one.opinion Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: There was not piece of evidence in that link. I'm not sure why you claim there is no evidence. Look for yourself at the following portion of the article. Quote As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species. There is even genetic evidence explaining why this speciation took place. Quote How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents. Why is the development of new species, along with a mechanism for that speciation, not evidence for evolution? More discussion includes this part of the article: Quote It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. Typically, speciation requires physical isolation of one portion of a population, but as you can see with the example of the goatsbeard plants, a single massive mutation (like the production of a gamete that did not reduce chromosome number in meiosis) can indeed lead to speciation. 9 minutes ago, omega2xx said: In the speciation of salamanders the salamanders remained salamanders, and some of the could still mate and have kids. If salamanders remain salamanders, where is the evolution? You've mentioned this a lot, but I honestly don't know what particular example you are referring to. Can you provide more detail, like an article discussing this study? Or the gull you've mentioned? If you are expecting a salamander to evolve into something completely different, then you do not understand how evolution works. First, a speciation event occurs and then the new species diverge over long periods of time. It does not happen from one generation to the next. Expecting such a dramatic change to take place in one generation is a false assumption. 10 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Second, I would like to to provide the scientific evidence that mutations are a mechanism for evolution. I already know your answer so I know you can' prove it with they usual way it is done. The examples already provided show that a single mutation can lead to speciation. Divergence of the new species takes much more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: The inability to reproduce does not make a new species. In fact it refutes evolution. You are misunderstanding the the reproduction issue. When one portion of a population undergoes speciation, members of that new population can still reproduce among themselves. They are only unable to reproduce with the members of the older populations. Let's get that misconception addressed before we move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 10, 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 10, 2019 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: I'm not sure why you claim there is no evidence. Look for yourself at the following portion of the article. There is even genetic evidence explaining why this speciation took place. Why is the development of new species, along with a mechanism for that speciation, not evidence for evolution? More discussion includes this part of the article: Typically, speciation requires physical isolation of one portion of a population, but as you can see with the example of the goatsbeard plants, a single massive mutation (like the production of a gamete that did not reduce chromosome number in meiosis) can indeed lead to speciation. I am going to have to review your link to respond to all of the above. You've mentioned this a lot, but I honestly don't know what particular example you are referring to. Can you provide more detail, like an article discussing this study? Or the gull you've mentioned? If you are expecting a salamander to evolve into something completely different, then you do not understand how evolution works. First, a speciation event occurs and then the new species diverge over long periods of time. It does not happen from one generation to the next. Expecting such a dramatic change to take place in one generation is a false assumption. I was in this same discussion with someone years ago in a different forum. As I remember the study on salamanders was done a Southern Cal. If you don' think evolution doesn't teach a species does become something other than what i was, it is you who does not understand evolution. Evolution teaches that a land animal, pakicetus, became a whale. That is about as different as you can get. The eventual change of species does have to happen in one generation. The small changes over time on the dog does not make it something other than a dog. Therefor, the eventual change of species must happen in one generation. However the number of generations is irrelevant. If a salamander remains a salamander, where is the evolution. The examples already provided show that a single mutation can lead to speciation. Divergence of the new species takes much more time. It did not say How it could happen. It just said it did. You still don't understand mutations. Mutations only alter a characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation. An altered trait will not result in a change of species. If there is a mutation of the parents gene for skin color and the kid is born an albino, it is still the exact same species as it parents, , and its kids will be the exact same species as it , it grand parents etc were. This genetic truth, which you can't falsify, and is proved thousands of times every day, supports "after the kind" which refutes evolution. For some reason I can't get all of some of you post to me complete when I go to them. So If I don't respond to some of them, it is not intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 10, 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 10, 2019 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: You are misunderstanding the the reproduction issue. When one portion of a population undergoes speciation, members of that new population can still reproduce among themselves. They are only unable to reproduce with the members of the older populations. Let's get that misconception addressed before we move on. The inability to reproduce does not make a new species. This can and is seen in the over interbreeding of dogs. The older population was the same species as the younger population. If both were the same species why is one species a new species because it lost the ability to breed. This is he weakness of the speciation theory. You are wanting and old generation of salamanders to be a new species, but salamanders remaining salamanders does not qualify and you have yet to show why it is a new species. The only thing you offer is a man made definition, and I see no evidence it is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 968 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Online Share Posted November 10, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: The inability to reproduce does not make a new species. No, you're wrong about that. Reproductive isolation is the most important criterion for speciation. Speciation is a process within evolution that leads to the formation of new, distinct species that are reproductively isolated from one another. https://biologydictionary.net/speciation/ 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution. Already did. As you should remember, ev0lution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So if the alleles in the population change in frequency, that's evolution by definition. The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: The only common thing about DNA is that for a few exception, all living things, plant and animals, have DNA. Nope. For example, you have very little difference in DNA from a chimpanzee. You have a little greater difference between you and apes other than chimps. And you have a bit more between you and non-simian primates. And you have a bit more than that between you and other mammals. And so on. Turns out, the differences sort out precisely as the family tree first discovered long before people knew about evolution. Would you like me to show you that, again? As you now realize, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you that, again? 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: f there are some Christians who believe there are transitional, no matter how many, that does not make it true. Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows you the evidence here: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: There are some evolutionists who admit there are none. But you can't show us one? Evidence, which seems to be a dirty word for you, is needed to support comments. Edited November 10, 2019 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Quote I'm not sure why you claim there is no evidence. Look for yourself at the following portion of the article. There is even genetic evidence explaining why this speciation took place. Why is the development of new species, along with a mechanism for that speciation, not evidence for evolution? More discussion includes this part of the article: Typically, speciation requires physical isolation of one portion of a population, but as you can see with the example of the goatsbeard plants, a single massive mutation (like the production of a gamete that did not reduce chromosome number in meiosis) can indeed lead to speciation. I am going to have to review your link to respond to all of the above. I would greatly appreciate it if you did review the information in the link. It doesn't make sense to reject the evidence without actually looking at the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 11, 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 11, 2019 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: No, you're wrong about that. Reproductive isolation is the most important criterion for speciation. Speciation is a process within evolution that leads to the formation of new, distinct species that are reproductively isolated from one another. https://biologydictionary.net/speciation/ Already did. As you should remember, ev0lution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So if the alleles in the population change in frequency, that's evolution by definition. The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution Nope. For example, you have very little difference in DNA from a chimpanzee. You have a little greater difference between you and apes other than chimps. And you have a bit more between you and non-simian primates. And you have a bit more than that between you and other mammals. And so on. Turns out, the differences sort out precisely as the family tree first discovered long before people knew about evolution. Would you like me to show you that, again? As you now realize, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you that, again? Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows you the evidence here: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf But you can't show us one? Evidence, which seems to be a dirty word for you, is needed to support comments. since you have not explained how salamanders remaining a salamander supports evolution, I am not going to respond until you do. peace and j oy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 11, 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 11, 2019 On 11/9/2019 at 5:44 PM, one.opinion said: Isn’t it interesting that Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? I argue that this is strong evidence of spiritual death, not physical death. I would argue that this, too, is better interpreted in spiritual terms, not physical. The context of the chapter refers to life in Jesus Christ, which is of course, spiritual life. Until you can show me why my interpretation is inferior according to the Bible, please keep your condemnation to yourself. This is the third time recently that you have started with this argument. The Bible hasn’t changed. You still cannot provide evidence from the Bible that nothing dies before the Fall of Adam. Please base your preaching on what the Bible actually says. I strongly disagree with you on evolution but IMO you are right about this subject. God told them if hey ate from the tree they would surely die. That ate and did not die. Therefore there is an error in the Bible or God meant they would die spiritually. It can't b e proved Biblically if there was death before the fall, but it is highly unlikely there was. God provided them a perfect place and IMO, He meant it as a place for Him to fellowship and provide for the needs, physical and spiritual, forever. When they sinned, they were driven out of the garden and not allowed back in, and the garden was removed from the earth.. James 15 - Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is accomplished, it brings fort death. Peace and joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 11, 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 11, 2019 9 hours ago, The Barbarian said: If so, it's hard to understand this... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origion of Species This is yet another creationist superstition about science. Science can neither assert nor deny such things. If your faith won't do it for you (as it did for Darwin), then science won't be able to help you. There is more grandeur in attributing the universe to God than o some accident of nature Neither man nor Darwin have a scientific answer to the origin of the universe. To attribute the origin of all life forms, plant and animal to some unidentified blob is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted November 11, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 99 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,065 Content Per Day: 7.97 Reputation: 21,392 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted November 11, 2019 6 hours ago, one.opinion said: None of verses you have quoted are strong enough to definitively support your position. Oh but they are … and the best thing about it - they will be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts