythe, (before Darwin) who wrote about natural selection and how it fits the Biblical model. Blythe was published in The Magazine of Natural Historyand 20 years later Darwin wrote to Blythe to get info on the topic.

6days · Aug 8, 2014

The Barbarian said:
Humans and chimps have the same genes to a very close degree.

Ues... That is evidence of our common Designer. Of course we have similar DNA. If we are 50 % similar to a banana then we would have much closer DNA to apes. God created us as warm blooded primates,,, 2 eyes...2 arms... a heart etc. DNA is evidence of our Creator.

The Barbarian · Aug 9, 2014

AiG writes:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

Sorry but thats false history taught by evolutionists.

Actually, that was a statement from "Answers in Genesis" a creationist website. Even today, many creationists deny the fact of speciation. AiG is managed by creationists who realize that it is a fact.

It was a creationist, Edward Bythe, (before Darwin) who wrote about natural selection and how it fits the Biblical model. Blythe was published in The Magazine of Natural Historyand 20 years later Darwin wrote to Blythe to get info on the topic.

A common misconception. However:

In a 1959 paper, Loren Eiseley claimed that "the leading tenets of Darwin's work – the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection – are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835".[13][14] He also cited a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regarded as evidence of Darwin's debt to Blyth. However, the subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has "permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims".[15] Eiseley argued that Blyth's influence on Darwin "begins to be discernible in the Darwin Note-book of 1836 with the curious word 'inosculate'. It is a word which has never had a wide circulation, and which is not to be found in Darwin's vocabulary before this time." This was incorrect: an 1832 letter written by Darwin commented that William Sharp Macleay "never imagined such an inosculating creature". The letter preceded Blyth's publication, and indicates that both Darwin and Blyth had independently taken the term from Macleay whose Quinarian system of classification had been popular for a time after its first publication in 1819–1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth

However, Darwin had the highest regard for Blyth, who immediately saw that natural selection could indeed produce new species, after reading Wallace's work.

The Barbarian · Aug 9, 2014

Barbarian observes:
Humans and chimps have the same genes to a very close degree.

Ues... That is evidence of our common Designer.

Nope. For example, humans and chimps have the same gene for vitamin C, but it's damaged in exactly the same way in both. What kind of designer would make a damaged gene and insert it in a genome. Makes no sense at all. But if He used evolution to make us, then it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you're one of those design people who think it was a "space alien", not God.

DNA is evidence of our Creator.

In the sense St. Paul mentioned, a God powerful and wise enough to create a universe in which such wonders can evolve from a few simple rules.

Much greater and more effective than mere "design." Humans design because we cannot create. God has no need for it.

Stuu · Aug 9, 2014

6days said:
That is evidence of our common Designer. Of course we have similar DNA.

So would you say then that with a common designer, we should predict that in biology the same function would be mostly achieved in the same way?

Stuart

MichaelCadry · Aug 9, 2014

MichaelCadry said:
Dear Barbarian,

Ham's descendants have always been to serve his brothers and their brother's descendants. (See Genesis 9:22, 25). Ham found his father Noah in bed naked and so he asked his two brothers if they would bring covers to cover his father's naked body with a garment. Well Noah woke up and cursed Ham and sad that Ham and his descendants will be a servant to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. And so it has been that the Africans have been slaves since then. What a bummer over some simple stuff. But don't mess with Noah or God.

God Be With You,

Michael

Dear All,

I am very sorry that I used the wrong words here. I did not mean that the "Africans" were the ONLY descendants of Ham. I should have clarified that. I didn't mean that. I've had many black close friends in the past, women and men, and I consider them equal to me. The only difference is my opportunity to get a great education which they have not had the similar opportunity to get, back when we were younger. That's all it is. It just depends upon what you're taught as you grow up. Black and white do not measure your intellect, or spirituality, or status. I hope we all know this. Wow, am I sorry. Please forgive me!! I've known better than this all of my life. I just left out a couple words.

God's Blessings Upon The Sons Of Ham, Which God Has Already Done, Years Ago.

Michael

:readthis:

MichaelCadry · Aug 9, 2014

Dear Mark S.,

See how The Barbarian has twisted my quotes around. See Post Nos. 4816 (he added words that are in purple colored print), 4832, and 4844. He's putting everything in different boxes. I'm being messed with and I don't like it one bit.

Michael

alwight · Aug 9, 2014

MichaelCadry said:
Dear Mark S.,

See how Barbarian has twisted my quotes around. See Post Nos. 4816, 4832, and 4844. He's putting everything in different boxes. I'm being messed with and I don't like it one bit.

Michael

If you think you are being messed with Michael then perhaps you should point it out in a post to Barbarian, not appeal to Mark simply because he perhaps says things you prefer to hear rather than what is empirically true. Barbarian's quotes tend not to have your username attached, is that what you mean? It's just his way.

Mark clearly isn't in the slightest bit interested in understanding scientific conclusions and probably sadly neither are you.
The only hope I have for Mark is that his efforts here are simply provocative, that this is only entertainment for him and that his mind is really not quite as closed off as it appears to be. He may even be secretly learning something from Barbarian here, not that he would ever admit that of course.

Do I see any hope that you might one day take an interest in scientific reality rather than suppose yourself to be a special person who is visited by God's angels and prefers to believe that Revelation is more real than reality?
No. :nono:

MichaelCadry · Aug 9, 2014

WOW!

WOW!

alwight said:
If you think you are being messed with Michael then perhaps you should point it out in a post to Barbarian, not appeal to Mark simply because he perhaps says things you prefer to hear rather than what is empirically true. Barbarian's quotes tend not to have your username attached, is that what you mean? It's just his way.

It's alright, alwight. I've got more going on than you know.

alwight said:
Mark clearly isn't in the slightest bit interested in understanding scientific conclusions and probably sadly neither are you.
The only hope I have for Mark is that his efforts here are simply provocative, that this is only entertainment for him and that his mind is really not quite as closed off as it appears to be. He may even be secretly learning something from Barbarian here, not that he would ever admit that of course.

This is not something I would ever expect that Mark S. would lower himself to do.

alwight said:
Do I see any hope that you might one day take an interest in scientific reality rather than suppose yourself to be a special person who is visited by God's angels and prefers to believe that Revelation is more real than reality?
No. :nono:

Wow, Alwight, you sure have changed. It's alright. I've already got copies of all that The Barbarian has done.

You have a nice day too.

MichaelC

:readthis:

:idea:

alwight · Aug 9, 2014

MichaelCadry said:
It's alright, alwight. I've got more going on than you know.

Don't tell me then.:AMR:

MichaelCadry said:
This is not something I would ever expect that Mark S. would lower himself to do.

Why? Because creationists are always honest?

MichaelCadry said:
Wow, Alwight, you sure have changed. It's alright. I've already got copies of all that The Barbarian has done.

You have a nice day too.

MichaelC

:readthis:

:idea:

I suggest that you don't credulously believe what some here say about Barbarian, some right wing protestant conservatives seem to have their axes to grind.
I haven't changed Michael, I've always thought you are rather bonkers, but in your case I think you mean well unlike some others perhaps.

lain:

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 9, 2014

Barbie!!!!!

Do you think a Panda, could mate with an Asian Black Bear?

When you consider that the Asian Black Bear, was able to Reproduce with the Spectacled Bear?

I mean, How odd that these Animals Can interbreed, Given you think that they Speciated; Given the Spectacled Bear has 52 Chromosomes, but Most bears have 74, Yet, the Spectacled Bear can Hybridize with the Asian Black Bear.

Given your Personal Definition of Speciation, involves the Animals Being Split up till the Point where the Genome Changes, that they then Should be a Different Species, and thereby not be able to interbreed; So again, According to your Theory, this Bear should have Speciated. What do you make of the Spectacled Bear Being able to Interbreed, with the Asian Black Bear?

Oh, I'm starting to Get that Really Good Feeling, Again!!!!
Must Be the Evols are Close By.

Hello Ladies!!!! ; D

=M=

Dr Cox

Or would you like to Cite more Information about that, "Fruit Fly", that you Think Speciated.

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Barbie said:
The first one observed directly was in the early 1900s. O. gigas from O. lamarckania from a polyploidy event.

