Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Notto, are you now admitting that Gould is indeed stating species appear fully formed in the fossil record without showing who their ancestors were?

Randman, dammit, that is not what Gould says, you lying sack of dung.

Furthermore, you imbecile, don't you see that that is exactly what the doofus Batten is implying? And if what he implies is true, why do we not see rampant speciation taking place today?

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:23 PM

Rampant speciation taking place within a 100 years or so?
LOL
Well, pseudoman, I hope you are not seriously asking that question.
Now, it may be interesting to see over the next 1000 years, what type of speciation takes place. Maybe then could "we" see it.

notto · 03-20-2002, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Lemme see. The creationist find groups of creatures that can interbreed, some fertile, and some infertile, and also considers that some perhaps could interbreed in the past, and theorizes these similarities indicate each grouping has a common ancestor, and you guys have the gall to ask where's the evidence this happened.?

None of the actual EVIDENCE used in the article you presented contradicts evolutionary theory. The assertation being put forth by the article and creationists is that there is some yet unknown force that stops mutations from leading to the various different organisms we see today and limits evolution from producing a wide variety of lifeforms based on mutation and natural selection. You (as well as other creationists) are being asked to present evidence to back up this assertation.

You are not being asked to provide evidence of variation withing fuzzy "kinds". There is ample evidence of this type of mutation happening. You are being asked to provide evidence that there is a mechanism to stop this mutation from happening when an organism gets to far from the original "kind".

lpetrich · 03-20-2002, 09:34 PM

Quote:

randman:
Notto, are you now admitting that Gould is indeed stating species appear fully formed in the fossil record without showing who their ancestors were?

All that he's stating is that new species emerge as a result of burst of evolution in small populations, and that intermediates are sometimes, though rarely, found.

And according to the article you quoted, Randman, a "kind" can incorporate several species. Meaning that one species can evolve from another. Even if no intermediates are apparent, as you claim.

Quote:

randman:
As far as what I adhere to, I am fairly new to different ID and creationist models and am unsure what is right. I am though convinced evolution is a lie, and am not new to evolutionary theories.

Lie? That's strong language.

And this "I don't know who's right" seems rather evasive to me.

And while you are at it, randman, check out <a href="http://www.rael.org" target="_blank">http://www.rael.org</a>

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:36 PM

"The assertation being put forth by the article and creationists is that there is some yet unknown force that stops mutations from leading to the various different organisms we see today and limits evolution from producing a wide variety of lifeforms based on mutation and natural selection."

That is just BS. What is stated is what we know about variation and mutations is that they do not add to the potential genetic possibilities in a manner to cause a progressive and upward development from a microbe into the range of life we see today. The current genes of creatures limits what kind off offspring they can have. It is the evolutionists who posit some magic force that can cause mutations to add genes to species.

notto · 03-20-2002, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
 It is the evolutionists who posit some magic force that can cause mutations to add genes to species.

One known mechanism for this is Polyploidy. Polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in a cell becomes doubled. This can happen by a mutation that simply makes two copies. It can also happen when the chromosomes from two different species are mixed. (there are demonstrated examples of this occuring and it can be recreated in the lab).

A good example of this occuring in higher order mammals is in the red vizcacha rat. This rat has the highest number of chromosomes of any mammal (102). Its relative species have about half that.

So either
a) The number of chromosomes in this species increased from its related species through a duplicate copy of the chromosomes (along with some fusing) being made and this created a new species that survived or

b) This rat represents an example of an original kind that has not lost any genes through destructive mutation.

Do you think that this animal represents an original kind? If not, how can you explain the high number of chromosomes if a definition of kind required the number of chromosomes to remain constant or decrease?

There are other mechanisms that can add genetic information and chromosomes as well. This is just one example and as you can see, it does not rely on hocus pocus or hand waving and does not rely on any definition of "kinds" based on the basis of creationist "models", which is primarily "we think the bible says so".

RufusAtticus · 03-20-2002, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"They're in the same family, why is it surprising they can reproduce?"

Uh, Lady Shea, the ability to reproduce fertile offspring means they are in the same species.

Ohh. Look, Randman is giving a biology lesson. Is there any suprise that he gets it wrong. The ability to interbreed does not mean they are members of the same species. Biology uses many different methods to decide what constutes a species. Interbreeding is just one. And it definantly ain't the rule.

-RvFvS

RufusAtticus · 03-20-2002, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You guys crack me up. Creationists theorize about a form of limited common descent, that all creatures decended from a set of created kinds.

I guess you can stop laughing for long enough to educate us by answering the questions in this thread.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000367" target="_blank">Challenge to those who believe in kinds</a>

It's about time you put up or shut up.

Quote:

Lemme see. The creationist find groups of creatures that can interbreed, some fertile, and some infertile, and also considers that some perhaps could interbreed in the past, and theorizes these similarities indicate each grouping has a common ancestor, and you guys have the gall to ask where's the evidence this happened.

If you'd just pay attention.... We are not asking for the evidence that your group of organisms has a common ancestor. Any group of organisms has a common ancestor. We are asking you to demonstrate that two organisms didn't have a common ancestor. Universal common descent is where science stands now after over 200 years of exploration. Our side has done its part. Now, the burden is on your shoulders to demonstrate that the science and evidence behind common descent is wrong. Of course you'll have to understand the evidence and science before that, which is not likely to happen in this lifetime.

Furthermore, we are asking for you to demonstrate that only certain groups of organisms have a common ancestor, any two groups are completely and 100% unrelated, and evolution cannot change a subgroup of organisms so that they are no longer immedatately recongnisable as belonging with the rest of the group.

Quote:

I guess it's Ok for evolutionists to theorize but not creationists, eh?

It's okay for creationists to theorize. In fact, we actually enjoy it whenever they decide to start. Until then, supposin' is not going to cut the intellectual mustard.

-RvFvS

tronvillain · 03-21-2002, 12:19 AM

Essentially, this is just an example of creationist accepting a limited amount of evolution and speciation in an effort to justify the idea of created "kinds." They've simply stolen the top of a real evolutionary diagram, drawn a line accross it at a convenient place, and labelled it "flood."

Here's a thought: Shouldn't genetic studies show that all species of a given "kind" have a common ancestor more recently than the date of the supposed flood?

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Troll Hunter · 03-21-2002, 02:44 AM

Blimey! The Eater of Bandwidth has returned!!!! Has he brought the FIVE QUOTES with him? If he has, evolutionary theory is surely doomed ...

03-21-2002, 12:19 AM	#39
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Essentially, this is just an example of creationist accepting a limited amount of evolution and speciation in an effort to justify the idea of created "kinds." They've simply stolen the top of a real evolutionary diagram, drawn a line accross it at a convenient place, and labelled it "flood." Here's a thought: Shouldn't genetic studies show that all species of a given "kind" have a common ancestor more recently than the date of the supposed flood? [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 09:23 PM	#32
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Rampant speciation taking place within a 100 years or so? LOL Well, pseudoman, I hope you are not seriously asking that question. Now, it may be interesting to see over the next 1000 years, what type of speciation takes place. Maybe then could "we" see it.

03-20-2002, 09:36 PM	#35
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"The assertation being put forth by the article and creationists is that there is some yet unknown force that stops mutations from leading to the various different organisms we see today and limits evolution from producing a wide variety of lifeforms based on mutation and natural selection." That is just BS. What is stated is what we know about variation and mutations is that they do not add to the potential genetic possibilities in a manner to cause a progressive and upward development from a microbe into the range of life we see today. The current genes of creatures limits what kind off offspring they can have. It is the evolutionists who posit some magic force that can cause mutations to add genes to species.

03-21-2002, 02:44 AM	#40
Troll Hunter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The vast, bone-riddled pains of the E/C boards. Posts: 21	Blimey! The Eater of Bandwidth has returned!!!! Has he brought the FIVE QUOTES with him? If he has, evolutionary theory is surely doomed ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.