Theory of De-evolution!!!!!

[qoute]Is that more than likely? When fossils folllow a regular patter throughout the world in terms of appearance and disappearance, and given that each fossil is found in a rather confined spot? Or is this redeposition done with whole fossils only, not disturbing the individual arrangement of fossilized bones, so they always appear perfectly together, yet are moved all over the place (while still being maintained in their individual strata)? Your claim simply doesn't make sense. You will have to do a LOT more work in clarifying and proving this claim to make sense. Because immediately, it looks like your claim is outright nonsense, given what we DO know about the fossil location. So can you clarify this?[/quote]"Whole" fossil finds are rare! I'm sure that you are aware of the mechanisms that cause fossilization? Small fossils, ie. shell creatures would be re-deposited without the fossil structure being disturbed, that is, if the mineral deposits that have replaced the fossil are strong enough to remain intact, if not, it will just be ground into more sediment. Larger fossil would have less/no chance to remain intact while being relocated by mother nature, but then, aren’t most of the fossil finds in "part" and not whole? I think you'll find that "whole" examples of vertebrates are very rare, Why?

quote:

---

Huh? In the first place, what claim are you making WRT the Laws of Thermodynamics, natural laws dealing with the flow of energy? Are you sure that your claims are within the parameters of these laws? (Because creationists have been known to make nonsense claims and to outright lie about this issue.) Can you clarify, please, to enhance your credibility?

---

I wasn't aware that I had any credibility yet? I am working of the premise that:At the onset of life there was no spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter; That all reproductively capable species by way of genetic compatibility were created and came into existence as separate entities, not through evolutionary divergence from a single progenitor.
Where the word De-evolution comes into it is here: From the time that these "kinds" were created, genetic code has been weakening, thus allowing those genetic structures that "weaken" at a slower rate to appear more successful than those which are now extinct.
Where thermodynamics come into it: Any change within the general genetic makeup is a chemical change and is a transfer of energy one way or another. If it wasn’t for the individual will of living organisms this transfer by way of metabolism of organic matter within, the said system, would not last long and doesn’t last long regardless, every organism dies. Cells may cat anise and reproduction may continue but inevitably the code therein deteriorates. Sure, life appears an open sub-system of a closed-system universe, but my argument is that life as a system started at a peak and is slowly winding down following the same pattern of everything else in the universe. That is of course, is if there will no longer be anymore energy added by the same mechanism that created it! The information within the code of living organisms is deteriorating or holding a temporary equilibrium at best in the model I am trying to present.

quote:

---

Really? SO what would have to be found for it to be "evolution"? Exactly WHAT definition are you using for "evolution" (Since it obviously is not the one that Science is using)?

---

Bank of English: Evolution n gradual change in the characteristics of living things over successive generations, esp. to a more complex form. 2 gradual developmentIt’s the esp. to a more complex from that I do not agree with as this would entail the generation of new information.

quote:

---

Given that you said that the current evidence wasn't sufficient, you MUST be aware of the evidence of speciation (Otherwise, you would be making your claim without knowledge of the evidence that you claimed was insufficient, which would be dishonest, and you are not bearing false witness, I am sure), and as such, I am curious about this claim of "reproductively viable kind." Please elaborate.

---

Going through the Talk origins FAQ on this top; the first piece of evidence pertaining to speciation is the Evening primrose;5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
So is this a Siamese (if you will) plant containing twice the chromosome count of the possible parent plants? Is this evidence of New’ information being added gradually over time? It seems anything but gradual. However he did find that this supposed new species was not reproductively viable with its progenitor, and it is inconclusive as to whether it was/is reproductively viable within itself (short of cloning) or with the same! However, this could also be evidence of genetic reversion (given the optimum conditions of the lab) to the previous form, but unlikely in this instance.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
Again, this seems to be the combining of information not the generation of new information, and could well be evidence through forced genetic reversion of a previously common species that developed a weakness in its code and diverged along that weakness. Also, compare the artificially doubling of the chromosome number with the previous example involving O. gigas.
Is this evidence of evolution through natural selection, or the gradual development of living organisms?
5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
Once again, loss of information and un-beneficial mutations showing a weakening of code.
I’d like to apologize to the moderators about pasting the original portions of text, but I believe it to be quite necessary.
5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Genetic compatibility, yet with the element of time added the hybrids became less viable Forced De-evolution through un-natural selection
I’ll try to find more information with regards to specific genetic data on experimental subjects. If you know of any let me know. Some difficulty seems to arise when asked of the definition of species in the scientific community it seems!

quote:

---

"perspective"? You mean bias? Bias in disregard of the young earth fantasy having been flat out disproven?

---

Flat out? It depends what information you ignore!
Enlightened Phones – Mobile Phone Deals Blog Experts

quote:

---

There is that use of that word again. What is devolution? And are you saying that evolution has never been observed? How much "time" are you under the misconception that is needed for actual evolution to occur?

---

No, I’m saying that De-evolution/genetic degradation has and is occurring. Apart from the fact that I do hold to a young earth, that isn’t very relevant to the thread, perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned it. As far as time is concerned naturally speaking probabilities state that there hasn’t been enough time for some of the current models of evolution to occur, namely the gradual change including spontaneous generation.

quote:

---

Hmm, you have shown little understanding of evolution. Should we expect you to have better understanding of the 2LoT, a favorite red herring of the creationists, and a sure indicator of their (1) ignorance of science, (2) ignorance of thermodynamics, and (3)ignorance of energy. So what **IS ** your "understanding of the 2LoT?

---

What’s a 2LoT? Oh.. 2nd law..I haven’t read that much of the creationists info!

quote:

---

That certainly does NOT have anything to do with the 2LOT which is a natural law about ENERGY, and which operates in a closed energy system, one which does not have energy infusion from the outside, f.ex. from a nearby sun. So exactly HOW does your use of the 2LoT operate here? And how is it evidence of anything with evolution, which is merely a change in organisms over time, and NOT an issue of caloric energy flow?

---

From the perspective of life starting at its peak genetically makes sense, Look at the sun/earth as a single system! Is it closed or open? It is logical to state that the suns energy emission over time, will change, I’ll let you figure out which way it changes! If the Sun is deteriorating then there will be an impact on earth.
The generation of biological mass on the earth "is" a transfer of energy including that which pertains to it! How much matter does, say, a human convert to heat over a life time? I’m guessing quite a lot, but our short lived success has come through our use and quality of will! If a life form chooses not to eat and metabolize organic matter it will die regardless how much solar radiation reaches the earth. And even though it metabolizes matter, the genetic code deteriorates regardless!
Even though an organism is an open-system it does not change the inevitable! The system is ultimately closed. (physically)

quote:

---

Ah, so are you saying that "kind" is the same as "species"? In that case, all creationist arguments of all times have just been disproven. The creationist use of "kind" doesn't work if it is at the Species-level. SO please clarify here. Are you actually using science in your arguemnts here, or is it merely "proof" through wishful thinking and "because I say so" psotulations? Your claims are so inconsistent with each other and with reality that you need a much better definition of how you are using all these terms.

---

If the slowly unfolding theory of De-evolution be feasible Then it will reconcile both! On one hand you can have your multiple created species or kinds at the onset of life, on the other you can include genetic change over time, albeit a general loss of genetic information rather than gain.

quote:

---

Given that you can't even tell us what a "kind" is, it merely seems like dishonest nonsense. I hope you can disavow us of that impression?

---

I hope so too! I was hopeing that you would try to do a little work in understanding what I'm proposing.PeaceShaun

quote:

---

Welcome to the forum BTW!

---

Thanks Yaro!

quote:

---

Evolution does not move in any specific direction, it doesn't seek to be more complex, nor does it seek to be "better", evolution simply means change. Essentially, that creatures will change over time and that only those suited to the environment will survive. That simple, no more to it.

---

With regard to origins what is your take?

quote:

---

So if suddenly there is a noxious gas in the atmosphere that prevents smart people from living, sure enough the dumb ones will take over

---

I'll get to work on that straight away!

quote:

---

Ever heard of a liger or a tigo

---

Genetic compatability, but the results are weaker genetic code! Its not what you would call the result of natural selection for the better! Are these cross-breeds observed in nature?

quote:

---

Think of a color spectrum, can you tell me where red ends and yellow begins?

---

Did the rainbow evolve from one colour? This message has been edited by sfripp, 07-13-2004 04:50 AM

quote:

---

They are always hit-and-run. They have been told by their minister that there is no evidence for evolution, and thus come here boldly and smugly making that same claim, because why would their minister lie to them.
Then it turns out that there is lots of evidence and it turns out that they are challenged on their claims and have to actually make a real argument based on facts.

​

So they get angry and defiant, and then run away, hoping that we merely think they got busy elsewhere rather than ran off as a another creationist coward

---

Hey, big shot! I'm going for a new slant on the evidence here! isn't re-interpretation of evidence something that goes on quite frequently in the scientific world? Dont be scared, consider!
The evidence doesn't scare me, the fact that The "select few" feel that they can interpret it correctly without flaw and then state that it is fact intrigues me a little! Sure, I have faith in God, but I also have an interest in science coupled with an opened mind and a healthy imagination! Pity I dont have as much time as I would like to reply to everyone.Pleasure typing to you!

When you say "weakening", exactly what do you mean?Given two arbitrary genetic sequences - for the same gene locus, let's say - how would you determine which is the "weaker"? Yank on 'em?As far as I'm aware, all genetic molecules have the same degree of tensile strength and chemical bonding. If you mean "weakness" in terms of something else, I wish you would explain exactly how you would determine the amount of "weakness" a certain genetic sequence contains. How so? What kind of energy? From what to what is it transferred?You seem to be conflating ideas of an organism's "fitness" (expressed often as the "strength" of it's genes) with some kind of inherent property of genetic sequences.This is simply false; it's the fallacy of reification. When we say an organism has "strong" or "weak" genes, we're simply referring to how those genes give rise to phenotypical traits that improve or decrease an organisms fitness in a given environment. If the environment changes - which happens a lot - genes that we described as "weak" might become "strong", or vice-versa.It all depends on environment. You can't eliminate the environment in considerations of an organisms fitness.

Nice spiders Lam!

quote:

---

Would you say that they are of different "kinds" or are they the same?

---

What does their code say?

quote:

---

According to your definition, do you know of any mechanism for "de-evolution"?

---

Hereditary inheritance of genetic flaws! Cancer is agood example of rebellious cells. I'm sure there are many others.

quote:

---

Where do you put the borderline between "kinds"?

---

No compatability in reproduction! Sorry about the vagueness of my terminology! I'll have to refine it as I learn more, after all this does seem to be a new idea. I was hopeing that the minds here might play with the idea of De-evolution from "peak genetic" forms to "weaker genetic forms" rather than code becoming more refined/complex and stable over time with regerd to its information which seems to be the slant of many evolutionists, I could be wrong.peaceshaunThis message has been edited by sfripp, 07-13-2004 05:18 AM

quote:

---

When you say "weakening", exactly what do you mean?

---

Flaws becoming more augmented.

quote:

---

Given two arbitrary genetic sequences - for the same gene locus, let's say - how would you determine which is the "weaker"? Yank on 'em?

---

How does science splice genes? Nature/environment would do some yanking also? Just allow humans to creep into their environment?
Wonder whether that supposed new strain of flu is actually stronger than the last or whether our immune system is weaker in this generation and no longer has the information to battle it as effectively?

quote:

---

As far as I'm aware, all genetic molecules have the same degree of tensile strength and chemical bonding. If you mean "weakness" in terms of something else, I wish you would explain exactly how you would determine the amount of "weakness" a certain genetic sequence contains.

---

The word you used "fitness" seems to be adequate! In light of:

quote:

---

This is simply false; it's the fallacy of reification. When we say an organism has "strong" or "weak" genes, we're simply referring to how those genes give rise to phenotypical traits that improve or decrease an organisms fitness in a given environment. If the environment changes - which happens a lot - genes that we described as "weak" might become "strong", or vice-versa.

---

Suppose that the amount of "weak genes" in organism has increased over time, and that the "strong genes" have decreased!

quote:

---

It all depends on environment. You can't eliminate the environment in considerations of an organisms fitness

---

Environmental change would indeed play a part in weeding this out. As well as disease. A weakened immune system is a genetic issue, isn't it? The stronger the function of the genes in all areas of the code the more likely the organism is to survive what the environment throws at it, as well as other micro-organisms of the parasitic nature. Genes can also be self destructive as is the case with cancer which is one of the biggies.

Ok, so what constitutes a "flaw"? In what way is it "augmented?" How does that answer the question I asked? How could you determine which genes were which without examining their effect on the environment?There's nothing inherently "weak" or "strong" about genes; that was the point of my post which you appeared to have missed. "Fitness" is simply a measure of how successful a given organism is at reproducing. Organisms that leave more offspring (and contribute a proportionally greater share of genes to the gene pool) are more "fit." Organisms who are being selected against (and who contribute proportionally fewer genes to the gene pool) are less "fit." Not often. Usually it's a physiological condition caused by disease, poor nutrition, toxins, or other environmental factors. Very rarely is immunosuppression a genetic condition. Not necessarily. What is "strong" in one environment might be a fatal weakness in another.Again you're reifying the "strength" of genes. That's just an expression, not an actual trait that genes have.

quote:

---

Ok, so what constitutes a "flaw"? In what way is it "augmented?"

---

Comprehensive Cancer Information - NCIThis would explain an example better than I could!

quote:

---

How could you determine which genes were which without examining their effect on the environment?

---

Am i going mad or is this question backward?

quote:

---

There's nothing inherently "weak" or "strong" about genes; that was the point of my post which you appeared to have missed.

---

Death is an obvious genetic weakness when two of the same species breed and both have a genetic disposition toward the latter development of cancer, the chances of that flaw showing itself are augmented.

quote:

---

"Fitness" is simply a measure of how successful a given organism is at reproducing. Organisms that leave more offspring (and contribute a proportionally greater share of genes to the gene pool) are more "fit." Organisms who are being selected against (and who contribute proportionally fewer genes to the gene pool) are less "fit."

---

OK, lets look at the most apparently successful of species, Man!
As a single species we, as a unit, comprise a fair portion of the earth bio-mass and are capable of forceing our environment to adapt to us (to certain extent), whe have also developed means to cure and prevent a vast majority of sicknesses, yet suseptability to sickness seems to be rising as quickly as the cures are developed! Is there some connection here? If we had nothing to suppress disease how would we fair as a species? I know I would probably not be here!

quote:

---

Not often. Usually it's a physiological condition caused by disease, poor nutrition, toxins, or other environmental factors. Very rarely is immunosuppression a genetic condition.

---

Usually?Page not available - NCBI BookshelfI’d put it the other way round!

quote:

---

Not necessarily. What is "strong" in one environment might be a fatal weakness in another

---

This is why organisms select their environment! I still see that genetic code will deteriorate regardless of the optimum surroundings.

quote:

---

Again you're reifying the "strength" of genes. That's just an expression, not an actual trait that genes have.

---

More the inability of genetic code to remain intact without unbeneficial mutation over time!
In this way I see the code weakening.

quote:

---

quote:

---

"perspective"? You mean bias? Bias in disregard of the young earth fantasy having been flat out disproven?

---

​

Flat out? It depends what information you ignore!
Enlightened Phones – Mobile Phone Deals Blog Experts

---

I don't want to go into a detailed discussion of this webpage because it is WAY off topic but if you should check out the Dates and Dating forum. To give you an idea of the reliability of the page you linked I will quote for you a rebuttal of this: Living snails dated 27,000 years old using carbon 14. (bold in the original)

quote:

---

From "http://EvC Forum: Pathlights' criticisms of C14 dating -->EvC Forum: Pathlights' criticisms of C14 dating"

​

Both articles are "cautionary tales" for others doing radiocarbon dating: be sure that the organism you are dating got its 14C from the atmosphere, not from ancient ground water. In Riggs' study, the snails picked up most of their carbon from bicarbonate with a 14C content of about 3% of modern - the water was from springs fed by an aquifer that is recharged tens of miles away - the water has been underground for thousands of years. K & A's study is similar, but their shells were influenced by ground water that had flowed through 3000+ year old humus.

---

Also, I don't think that this:What’s a 2LoT? Oh.. 2nd law..I haven’t read that much of the creationists info!is an answer to this:So what **IS ** your "understanding of the 2LoT?But if you would care to answer the question I would be curious to know what is your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, or any of them for that matter.

Hoo boy, lots of stuff here. I'll try and hit the high spots.On the question of fossils, why would a separated leg of a dinosaur always end up in the same layers as the heads of dinosaurs? Why wouldn't the leg end up in recent sediments and the head end up in cambrian sediments if creationism were true? It is strange that whole and partial fossils all end up in the same layers according to the predictions of evolution and geology, don't you think.

quote:

---

I am working of the premise that:

---

And for you to make a conclusion from your premises, you first have to support them with evidence. Let's go on.

quote:

---

That all reproductively capable species by way of genetic compatibility were created and came into existence as separate entities, not through evolutionary divergence from a single progenitor.

---

The geologic/fossil record is sorted in a matter that falsifies your first premise. You must evidence a mechanism that, without one single mistake world wide, is able to sort fossils in a way that mimics evolutionary predictions but in fact is reflective of special creation. Care to take a stab at that one?

quote:

---

Where the word De-evolution comes into it is here: From the time that these "kinds" were created, genetic code has been weakening, thus allowing those genetic structures that "weaken" at a slower rate to appear more successful than those which are now extinct.
Where thermodynamics come into it: Any change within the general genetic makeup is a chemical change and is a transfer of energy one way or another.

---

Lets take two DNA sequences, one lets call "strong" and one we will call "weak":Strong: attcctggtta
Weak: attgctggttaIn the example above, can you show me how the two sequences differ in energy content? I'll give you a hint, they don't. The second law of thermodynamics applies to the movement of heat, not the order of bases in a DNA sequence. However, energy is needed to construct DNA sequences (one ATP per base extension), but DNA strands of the same length contain the same amount of energy regardless of what their sequence is.This is a second premise that is false.

quote:

---

Cells may cat anise and reproduction may continue but inevitably the code therein deteriorates.

---

Natural selection regulates the amount of harmful mutations that accumulate in a population by differential reproductive rates. That is, the organisms with the non-detrimental mutation will outreproduce the organisms with the deleterious mutation. Therefore, de-evolution is prevented by the preservation of sequence through natural selection. Another premise falsified.

quote:

---

Sure, life appears an open sub-system of a closed-system universe, but my argument is that life as a system started at a peak and is slowly winding down following the same pattern of everything else in the universe. That is of course, is if there will no longer be anymore energy added by the same mechanism that created it!

---

During your lunch hour, look up into the sky. See that big fireball? That is the source of energy that drives evolution and keeps genetic systems from deteriorating. Whenever there is an imput of energy, entropy can decrease (things become more complex). Even if entropy does not apply to DNA sequences, it applies to your premise here. Even within the confines of your premise, it is falsified by real world observations.

quote:

---

Flat out? It depends what information you ignore!

---

Yeah, science ignores data derived from the misuse of dating methods. Leave it to creationists to use lies in order to support their worldview.

quote:

---

No, I’m saying that De-evolution/genetic degradation has and is occurring.

---

In that case, we shouldn't see new, beneficial mutations in humans. And again, another premise falsified. In humans alone, a mutation for reducing cholesterol has recently been found, and a new hemoglobin isotype that protects against malaria without the side effects of sickle cell anemia has been found in Africa. This new hemoglobin is expected to replace the sickle-cell allele within 50 generations. Sorry, but we see example after example of new, beneficial mutations among humans and a wide variety of other organisms. According to you this shouldn't be happening.

quote:

---

I’m guessing quite a lot, but our short lived success has come through our use and quality of will! If a life form chooses not to eat and metabolize organic matter it will die regardless how much solar radiation reaches the earth. And even though it metabolizes matter, the genetic code deteriorates regardless!

