Creationists DO believe in Natural Selection and Speciation

[David M]

Sorry, but that implies?

That implies that Neandertals could interbreed with H. sapiens only for a limited period of time after the divergence from the common ancestor (which is not surprising) but that for 30,000 years or so that humans and Neandertals coexisted before Neandertals went extinct that they definitely could not interbreed, that would mean that speciation definitely occurred as the result was two populations that could not interbreed.

 

[otokage007]

That implies that Neandertals could interbreed with H. sapiens only for a limited period of time after the divergence from the common ancestor (which is not surprising) but that for 30,000 years or so that humans and Neandertals coexisted before Neandertals went extinct that they definitely could not interbreed, that would mean that speciation definitely occurred as the result was two populations that could not interbreed.

So u are saying that they were the same species untill neanderthal became extinct, because after that, H.sapiens evolved enough to be a completely new specie that would not be able to produce fertile offspring anymore if interbreeded with neanderthal.

 

[Skwim]

At one time there was some doubt that coywolves could reproduce successfully without subsequent generation infertility. Breeding experiments in Germany with poodles and coyotes, as well as with wolves, jackals and later on with the resulting dog-coyote hybrids showed a decrease in fertility and significant communication problems as well as an increase in genetic diseases after three generations of interbreeding between the hybrids, unlike with wolfdogs. Therefore it was concluded that domestic dogs and gray wolves are the same species and that the coyote is a separate species from both.

Coywolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many eastern coyotes are coy-wolves, a canid hybrid, which, despite having a majority of coyote (Canis latrans) ancestry, also descends from wolves, either the Gray wolf (Canis lupus) or the Red wolf (Canis lupus rufus, formerly Canis rufus), which is on balance more coyote than wolf. They come from a constantly evolving gene pool and are viewed by some scientists as an emerging species.The genetic composition of these animals is debated amongst scientists.

A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89 percent wolf. A theory has been proposed that the large eastern coyotes in Canada are actually hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges.
Source: same as above
​

 

[David M]

So u are saying that they were the same species untill neanderthal became extinct, because after that, H.sapiens evolved enough to be a completely new specie that would not be able to produce fertile offspring anymore if interbreeded with neanderthal.

No, I'm saying that for the 30k years that H. neandertalis and H. sapiens coexisted in Europe and Asia until Neandertals became extinct they could not interbreed. That inablity to interbreed may date from as far back as 50-60k years or even further.

The evidence is that Neandertals and H. sapiens were not interbreeding in Europe or Asia when they occupied the same areas there. Interbreeding would have happened very soon after H. sapiens started moving out of Africa at the latest, but its not possible to rule out that it stopped happening even before that.

 

[Eliu]

We can mean many different things when we talk about evolution. In this thread, I am going to differentiate and define each one.

@siwe
Hello!
Biblical creationists (at least those who believe to Bible) don't believe to evolution.
And natural selection is not evolution.
Evolution means appearance of complex and functional biologic structurer, non-existing before. This never happens.
Natural selection means surviving of those animals who can adapt to environmental conditions. But natural selection means loss of variability and extinction of animal species. It doesn't add complex and functional structures.
Evolution and natural selection are separated matters, for evolution doesn't happen, natural selection happens. For definition, natural selection is not “a type of evolution”, for it adds nothing.
Creationist, as you know, believe in “kinds”. But creationists don't believe in evolution.
And so, what about different species inside the same “kind”?
Variability. The first animals of each “kind” (I'll call it “baramin”) possessed a greater variability in their DNA, much greater than the actual animals. So, in time, and because of “corruption” that concerned all Universe, happened a loss of variability in DNA, and the differentiation in actual species. Inside each “baramin” there were room for separation of different “lines” of animals (as lions and tigers) who could interbreed. In some cases they lost also the “code” for interbreeding, due to corruption. Differentiation, no evolution. Any structure was already existing inside the DNA.
And abiogenesis, of course, has no specific base (or else, flies and mice born from trash...).
It's not a matter of terms. It's matter of what happens and what doesn't happen.
Evolution (molecules to cell, cell to man, appearance of new complex and functional structures) doesn't happen.
Natural selection (surviving of the fittest, loss of function, variability) happens.
Simply.
God bless you all.