Soon after de Vries reported various mutants derived from O. lamarckiana, a number of investigators studied their chromosomal numbers and chromosomal segregation at meiosis (Cleland 1972). They found many aneuploids and trisomics, but there was one elementary species (O. gigas), which was bigger and more vigorous than O. lamarckiana. This was later shown to be a tetraploid (Lutz 1907; Gates 1908; Davis 1943). Furthermore, cytogenetic studies of flowering plants (angiosperms) in the mid 20th century showed that 20–40% of the species had experienced polyploidization in their origin (Stebbins 1950; Grant 1981). At this stage, it was clear that the chromosomal mutation called polyploidization is an important mechanism of creating new species in angiosperms.
Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era
Masatoshi Nei and Masafumi Nozawa

Oxford Journals
Science & Mathematics
Genome Biology and Evolution
Volume 3
Pp. 812-829

Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
Genetics. Jul 1935; 20(4): 377–391.

Quote Barbie, Again:
Say, when a Single Species of Animals Are Split, and Over Time they Actually Speciate, and become Unable to Interbreed.

Yep. That usually takes some time, as in the flies Dobzhansky observed to speciate, but O. gigas is completely unable to interbreed with O. lamarckania, from which they evolved. So, according to your definition, a speciation event. Maybe you need to work on that definition some more. Remember when I told you that defining "species" was a difficult problem for creationism? Perhaps you understand why now.

Yep, the Self Fertilizing Plant Fly. LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!! And LOL Again!!!!!!!!!

You're not a Real Bacteriologist, Are you Barbie? Come on, tell the Truth Catholic!!!

How did you Mistake de Vries For Dobzhansky?

Anyway, is this the Fruit Fly, you were talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortalotrypeta_gigas

Here is your Plant Fly, LOL;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenothera

======================================

Also, what do you make of the Fact, that All 19 types of those Salamanders, were able to Interbreed, and Speciation had not taken Place; even though you Were Certain it Did?

From the Article;

All Nineteen of the Species of Salamanders around that Horse Shoe in Cali can Interbreed, just Two of the Species are Kept from Multiplying, because the Environment is Keeping them apart, which is the Definition of, "Incipient speciation", which just means;

See the First Part of this Article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipient_speciation

Which is what happened with those Salamanders, which you said Changed to A Different Kind of Animal. Even though they all Are Still Salamanders, given they can All Interbreed.

See Here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina

From this Salamander article;

The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of Incipient Speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5] Richard Highton argued Ensatina is a case of multiple species and not a continuum of one species (meaning, by traditional definitions it is not a ring species)[6]

The Reason that the Two types of Salamanders which are capable of interbreeding Don't, is Because they are Kept apart by their Environment, so According to Evolution, this "MUST BE" the start of Speciation, which is why they Called it Incipient Speciation.

However, No Speciation has actually taken Place, given the Salamanders which are Kept apart, and therefore cannot interbreed because of the Distance between them, could still interbreed the Natural Way, in a Zoo, or Terrarium, if they were Placed together, Just like Lions and Tigers, but Different, because these Salamanders are So Close Genetically that their Offspring Doesn't Hybridize, they are Fully a new Species of Salamander, just like when New types of Dogs are Produced.

They are All the Same Species. Given they can All interbreed.

Incipient Speciation only means that A Single Species was Split Up, not that It has Speciated, Given the Word "Incipient" Just Means, "the Beginnings of", but When Considering Incipient Speciation, they have not begun To speciate in the Slightest Given Science's Definition of Species.

========================================

As proven By the Bears Above, the Spectacled bear, is able to Reproduce with Normal Bears, even though it has A different Number of Chromosomes, it is Still a Bear.

Speciation Has Never Been Observed In Nature.

The Theory of Evolution is A False Belief System, and the Fossil Record Discredits Evolution Fully.

=M=

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 9, 2014

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
Humans and chimps have the same genes to a very close degree.

Nope. For example, humans and chimps have the same gene for vitamin C, but it's damaged in exactly the same way in both. What kind of designer would make a damaged gene and insert it in a genome. Makes no sense at all. But if He used evolution to make us, then it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you're one of those design people who think it was a "space alien", not God.

