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

[Gary]

...but we already know that from dog and horse breeding... so what is new?

Have they been able to even get a new species of fruit fly?



Once a fruit fly; always a fruit fly.
Is your great-great... great grandfather (or is that grandmother) an amoeba? When did your grandfather become your grandmother? When did the first person/human who evolved from an amoeba get a belly button? Was your great-great-great grandparent asexual?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Easy answer Gary, No.

 

[keebs]

...but we already know that from dog and horse breeding... so what is new?

It is easier to analyze mutations in fruit flys because we can easily cause mutations in fruit flys using x-rays, whereas it's much harder to cause mutations in larger and more complex organisms.

 

[keebs]

And yes, speciation has occured in fruit flys, to answer your question...

 

[Gary]

keebs: "...if these mutations can cause speciation from one type of fruit fly to another."

Gary: i.e. trying to PROVE macro-evolution. Have they been able to even get a new species of fruit fly? I am not talking about mutations... I am talking about NEW species.



Once a fruit fly; always a fruit fly.
Is your great-great... great grandfather (or is that grandmother) an amoeba? When did your grandfather become your grandmother? When did the first person/human who evolved from an amoeba get a belly button? Was your great-great-great grandparent asexual?

 

[keebs]

Did you read my last post?

And yes, speciation has occured in fruit flys, to answer your question...

 

[Featherbop]

I think the problem is when the classifiers try to organize the animals as to what they beleive they evolved from....

The fruit fly may have adapted, may have mutated, what have you, but still a modified fruit fly. It isn't compelling for ME.

Of course, in deciding what animals evolved from what, we have no way to know for sure, just guesses.....too much room for error, the observations are lacking(in some areas).

People can decide what the definitions of evolution, speciation, abiogenesis, macro-evolution, etc are without having to observe.....is this an adaptation from severe inability. It looks it to me.

 

[Gary]

keebs: ....speciation has occured in fruit flys(sic)

Gary: The onus is on you to show proof of that statement.

Once a fruit fly; always a fruit fly. Once fruit flies.... we have a new species!.... called "flying fruit".
Is your great-great... great grandfather (or is that grandmother) an amoeba? When did your grandfather become your grandmother? When did the first person/human who evolved from an amoeba get a belly button? Was your great-great-great grandparent asexual?
P.S. The plural of "fly"is "flies". Who did you call a moron to start with? LOL

 

[keebs]

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

 

[Gary]

So the fruit fly has stayed a fruit fly. As I said, we already knew that.

Will the fruit fly ever "evolve" past being a fruit fly?

 

[Featherbop]

A modified fly is still a fly. So? Is it still a fruitfly?(maybe its a vegetable fly now? : )

 

[keebs]

You're talking taxonomy, not evolution. But, that is besides the point...you're not looking for speciation...you are looking for a species to evolve and form a new genus, as with humans and chimps. This takes millions of years (more or less), and we haven't known about evolution long enough to observe that.

 

[Featherbop]

So they(scientists, evolutionary) make up with assumptions what they lack in observations. It is very unimmpressive. Humans are incompetent until they observe this. I would beleive in the common descent of all life from a single celled lifeform, but noone can show it to me. (or what have you, varies from person to person). A guess isn't significant, the evidence being highly capable of being circumstancial doesn't help either. :-?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So they(scientists, evolutionary) make up with assumptions what they lack in observations. It is very unimmpressive. Humans are incompetent until they observe this. I would beleive in the common descent of all life from a single celled lifeform, but noone can show it to me. (or what have you, varies from person to person). A guess isn't significant, the evidence being highly capable of being circumstancial doesn't help either. :-?

Sorites Fallacy, by the same argument a poor man never becomes rich, no matter how many pennies you give him, because a penny doesn't change enough of his wealth to make him rich.

It follows logically that if speciation happens, enough speciation will lead to the branching of genuses. This is THE best explanation for the heirarchical nature of paleotaxonomy. Since the only issue you could possibly raise here is philosophical, then you cannot make a scientific assertion against evolution.

Next you'll argue that because you can't see the airplane in front of the contrail, there is no airplane and humans can't create flying machines.

 

[rmills]

So they(scientists, evolutionary) make up with assumptions what they lack in observations. It is very unimmpressive. Humans are incompetent until they observe this. I would beleive in the common descent of all life from a single celled lifeform, but noone can show it to me. (or what have you, varies from person to person). A guess isn't significant, the evidence being highly capable of being circumstancial doesn't help either. :-?

Sorites Fallacy, by the same argument a poor man never becomes rich, no matter how many pennies you give him, because a penny doesn't change enough of his wealth to make him rich.

It follows logically that if speciation happens, enough speciation will lead to the branching of genuses. This is THE best explanation for the heirarchical nature of paleotaxonomy. Since the only issue you could possibly raise here is philosophical, then you cannot make a scientific assertion against evolution.

Next you'll argue that because you can't see the airplane in front of the contrail, there is no airplane and humans can't create flying machines.

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 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.

 

[Tiger]

I am telling you that you need events that are against all scientifically observed fact,

That statement is in error. Most scientifically observed facts support that theory.

against all odds,

Yes, the odds against it are high, but not as high as you are making them to be.

against all logic

Unfortunately, the logic behind it is very sound. Think of it like this... If you give a poor person a pound, they are not rich, but if you give that person a pound a million times, they are now rich. Very simple, sound logic.

and finally, against evolution to make a man evolve from a whatever into what it is now.

No, it fits evolutionary theory quite well...

It doesn't fit what you say is evolutionary theory though, and that's the problem.


If you would like to start arguing against the actual theory instead of your idea of what that theory is, you might be able to make a point. Until then, you're just wasting bandwidth...

 

[keebs]

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.

You obviously do not understand speciation. Speciation is when a new species is formed, you are talking about forming a new genus. There are different species of flies, and we have observed speciation in the drosophila genus.

 

[keebs]

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...

 

[Blazin Bones]

And yes, speciation has occured in fruit flys, to answer your question...

Prove it. I've read the research, and reviewed the studies. In every attempt to change the Fruit Flies the following generation were just like the originals, no change at all.

 

[keebs]

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