---

So no matter what energy is input the genetic code will continue to deteriorate? I thought this was tied to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Are you now saying that the 2nd law does not apply? How quicly you creationists change your arguments when you get painted into a corner.

quote:

---

Even though an organism is an open-system it does not change the inevitable! The system is ultimately closed. (physically)

---

Just because we die does not prevent energy from going into the system while we are alive. Last I heard, nobody reproduces after they die. So during the time that organisms are reproducing they are an open system.

quote:

---

I was hopeing that you would try to do a little work in understanding what I'm proposing.

---

Although this wasn't aimed at me, I find it quite ironic that we understand the concepts behind your premises better than you do. You might want to study up on the laws of thermodynamics and understand in which situations they are applied. Entropy, in the case of thermodynamics, is a reference to the number of states a molecule can fill. It has nothing to do with the sequence of bases on a DNA molelcule.

I suspect it's a certain ignorance of biology that leads you to feel that way.The question is formulated in the only way that makes sense; on their face there's really no way to distinguish between different genetic sequences except by examining their effect on the population. Well, pretty much everybody gets cancer if they live long enough. (That's why cancer seems to be on the rise; we're eliminating all the other causes of death, pretty much.)But yes, that's the obvious case - some genotypes are fatal. But natural selection removes these quickly from the population. In cases where these genes persist it's usually because the heterozygous genotype confers some survival advantage; the textbook case of this is Human Hemoglobin S (the sickle-cell anemia gene.) Recently however that gene "mutated" in such a way as to confer the same level of malarial resistance without the anemic weaknesses. (Since that would be a gene getting "stronger", by your definition, can we assume this falsifies your hypothesis?) There's no legitimate measure you could use where Homo sapiens comes out as "the most successful species." That title is and will always belong to bacteria, who comprise the vast majority of the Earth's biomass. Certainly not based on that article, I would hope. We don't even comprise a thousandth of a percent of the Earth's biomass. Not even a millionth or a billionth of a percent.Insects comprise a fair portion of the Earth's biomass. I'd be surprised if class Mammalia comprised a millionth of the Earth's biomass. Yeah, the connection is evolution. Diseases evolve. Another poster here has an example you can do in your own bio lab that shows how diseases can - and must - evolve. When they can, sure. But the majority of selection is always the environment selecting the organisms. Natural selection, however, provides a defense against the accumulation of these detrimental mutations. Moreover it ensures that beneficial mutations, when they occur (which is not frequently), are selected for.The result is a ratcheting effect that increases a gene pool's number of beneficial genes. It's a constant process and, under the second law of thermodynamics and the realities of survival, it's simply inevitable.Evolution must occur; it's mandated by the second law.

Thats a bit harsh Crash, you did say the effect of the genes on the environment originally. I'm quite happy to agree that a population of organisms is part of an environment, but that didn't seem to be what you were saying.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

If they are genetically capable of breeding then that is the definition of "kind" to me anywat

---

So that would mean that the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull are two different "kind," as they can't interbreed. In that case, we now have DOCUMENTED evidence of a new Kind evolving.But doesn't that destroy your claim and the very foundation you have set up for creationism? Guess that means that you now accept Evolution, then.

And it shows that "kind" does not partition the set of organisms. In other words, it is not true that each living organism fits into one and only one "kind". After all, the black-headed gull is in the same "kind" as its neighboring species, which is in the same "kind" as its neighbor, ..., which is in the same "kind" as the herring gull. Yet the herring gull and the black-headed gull are not the same "kind". So "kind" fails to be a well-defined identification for interbreeding populations.Edited for clarity. (I think.)This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-13-2004 08:44 PM

That is indeed the mechanism of the ring-species. I am still waiting for any of those guys to take that issue on straight-on, visiting the tread specifically focusing on ring-species.