one.opinion Posted November 1, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, omega2xx said: The problem with that is that speciation does not result a new species. By definition, speciation results in new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 1, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 1, 2019 4 hours ago, one.opinion said: The Bible uses the Ancient Hebrew word eretz for land. Eretz can mean the entire earth, but more frequently refers to a large region. If eretz is referring to a region, then that just means that the mountains in that region were flooded. The animals the fossils came from were not buried there, even scientists from YEC organizations agree with this. Large-scale changes in the geology of the planet led to fossils at mountain tops. The only questions is how long it took for these geological changes to occur. Scientific evidence suggests that changes on this scale take millions of years. Biogeography - where animals live. There are other examples, but the best is the mammalian population of Australia. The native mammals (that haven't been introduced by recent settlers) on this continent are exclusively marsupials, with two exceptions. Scientific evidence says this is because the continent became isolated when mammals were still relatively new and were all marsupials. A life-destroying global flood would require that only marsupials somehow traveled to Australia and over some sort of land bridge that is no longer present (and hasn't been present for thousands of years, if not longer). 12 minutes ago, omega2xx said: The problem with that is that speciation does not result a new species. The inability to mate doesn't make a new species. Also in the only 2 studies I am aware of, salamanders and gulls, the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. One studied classified the salamanders as a sub species, Also, it is impossible to study all populations of salamanders, so they can't tell what happened in those groups. 4 hours ago, one.opinion said: The Bible uses the Ancient Hebrew word eretz for land. Eretz can mean the entire earth, but more frequently refers to a large region. If eretz is referring to a region, then that just means that the mountains in that region were flooded. The animals the fossils came from were not buried there, even scientists from YEC organizations agree with this. Large-scale changes in the geology of the planet led to fossils at mountain tops. The only questions is how long it took for these geological changes to occur. Scientific evidence suggests that changes on this scale take millions of years. Biogeography - where animals live. There are other examples, but the best is the mammalian population of Australia. The native mammals (that haven't been introduced by recent settlers) on this continent are exclusively marsupials, with two exceptions. Scientific evidence says this is because the continent became isolated when mammals were still relatively new and were all marsupials. A life-destroying global flood would require that only marsupials somehow traveled to Australia and over some sort of land bridge that is no longer present (and hasn't been present for thousands of years, if not longer). The Bible uses the Ancient Hebrew word eretz for land. Eretz can mean the entire earth, but more frequently refers to a large region. If eretz is referring to a region, then that just means that the mountains in that region were flooded. defining eretz as as a large area when it can also mean just "the earth" is not reliable unless you have some evidence it was limited to that definition in the verse(Gen 7:17). Also Gen 7:20 takes "earth" out of consideratiion. Here "mountains must be considered to properly understand what happened. The animals the fossils came from were not buried there, even scientists from YEC organizations agree with this. Large-scale changes in the geology of the planet led to fossils at mountain tops. The only questions is how long it took for these geological changes to occur. Scientific evidence suggests that changes on this scale take millions of years. Again you are lacking in evidence. What evidence do they have that indicates these fossils were moved to mountain tops. The amount of time it took, which also can't be proved, is irrelevant. Scientific evidence says this is because the continent became isolated when mammals were still relatively new and were all marsupials. A life-destroying global flood would require that only marsupials somehow traveled to Australia and over some sort of land bridge that is no longer present (and hasn Of course Australia became isolated, but there is no evidence when that happened. When all of the animals embarked, there is no evidence where they migrated to, and it is possible that the animals now in Australia migrated there, then Australia became isolated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 1, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: Since evolution is directly observed to happen, and since even many creationist groups now admit the fact of new species, the article seems to be a failed effort. Just saying. Evolution has never been observed to have happened, Can you give even one example and the scientific evidence that allowed it to happen? It is not sufficient to admit something, It is also necessary to provide examples and the science that allowed it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 1, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, one.opinion said: By definition, speciation results in new species. Definitions are not evidence. Examples of HOW it is possible and the scientific evidence that caused it to happen must be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: Definitions are not evidence. Examples of HOW it is possible and the scientific evidence that caused it to happen must be included. We seem to have a communication barrier. The meaning of the word "speciation" means making new species. I produced a link that described observed examples of new species. It is not possible to claim that speciation doesn't mean new species were formed. That is like stating that baking a pie will not make a pie. (Sorry, food on the brain...