 

[Skwim]

@siwe
Hello!
Biblical creationists (at least those who believe to Bible) don't believe to evolution.
And natural selection is not evolution.
Evolution means appearance of complex and functional biologic structurer, non-existing before. This never happens.
Natural selection means surviving of those animals who can adapt to environmental conditions. But natural selection means loss of variability and extinction of animal species. It doesn't add complex and functional structures.
Evolution and natural selection are separated matters, for evolution doesn't happen, natural selection happens. For definition, natural selection is not “a type of evolution”, for it adds nothing.
Creationist, as you know, believe in “kinds”. But creationists don't believe in evolution.
And so, what about different species inside the same “kind”?
Variability. The first animals of each “kind” (I'll call it “baramin”) possessed a greater variability in their DNA, much greater than the actual animals. So, in time, and because of “corruption” that concerned all Universe, happened a loss of variability in DNA, and the differentiation in actual species. Inside each “baramin” there were room for separation of different “lines” of animals (as lions and tigers) who could interbreed. In some cases they lost also the “code” for interbreeding, due to corruption. Differentiation, no evolution. Any structure was already existing inside the DNA.
And abiogenesis, of course, has no specific base (or else, flies and mice born from trash...).
It's not a matter of terms. It's matter of what happens and what doesn't happen.
Evolution (molecules to cell, cell to man, appearance of new complex and functional structures) doesn't happen.
Natural selection (surviving of the fittest, loss of function, variability) happens.
Simply.
God bless you all.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with evolution before making any more foolish remarks.


Just a suggestion.

 

[Eliu]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with evolution before making any more foolish remarks.
Just a suggestion.

I had familiarized weith evolution for years. Then I began to study it in detail.
Now I am a creationist.
God bless you!

 

[Skwim]

I had familiarized weith evolution for years. Then I began to study it in detail.
Now I am a creationist.
God bless you!

Then you obviously didn't study too hard to come up with inane statements such as:

"Natural selection means surviving of those animals who can adapt to environmental conditions. But natural selection means loss of variability and extinction of animal species. It doesn't add complex and functional structures."
​

Or

"So, in time, and because of “corruption” that concerned all Universe, happened a loss of variability in DNA, and the differentiation in actual species."
​

Or

"Differentiation, no evolution. Any structure was already existing inside the DNA."

​

 

[Eliu]

@skwim
It's a matter of faith, believing that what does not happen will happen.
It's not a matter of study.
God bless you.

 

[Skwim]

@skwim
It's a matter of faith, believing that what does not happen will happen.
It's not a matter of study.
God bless you.

Then all your study was for naught.
Why even bother to try to understand the other side if you're not going to learn anything from it, and intend to stick to your own belief anyway?

 

[Eliu]

@skwim
...I said that I believed in evolution for a lot of years, then I discovered it has no real base. Mybe I was not clear, sorry.
I know evolution.
When I started, some years ago, to examine it more seriously (not just in learning it and believing it), it showed it's true nature: it has no scientific base. It's just a faith.
A teaching, to be considered "true", must possess a realistic base. Evolution does not have it.
But it's possible to believe.
It's possible to believe anything.
But... is it true?
It's something different.
I'm a creationist, now.
Because creationism is much more scientifically plausible than evolution.
Just this.
I hope I explained more clearly!
God bless you!

 

[Skwim]

A teaching, to be considered "true", must possess a realistic base. Evolution does not have it.

I know evidence will never trump faith when it comes to matters of necessity, but please don't make any more rash statements like the above. It doesn't do your credibility any good.

"DNA not only confirms the scientific basis of evolution but it shows how it varies an organism’s characteristics. For example, by analysing the close similarity of their genetic code, scientists have today confirmed Darwin’s educated guess that the different species of Galapagos Finch did indeed evolve from a single common ancestor. The differences in beak shape that Darwin noted, which made the different species so well adapted to the varied environments found on the Galapagos Islands, are attributed to a single common gene. This gene expresses different proteins in the growing jaw of the finch embryo, resulting in the different beak types."
source
​

 

[Eliu]

I know evidence will never trump faith when it comes to matters of necessity, but please don't make any more rash statements like the above. It doesn't do your credibility any good.

"DNA not only confirms the scientific basis of evolution but it shows how it varies an organism’s characteristics. For example, by analysing the close similarity of their genetic code, scientists have today confirmed Darwin’s educated guess that the different species of Galapagos Finch did indeed evolve from a single common ancestor. The differences in beak shape that Darwin noted, which made the different species so well adapted to the varied environments found on the Galapagos Islands, are attributed to a single common gene. This gene expresses different proteins in the growing jaw of the finch embryo, resulting in the different beak types."
​

Hello!
Faith and evidences usually are different fields. So "credibility", at the eyes of the listener, usually is filtered by listener's faith.
For DNA... always the same talk.
It's a code, containing instruction for the complete living being, with all its complex and functional structures inside it. For human beings, an 800 Megabytes code of information.
Believe this is "random made" needs a strong faith, stronger than Christians', really.
God bless you.

 

[siweLSC]

@siwe
Hello!
Biblical creationists (at least those who believe to Bible) don't believe to evolution.
And natural selection is not evolution.
Evolution means appearance of complex and functional biologic structurer, non-existing before. This never happens.
Natural selection means surviving of those animals who can adapt to environmental conditions. But natural selection means loss of variability and extinction of animal species. It doesn't add complex and functional structures.
Evolution and natural selection are separated matters, for evolution doesn't happen, natural selection happens. For definition, natural selection is not “a type of evolution”, for it adds nothing.
Creationist, as you know, believe in “kinds”. But creationists don't believe in evolution.
And so, what about different species inside the same “kind”?
Variability. The first animals of each “kind” (I'll call it “baramin”) possessed a greater variability in their DNA, much greater than the actual animals. So, in time, and because of “corruption” that concerned all Universe, happened a loss of variability in DNA, and the differentiation in actual species. Inside each “baramin” there were room for separation of different “lines” of animals (as lions and tigers) who could interbreed. In some cases they lost also the “code” for interbreeding, due to corruption. Differentiation, no evolution. Any structure was already existing inside the DNA.
And abiogenesis, of course, has no specific base (or else, flies and mice born from trash...).
It's not a matter of terms. It's matter of what happens and what doesn't happen.
Evolution (molecules to cell, cell to man, appearance of new complex and functional structures) doesn't happen.
Natural selection (surviving of the fittest, loss of function, variability) happens.
Simply.
God bless you all.

You are right in saying that evolution and natural selection are completely different animals, but a lot of people do equate natural selection with evolution, not understanding that one is constructive and not observed, and one is destructive and observed.

This is the classic Dawkins bait and switch lie: First he defines evolution as "Allele frequency change over time" ie. Natural selection. This is a process that has been observed, and it is repeatable and provable, and then having equated an observed theory with an unobserved theory, he bags creationists for rejecting evolution when all he has proved is natural selection. This has been incredibly effective, and very few people, particularly evolutionists differentiate between the two.

I was not saying what evolution is, but the different things people can mean when they talk about evolution, and sometimes when Dawkins talks about evolution sometimes he means natural selection. Other times, he doesn't, and biblical creationists need to understand this.
He doesn't debate creationists, he doesn't read creationist material, so is it any wonder he has no idea of what creationists believe?
God bless you too!

 

[otokage007]

@siwe
Hello!
Biblical creationists (at least those who believe to Bible) don't believe to evolution.
And natural selection is not evolution.
Evolution means appearance of complex and functional biologic structurer, non-existing before. This never happens.

If evolution never happens, then all species existed in this planet from the start? Did dinosaurs and humans coexist? :/

Natural selection means surviving of those animals who can adapt to environmental conditions. But natural selection means loss of variability and extinction of animal species. It doesn't add complex and functional structures.

Variability is not possible without natural selection. If natural selection doesn't work over a population, this population will always have the same allele frequencies. Only by killing a fraction of the population (natural selection), u can vary the allele frequencies enough to produce biodiversity.

Evolution and natural selection are separated matters, for evolution doesn't happen, natural selection happens. For definition, natural selection is not “a type of evolution”, for it adds nothing.

Since random mutations happening in the DNA are proven, and as u have stated, natural selection is proven. Then evolution is proven too, because it only needs those two elements to be true.

Creationist, as you know, believe in “kinds”. But creationists don't believe in evolution.
And so, what about different species inside the same “kind”?
Variability. The first animals of each “kind” (I'll call it “baramin&#8221 possessed a greater variability in their DNA, much greater than the actual animals. So, in time, and because of “corruption” that concerned all Universe, happened a loss of variability in DNA, and the differentiation in actual species. Inside each “baramin” there were room for separation of different “lines” of animals (as lions and tigers) who could interbreed. In some cases they lost also the “code” for interbreeding, due to corruption. Differentiation, no evolution. Any structure was already existing inside the DNA.

If that were true, the more ancient is an specie, the more complexity within its DNA can be found. But this has been dissproved long ago. You may agree with me that a bacteria is not very complex compared to us, do you?

Also, you have failed to explain what "corruption" is. No one here will believe u unless you explain it properly.

And abiogenesis, of course, has no specific base (or else, flies and mice born from trash...).

Abiogenesis doesn't state anything similar to flies and mice born from trash. A very simple form of life would something similar to an oil droplet with very very simple organic compounds inside. And just to let u know, Wächtershäuser y Claudia Huber demonstrated in an experiment that organic compounds like aminoacids and even peptides can "born from nothing".

God bless you all.

God bless u too.

You are right in saying that evolution and natural selection are completely different animals, but a lot of people do equate natural selection with evolution, not understanding that one is constructive and not observed, and one is destructive and observed.

Natural selection destructive? It depends on how close-minded the observant is. But random mutations, along with natural selection filtering them, inevitably lead to the evolution of a species. So natural selection and evolution are so strongly related that without the first, the second can not exist. In fact, if you can not demonstrate that natural selection doesn't happen, then u can not demonstrate evolution doesn't happen, for evolution is just the consequence of natural selection.

This is the classic Dawkins bait and switch lie: First he defines evolution as "Allele frequency change over time" ie. Natural selection. This is a process that has been observed, and it is repeatable and provable, and then having equated an observed theory with an unobserved theory, he bags creationists for rejecting evolution when all he has proved is natural selection. This has been incredibly effective, and very few people, particularly evolutionists differentiate between the two.

Dawkins doesn't need to lie to explain evolution. He has no particular interest on braiwashing you. He just presents u evidence, it is up to u to remain eye-closed, or to think for yourself independently of what a book is telling u to believe.



I'm afraid u both lack enough biology education to discuss this topic properly.

 

[Skwim]

Hello!
Faith and evidences usually are different fields. So "credibility", at the eyes of the listener, usually is filtered by listener's faith.

Credibility is the quality of being believable or worthy of trust. When you present falsehoods as fact you become untrustworthy.

For DNA... always the same talk.
It's a code, containing instruction for the complete living being, with all its complex and functional structures inside it. For human beings, an 800 Megabytes code of information. Believe this is "random made" needs a strong faith, stronger than Christians', really.

Who has said DNA code is randomly constructed?

"If amino acids were randomly assigned to triplet codons, then there would be 1.5 x 1084 possible genetic codes to choose from. However, the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code."
source

"The standard genetic code table has a distinctly non-random structure, with similar amino acids often encoded by codons series that differ by a single nucleotide substitution, typically, in the third or the first position of the codon. It has been repeatedly argued that this structure of the code results from selective optimization for robustness to translation errors such that translational misreading has the minimal adverse effect. Indeed, it has been shown in several studies that the standard code is more robust than a substantial majority of random codes."
source
​

 

[Eliu]

@otokage


Hello!!
-Evolution doesn't happen, for the told reasons.
And (for the Creationist model, in my opinion more trustable than Evolutionist model), humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
No problems, for dinosaurs were vegetarian. Also T-Rex was vegetarian (look at the teeth roots).
-Random mutations don't add non pre-existing complex and functional biologic structures. So they are not the “engine” for evolution.
-For “complexity” matter: I didn't talk (maybe my English is not this good, I say I'm sorry for this) about greater complexity, I was talking about greater variability. Example: baramin “cat”. A couple on Noah's Ark. Tigers, lions, races of cats, panthers, cheetahs, leopards today.
-”Corruption” means a constant decay from the starting perfection. Increase of DNA problems, increase of sickness, greater problem in interbreeding. Increasing as time passes.
-For the experiment you are recalling: those show a possible formation of bricks and materials. But it's far from the assembled and functioning house.
-Thank you for your kind mood.
God bless you!

 

[Eliu]

@skwim
Hello!!
-Statements concerning spontaneus appereance of complex and functional structures are trustable?
I don't think so!
-Without an intelligent and active Programmer, a code should only form in a "random way". Of course, an 800 megabytes functional code can't form "randomly".

God bless you!

 

[otokage007]

@otokage

Hello!!
-Evolution doesn't happen, for the told reasons.
And (for the Creationist model, in my opinion more trustable than Evolutionist model), humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
No problems, for dinosaurs were vegetarian. Also T-Rex was vegetarian (look at the teeth roots).

VEGETARIAN

TAKING THE CONCEPT TO NEW LEVELS.

-Random mutations don't add non pre-existing complex and functional biologic structures. So they are not the “engine” for evolution.

Untrue. Experiments to obtain lac- (or any other aminoacid -) bacteria, ie E.Coli, support the contrary to your statement.

-For “complexity” matter: I didn't talk (maybe my English is not this good, I say I'm sorry for this) about greater complexity, I was talking about greater variability. Example: baramin “cat”. A couple on Noah's Ark. Tigers, lions, races of cats, panthers, cheetahs, leopards today.

Which means the baramin cat bears all the genetic code of all those species, which means more complexity. Which is simply absurd. Although not as absurd as Trex being a vegetarian, u still have the guiness there.

-”Corruption” means a constant decay from the starting perfection. Increase of DNA problems, increase of sickness, greater problem in interbreeding. Increasing as time passes.

Evidence? :/

-Thank you for your kind mood.
God bless you!

I try my best. God bless u too!!

 

[siweLSC]

Untrue. Experiments to obtain lac- (or any other aminoacid -) bacteria, ie E.Coli, support the contrary to your statement.

Which experiment is this?
The only case in which a lac- bacteria can become a lac+ bacteria is when the bacteria was lac+ to start with, )so basically, you taken the lac operon, broken it and fixed it again) or if the bacteria was genetically modified.

Wild type E. coli are lac+ to start with; they have a lac operon. What we need to see to prove evolution is to see a bacteria with no lac operon at all to become lac+ without artificial genetic modification. Then perhaps I would reconsider whether evolution was correct.

Evidence? :/

The evidence is that we can observe ourselves genetically degenerating over time; we are evolving towards extinction. It is called genetic entropy.
Check out this genetic fitness simulation program, if you computer is fast enough to run it:
Mendel's Accountant

If we use real world observed parameters, this shows we are getting less fit as time goes on.