What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The future of Humanity

A species is a population of interbreeding organisms. The definition requires that interbreeding be in the wild, not in some artificial environment, such as a zoo.

Hence, reproductive isolation. Lions and tigers can often interbreed if kept in a cage. In a few rare cases, organisms of two genera can still sometimes interbreed. But reproductive isolation is what makes separate taxa possible. When that happens, the two lines will become increasingly different.
 
The Barbarian said:
A species is a population of interbreeding organisms. The definition requires that interbreeding be in the wild, not in some artificial environment, such as a zoo.

Hence, reproductive isolation. Lions and tigers can often interbreed if kept in a cage. In a few rare cases, organisms of two genera can still sometimes interbreed. But reproductive isolation is what makes separate taxa possible. When that happens, the two lines will become increasingly different.
Click to expand...
the evolutionary side answer

now i will await crying rock and bronzesnake's answer.
 
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat.
Click to expand...

If it did evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Now, a miacid evolving into a feline or canid, that would be in line with the theory. Not surprisingly, that's what we see in the fossil record.

Speciation works only within a kind.
Click to expand...

If you want to call all living things one kind. Dogs, cats, bears, weasels, and pinnipeds all have a common ancestor in the fossil record.

Evolution requires natural selection and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind (e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation, however, leads to a loss of information, not the gain of information required by evolution.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no. In the case of the parasitic crab I mentioned, a lot was lost. On the other hand, birds gained a great deal of information.

Let's take a look. Would you say the loss of teeth in birds was a gain or loss of information?

Information has very little to do with speciation.

Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution
Click to expand...

Hard to say about that. "Molecules to man evolution" is something the creationists invented. The real theory, however only needs random mutation and natural selection.

so my wolf-hybrid having thick fur can't mate with a german shephard?
Click to expand...

They've diverged so recently that they are essentially two sub-species. Not quite fully speciated, yet.

On the other hand, whales have been separated from other ungulates so long, we need the fossil record, genetic analysis, and physiological evidence to show how they evolved.
 
wow, even me having limited knowledge has noticed something. information doesn't matter, really?
so i guess natural selection or random mutations that cause some changes aren't adding or taking information.

so i guess those single cells that first popped into being have all the dna that will ever be.
 
jasoncran said:
wow, even me having limited knowledge has noticed something. information doesn't matter, really?
so i guess natural selection or random mutations that cause some changes aren't adding or taking information.

so i guess those single cells that first popped into being have all the dna that will ever be.
Click to expand...


I think that anti evolutionists have only like five arguments they parrot over and over and over, and no matter how many times one is shown that the argument falls flat they just ignore the info, and move on to the next talking point.

I know I showed that information can be added in a different thread.

It's like an atheist who says I don't believe in God, I have never read the bible, but I have done tons of research, and came to the conclusion that if God was real he wouldn't have murdered all the unicorns because he was jealous of their power.
 
no, i will show where i'm talkin about.

mr barbarian says
Information has very little to do with speciation.

and the link from happyjoy, which seems to claim otherwise.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

:crazy

i wish i owned a garage as you think just because somebody that knows something that you dont know much about would be honest and not decieve you.

i would make tons off of you. :D

i become a mechanic simply because a shop ripped me off.

it is also been my observation that many evolutions speak in generalties. and kryptic.
 
because he says the that information doesnt lead to speciation, that link says that mutations and natural selection which is the addition or subtraction of information may lead to a new species.

from that link you gave

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow's milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.


so wich one is it gonna be today? info is needed for speciation or not?
 
jasoncran said:
because he says the that information doesnt lead to speciation, that link says that mutations and natural selection which is the addition or subtraction of information may lead to a new species.

from that link you gave

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow's milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.


so wich one is it gonna be today? info is needed for speciation or not?
Click to expand...


The quote you apply to him doesn't conflict at all. I think that you have a basic lack of understanding, and are afraid to learn. Pick up a biology textbook, and read it. I have posted free online university courses several times. They offer biology. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of or glorify.
 
no, i have reread that several times. it's clearly there. is dna changes considered mutations? then arent all mutations ether addition or subtraction of info via natural selection.

i also will ask my retired professor friend. who has laughed at your animals have morals comment.

he is stated to me that one little tiny change in the dna can make the difference.
 
jasoncran said:
no, i have reread that several times. it's clearly there. is dna changes considered mutations? then arent all mutations ether addition or subtraction of info via natural selection.

i also will ask my retired professor friend. who has laughed at your animals have morals comment.

he is stated to me that one little tiny change in the dna can make the difference.
Click to expand...


I think I see where the problem lies. I don't think I have ever said animals have morals. I have said humans are animals. I have said animals have feelings. I have said that animals have free will. Somehow you pick something I have not said and attribute it to me. You seem to only get the information you want out of whatever you read, whether it is there or not.

Get educated for yourself, and don't rely on parroting the ideas of others.
 
There really is very little relationship between the evolution of a population and the amount of information in it. Sometimes, as in founder effect bottlenecks, the information is greatly reduced. Sometimes, as in anagenesis, information is increased.

That being so, increases or decreases of information aren't very useful as an index of evolution. Maybe it would help if I showed you a simple problem in information in population biology?
 
no, i have reread that several times. it's clearly there. is dna changes considered mutations? then arent all mutations ether addition or subtraction of info via natural selection.
Click to expand...

DNA changes are mutations. Some changes, particularly point mutations, neither add nor subtract information from the population. Some add, and some subtract. It really isn't an issue for evolution.
 
The Barbarian said:
no, i have reread that several times. it's clearly there. is dna changes considered mutations? then arent all mutations ether addition or subtraction of info via natural selection.
Click to expand...

DNA changes are mutations. Some changes, particularly point mutations, neither add nor subtract information from the population. Some add, and some subtract. It really isn't an issue for evolution.
Click to expand...
while i dont agree with you often, thanks for being polite. i will ask more on this, i did see a hint of that on that link but i wasnt quite sure as it didnt give more on that.

perhaps a thread on what information is will be helpful.
 
jasoncran said:
The Barbarian said:
no, i have reread that several times. it's clearly there. is dna changes considered mutations? then arent all mutations ether addition or subtraction of info via natural selection.
Click to expand...

DNA changes are mutations. Some changes, particularly point mutations, neither add nor subtract information from the population. Some add, and some subtract. It really isn't an issue for evolution.
Click to expand...
while i dont agree with you often, thanks for being polite. i will ask more on this, i did see a hint of that on that link but i wasnt quite sure as it didnt give more on that.

perhaps a thread on what information is will be helpful.
Click to expand...

The amount of computer bits it takes to describe something. If the genome is altered, it may take tha same. less. or more bits to describe the new genome. Physicists often relate missing information to a quantity called entropy ( mathematically, it is the natural log of missing information)
 
That is, BTW, what biologists use to measure the amount of information in the genome of a population of organisms.
 
Physicist:

"...Physicists often relate missing information to a quantity called entropy..."

It seems you and I agree on what information is: entropy does not equal information. It's just the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top