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, omega2xx said: Quote Evolution has never been observed to have happened, It happens constantly, and is observed everywhere. Remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Which happens every time a new member is born. You've likely confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. But as you know, even honest creationists admit a limited amount of common descent. If you and your family have your DNA analyzed, there is a demonstration of evolution. Your children and your parents have different alleles than you do. It's just that sometimes, they change enough so that some parts of a population can't interbreed with other parts. Then it's speciation. You've seen some examples of that, too. Edited November 2, 2019 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: It happens constantly, and is observed everywhere. Remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Which happens every time a new member is born. You've likely confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. But as you know, even honest creationists admit a limited amount of common descent. If you and your family have your DNA analyzed, there is a demonstration of evolution. Your children and your parents have different alleles than you do. It's just that sometimes, they change enough so that some parts of a population can't interbreed with other parts. Then it's speciation. You've seen some examples of that, too. Remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Evolution is not a change in allele, it is a change in a species. The offspring can't receive a trait if its parents do not have the gene for that trait. Traits can and do come and go depending on which genes in the parents gene pool are dominant or recessive, but never causes a change in the species. For example pakicetus did not have the gene for fins. You can't explain how the legs of a land animal became the fins of a sea animal or the nose of a land animal became the blowhole of a sea animal, even if you had a gazillion years. That is genetically impossible. Which happens every time a new member is born. Changes do happen but only in traits, not in a species and you can't give one example of how it would be possible. You've likely confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Actually "common descent" refutes evolution which requires uncommon descent. Common descent actually reinforces "after their kind." But as you know, even honest creationists admit a limited amount of common descent. Yes some do, but it is because anyone educated or maybe uneducated in the public school system has been indoctrinated with only one view, which is evolution as science from about the 6th grade and they have not looked at the real science needed to cause a species to evolve into a different species. Keep in mind that time will not change proven genetic truths. Nothing can add to the gene pool of a species. Peace and joy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: If you and your family have your DNA analyzed, there is a demonstration of evolution. Actually it is just the opposite. My DNA will show that I am the same species as my parents, which will reinforce "after their kind." Your children and your parents have different alleles than you do. The may or they may not, but a change in alleles will not result in a change of species. My parents were homo sapiens , I am homo sapiens,, my son is homo sapiens , my grand children are homo sapiens and my great grand children are homo sapiens, and this cannot change no matter how far you go back in the history of any family 43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: It's just that sometimes, they change enough so that some parts of a population can't interbreed with other parts. Then it's speciation. You've seen some examples of that, too. The inability to interbreed does not make a new species. This can be caused by to much inter breeding. In the 2 best known studies of speciation , the salamanders remained salamanders and he gulls remained gulls. Evolution requires a change in the species, not the inability to mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: We seem to have a communication barrier. The meaning of the word "speciation" means making new species. I produced a link that described observed examples of new species. It is not possible to claim that speciation doesn't mean new species were formed. That is like stating that baking a pie will not make a pie. (Sorry, food on the brain...) Mentioning pies, especially if was a lemon meringue I would start drooling. I am not saying the accepted definition of speciation is not saying it is not about a new species. I am saying the definition is inaccurate and not based on science. Definitions must be proved like all other claims. In the salamander studies, the salamanders remained salamanders and in the gull studies, the gulls remained gulls. Where is the new species which evolution requires? Peace and joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 2, 2019 21 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Mentioning pies, especially if was a lemon meringue I would start drooling. Or a key lime pie... Now you have me doing it! 22 minutes ago, omega2xx said: I am saying the definition is inaccurate and not based on science. I think I get what you are saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. New species can be formed, but speciation events don’t directly result in significantly different organisms. Does that match what you are saying? Much larger timescales are needed to produce organisms that are very different - like humans and chimps. This is where fossil records and genetic evidence play a major role. Although we cannot observe the immediate step from ancestor to a different-looking progeny, we can see the gradual change in the fossil record. The genetic evidence shows the “family similarity” between us and the chimps. I’d be happy to expand in that, if you’d like to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts