[_ Old Earth _] You asked for it

[reznwerks]

One of the big gripes of ID'rs is the claim of no new species being evolved. Well here is one example of what is claimed to be missing.

"Picky female frogs in a tiny rainforest outpost of Australia have driven the evolution of a new species in 8,000 years or less, according to scientists from the University of Queensland, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140816.htm

How long can you deny the reality? LOL

 

[NOTW]

Its the same thing, a frog!!!!!!!!!

A hybrid frog is all you have. Nothing new there. I can breed my pitbull with a poodle and get a pitoodle :

 

[PHIL121]

Yep, the article even admits that the two species can interbreed, so so they aren't really diferent species at all, merely sub-species.

 

[Barbarian]

You might as well say of chimps and people, "it's the same thing, it's a hominiod!"

There are many other directly observed examples of speciation. This is why even most creationists now admit it's a fact.

 

[PHIL121]

Speaking pretty broadly there....

Still, Species USED to be defined as a group that could not breed with another. At least when I took high school biology..

It's seems Evolutionists (like Judges) just change the definition to fit their own beliefs.

 

[Barbarian]

Speaking pretty broadly there....

There's a lot of speciation going on. From time to time we actually see one happen. The first directly observed one was the evolution of a new species of primrose. Plants tend to speciate faster than animals, because they can easily do so by polyploidy. That is a "poof" speciation, that happens immediately. Most animal speciations happen gradually, over along period of time. There is, AFAIK, one known animal speciation by polyploidy.

Still, Species USED to be defined as a group that could not breed with another. At least when I took high school biology..

You may not have been paying much attention, or your teacher may not have been very good. The standard is whether or not the two groups interbreed and produce viable offspring in their habitat. Hence, there are many species of birds that can be induced breed with other, related species in captivity, but it never happens in the wild.

Lions and tigers can still interbreed, but the hybrids are not very fit for either jungle or savanna conditions, and so even in the rare event when it happens, the resulting line doesn't last long.

Likewise, polar bears and brown bears are very closely related, and will interbreed if allowed to do it. But the resulting bear would probably not survive in the wild.

It's seems Evolutionists (like Judges) just change the definition to fit their own beliefs.

As usual, it's what you don't know that hurts you.

Ernst Mayr, who first proposed the biological species concept, described it thus:

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

There are a number of isolating mechanisms. Genetic incompatiblity is just one of them.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Just search 4 truth @ speciation..

.... @ http://www.creationism.org & http://www.discovery.org/csc & http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org - & in their "Revised & Expanded Answers Book" - by their multi-disciplinary MSc/PhD-level leaders - pages 216 & 251 8-)

Altogether now...

1/2/3...

"When ya pooper-scoop evo-loopy-poop... :o

don't forget to wash your hands now!!!!!" :-D

Must go!

Ian :

 

[pasta911]

Re: Just search 4 truth @ speciation..

[quote="MrVersatile48
Ian :[/quote]

Well, it had to happen at some point. With the vast experience accumulated in their now decade-long attempts to pass fake science for real, and probably inspired by Bill Dembski’s recent appearance on the Jon Stewart’s “Daily Showâ€Â, it seems that the Discovery Institute has now decided to issue their very own “fake newsâ€Â.
Rather incredibly, in fact, a completely fake, rather unfunny parody of a radio interview with Barbara Forrest appears today on the DI’s own web site under their “News†headline (see right column here), without any indication it is fiction. Obviously, Dr. Forrest’s work truly has hit a nerve with the DI, since as reported on PT yesterday, they have already issued an utterly dishonest attack on her testimony at the Kitzmiller trial, based on selective quotation and misrepresentation of the court’s proceedings. What’s worse, the DI’s own Evolution News blog, already known for its cavalier disregard for truth and even basic, trivially verifiable facts, has picked up the interview and also reported it as if it were real in an “update†to their previous item on Forrest.

Now, there are two, non mutually exclusive possibilities to explain this. One is that the DI operatives are so accustomed to any fiction that fits their prejudice, they are unable to distinguish it from reality. The second is that this is just a prank, and they believe the parody interview is so crude and obvious, it doesn’t need any disclaimer.

Personally, I tend to agree with the latter, more generous interpretation, which also conveniently explains why the various DI sites also don’t attach disclaimers to all their other preposterous claims, such that ID is actual science, that evidence for it is published in the peer-reviewed literature, and that it is accepted by an ever-increasing number of “scientistsâ€Â.

So, thanks for making your standards clear, folks.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/move_over_jon_s.html



Click to view these responses
Interesting Tactic by Science101, 10/22/05

 

[Barbarian]

The last defense I heard was that someone at the DI made it up as a "clever parody", and then someone else mistook it for the real thing and so it ended up being presented as real news.

In fact, it's so bad, one is embarassed for the clod who wrote it.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I guess if we are going to discuss evolution then what we really need is a creature in obvious transition.

If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why are there none that are halfway evolved?

 

[Barbarian]

I guess if we are going to discuss evolution then what we really need is a creature in obvious transition.

Archaeopteryx would be a good example. A living one would be a platypus. Another good one would be stoneflies, which show transitional characters between insects and annelids.

If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

We didn't come from monkeys. But if we did, there would be no reason why one species can't split off into two, and one not change very much. We have seen this splitting of species happen.

Why are there none that are halfway evolved?

See above. There are a good number still living, and a lot more in the fossil record.

 

[PHIL121]

And then, of course, there's the FACT that DNA couldn't have come about as theresult of a random process.

And that genes (which are composed of DNA) couldn't have "evolved" into the wide variety of forms we see today merely by chance.

 

[cubedbee]

And then, of course, there's the FACT that DNA couldn't have come about as theresult of a random process.

Honestly, you can't say that's a fact, because you haven't exhuastively shown that random processes can't produce DNA. But that's really a question of abiogenesis, not evolution

And that genes (which are composed of DNA) couldn't have "evolved" into the wide variety of forms we see today merely by chance.

No, they couldn't have evolved by chance. But thankfully there is a non-random mechanism called natural selection which does allow the evolution we see has happened.

 

[PHIL121]

OK...so DNA evolving by random chance is like picking a specific electron out of the entire universe 20 times in row. And some people say the Bible codes are absurd.... :roll:

Also, for natural selection to work, DNA has to mutate, otherwise the whole theory falls apart.

 

[Quid]

Still, Species USED to be defined as a group that could not breed with another. At least when I took high school biology..

So... donkeys and horses are the same species?

 

[cubedbee]

OK...so DNA evolving by random chance is like picking a specific electron out of the entire universe 20 times in row. And some people say the Bible codes are absurd.... :roll:

Please, show me your math on this claim.

Also, for natural selection to work, DNA has to mutate, otherwise the whole theory falls apart.

Yes, DNA mutates. This is an absolute uncontrovertible fact. Given a living thing with DNA, mutations will be observed, a small percentage in sex cells that can be passed on to later generations. But evolution assumes that the first organism with DNA already exists--and then posits a theory for how this DNA transformed to all the organisms we see. The question of how the first DNA controlled organism arose is outside the scope of evolution.

 

[PHIL121]

The math???...it's on one of the shows at http://www.originstv.org

The show with a Dr. Jerry Bergman.

The same show also shows how VERY RARE beneficial mutations in DNA are, and why.

And what what I heard on a recent show despite the fact Dr. Bergman has something like 5 or 6 doctorates and is a cancer researcher, he has lost tenure at the university he teaches at.

::::sarcasm mode on:::

Can't have someone who doesn't believe in Evolution finding the cure for cancer. why people might start beleiving in God if that happened

::::sarcasm mode off:::

 

[Quid]

So you admit that DNA mutates then? You don't seem to be refuting it anyway.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course beneficial mutations are very rare. We have billions of humans, and we seem to have but a few good ones per generation. That's enough.

And it has nothing whatever to do with belief in God. Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.

And I'm intrigued on how anyone can lose tenure except for malfeasance or the closing of a department.

Tell us about it.

 

[PHIL121]

Yes, DNA mutates. However 99.99% (at least) are NOT 'beneficial' mutations, and therefore do NOT make a species more 'fit' to survive.

The time required for such mutations ALONE to cause the amount of speciation observed is MUCH more than the age of the UNIVERSE, let alone the age of the Earth.

And it has nothing whatever to do with belief in God. Most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.

Amd most people who argue in favor of Evolution are edcuated enough about it to know DNA is made up of amino acids :roll:

And I'm intrigued on how anyone can lose tenure except for malfeasance or the closing of a department.

Tell us about it.

All I know is what I wrote, which I heard from Dr. Donn Chapmann on "Origins".

As for your other conclusion about tenure, you seem as niave about politics as you do DNA.