In the sense St. Paul mentioned, a God powerful and wise enough to create a universe in which such wonders can evolve from a few simple rules.

Much greater and more effective than mere "design." Humans design because we cannot create. God has no need for it.

LOL!!!!!!!

It is Proof of a Common Designer, for instance, Evolutionists believe that Chickens Speciated From Dinosaurs, but Chickens share a 90% likeness to Human Beings, but they are not sure, it may be More.

There are Many other animals that are still to be Tested, but there is a chance we will eventually find one that Matches Human DNA better than Ape, given most of the Research has been Spent in Human, and Very Little in chimp.

Also, to be able to Compare these, You would have to already mapped the Entire Human Genome, and Ape Genome, I don't think we Have Even Finished the Human one Yet, and Research has Been going on for like 20 Years.

How much of the Ape's Genome has Been Mapped?

=M=

Oh, just look at the Chromosome Comparison!!!!

The More We Study Chickens, the More we find Our Genome Matches them; the More We Study Chimps, the Less our Genome Seems to Match Chimps.

We apparently now know that the Likeness between Chimps is Less than 98%

See Here;

As mentioned above, gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

Do these look the Same to you?

They are starting to notice More and more Differences in the DNA of the Chimps, either they didn't notice their chromosomes are Completely Different, or they are Lying about the Percentage of Difference somehow. It's up to Us to Find out How!!!! Not that It will really change anything in the World anyway, but we can figure out all the Problems in the World, right Now, Right Here. LOL

Now I'm going to Go Find what the Non-Wiki Sources say about the Likeness.

========================================

Now, Here;

Most of their findings do not fit well with the often-repeated erroneous statement that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, nor with the more general hypothesis that they share a common ancestor.2 One sequence class within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. And one whole class on the human Y chromosome “has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome].”1

http://www.icr.org/article/5164/

And don't Forget, Apes have Two Extra Chromosomes than Humans, Barbie. So When Considering the Whole Genome, we are Not Like Apes.

The Barbarian · Aug 9, 2014

Barbie!!!!!

Do you think a Panda, could mate with an Asian Black Bear?

Could mate, but you wouldn't get viable offspring. The chances of

When you consider that the Asian Black Bear, was able to Reproduce with the Spectacled Bear?

Offspring were unable to reproduce. So failure. Chromosome number was different. Often, such hydrids are never born, or die young.

I mean, How odd that these Animals Can interbreed, Given you think that they Speciated; Given the Spectacled Bear has 52 Chromosomes, but Most bears have 74, Yet, the Spectacled Bear can Hybridize with the Asian Black Bear.

Donkeys and horse can do that, too, even though they have different chromosome numbers. But of course, mules are almost always sterile, and therefore no viable crosses.

Given your Personal Definition of Speciation, involves the Animals Being Split up till the Point where the Genome Changes, that they then Should be a Different Species, and thereby not be able to interbreed; So again, According to your Theory, this Bear should have Speciated.

You're confusing hybridization and speciation, again. Occasionally, a hybridization can produce a new species, but as you learned, they usually don't.

What do you make of the Spectacled Bear Being able to Interbreed, with the Asian Black Bear?

Pretty much like that horse and donkey thing although less interfertile. One zoo happened to find two that could interbreed, but they were unsuccessful in breeding any of the offspring:
http://www.cecalc.ula.ve/bioinformatica/oso/captivity_cont.htm

It is Proof of a Common Designer, for instance, Evolutionists believe that Chickens Speciated From Dinosaurs, but Chickens share a 90% likeness to Human Beings, but they are not sure, it may be More.

There are Many other animals that are still to be Tested, but there is a chance we will eventually find one that Matches Human DNA better than Ape, given most of the Research has been Spent in Human, and Very Little in chimp.

Also, to be able to Compare these, You would have to already mapped the Entire Human Genome, and Ape Genome, I don't think we Have Even Finished the Human one Yet,

It's been done for quite a while now. And the Chimp Genome project was just finished.

Do these look the Same to you?

Yep:

If humans and apes did indeed share a common ancestor, then it would make sense that two chromosomes fused in our ancestors. The rise of genome sequencing allowed them to test that hypothesis. They found that human chromosome two bears the hallmarks of an ancient chromosome fusion, with remnants of chromosome ends nestled at its core. In 2005, it became possible to test the hypothesis again, when a team of scientists sequenced the chimpanzee genome and could compare it to the human genome. The chimp genome team were able to match human chromosome two to two unfused chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/

Keep in mind, even with 95% or so similarity, that means thousands of individual base pair differences. It's not surprising that the Y chromosome would have the most differences. The Y chromosome is the most rapidly evolving part of primate genomes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

Do you see why it's such a problem for creationism? If species were created individually, these things wouldn't be in evidence. This is why the major creationist groups have retreated to an admission that speciation is a fact.

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 9, 2014

I understand Hybridization. The reason that Animals can Reproduce together, is because they are the Same Kind of Animal.

Considering that Evolutionists believe that Man and the Banana Tree, are not Nearly Related, why would they share a 60% Common Chromosome material?

=M=

Are All trees around the 60% Range? or, do you think that 60 Percent of the Genome "Stayed the Same", in the Time that it Took People to Evolve From the Banana Tree?

Why do you think that this Bear, who you believe has Speciated, can Reproduce with other Bears?

Like I said before, I consider the Tiger and the Lion both Cats. Lions and Tigers However, have the Same number of Chromosomes.

These Bears have Differing Numbers of Chromosomes, and have no Problem having Offspring together.

Man and Ape, are completely Incompatible, that Means, we are not related to Apes, nor are we the Same Type of animal As Apes.

Evolutionists, have classified Man under the Classification of Ape, why, even with Evol Science trying to Combine Ape and Man via Insemination Process, and being Unsuccessful. We Are not a great Ape, that is made Obvious by the Spectacled bear being able to Reproduce with the Asian black Bear.

Mark SeaSigh · Aug 9, 2014

Truly, If Evolution is true, there should be Some Modern animal, that would be An Example that Speciation has taken Place in the Past.

But; Come on Back, Now, Ya' Hear?

=M=

When the Levey Breaks;

[Ecc 12:5-8 KJV] 5 Also [when] they shall be afraid of [that which is] high, and fears [shall be] in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all [is] vanity.

The Barbarian · Aug 9, 2014

I understand Hybridization.

I don't think so. You keep confusing it with speciation.

Considering that Evolutionists believe that Man and the Banana Tree, are not Nearly Related, why would they share a 60% Common Chromosome material?

We share about 50% with bacteria. Most of life's chemistry is common to almost all organisms. But if you do a comparison of similarities by DNA, you get a very close match with Linneaus' tree, worked out hundreds of years ago. And we know DNA works because we can use the method on organisms of known descent.

Are All trees around the 60% Range? or, do you think that 60 Percent of the Genome "Stayed the Same", in the Time that it Took People to Evolve From the Banana Tree?

You've got a lot of misconceptions. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. Plants and animals diverged a very, very long time ago. I realize you're seeing a lot of things for the first time, but understand that no animals evolved from plants.

Why do you think that this Bear, who you believe has Speciated, can Reproduce with other Bears?

Like horses and donkeys. Sometimes they can get offspring, but those are almost never viable to the point of being able to reproduce.

These Bears have Differing Numbers of Chromosomes, and have no Problem having Offspring together.

As you learned, many species have difficulty cross-breeding. And even in those rare times when it works, the offspring are like mules, unable to reproduce.

Here's a summary:

Man and Ape, are completely Incompatible

So far, no one's actually tested, but since, as you learned, humans have a chromosome fusion that chimps don't, it's pretty unlikely.

that Means, we are not related to Apes, nor are we the Same Type of animal As Apes.

Here's what genetics says:

That's right. Humans are genetically more like chimps than either species is like other apes. Surprise.

Evolutionists, have classified Man under the Classification of Ape, why, even with Evol Science trying to Combine Ape and Man via Insemination Process, and being Unsuccessful. We Are not a great Ape, that is made Obvious by the Spectacled bear being able to Reproduce with the Asian black Bear.

Creation vs. Evolution

BANNED

BANNED

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

New member

BANNED

BANNED

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED