[_ Old Earth _] Creationist vs evolutionist, whos the fool?

[Blazin Bones]

Speciation of Drosophila paulistorum has occured in laboratories. Source: Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field.

I take it you didn't read my previous post. But, here's a description of some of the physical changes in fruit flies:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html

Read my last post. I've already viewed this link. while one generation had the mutation, as more and more future generation were born the mutation bread it self out. Read the entire report on your evidence.

 

[keebs]

It doesn't matter if it breeds itself out...in fact, that is just more proof for the evolutionary mechanisms. It's natural selection at it's finest...these creatures are inable to reproduce with the original population, so there genes die out. And besides, just because the new species dies doesn't change the fact that speciation occured.

 

[rmills]

You especially show your ignorance of evolution with the question "why don't we see fruit flies evolve into bats?". That is especially outrageous, as that would require a creature to evolve from on phylum to another...

That must have happened somewhere along the line, protein to man, fly to bat, whats the difference?

BTW, I'm done with you unless you can refrain from snide remarks regarding intelect.

 

[keebs]

The difference is is that humans are built of proteins, whereas the going from a fly to a bat is the same as completely changing most of it's body functions and mechanisms, changing it's structure completely (exoskeleton to bones), and converting from external to internal reproduction. It's not going to happen.

BTW...I could care less if whether or not you are "done with me," as the only thing you do is post inane theories of evolution, attack them, and say that since your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong.

 

[Blazin Bones]

It doesn't matter if it breeds itself out...in fact, that is just more proof for the evolutionary mechanisms. It's natural selection at it's finest...these creatures are inable to reproduce with the original population, so there genes die out. And besides, just because the new species dies doesn't change the fact that speciation occured.

What are you saying keebs? The mutataed fruit flies could breed, but their offspring reverted back to the original species. In both cases, natural selection and speciation, evolution did not occur because no new species resulted.

 

[keebs]

What are you saying keebs? The mutataed fruit flies could breed, but their offspring reverted back to the original species. In both cases, natural selection and speciation, evolution did not occur because no new species resulted.

No, I'm saying that speciation occured, and that because of that only the small population of the new species of fruit fly could reproduce and produce non-sterile offspring, so the chances of the new species being maintained was small...and the species died. Simple. And a new species did result. Just because a species dies out doesn't mean it was a new species. Just because the leafshell clam became extinct does nothing to change the fact that it was a distinct species of Epioblasma (clam).

 

[Blazin Bones]

Even so for this to be a viable arguement for evolution, the species would need to survive.

 

[keebs]

Why?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Why? Evolution is the process of creating a new species from the previous species. If the new species does not survive, then evolution did not really occur. You had a mutation not an evolution.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

<snip>
This? This from a poster that says I do not understand evolution. SyntaxVorlon, where is the "enough speciation" that you speak of? Almost 4000 consecutive generations of fly have been observed, yet the fly is still a fly. I will leave a space for your "You dont know Evolution...BlahBlahBlah"...

And you continue to illustrate this point very well, mills.
Enough speciation occurs when so great an amount of genetic material is changed to make that species one of a new genus. Over 4000 or 4,000,000 generations, if genetic information isn't changed enough, via mutation, genetic drift, etc, then not even speciation will happen. Speciation and genus division happen after prolonged, in a geological sense, periods of time.

...and continue with, regardless of what you call evolution, man had to evolve from a simpler being, specifically what being? Fly had to evolve from a simpler being, but where is that being? Duck had to evolve from a simpler being! WHAT BEING? Where is it? God said that he created Man, and why do I believe that? Because the probabilities involved in your theory are beyond "It follows logically that if speciation happens, enough speciation will lead to the branching of genuses." I am telling you that you need events that are against all scientifically observed fact, against all odds, against all logic and finally, against evolution to make a man evolve from a whatever into what it is now.

To answer your questions:
Dead, Dead, Dead.
You're telling me what?
What observed facts refute claims of speciation or genus division? The fact that dogs don't give birth to ducks? Hardly, this is just another worthless argument based on a lack of knowledge regarding evolution.(Now note the use of irony I have just used in making a strawman of your argument and then take a hammer to it.)
Evolution fits with observed facts: This group of animals exist, this group of similar animals existed in the past, cousins? probably.
Evolution fits with the odds: Enough with that stupid "tornado in a junk yard" false analogy. A better fitting analogy is to a card game where the hand you're dealt is copied into the hands of new players in your team and whoever has the best hands copies to the most players...and there are trillions of cards...
Hmmm the analogy there is pretty contrived, nonetheless, it stands.
At any rate, considering this analogy the odds favor the best hands, like in a game of cards, so the best hands win out.
Evolution fits with logic, as it's an elegant theory to explain the presence of life on earth, the past records of life on earth left by their fossils and the connections between them.
Evolution fits with Evolution, tautologically. I'm not sure you could actually make an argument that concludes that Evolution refutes itself unless you get into some pretty wonky logic, philosophy or the drawer in Soma-sight's nightstand.

 

[keebs]

Why? Evolution is the process of creating a new species from the previous species. If the new species does not survive, then evolution did not really occur. You had a mutation not an evolution.

You're obviously not understanding this. The extinction of the species is not a disproof of it's evolution. If a species evolves, and then becomes extinct...it still doesn't change the fact that the species evolved. Or, to put it in your terms: God created the dodo bird. The dodo bird died out. According to your logic, God never created the dodo bird. Do you see the logical fallacy that you are using?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Why? Evolution is the process of creating a new species from the previous species. If the new species does not survive, then evolution did not really occur. You had a mutation not an evolution.

You're obviously not understanding this. The survival of the species is not a disproof of evolution. If a species evolves, and then becomes extinct...it still doesn't change the fact that the species evolved. Or, to put it in your terms: God created the dodo bird. The dodo bird died out. According to your logic, God never created the dodo bird. Do you see the logical fallacy that you are using?

First you are acknowledging that God creates species not the species. But in evolution, by it's definition, the species must survive to be considered a new evolution.

 

[keebs]

First you are acknowledging that God creates species not the species.

No...I was using it as an example that you obviously didn't get.

But in evolution, by it's definition, the species must survive to be considered a new evolution.

No, the species does not have to survive for it to be considered to have evolved. Are you thinking of natural selection? Where are you deriving this principle from?

 

[Blazin Bones]

I understood you example, you said something you didn't agree with. Stop reversing yourself.

 

[keebs]

Once again, read what I wrote:

Or, to put it in your terms: God created the dodo bird. The dodo bird died out. According to your logic, God never created the dodo bird.

I said "to put it in your terms." I was using the fact that you believe in God. But, back to my question:

Are you thinking of natural selection? Where are you deriving this principle from?

 

[Blazin Bones]

This definition you supported.

Let me take a stab...and please, my fellow evolutionists, correct me where I may err since I am not a scientist by profession.

1. A life form exists (as I said, how it came to exist is irrelevant to evolution).

2. The life form contains DNA.

3. The life form is able to reproduce to make a copy of itself. This is the first step where "natural selection" comes into being. If the lifeform were unable to reproduce, it would die, and we would never see it again. Thus, only life forms able to reproduce, reproduce. Makes sense.

4. Over the course of time, genetic mutation occurs as a life form reproduces through the generations. This occurs for many reasons, if you are curious what they are, let us know.

5. As a result of genetic mutation, the subsequent generations of the species show different characteristics.

STOP - This is the point that all creationists agree to. Even Young Earth Creationists. They have not issue with what they call "microevolution". The example of the moth is a good one, whereas different characteristics "float to the top" because of:

A. Genetic mutation

B. Natural Selection

Another good example is dog breeds. Dogs have been breed to have different characteristics over time.

A dog has a genetic mutation that gives it very short legs. Breed it out for a few generations and you have a "corgie".

This is "genetic drift", which means that over generations changing dominate traits will give the species different characterisics.

Now at this point creationists and evolutionists agree completely.

Here is where we diverge.

6. At some point, one population of a species becomes geographically seperated from another population. Say, one group of monkeys moves far enough away from other monkeys where they cannot interbred.

7. Over time, the very same genetic drift that gives different subsets of a population different characteristics becomes widened. Over time, the genetic differences, due to mutation, become significant. At some point, the genetic differences are so significant that the two species are unable to interbred and produce VIABLE offspring.

Think of a donkey and a horse. They are close enough genetically to have babies (mules), but they are sterile. They are considered different species, not just different breeds.

8. The genetic drift becomes so large that any interbreeding is impossible. Thus, you have two separate species. This is what Darwin observed on the Galapogos. Because it is many different islands, geographically separated, a vast diversity of species emerged from island to island as drift and natural selection took the animals in different directions.

The same diversity, however, it not noticable in the plains. Buffalo were Buffalo. They moved and interbred with eachother. Because they were not separated by water or canyons or oceans, they continued to interbred and remained one species.

Wow, I've never written that out...but I hope it explains. Creationists get 90% there, they are simply unwilling to accept the next logical step.

check points 7 and 8

This asumes that for evolution to occur the species must survive through interbreeding. You agreed, Reread the thread.

 

[keebs]

It assumes the species must survive in the process of evolution. That is completely true. My point was that if speciation occurs, and the species dies, that doesn't change the fact that speciation did occur. It's not even genetics, it's logic. The present cannot change the past.

 

[keebs]

And, the only thing in the whole quote that mentions interbreeding is this:

8. The genetic drift becomes so large that any interbreeding is impossible.

That is just a definition of speciation.

And if you notice, that is what happened to the fruit flies. They were no longer able to interbreed with the original the original species, and it caused them to die out.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Why? Evolution is the process of creating a new species from the previous species. If the new species does not survive, then evolution did not really occur. You had a mutation not an evolution.

You're obviously not understanding this. The extinction of the species is not a disproof of it's evolution. If a species evolves, and then becomes extinct...it still doesn't change the fact that the species evolved. Or, to put it in your terms: God created the dodo bird. The dodo bird died out. According to your logic, God never created the dodo bird. Do you see the logical fallacy that you are using?

Okay, then why here are you claiming that it's evolution, not only speciation? Keebs, you can't have both.

 

[keebs]

I was talking about macroevolution, and was hoping that would be understood from the context of the conversation. Obviously it wasn't. Speciation is macroevolution. Speciation is classified as macroevolution from one species to another, and species are differentiated by the inability to breed.