Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
You keep confusing Mutation with Speciation.

Speciation has Never been observed.http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=4002851

Speciation means two Animals of the Same Species, will Eventually Mutate to the Point Where they no Longer can Interbreed. Thereby By the Definition of Species, the Animal would have actually become a New Species.

Which is why so many Evols want to change the Definition of the Word Species.

=M=

I'm saying, if the Spectacled Bear has Mutated to the point where it has Lost More than 20 Chromosomes Due to Mutation, Why is it Still a Bear; And able to Fully Interbreed, with any other Bear that has 74 Chromosomes?

It's Still a bear Technically, since it can Interbreed with all the other bears that contain 74.

If you believe that these Bears have changed More than Ape to Man, Like you did say before; How do you explain the Fact that Evol Science says We Cannot?

Black Bear = 76
Asiatic Black Bear = 74
Brown Bear = 74
Polar Bear = 74
Spectacled (Andean) Bear = 52
Asian Black Bear = 74


Do you realize how long this bear must have been apart from other Bears? When you consider how long we Know Tigers and Lions have Been apart, but They still contain the Same Exact Number of Chromosomes, that they did when they Split originally, Right?

Also, like I said before, we have not Mapped he Ape Genome, and cannot have that Information yet, When you consider the Way our Chromosomes appear Different it Begs to Question; "How much are We ALIKE."

220px-Chimp_chromosomes.png


800px-Humanchimpchromosomes.png


If a Chicken is really 90% Like man, That doesn't quite work out with Evolution, unless you think that Man was once a Chicken.

No, that Makes no Sense.

It makes more sense that All these Creatures, have like Chromosomes, because they have the Came Designer.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You keep confusing Mutation with Speciation.
Click to expand...

No. Mutation is merely a change in the genes of an individual. Speciation is when a population changes so that it can no longer breed with others of the original population. Like those salamanders you learned about. Two of the populations have overlapping ranges, but they can't interbreed, even though each of them can interbreed with all the other populations.

Speciation means two Animals of the Same Species, will Eventually Mutate to the Point Where they no Longer can Interbreed.
Click to expand...

Nope. First, it doesn't apply only to animals. Second, speciation happens to populations, not individuals.

Which is why so many Evols want to change the Definition of the Word Species.
Click to expand...

There was never a firm definition of the term, because, as you learned, evolution means we have all sorts of intermediate cases (you learned about some of them) This is an overwhelming problem for creationism because such cases should not exist if species were created individually. This is why major creationist organizations have conceded that speciation is a fact.

I'm saying, if the Spectacled bear has Mutated to the point where it has Lost Near 20 Chromosomes, Why is it Still a Bear?
Click to expand...

You're confusing genome (which bears is still pretty close in most species) with chromosomes (which vary a lot). Remember chromosome are collections of genes, but in different species, the genes are often on different chromosomes. This matters, because in meiosis, the chromosomes are separated, taking the genes with them. Do you understand how that works?

If you believe that these Bears have changed More than Ape to Man, Like you did say before; How do you explain the Fact that Evol Science says We Cannot?
Click to expand...

See above. You've been misled about that.
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Barbie said:
No. Mutation is merely a change in the genes of an individual. Speciation is when a population changes so that it can no longer breed with others of the original population. Like those salamanders you learned about. Two of the populations have overlapping ranges, but they can't interbreed, even though each of them can interbreed with all the other populations.
.
Click to expand...

You must still be Missing the Last two Pages of Information, that confirms all 19 Species of those Salamanders can Interbreed. However, two are kept apart by the Environment. Which is what Evolutionists believes causes Speciation, although it has Never Been observed in Nature. This is why Wiki called it Incipient Speciation.

Ring any Bells, or Are you Just a troll that doesn't actually read what people Respond, Or are you fully incapable of Learning New Information. Like for instance when you Kept Insisting that Wolves and Dogs are A Separate Species, however that's what they Used to Think, now all the Textbooks are Being changed to include all Dogs in the Same Species that Wolves Exist in.

That's what this Information Says, Barbie Girl;

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

=M=

Can you at least Admit you are Wrong, about something completely Obvious?

The Science Has Changed, and yours is Out Dated. Old Girl

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

They used to have the Perfect definition for Species, before they tried to Include Trees, and other Things that don't belong in the same Class System.

Then they were unsure about the Definition.

You don't have a Clue what you are Talking about, There is no way you are an Actual Bacteriologist.
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Apart from Plants, obviously because Fruit trees can become Self Fertile, and they are all Considered the Same Kind of Fruit, and Species. They all taste the Same too, so I'm sure they Should be considered the Same.

=M=

Show me one species of Animal, that came for sure, from another Species of animal, which can no Longer Reproduce with it's Original Species.

Hybridizations don't apply, because they are So Mutated that they can no longer Reproduce, even with their own New Mutated kind, because their Organs are so Badly Mutated.

Evolutionists believe Mutation will lead to More Complex, and More Adapt Creatures, however Science shows us that Mutation only Ever Destroys.

What do you make of that Barb?
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Barbie Girl said:
Nope. First, it doesn't apply only to animals. Second, speciation happens to populations, not individuals.
Click to expand...

Barbie,

Why didn't it happen to that Spectacled Bear Population, when it Mutated so Far, that It doesn't even Contain the Same Number of Chromosomes as Other Bears, but it is Still a Bear, because it can Interbreed with all the Other Bears. LOL!

=M=

Are you a Statue?

Cause your Head seems to be Made of Rocks.

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

Oh Good, Now, both you Girls are Here;

Hi BJ!!!! Hello!!!!
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You must still be Missing the Last two Pages of Information, that confirms all 19 Species of those Salamanders can Interbreed.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

Only a few of the salamanders were willing to mate — even with another salamander of their own subspecies. Nevertheless, his preliminary results are intriguing. Klauberi females weren't picky at all; they mated with males of their own subspecies and eschscholtzii males. Eschscholtzii females, on the other hand, seemed to be choosier; they rejected klauberi males. To be sure, Tom needs to work on his matchmaking skills and convince more salamanders to mate in the lab. Nevertheless, his initial results suggest that eschscholtzii, at least, has evolved such that the females no longer recognize klauberi as potential mates.

These results are also supported by genetic data.

So in the lab, if they are put together, sometimes, they willl hybridize, but they rarely do so, even though they are in the same location. (and they are; occasionally they will hybridize in the wild, but for whatever reason, they don't survive to leave offspring) And because, like horses and donkeys, the hybrids never reproduce to make a new population, the few hybrids are a dead end. No survivors.

However, two are kept apart by the Environment.
Click to expand...

See above. They aren't separated by the environment, they are just so different that they can only rarely (mostly in lab conditions) mate. And they apparently don't have fertile offspring. By your definition, they are separate species. Unless you think horses and donkeys, which are a bit more compatible, but also don't leave fertile offspring, are a single species.

This is why Wiki called it Incipient Speciation.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's such a problem for creationists. They could simply deny that existing species ever evolved, but these incipient speciations should not exist if creationism were true. Hence your fellow creationists have retreated and openly admitted the fact of speciation.

Ring any Bells, or Are you Just a troll that doesn't actually read what people Respond, Or are you fully incapable of Learning New Information.
Click to expand...

I don't think getting angry and calling names is going to help you.

Like for instance when you Kept Insisting that Wolves and Dogs are A Separate Species
Click to expand...

I told you they were subspecies. Did you forget again? Would you like me to show you?

That's what this Information Says, Barbie Girl;
Click to expand...

Being Christian, I don't think it's shameful to be female, so your gender confusion is just funny, not insulting.

Can you at least Admit you are Wrong, about something completely Obvious?

They used to have the Perfect definition for Species, before they tried to Include Trees, and other Things that don't belong in the same Class System.
Click to expand...

Nope. Darwin himself pointed out that one could not draw a precise definition, because of all the intermediate cases. As you learned, this is why creationists abandoned that position, and have admitted the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

You don't have a Clue what you are Talking about
Click to expand...

Funny how people never know that, isn't it? You're embarrassed and upset, and calling names is just making it worse for you. Learn to put an argument together, learn about the subject, and you'll find things will go better for you. Worth a try.

There is no way you are an Actual Bacteriologist.
Click to expand...

Iowa State University thinks so.
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I'm a very patient guy. And Seasigh is learning more and more, even if he doesn't want to admit it.

And of course, the lurkers are watching. In spite of seasigh's regrettable gender confusion, there's some good stuff being aired out here.
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
The Barbarian said:
Well, let's take a look...

[COL"]Only a few of the salamanders were willing to mate — even with another salamander of their own subspecies. Nevertheless, his preliminary results are intriguing. Klauberi females weren't picky at all; they mated with males of their own subspecies and eschscholtzii males. Eschscholtzii females, on the other hand, seemed to be choosier; they rejected klauberi males. To be sure, Tom needs to work on his matchmaking skills and convince more salamanders to mate in the lab. Nevertheless, his initial results suggest that eschscholtzii, at least, has evolved such that the females no longer recognize klauberi as potential mates.

Never The Less, They can Mate, and are the Same Species.

These results are also supported by genetic data.[/COLOR]

So in the lab, if they are put together, sometimes, they willl hybridize, but they rarely do so, even though they are in the same location. (and they are; occasionally they will hybridize in the wild, but for whatever reason, they don't survive to leave offspring) And because, like horses and donkeys, the hybrids never reproduce to make a new population, the few hybrids are a dead end. No survivors.
See above. They aren't separated by the environment, they are just so different that they can only rarely (mostly in lab conditions) mate. And they apparently don't have fertile offspring. By your definition, they are separate species. Unless you think horses and donkeys, which are a bit more compatible, but also don't leave fertile offspring, are a single species.
Which is why it's such a problem for creationists. They could simply deny that existing species ever evolved, but these incipient speciations should not exist if creationism were true. Hence your fellow creationists have retreated and openly admitted the fact of speciation.
I don't think getting angry and calling names is going to help you. LOL!
I told you they were subspecies. Did you forget again? Would you like me to show you?

You said that they Speciated, I remember Clearly, and then you went onto Say, that the Two Bears with Differing Chromosome Numbers had fully Speciated, but then I proved that they Can still Interbreed, so you are Still Wrong. Snuz.

Being Christian, I don't think it's shameful to be female, so your gender confusion is just funny, not insulting.

Oh, I didn't actually Realize you really Are a Girl! LOL!

Can you at least Admit you are Wrong, about something completely Obvious?

I'm not Wrong, those Salamanders Can interbreed, all 19 of them. You Were Wrong about, Salamanders, Bears, Algae, and All the Other things that you won't admit your Error, LIKE THE WOLVES, which is One of Your most Obvious Errors.

Nope. Darwin himself pointed out that one could not draw a precise definition, because of all the intermediate cases. As you learned, this is why creationists abandoned that position, and have admitted the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

Please Show me One Example of an Animal, which has Speciated from it's Original Species, and thereby Cannot Interbreed With the Original Species.

Funny how people never know that, isn't it? You're embarrassed and upset, and calling names is just making it worse for you. Learn to put an argument together, learn about the subject, and you'll find things will go better for you. Worth a try.

Never Know what? You don't make any Sense.

Iowa State University thinks so.

Iowa!!!! LOL!!!!
Click to expand...

That's Right Barbie!!! The Salamanders Can Interbreed.

Now, are you ready to admit, that that is not True Speciation?


and instead is known as Intrinsic Speciation... I posted a Link to the Definition Earlier. Remember, Or don't you read a Word I Say? Cause that is the Only way you could have missed yourself being in Error about the Wolves.

=M=

Well My Fiance is A Medical Technologist, and She says if you Don't know about the Things We're discussing, which Should be Pretty Simple for a Bacteriologist, Than you Probably Are LYING.

LOL!!!

Tell me More about those Salamanders that can Interbreed, which you believe have Speciated Some More, Huh Barbie?

:banana:


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


Oh, Don't Run barbie, Not again!!!! It's Ok to be Wrong Barbie, Everybody doesn't Expect you To Know Everything, or Be Right about Everything. You don't have to Run And Cry...... : (
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
That's Right Barbie!!! The Salamanders Can Interbreed.
Click to expand...

In the lab, but they don't produce fertile offspring.

Now, are you ready to admit, that that is not True Speciation?
Click to expand...

By your definition it is. Failing to produce fertile offspring, they are no more one species than horses and donkeys.

and instead is known as Intrinsic Speciation.
Click to expand...

You are perhaps thinking of the "intrinsic speciation threshold" proposed by Brooks and Wiley, using information theory to define speciation as a point at which addition of information crosses a threshold of information entropy to produce two or more systems of stored information.

To understand this, you'd need to understand Shannon's equation for entropy in a system:

fd2e77d6cb3759d143138006dc1f0c0a.png


I don't see where this applies to the kind of reproductive isolation we see in this case. Can you show us?

My fiance is A Medical Technologist
Click to expand...

Oh, my.

and She says if you Don't know about the Things We're discussing, which Should be Pretty Simple for a Bacteriologist, Than you Probably Are LYING.
Click to expand...

Getting mad and accusing people of lying is never a good tactic. At best, it makes other people wonder why you don't just lay out the facts.
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
The Barbarian said:
In the lab, but they don't produce fertile offspring.
By your definition it is. Failing to produce fertile offspring, they are no more one species than horses and donkeys.

You are perhaps thinking of the "intrinsic speciation threshold" proposed by Brooks and Wiley, using information theory to define speciation as a point at which addition of information crosses a threshold of information entropy to produce two or more systems of stored information.

To understand this, you'd need to understand Shannon's equation for entropy in a system:

fd2e77d6cb3759d143138006dc1f0c0a.png


I don't see where this applies to the kind of reproductive isolation we see in this case. Can you show us?

Oh, my.
Getting mad and accusing people of lying is never a good tactic. At best, it makes other people wonder why you don't just lay out the facts.

Accusations are Different, than Pointing out when Someone is Actually Lying. LOL!
Click to expand...

So they Can Reproduce, which Proves they are Part of the Same Species, and No Speciation has Taken Place, Right?

=M=
 
Daniel1611

Daniel1611

New member
I used to believe in evolution. I thought the idea of evolution was extremely interesting. So I started reading a lot about evolution. That's when it fell apart. The more I looked for proof, the more I saw there was no proof. There are poor excuses for evidence, and tons of examples of lies and frauds, some still being taught as fact long after they were discovered to be frauds
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Wikipedia Answers it For Me.

The Problem is, is that it took Barbie Two Days to realize that the Information she was Presenting Is Flawed. With the Wolves, and bears, and Salamanders.

She Constantly Ignores my Responses, and If she is Uncertain about a Question I Ask, he Skips it, and Goes onto the Next bit of Information that She Thinks Proves Evolution from Ape to Man Is True.

=M=

At least, I go Out and Research her Information that she Displays. Like that one time She was trying to post about how a Certain Fruit Fly was supposed to have Speciated, but then she Cited information about Plants, instead of the Information of the Fruit Fly, Which was Either a very Misleading Mistake, or a Downright Lie.

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

Music!!!

Neil Young - Heart of Gold Live BBC Special 1971
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So they Can Reproduce, which Proves they are Part of the Same Species, and No Speciation has Taken Place, Right?
Click to expand...

If you're now arguing that horses and donkeys are the same species. As you learned, the ability to produce sterile hybrids does not qualify them to be a single species.

By your own definition, they are more than one species. It's problems like this that led creationists to admit speciation is a fact:

It seems obvious to everyone today that species change. In fact, the variety within each created kind is sometimes mind-boggling. But changing species wasn’t so obvious 150 years ago. In fact, the prevailing view was called “fixity of species”—the belief that each species was created in the same form we find today. Where did this belief come from?

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences.

But what did Darwin really find? What does the Bible actually say?
The Bible Was Not the Problem

To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years).2
"Answers in Genesis", a YE creationist website
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.

Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Even your fellow creationists won't support you on this. Admit it and go on.
 
M

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
The Barbie Girl said:
So they Can Reproduce, which Proves they are Part of the Same Species, and No Speciation has Taken Place, Right?
Click to expand...

Then She Pretends to Leave, Usually, until I have been Offline for more than An Hour, then, Out of Nowhere;

=M=

Comes back with these Obvious Loaded Questions. That she Expects Me to Answer, all While Ignoring about Every Bold Blue Question I Asked.

Species = A Group of Living Animals, that Can Reproduce with Each other.

Sounds like the Same Species to Me.

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

Now that He's off Again, I'm gonna go Make some Food for my Fiance, for when She Wakes up, which will be Soon, cause She Works nights in the Lab.

Peace Barbie.

I guess you do like looking like an Erroneous Trophy up on the Digital Wall, Eh?

Actually, Rest in Pieces Barbie. LOL!
 
6days

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
6days said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 History and 20 years later Darwin wrote to Blythe to get info on the topic.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

Do you think its a wee bit dishonest to leave off the most important part of the AIG statement? "The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging". The AIG statement is totally correct when you take a look at the entire statement. There was no battle lost as creationists such as Edward Blythe wrote about natural selection long before Darwin did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top