Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Cause this Crazy Girl Named Barbie Kept Insisting that They Can't Breed, Even though Wikipedia Says All 19 types of these Salamanders are Capable of Interbreeding.
=M=
She also Believes that Wolves are a Separate Species from Dog.
When I've Proven outright that all the Old textbooks are being Changed, to include them all in the Same Species;
See Here;
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
Glad to see that you found what you were looking for.
People usually do. What sources did you consult?
Stuart
6days
New member
I think you are beating a dead horse Mark. The Bible does not use the word species. The word is fairly flexible with no exact definition that is accepted by all. Animals can change and rapidly adapt to various environments. I would say they can speciate, but they can't change into a different kind...finches change but remain finches.... salamanders may adapt to the point some say they have speciated, but they still are the same kind of animal. Same with dogs / wolves as you mention.
Last edited:
Six Days;
I would say that we Both Agree, that Animals can Mutate, and some mutations that are Random, can work out for the Better for the Creature in the Long Run, but that is not any reason that the Eye would Just happen.
Mutation has always Shown to be a Destructive Force, Especially when considering the Reproduction system of Human Kind. ; D
Every Reproduction Problem we have, Is Technically a Result of Mutation.
So If mutations Don't Write with Order, and they are Actually Making Less Potent Genomes to the Point that they are not able to Interbreed.
Mutation, and how we've Observed it acting on DNA only Shows that New Anatomical Features, can Never Result From Mutation Through Reproduction.
This would also lead me to believe that Some animals Have Lost the Ability that Others of their Modern Species Still Possess, making it look like a New Anatomical feature has Appeared within a Species, but in Reality, it has Lost it.
=M=
Creatures can Definately Mutate, that is Why every Creature of any Given Speacies looks a Little Different. However, the Idea that a Species will Give Birth to a New Form of Species, is Ridiculous. By the Time the Organism has Changed Form enough, to where it Can No Longer Reproduce with the Original Species, it becomes Unable to Reproduce whatsoever.
Mutation = Less Potent Genome, with More Flaws (Reality)
Evolution = Time will Somehow Use the Random Mutation, and Allow New Anatomy to Form; By somehow Writing New Information Naturally, into the Already Existing Genome (Fairy Tale)
And that's What I think.
But overall, I would say Six Days and I Believe the Same thing, No New Kinds or Forms of animals will arise From old Ones.
That is the Opposite of What Science Shows as Truth.
I would say that we Both Agree, that Animals can Mutate, and some mutations that are Random, can work out for the Better for the Creature in the Long Run, but that is not any reason that the Eye would Just happen.
Mutation has always Shown to be a Destructive Force, Especially when considering the Reproduction system of Human Kind. ; D
Every Reproduction Problem we have, Is Technically a Result of Mutation.
So If mutations Don't Write with Order, and they are Actually Making Less Potent Genomes to the Point that they are not able to Interbreed.
Mutation, and how we've Observed it acting on DNA only Shows that New Anatomical Features, can Never Result From Mutation Through Reproduction.
This would also lead me to believe that Some animals Have Lost the Ability that Others of their Modern Species Still Possess, making it look like a New Anatomical feature has Appeared within a Species, but in Reality, it has Lost it.
=M=
Creatures can Definately Mutate, that is Why every Creature of any Given Speacies looks a Little Different. However, the Idea that a Species will Give Birth to a New Form of Species, is Ridiculous. By the Time the Organism has Changed Form enough, to where it Can No Longer Reproduce with the Original Species, it becomes Unable to Reproduce whatsoever.
Mutation = Less Potent Genome, with More Flaws (Reality)
Evolution = Time will Somehow Use the Random Mutation, and Allow New Anatomy to Form; By somehow Writing New Information Naturally, into the Already Existing Genome (Fairy Tale)
And that's What I think.
But overall, I would say Six Days and I Believe the Same thing, No New Kinds or Forms of animals will arise From old Ones.
That is the Opposite of What Science Shows as Truth.
So you think that Dinosaurs Turned into Birds, and that's Why they are no Longer Here?
=M=
You would both be wrong if you believed that.
And that is because you didn't read properly when it was pointed out to you that evolution works on whole populations, not on individuals.
Stuart
So how do you believe Dinos Were Destroyed? or What happened to them?
Why are there still Birds, but no Dinos, if Birds did come From Dinos, Shouldn't they have died With the Dinos?
=M=
Just Wondering.
6days
New member
Eye evolution?? haha... Evolutionists can't provide even one clear example of mutations causing a gain of information, or creating a new gene. Yet they believe extreme sophistication / specified complexity (our eyes)
were created by mutations. Eye evolution is blind faith. Science suggests optimal designs are created.
If it Works on Multiple ones, where is Your Modern Animal that is a Direct Observation of True Speciation, which can No Longer Reproduce with it's Original Species it came From?
=M=
See!!!
That Right there, That's Why I don't believe In Evolution.
Mutation Doesn't Build order, it Destroys Order.
Evolution is Unbelievable!!!
=M=
6days
New member
Sure, and Trex evolved into a chicken I suppose... Imagine those drumsticks!:carryon:
Probably rapid climate change; possibly they were finished off by the meteorite that left the Chicxulub crater 65 million years ago.
Why should they have died out? Our mammalian ancestors survived, so why not birds?
Stuart
Eye evolution?? haha... Evolutionists can't provide even one clear example of mutations causing a gain of information
Well, we can test that. Information theory uses the following equation to measure the entropy (how much information would be required to describe the string):
In the case of population genetics, px is the frequency of allele n in the population. So let's imagine a population with two alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5.
The information content would be about 0.26. Now suppose mutation produces a new allele (there are many observed cases of this happening) and it increases to the point that each of thee alleles is now 0.3333.
The information content is now about 0.47. A significant increase.
The nylon gene is a new gene, produced by a frameshift mutation in a bacterial plasmid. It allows certain bacteria to digest nylon oligomers.
What stage in the evolution of an eye do you think is impossible? In some phyla, many of the steps in the evolution of eyes are still existent in members of those phyla.
We'll see when you come up with a stage that couldn't happen by random mutation and natural selection.
As you probably realize by now, evolution is God's creation.
Let us know about that stage in eye evolution that couldn't happen. And would you be interested in learning about other useful mutations?
Well, we can test that. Information theory uses the following equation to measure the entropy (how much information would be required to describe the string):
In the case of population genetics, px is the frequency of allele n in the population. So let's imagine a population with two alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5.
The information content would be about 0.26. Now suppose mutation produces a new allele (there are many observed cases of this happening) and it increases to the point that each of thee alleles is now 0.3333.
The information content is now about 0.47. A significant increase.
The nylon gene is a new gene, produced by a frameshift mutation in a bacterial plasmid. It allows certain bacteria to digest nylon oligomers.
What stage in the evolution of an eye do you think is impossible? In some phyla, many of the steps in the evolution of eyes are still existent in members of those phyla.
We'll see when you come up with a stage that couldn't happen by random mutation and natural selection.
As you probably realize by now, evolution is God's creation.
Let us know about that stage in eye evolution that couldn't happen. And would you be interested in learning about other useful mutations?
Evolution is A belief system with No Bearing in Reality, and Is Being Perpetuated by a bunch of People, who Cannot Learn, even if the Information is Hand Fed to them, they Cannot Learn.
=M=
That's a Shame, Guess there is No Hope for the Wicked.
=M=
That's a Shame, Guess there is No Hope for the Wicked.
The sig I stole from TH applies, here.
Can you give me an example of a line of descent in which we could try it out to see if the 'original species' can reproduce with the modern species? Homo sapiens with homo erectus? Oh dear, there aren't any more homo erectus. Modern horses with pliohippus? Hmm, no pliohippus left.
But the problem actually is the names we give to the ancestors at different stages in history. When was the first homo sapiens, and the last homo rhodesiensis? The closer you look at the line of descent, the more you need labels like "archaic homo sapiens" or "late homo rhodesiensis".
And if you look in enough detail, it turns out that whatever names we give to ancestors it is all arbitrary because we are trying to divide up a continuous progression of change over vast periods of time, into convenient segments in a way that entirely misses the reality of what is happening.
Your definition of species makes evolution impossible. But just because you insist on it doesn't mean evolution hasn't happened. It is just you are trying to use an arbitrary definition of a word to deny natural history.
Stuart
- Status