What does the fossil record say?

[ImmortalFlame]

Mr. Flame,
Thank you for your support.

Never thought I'd see YOU on my side of any discussion.

I can only assume you're either trolling or you misread my post. Given the evidence presented so far, neither would surprise me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Who you kidd'n'?
You changed the question!
And
What are you doing?
Let's just deal with this one first - OK?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
I believe the fossil record is imperfect and does not "lead to a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development."
Besides:
The statement is contradictory.
If "God created life in its current form," there would NOT be a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development" in the fossil record. No de-ve-lop-ment of any kind would be evidenced or necessary as all working parts would be in place.

No!

Not very smart.
Wilson

Do you agree?

Play with the words all you want.
You have yet to provide evidence of the fossil record supporting Biblical Creationism.
Instead you make extremely weak attacks on evolutionary biology.
Followed by pitiful excuses for your failure to provide fossil evidence for Creationism.
Ironically, you do not see how your unreasonable dogmatic stance and blatant dishonesty damages your witness.

 

[camanintx]

How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new.

Science tends to disagree with you.


Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

• the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”

When has anyone in recent history tried to hybridize humans with apes?

 

[wilsoncole]

I can only assume you're either trolling or you misread my post. Given the evidence presented so far, neither would surprise me.

Ha!
You don't even realize what you wrote.
I have a feeling that you could not see it, no matter how many times you re-read your post.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ha!
You don't even realize what you wrote.
I have a feeling that you could not see it, no matter how many times you re-read your post.

Nice try, Wilsoncole.

 

[wilsoncole]

Science tends to disagree with you.

When has anyone in recent history tried to hybridize humans with apes?

Here's something that comes quite close:

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred

 

[wilsoncole]

So was I (and english was one of my better subjects at school).

Btw
"No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam"

Completely false. No one is allowed to study for a higher qualification in a subject unless they achieve an acceptable grade in the preceding qualification. The exams for these qualifications however only occur at age 16 (GCSE) and 18 (A Level). A student can completely fail one of their GCSE's and it does not prevent them from going to the next class to study for A levels in other subjects.

There are no final exams in any subject between age 5 and 15.

"I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools"

So have I, but physical size is not correlated with academic achievement. I was 6 foot tall by the time I left school, but I did well in all my exams (Barring French which I never liked and didnt see the point of).

So we can add the British educational system to the list of things that you don't know much about.

And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement.

"Coelacanth is not a species" does mean that coelacanth is not a single species. Because "a" is singular when used before a noun, it is synonymous with "one" in this usage. Do you use "I saw a bird" to mean you saw more than one bird? No, you use it to mean you saw one bird.

Definition of the word "a".
1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing:

It could be rewritten as "Coelacanth is the name for many species" or "Coelacanth is not one species" without changing its meaning in any way. The start of the second sentence reinforces the meaning of "a" to mean single or one by making it clear that the noun Coelacanth applies to an order.

Saying "Coelacanth is an order of fish and not a species" would also have an identical meaning. And this amply demonstrates your misunderstanding of the 2 sentences.

As there are more than one species within the order commonly named Coelacanth the noun Coelacanth can not in any way be "a species" as the name applies to more than 1 species.

It is just as accurate as saying
"Ford is not a model of car, however there are a number of models of car that are Fords".

Is there a "teaching basic english grammar" section of this forum.

About the British system of education, I don't think anyone here believes or agrees with you.
I am a living witness to the system.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Nice try, Wilsoncole.

Then I'll just have to show you.
Here's the entire post:

Originally Posted by Autodidact
It's false.

That's not an explanation.

Quote:
New species of insects come into existence frequently.

That's what their parents were and that is how they stay. They're not changing into anything else.
Not proof of evolution."

To which you added:
&#8220;You obviously missed the "new species" part of the sentence. Here it is again, emphasis mine:

"New species of insects come into existence frequently."[/quote]
I missed nothing! But YOU did.
You missed the fact that the reply could be saying that the parents were new species and the offspring like the parents were ALSO new species.
So - you agreed with me without realizing it.
That&#8217;s what their parents were and that is how they stay. They&#8217;re not changing into anything else.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then I'll just have to show you.
Here's the entire post:

Originally Posted by Autodidact
It's false.


Quote:
New species of insects come into existence frequently.


To which you added:
&#8220;You obviously missed the "new species" part of the sentence. Here it is again, emphasis mine:

"New species of insects come into existence frequently."
I missed nothing! But YOU did.
You missed the fact that the reply could be saying that the parents were new species and the offspring like the parents were ALSO new species.
So - you agreed with me without realizing it.
That&#8217;s what their parents were and that is how they stay. They&#8217;re not changing into anything else.

Again, you don't seem to be getting it, do you?

New species means "a species which until recently did not exist". At some point, those insects became a new species, which tramples all over your assertion that no insects "ever became anything else".

If you're going to claim that such a thing as "new species" exist, which is a claim you don't seem to disagree with, then you must by consequence admit that these insects can and do evolve into something else: they are becoming a new species - unless your twisted logic concludes that becoming a different species somehow does not classify as "something else".

Keep digging that grave, Wilsoncole. Seriously, at this point it's like trying to debate with an autistic two-year old.

 

[outhouse]

in, you don't seem to be getting it, do you?

nor will he.

your playing in reality and reason, not beyond it. Not sure you will be able to communcate with such a person. closed minds are a terrible thing to waist

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new.

Science disagrees with this assumption.

This is where your insects come from.

If you "believe" this then fine but no one here is interested in the (who). It's the how that counts when concerning biology.

DNA in animal life allows for a wide variety within each "KIND."

How? See, you are a variation of your mother and your father but with all of your variations you're not another "kind". Using "kind" and trying to define it is futile, sloppy and lazy when trying to understand the diversity of life on this planet.

KIND:
Definition:

"The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur."​

And this is where you and newhope101 split in your understanding of "kind". She posited that "kind" crossed the fertilization boundary. But even if we were to accept the definition of "kind" as highlighted above then it fits perfectly into the ToE in regards to (speciation)
​

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”​

I doubt you truly understand what a species is but I can assure you that species and "kinds" are not interchangeable.
​

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged.​

There's no biblical support of new species but there is a plethora of biological evidence that supports speciation.
​

Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. ​

No, it just means you're ignorant of current research. You don't know that you don't know....
​

Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”​

Then someone needs to tell botanist and those in the food industry to stop because they are most certainly doing what you say can't be done.
​

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. ​

This is completely incorrect.
​

For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”​

All this shows is that we both are far removed from our common ancestor but are still related genetically. Morphology will only get us so far in determining our relationship with other primates. While we are similar morphologically it's worth mentioning that we share similarities on a social level and without a doubt we're genetically related.
​

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. ​

Again, hybridization is most definitely accomplished with plants so painting it with a broad brush saying hybridization is impossible is incorrect.
​

Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way.​

Regardless of how you try to spin it...when the horse and the donkey produced it was certainly a new species.
​

 

[David M]

This is where your insects come from.

DNA in animal life allows for a wide variety within each "KIND." You are witnessing such variety, but no new "kind."
KIND:
Definition:

"The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur."​

You do realise that you are contadicting the bible don't you.

If the boundary of Kind is drawn by the inability to fertilise this would mean that when a new species arises (which has been observed) it is a different kind to the generations of animals that it arose from.

You are propoposing that animals can breed new kinds, not according to their kind.
​

 

[David M]

About the British system of education, I don't think anyone here believes or agrees with you.
I am a living witness to the system

We've seen what your witness is worth, I doubt many people will believe this without some firm evidence to back up your claims.

I am a witness as well, I was educated in Britain. My mother, my aunt and their father were all teachers and my sister is a teacher.

I spent the majority of my school years here Portsmouth Grammar School - Leading independent day school situated in Southern England.

 

[wilsoncole]

We've seen what your witness is worth, I doubt many people will believe this without some firm evidence to back up your claims.

I am a witness as well, I was educated in Britain. My mother, my aunt and their father were all teachers and my sister is a teacher.

I spent the majority of my school years here Portsmouth Grammar School - Leading independent day school situated in Southern England.

I doubt if you would believe any kind of evidence I present.
But if I can support my claims will you issue an apology for your unwarranted insults and misleading claims about the British system of education?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

I doubt if you would believe any kind of evidence I present.
But if I can support my claims will you issue an apology for your unwarranted insults and misleading claims about the British system of education.

Of course I will admit it if I made a mistake.

 

[wilsoncole]

Again, you don't seem to be getting it, do you?

New species means "a species which until recently did not exist". At some point, those insects became a new species, which tramples all over your assertion that no insects "ever became anything else".

If you're going to claim that such a thing as "new species" exist, which is a claim you don't seem to disagree with, then you must by consequence admit that these insects can and do evolve into something else: they are becoming a new species - unless your twisted logic concludes that becoming a different species somehow does not classify as "something else".

Keep digging that grave, Wilsoncole. Seriously, at this point it's like trying to debate with an autistic two-year old.

Except for one thing:
If the mixing of the parents' genes results in what you refer to as "new species," then that same mixing must not have taken place for the parents when THEY were the newborn. You are saying that THEY, the parents, were never "new species" at all!
Chew on that!

DISCLAIMER:
I disagree with the claim of new species due to my position on "kinds," but I am going along with it for the sake of this discussion.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Of course I will admit it if I made a mistake.

That is NOT what I said.
I mentioned an apology.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

That is NOT what I said.
I mentioned an apology.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

An admission that I was wrong is what you will get, take it or leave it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except for one thing:
If the mixing of the parents' genes results in what you refer to as "new species,"

It rarely does. It usually takes several generations for the speciation to settle in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except for one thing:
If the mixing of the parents' genes results in what you refer to as "new species," then that same mixing must not have taken place for the parents when THEY were the newborn. You are saying that THEY, the parents, were never "new species" at all!
Chew on that!

What are you talking about? Do you even know how separate species are defined?

Separate species are defined by their inability to cross-breed with other species, this is usually caused by genetic variation (I'm over-simplifying, but when explaining this to someone like yourself, I don't think it's possible to be too simple).

It doesn't matter what their "parents" were - what matters is that new species arise, and are observed arising constantly. This is a fact. At some point, genetic mutations varies the genes of certain populations of a given species that it separates them into an entirely separate species incapable of cross-breeding with the species it previously belonged to.

New species do arise, populations of species change over time, creatures reproduce with variation and through time and enough environmental attrition this variation can produce significant changes in a given populations resulting in new species arising.

Are you getting it yet?

DISCLAIMER:
I disagree with the claim of new species due to my position on "kinds," but I am going along with it for the sake of this discussion.

Fair enough, but please give a definitive, demonstrable definition of "kinds" if you're going to use it in future discussion.