Just Accidental?

[BSM1]

Excuse me? To whom else would it matter, but to a possible mate from the species, and to humans, since we are inherently designed with the capacity for appreciation!

So, in that sense...no it's not subjective.

Does a bear or cat reach "conclusions" based on sentient thought? Nope.

I'm sure that there are female ducks sitting around saying, "That Mallard's head is to die for...". Again, suppose you are completely color blind, what difference would the duck's coloration make? And aren't you assuming that all humans have the same aesthetic appreciations? Seems to me that this is just an example of an ethnocentric attitude from a few "I'm right and you're wrong" types.

 

[oldbadger]

....And they are all still ducks.

Ha ha!........ Just ducks! So why can't they all interbreed?
The Carolina's ducklings cannot breed if she mated with, for instance, a mandarin. There's a joke there, somewhere!

Ducks are as different as Christian denominations. Are you the same as a Jehovah Witness, or a Catholic, or a Lutheran? I expect that ducks could get pretty shirty if you got their breed wrong!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The premise that science begins with is flawed. There is no chain of evolution involving "transitions" in the line of human evolution or of any other species on this planet.

The truth is, there is no line or chain found in the fossil record, which by science's own admission is "sparse"...... there are no transitional species linking one form to the next.....they find something that resembles what they might be looking for and before we know it, a tooth or a bone fragment or even a partial skeleton becomes the "link" in a chain that never existed in the first place.

Supposition, "maybe's" and "could be's" about many things do not result in facts. If nothing else, this thread is stressing the difference between fact and fiction.....it is understanding the power of suggestion used by scientists to establish their own way of thinking.
Science is the 'religion' of the intellectual. It has 'gods' and 'holy' writings and prophets who "know" what happened millions of years before any human walked the earth. People who want to believe, eat up every word they say.....if that isn't worship, I don't know what is.

It is a "theory" in the full dictionary definition of the word.
Changing the definition of the word does not make it truth. That is the point.

This thread is definitely stressing the fact that you are repeating the same three claims that have long been debunked, over and over again as though they were fresh arguments nobody has heard or addressed before.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The genetic boundaries are pre-set by the Creator. Its the reason why a mule cannot mate with another mule and produce a mule.
Only a donkey crossed with a horse can produce a mule.

I'm pretty sure a zonkey can reproduce either.

A zebriod or a zorse.....

Horses, donkeys and zebras are of one "kind" because they can interbreed.....not that they would naturally do so in the wild.

Its what keeps all the species of fish in the oceans from interbreeding.....they only mate with their own "kind" yet they are all fish.

Is there some reason you haven't responded to my post where I addressed hybrids and domestication and instead are just repeating yourself?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Is there some reason you haven't responded to my post where I addressed hybrids and domestication and instead are just repeating yourself?

He's been doing the same thing to me. I addressed the same point about hybrids a week or so back, and he doesn't even acknowledge it. Whenever someone clears up a misconception or misunderstanding he has, he ignores it and repeats what he says. For example:

l
l
l
v

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Its what keeps all the species of fish in the oceans from interbreeding.....they only mate with their own "kind" yet they are all fish.

Did you miss the part where I said that most fish species cannot interbreed with or without human intervention?

 

[Valjean]

I'm still waiting for his interpretation of ring species. They don't fit into his paradigm.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He's been doing the same thing to me. I addressed the same point about hybrids a week or so back, and he doesn't even acknowledge it. Whenever someone clears up a misconception or misunderstanding he has, he ignores it and repeats what he says. For example:

l
l
l
v

Okay, so it's not just me then.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ha ha!........ Just ducks! So why can't they all interbreed?
The Carolina's ducklings cannot breed if she mated with, for instance, a mandarin. There's a joke there, somewhere!

Ducks are as different as Christian denominations. Are you the same as a Jehovah Witness, or a Catholic, or a Lutheran? I expect that ducks could get pretty shirty if you got their breed wrong!

"Just ducks! So why can't they all interbreed?"

Yes, why? This is yet more evidence against macroevolution. These genetic barriers do not enable, but inhibit natural selection. Which, by definition, requires procreation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Just ducks! So why can't they all interbreed?"

Yes, why? This is yet more evidence against macroevolution. These genetic barriers do not enable, but inhibit natural selection. Which, by definition, requires procreation.

What do you think macroevolution is?

I ask because what is being described is macroevolution, yet you say here that it's evidence against macroevolution, which doesn't make sense.

 

[oldbadger]

"Just ducks! So why can't they all interbreed?"

Yes, why? This is yet more evidence against macroevolution. These genetic barriers do not enable, but inhibit natural selection. Which, by definition, requires procreation.

Look, don't worry about it........ just leave the worrying to the pharmaceutical engineers who are working all hours in attempts to find an anti-biotic which could kill the new genetically modified bacteria which have evolved and can now withstand most if not all of our present-day antibiotics. Evolution is happening right now, friend.

 

[Deeje]

Just to be perfectly clear: If you took a number of animals from the same species and placed out on two completely separate islands and those two islands were kept completely separate, say after 500 million years the animals on one island could still breed with those on the other? And the animals 500 million years down the line would still be able to breed with those we originally put out on the same island?

Do you think I am talking about adaptation within a species? Seriously, if I go back in 500 million years I will still find those animals to be of the same "kinds" as their 'cousins' on the other island. Adapting to different environments or food sources would not transform a sheep into a giraffe because the food was higher up in the tree line. Throwing 500 million years into the pot will not alter the genetics to that extent, as Darwin himself observed on the Galapagos Islands. He noted small cosmetic changes, not completely different animals and birds. The finches were still finches and the iguanas were still iguanas, were they not?

Science took his idea and ran away with themselves. Their conclusions are ridiculous especially when they have no concrete evidence that evolution took place the way they "assume" that it did. You guys need to understand the difference between real "evidence" and suggested "evidence".

 

[Deeje]

It cracks me up, evolutionary scientists are always inclined to say, "The fossil record is incomplete."

Maybe it's more complete than they care to recognize!

"Incomplete" is the scientific term for "missing altogether".

 

[Deeje]

How do you explain ring species?

Definition: "In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed."


"To understand how evolution has produced the diversity of life, we need to study two fundamental processes:

Speciation usually takes too long to observe in one lifetime.

• How a single species changes through time.
• How a single species becomes two or more species.

The first process has been observed and studied extensively in many species, for example in evolving beak sizes of Darwin’s finches1 and in evolving body sizes and developmental rates of guppies. 2 The second process, called speciation, is more difficult to observe directly, primarily because it usually takes much longer than a biologist’s lifetime to occur.

Geography and speciation
Speciation can happen when two related species are isolated geographically.
One way to study speciation indirectly is to examine geographical variation, or how the characteristics of organisms differ between different locations. We can then infer from the variation how speciation occurs. During the early 20th century, biologists such as David Starr Jordan3 and Ernst Mayr4 used this approach and noticed that, in most cases, two closely related species do not occur at the same location nor are they distantly separated. Rather, they usually occur in geographically adjacent regions that are separated by a geographical barrier such as a mountain range or a body of water. The biologists concluded from this pattern that:

• Speciation often begins when a single species becomes geographically separated into two populations. Individuals cannot travel between the populations, preventing the two populations from interbreeding.
• Because the two populations cannot exchange genes, and because they may be subject to different environmental conditions, they slowly evolve differences.
• Eventually the two populations become different enough that they do not interbreed even if they come into contact (in other words, they are ‘reproductively isolated’), and are therefore separate species.

These conclusions were based on broad patterns in the distribution and relationships of many species. But determining how speciation occurs in any particular case can be difficult, because we are usually only presented with the outcome of the process (two species) and we often have no record of their common ancestor or the intermediate forms that occurred during speciation"

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

What is this really saying? C'mon.....this is a total con job. Are you really as gullible as you assume ID proponents are?

Where is the evidence that the two "end" populations are even related? What does this prove if the species remains within their biological classification? The birds will still be birds...will they not?
They will breed with their own kind and remain the same as other birds who do not interbreed, sharing a similar environment. Will they eventually branch out in another few million years to become iguanas or fish? Will other fish species come out of the oceans and develop lungs so as to become land animals? Will land animals want to venture into the water and then evolve gills to replace their lungs? This is what you believe. Throwing millions of years at this scenario doesn't make it more believable.....unless you have a science degree and can present your case to eager listeners who also want a Creator to disappear.

You can believe it if you like.....I cannot.

 

[Deeje]

What do you think macroevolution is?

I ask because what is being described is macroevolution, yet you say here that it's evidence against macroevolution, which doesn't make sense.

Micro-evolution is adaptation, which is readily seen in many species where an environmental or an altered food source required them to adapt or become extinct.

Macro-evolution is the idea that this evidence of small changes within species can be taken to extremes for which NO real evidence exists. You can provide articles and links all you want, but they contain the same assumptions and guesswork that we see in all of them. They find one scull or a tooth or a fragment of bone and suddenly they have this amazing discovery!....its all concocted.

 

[Deeje]

This thread is definitely stressing the fact that you are repeating the same three claims that have long been debunked, over and over again as though they were fresh arguments nobody has heard or addressed before.

LOL...what do you think you are doing? You are also repeating the same baseless claims as if they have not already been soundly debunked. Look at the wording of the "proofs" that have been cited.

The power of suggestion has never been more successfully used....except in political campaigns perhaps.

You can believe them if you like, but my logic operates differently....I know what I see and I see NO evidence that is not a suggestion.

 

[Deeje]

He's been doing the same thing to me. I addressed the same point about hybrids a week or so back, and he doesn't even acknowledge it. Whenever someone clears up a misconception or misunderstanding he has, he ignores it and repeats what he says. For example:

l
l
l
v

Sorry Andromeda, but the "he" is a "she". And there are no misconceptions being cleared up at all except in the minds of those who want evolution to be true.

It is a "belief"...just like mine. It has no more solid "evidence" for its validity than I do for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

All I want is for you all to understand that facts are provable....and since evolution has no "facts" it must be considered to be what it is called....a "THEORY" in the full dictionary definition of the word.

Science assumes to have all this knowledge but when you really listen to what they say....they have nothing more than a belief system based on assumption and educated guessing. This has often been repeated, but it will obviously never be acknowledged by those who want organic evolution to be true. How are you in any better position than us when it comes to actual "proof"?

That is the real choice.....between one belief system and another.

 

[Deeje]

Look, don't worry about it........ just leave the worrying to the pharmaceutical engineers who are working all hours in attempts to find an anti-biotic which could kill the new genetically modified bacteria which have evolved and can now withstand most if not all of our present-day antibiotics. Evolution is happening right now, friend.

Ah, but the bacteria are still bacteria OB.....that is the point. What we are seeing is adaptation. Clever little fellows. Stupid science for creating the need. Natural therapies would have treated many of the things anti-biotics were prescribed for.
Science debunked natural remedies in favor of chemical solutions to man's disease symptoms. We all know the real reason.

Don't cure anything, just treat symptoms and if there are side effects (aren't there always side effects?) then prescribe more drugs = more $$$$.

Doctors as well as short sighted chemists created this super-bug monster that could wipe us all out.....clever science? I don't think so.
Reaping what you sow?......absolutely.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The power of suggestion has never been more successfully used....except in political campaigns perhaps.

Religion.

 

[Deeje]

Religion.

Who could argue with that?

Look where it got them though......hopelessly fragmented.....all claiming that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The trouble is, the truth is out there, surrounded by a forest of similar looking trees.....who can tell which one is the genuine article? We don't have to choose really.....since Jesus said that the one genuinely searching would find, provided that they searched adequately and didn't settle for the easy road. The difficult one is a test of endurance. We all know that endurance races are won by those whose training allowed them to push through the pain. (Matthew 24:13)