Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Message 1 of 4 (55838)
09-16-2003 5:59 PM
Hello all, that's my first post.
I've been discussing about ID, creationism and evolution in some forums, and recently I realized something. ID proposers allways ask for evidences of speciation to accept it as a fact, as if speciation was the only thing in evolution. Some of them accept a certain level of modification on heredity, but only within genus or species level. What would be this barrier which keeps modifications from keep occurring, I don't know.
But, my question is: what would be an analogue to speciation that evolutionists would require to accept ID? I guess that it would be something like a brand new species just appearing on Earth, suddenly, without any ascendent, filling at least the same requirements that they want for a example of speciation, such as, do not crossbreding with any other specie with fertile offpring and etc, whatever we can think, I did not think much about the requirements for accept a "placement" of a new species by whoever puts it on Earth. Suggestions are welcome
ID proposer also would need to explain the method used by the Intelligent Designer, or whoever/whatever he designed to this work, the mechanism, you know.....
Well, that is not for the "guided evolution" type of IDCs... it's more specifically for old-earth IDCs who claim that natural selection does not produces new species (you know, "any breed of a dog still a dog", etc).....
(please don't pay much attention to my english )
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2003 6:28 PM|| ||extremophile has not yet responded|
| ||Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2003 5:30 AM|| ||extremophile has not yet responded|
| ||Message 4 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 8:30 PM|| ||extremophile has not yet responded|
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
From: Iowa City, IA
No organism would need to appear.
If an organism is found which has genes from two long divergent animals which do not appear on more recently divergent species, that would be a good evidence against evolution.
For example. You have an ancestor A, decendants B and C, and modern species D, E, F, G, and X, where the evolutionary tree is:
and X is the newly discovered species.
If X shares large numbers of genes with D and F that E and G do not have, that is a problem. Once you start adding many more species into the tree, it makes the odds worse and worse that this is just due to the chance occurance.
Let's put it in another way. Picture that each letter below is a certain type of gene. If your entire set of species known was as follows:
You can see from these genes what the phylogenic tree must have been like. Certain genes are very common throughout all of the species - K, T, J, C, and H. The odds of the exact same gene being formed more than once is near zero for any sizable protein. So, if you look at (1), you find that its closest relative appears to be (3), it's next closest appear to be (2) and (4), then (6), then (8) and lastly (5) and (7). (2) and (4) only have one gene different and appear to have diverged recently. (5) and (7) are also very closely related. Etc. By looking at how genes change between species, you can tell how closely related they are, so long as you have enough data points (and there are many datapoints in the real world - millions apon millions of species, with thousands upon thousands of genes).
But what if you found a species that was as follows:
Whoah! The R branch diverged from the A/O branch back near the beginning of the example. But N developed on the other branch than R! But E developed on the same branch as R! But B developed on the opposite branch as R!
Needless to say, because evolution is real, this doesn't happen. If it did, it would be a huge blow to evolution. There's absolutely no reason it wouldn't happen at least occasionally in a creationist world. Many different genes behave in the exact same manner, so there's no "God did it because it wouldn't work well if you mixed and matched lines!". But it never does. Why would God deliberately create genetics to look like a phylogenic tree? Beats me. Are we back to the "Evil Prankster God" theory?
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 1 by extremophile, posted 09-16-2003 5:59 PM|| ||extremophile has not yet responded|