[_ Old Earth _] The genes have it

[jwu]

You again, are completely missing my point. You are saying that humans are primates. So if they are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, then I agree with you 100%. Or are you not claiming that primates and humans are one in the same? Which is it?

Heidi, do you understand that there are terms which describe groups of species? That "primate" is such a term, that there are several species which all are classified as primates?

The could be easily interpreted as different species from the beginning.
The two species in the South are obviously not the same two species that
exist a little farther North (or they just haven't been able to catch the
Southern ones producing offspring...it was noted in the article, that it was
rare for the ones a little further up the coast to breed). To say the two
Southern species or more Northerly species evovled from the single species
In Oregon is a long, long stretch. Why do the authors believe this? Maybe
I'm missing some info.

If they were different species from the beginning, then why can A breed with B, B breed with C and so on? That shouldn't be the case then.

The article very clearly mentions this:

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring...

Do you have any clarifying info such as: can the Oregon species mate with
the other species in Southern California; can the Oregon species mate with
the other species in Northern California; and can either of the species in
Northern California breed with either of the species in Southern California.
The article was a bit sketchy on the details.

Exactly that is what ring species are about - if there wasn't this "A with B, B with C but not A with C" relationship, then they wouldn't be a ring species.

Another example are Herring gulls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Exactly that is what ring species are about - if there wasn't this "A with B, B with C but not A with C" relationship, then they wouldn't be a ring species.

In the diagram, notice the the assumption the Oregon population is the

ancestor of all the other salamanders.

That's a huge assumption with which to begin. And then, the diagram shows

hybridization of both the Northern pairs and Southern pairs...but supposedly

they can't reproduce in the South. Have they made a mistake on the

diagram, or am I missing something. I'll check out your other example...

that might clarify the hypothesis.

Peace

 

[jwu]

In the diagram, notice the the assumption the Oregon population is the

ancestor of all the other salamanders.

It makes perfect sense that way...and either way it demonstrates that the term "species" can be fuzzy sometimes.

That's a huge assumption with which to begin. And then, the diagram shows hybridization of both the Northern pairs and Southern pairs...but supposedly they can't reproduce in the South. Have they made a mistake on the diagram, or am I missing something. I'll check out your other example...
that might clarify the hypothesis.

Hybridizations of some of the subspecies does not post a problem for the concept as long as not all do it. It's even addressed in the article.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:


Another example are Herring gulls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

A recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here. For more information about this see: The herring gull complex is not a ring species, D Liebers, P de Knijff, AJ Helbig, Biological Sciences, 2004 Volume 271.

Apparently new genetic research has disproved that these gulls are an

example of "ring species".


Peace

 

[jwu]

Ah, i should have read more carefully. There are other examples though, such as the Greenish Warbler.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I'll check it out...I'm gonna hang a bit with the family, but should be back on a

little later.

Peace

 

[Heidi]

You again, are completely missing my point. You are saying that humans are primates. So if they are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, then I agree with you 100%. Or are you not claiming that primates and humans are one in the same? Which is it?

Heidi, do you understand that there are terms which describe groups of species? That "primate" is such a term, that there are several species which all are classified as primates?

[quote:627f5]The could be easily interpreted as different species from the beginning.
The two species in the South are obviously not the same two species that
exist a little farther North (or they just haven't been able to catch the
Southern ones producing offspring...it was noted in the article, that it was
rare for the ones a little further up the coast to breed). To say the two
Southern species or more Northerly species evovled from the single species
In Oregon is a long, long stretch. Why do the authors believe this? Maybe
I'm missing some info.

If they were different species from the beginning, then why can A breed with B, B breed with C and so on? That shouldn't be the case then.

The article very clearly mentions this:

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring...

Do you have any clarifying info such as: can the Oregon species mate with
the other species in Southern California; can the Oregon species mate with
the other species in Northern California; and can either of the species in
Northern California breed with either of the species in Southern California.
The article was a bit sketchy on the details.

Exactly that is what ring species are about - if there wasn't this "A with B, B with C but not A with C" relationship, then they wouldn't be a ring species.

Another example are Herring gulls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species[/quote:627f5]

A can't breed with B to produce C which is exactly why primates cannot be our ancestors! But since you don't know that primates and humans cannot interbreed, then neither can you understand deeper matters. That first has to be understood by you before you see that humans come from humans and animals come from animals. Yet that's one of the first principles of biology you need to learn before you can go on to advanced biology. :roll:

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

A recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here. For more information about this see: The herring gull complex is not a ring species, D Liebers, P de Knijff, AJ Helbig, Biological Sciences, 2004 Volume 271.

I'm having a hard time finding this study. I wonder if the genetic

observations found in this study would apply to the salamanders and green

warblers?

If you have any luck finding it, I'd appreciate a link. I've actually never

studied this topic before today.

Peace

 

[army_of_juan]

The level of ignorance from this post is just mind boggling.

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates.

Wow, you have no idea what a primate is do you? (hint: humans are primates)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates

And here's some reading about how humans are classified as apes (which are also under the primate umbrella).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Read those two links in order to help understand why your post are such nonsense.

Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom!

And dogs can't breed with any animal so they can't be in the animal kingdom either! Do you even read your own post?

People making up words for things or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole don't realize they are not God and cannot make the impossible possible. Again, any child can tell the difference between humans and animals. Only evolutionists cannot.

You have no idea what the words species, animal, primate, and ape are ( just like most children). How sad for you.

 

[Heidi]

The level of ignorance from this post is just mind boggling.

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates.

Wow, you have no idea what a primate is do you? (hint: humans are primates)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates

And here's some reading about how humans are classified as apes (which are also under the primate umbrella).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Read those two links in order to help understand why your post are such nonsense.

Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom!

And dogs can't breed with any animal so they can't be in the animal kingdom either! Do you even read your own post?

[quote:26a83]People making up words for things or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole don't realize they are not God and cannot make the impossible possible. Again, any child can tell the difference between humans and animals. Only evolutionists cannot.

You have no idea what the words species, animal, primate, and ape are ( just like most children). How sad for you.[/quote:26a83]

Hello? :o Dogs breed with dogs! And dogs are animals.

So again, if humans and primates are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, again, I would agree with you that humans came from humans.

Do you know what the term "bestiality" means? It means human sex with animals. So are you claiming that humans having sex with humans is bestiality? :o

But that's what happens when people try to play God and confuse species. They don't what what is right or wrong, or which species is which. But before Darwin came along, everyone knew the difference between animals and humans and what constitutes bestiality. But now, people are so confused that they claim wild animals are our ancestors! The bible was right that the wolrd would become increasingly perverse and wicked. ;-)

 

[jwu]

So again, if humans and primates are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, again, I would agree with you that humans came from humans.

Once again, Heidi:
Primate is a term for a group of species. It is not the same as "human", nor is it the same as "ape". I don't think anyone of us ever claimed that they were the same. It's a term for a group of species, one of which are us humans.
One can be a primate without being able to breed with other primates. Just like one can be a mammal without being able to breed with other species of mammals.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I think Heidi is trying to stress she doesn't buy into ToE definitions...i.e.- the

grouping of humans with other animals.

Is that what your stressing Heidi?

Forgive me if I'm butting in...was just following along.

 

[Heidi]

I think Heidi is trying to stress she doesn't buy into ToE definitions...i.e.- the

grouping of humans with other animals.

Is that what your stressing Heidi?

Forgive me if I'm butting in...was just following along.

I'd say that's putting it mildly. We'd all know the differences between humans and animals if we didn't listen to evolutionists. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see them. :wink:

 

[Heidi]

So again, if humans and primates are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, again, I would agree with you that humans came from humans.

Once again, Heidi:
Primate is a term for a group of species. It is not the same as "human", nor is it the same as "ape". I don't think anyone of us ever claimed that they were the same. It's a term for a group of species, one of which are us humans.
One can be a primate without being able to breed with other primates. Just like one can be a mammal without being able to breed with other species of mammals.

Of course you claimed that humans are primates! That's what you claim the first humans were, did you not? :o Or are you you're changing your story again? :o Unfortuately, you're counting on your doubletalk to try bamboozle us, friend. Sorry, but it doesn't work because of your contradictions. It would be nice if you could make one statement without taking it back. ;-)

 

[protos]

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

Microevolution, is proven and accepted by both creationists and evolutionists. The reason creationists accept it is because empirical science CAN reproduce those results.

Macroevolution, evolution from a frog to a cow, HAS NOT, and CAN NOT be reproduced by empirical science, and we have the explanation, whereas the theory in crisis, aka evolution, is increasingly beat down with the advent and light of modern science.

Your complete unwillingness to accept these facts, and your continuing stubborness and senseless opposition to everything we say is all founded on one big misconception. By clearing this misconception, I hope that I can at least stop you from posting further topics trying to support evolution, if not show you the truth:

The evolution I was taught in 7th grade was one without genetics. It was an evolution that had species have "mud" genomes, that is, the species can gradually change over time. Quite simply, those bastards brainwashed me. I was a 12-year-old, I didn't think for myself, I accepted anything that I was told in the name of science as absolute fact.

I suspect this is the same case with you. The kind of evolution you are thinking of is a misconception which even atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins has admitted is spread over the majority of evolutionists. You have to understand that THE ONLY WAY evolution can work, is if new information is created in the genome.

Why this cannot happen:

1) The genome has limited space. The casing of the base pairs is a set amount, and all insertions (type of genetic mutation) have only limited space, and thus cannot make information

2) The rate of decay (natural genetic mutations) of the genome outpace any possible (and by possible I mean 1 in a google) information "creation" by processes.

This is why macroevolution cannot exist.

Evidence that supports this:

Turtles haven't evolved on the evolutionist timescale for 240 million years. According to them this is because they've reached their "optimum" for their environment.

The fossil record has unconnectable gaps. Darwin postulated (one of many things) that these gaps would be filled in the future. They haven't. This has led evolutionist Jay Gould to postulate punctuated equilibrium.

Fallacy of Punctuated Equillibrium:

A sudden rapid change in a species, this gives even less time for information to form. Not only does information have to be miraculously formed, but it has to happen to at least 3 other members. The chances of the same information forming within 4 living things of the same species in the same location is IMPOSSIBLE.

Further, Haldane's dilemma eliminates any possible development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of a blind watchmaker, the evolution, the TRUE evolution that can only make sense in this world, is a blind gunman.

I know you'll probably continue arguing these points without even reading them, but if you do, it'll only prove my point that you're senselessly arguing for a lost cause, which you believe is winning. Kind of like Germany in the last months of WWI.

 

[protos]

So again, if humans and primates are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, again, I would agree with you that humans came from humans.

Once again, Heidi:
Primate is a term for a group of species. It is not the same as "human", nor is it the same as "ape". I don't think anyone of us ever claimed that they were the same. It's a term for a group of species, one of which are us humans.
One can be a primate without being able to breed with other primates. Just like one can be a mammal without being able to breed with other species of mammals.

Unfortunately, that's the evolutionist subtle attempt at grouping us with animals. Just like they place the insignificant importance on Earth as "just being" one of the billions of planets.

Instead, people were made in God's Image, and the Earth is center to God's plan, and there is only life on Earth, which is what those Mars probes will prove.

However, if the Mars probes find bacteria identical to those on Earth, then they came off the spacecraft. Just as a russian astronaut found identical bacteria on the moon.

 

[protos]

The level of ignorance from this post is just mind boggling.

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates.

Wow, you have no idea what a primate is do you? (hint: humans are primates)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates

And here's some reading about how humans are classified as apes (which are also under the primate umbrella).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Read those two links in order to help understand why your post are such nonsense.

Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom!

And dogs can't breed with any animal so they can't be in the animal kingdom either! Do you even read your own post?

[quote:a1224]People making up words for things or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole don't realize they are not God and cannot make the impossible possible. Again, any child can tell the difference between humans and animals. Only evolutionists cannot.

You have no idea what the words species, animal, primate, and ape are ( just like most children). How sad for you.[/quote:a1224]

You can classify anything as you like. I can call you a table, but it won't make you one.

As for inbreeding, yes it's possible, but the offspring won't be able to have offspring if its chromosomes are an odd number (just like a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey, but can't have mulettes or whatever).

However, an experiment between humans and anything else would just be a disgusting step since it would make such a biological "freak" out of God's Image.

 

[jwu]

Of course you claimed that humans are primates! That's what you claim the first humans were, did you not? Or are you you're changing your story again? Unfortuately, you're counting on your doubletalk to try bamboozle us, friend. Sorry, but it doesn't work because of your contradictions. It would be nice if you could make one statement without taking it back.

Yes, i said that humans are primates. That means that humans belong to the group of species called primates. In order for it to mean how you apparently understood it i would have had to say "all primates are humans", but that's not the case as there are non-human primates. Hence i did not say that.

Just like saying that "Jake is a politician" makes him a member of the group of persons that is called "politicians". But it does not in any way imply that he is the only politician, the only member of that group.

You have to understand that THE ONLY WAY evolution can work, is if new information is created in the genome.

Why this cannot happen:

1) The genome has limited space. The casing of the base pairs is a set amount, and all insertions (type of genetic mutation) have only limited space, and thus cannot make information

Limited space? I'd like to see a source for this. Where is the limit of the human genome, measured in base pairs? How about observed instances of the length of the genome increasing?
And besides, i don't think you will deny that any species that is alive can hold its own genome - where in the past did it require a longer genome than it evidently can "hold" because we see it having such a genome today?

2) The rate of decay (natural genetic mutations) of the genome outpace any possible (and by possible I mean 1 in a google) information "creation" by processes.

Define "information". How much information, a precise number please, is in the human genome?

Turtles haven't evolved on the evolutionist timescale for 240 million years. According to them this is because they've reached their "optimum" for their environment.

What is the problem with that explaination? Stable niches result in stable species.

The fossil record has unconnectable gaps. Darwin postulated (one of many things) that these gaps would be filled in the future. They haven't. This has led evolutionist Jay Gould to postulate punctuated equilibrium.

There are plenty transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), and considering the rarity of fossilization one cannot expect a complete reconstruction of all ancestral lines down to a high level of detail. Many nice series are found though.

 

[Heidi]

Of course you claimed that humans are primates! That's what you claim the first humans were, did you not? Or are you you're changing your story again? Unfortuately, you're counting on your doubletalk to try bamboozle us, friend. Sorry, but it doesn't work because of your contradictions. It would be nice if you could make one statement without taking it back.

Yes, i said that humans are primates. That means that humans belong to the group of species called primates. In order for it to mean how you apparently understood it i would have had to say "all primates are humans", but that's not the case as there are non-human primates. Hence i did not say that.

Just like saying that "Jake is a politician" makes him a member of the group of persons that is called "politicians". But it does not in any way imply that he is the only politician, the only member of that group.

[quote:1d90e]You have to understand that THE ONLY WAY evolution can work, is if new information is created in the genome.

Why this cannot happen:

1) The genome has limited space. The casing of the base pairs is a set amount, and all insertions (type of genetic mutation) have only limited space, and thus cannot make information

Limited space? I'd like to see a source for this. Where is the limit of the human genome, measured in base pairs? How about observed instances of the length of the genome increasing?
And besides, i don't think you will deny that any species that is alive can hold its own genome - where in the past did it require a longer genome than it evidently can "hold" because we see it having such a genome today?

2) The rate of decay (natural genetic mutations) of the genome outpace any possible (and by possible I mean 1 in a google) information "creation" by processes.

Define "information". How much information, a precise number please, is in the human genome?

Turtles haven't evolved on the evolutionist timescale for 240 million years. According to them this is because they've reached their "optimum" for their environment.

What is the problem with that explaination? Stable niches result in stable species.

The fossil record has unconnectable gaps. Darwin postulated (one of many things) that these gaps would be filled in the future. They haven't. This has led evolutionist Jay Gould to postulate punctuated equilibrium.

There are plenty transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), and considering the rarity of fossilization one cannot expect a complete reconstruction of all ancestral lines down to a high level of detail. Many nice series are found though.[/quote:1d90e]

Again, more doubletalk. Are humans primates or not? Yes or no. The truth is always simple and lies are always convoluted. So a simple yes or no will suffice. Or don't you know? :o

 

[jwu]

Humans are primates, so yes.

And do you understand that "primates" is a term for a group of species? That there is more than one species of primates just like there is more than one species of vertebrates, or quadrupeds, or felines or mammals and so on? Yes or no.