Increases in Genetic Information

I am struggling a bit to understand how this thread differs from the one started by Faith a very short time ago. This assumption is bad. Because part of the response to your reasoning lies with this bad assumption, I cannot let this go without comment. The proposed model for human evolution involves divergence and variation and then reintegration by combination from diverse populations. Most humans but not all humans have neanderthal genetics.If you insist on this assumption, my response would be that real life does not work like that. Base pair count is not a great measures of complexity. And as a (standard) counter argument to your claim, an amoeba has 670 billion base pairs or about 200 times as many as do humans. Rather than quibble with the terminology here, something I could certainly do, I'll simply note that not all mutations result in speciation. The processes you describe (plus mutation) will act to increase diversity before and after speciation. Only the specific mutation or mutations that cause mating incompatibility are unsharable between species. Yet multiple variations that do not prevent mating or inter-fertility can occur and are shared. What does this do to your argument and your model? Yes. But we've had entire threads on those specific questions.Your attempts to distinguish between macro and micro evolution stink on ice. Macro evolution can be produced by a bunch of micro steps which eventual produce species which do not interbreed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Whose argument are you rebutting? No you did not "specify" any such thing. Here is what you actually posted. Besides, you are quibbling about a passing remark. How about addressing the substantive arguments I postedEdited by NoNukes, : Not testy enough.

Or perhaps your description of how scientist understand evolution to work is completely wrong. I am not interested in debating with you about how your misconception of evolution does not work. I agree that it does not. It is true that there are inconsistencies in our classification of species. But speciation still has a consistent definition. But let's work with speciation which is really what you are complaining about. Are you truly unable to see any problems with your argument? I'll give you a start on finding one problem.1) There is no single mutation that would convert a human to a non human ape.2) Neither a modern human nor a modern ape are genetically identical to the ancestors they evolved from.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've always wondered why you guys don't show more solidarity. I gave your message a cheer just because I applaud the idea of creationists backing each other up.Now that you've given jbozz21 your moral support, how about giving him some real support by rescuing his argument from the manure pile?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Easily answered.Real biology is secular and has no Genesis support. Accordingly it is subject to a much higher standard of review than is the Torah. ID on the other hand is a not so subtle mix of the Bible and 'reasoning'. ID is true, inerrantly, so even circular arguments are legitimate.

removedEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, jbozz21. He is simply trying to tell you that at least one of the arguments in your OP is nonsense. And is the theory that such an organism was just like a modern bacteria? Is it necessary to assume that single celled organism cannot evolve either? Because your moral support won't join you out on that limb.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What definition of macro-evolution did we disagree with? Isn't it the one you made up for this thread?So far, other than correcting you on simple factual errors, I've pointed out that your assumption that any evolutionary step (macro or micro) that adds new functionality must also result eliminate inter-fertility is not correct. If you want to define macro-evolution that way, you are not going to get agreement. Some chance, yes. But the chance can, in some cases, be small enough to ignore. Using your example, lions and tigers do not mate in the wild despite the fact that they are inter-fertile. My guess is that humans and modern non-human apes are not inter-fertile. But even if some non human apes and humans could produce offspring, they do not do so. Yes. They are. But as you yourself pointed out, the classification system that we use to label lions and tigers species is not quite so exact.ABE:Holy cow dude. You cited a definition that included the statement that species are "usually" not interfertile. What's up with that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are asking that the 'important part' be established by direct evidence. Here is you saying that only direct evidence is acceptable. Direct evidence only. Yet every single step of demonstrating ID in biological organisms requires inference. No direct evidence whatsoever is used.

Assuming a designed response to starvation, how many generations of starvation would be a reasonable number to pass before the response would kick in?

By the way, I think you meant donkeys and horses. Mules are sterile and cannot have any offspring even other mules. Female mules have been known to bear offspring, but male mules cannot sire offspring. What lesson you get from this I know not. Surely you are not calling breeding mules any sort of evolution? What's your point here.

You said a lot more than that, much of which was wrong. From the wiki article you cited:

quote:

---

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, etc...

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

They don't meet the definition you quoted. Do you still maintain that it is the fault of the participants here that we don't all have the same definition of species? You don't even agree with the references you cite.What is pretty clear is that lions and tigers developed distinct characteristics despite their ability to interbreed, because it turns out that they never do in the wild. What does that suggest to you about the assumptions in your OP?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And I dislike intensely that I can catch you in errors and lies with little to no effort. Particularly when the error is personal. I challenge you to cite an unsupported claim from me in this thread. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Dogs are all of the same species. The only thing maintaining any breed of dog as breed is humans stepping in to through buckets of cold water onto the heat. Examples using dogs don't prove much of anything, one way or the other about evolution.And female mules can be made pregnant using artificial means.The big problem for your definition is that complete inability to breed is not the defining characteristic of how species are classified. It is 'usually' the case that species cannot interbreed. But despite your desire to otherwise require such a thing, lions and tigers are two different species.I'd also argue that this part of the discussion is actually moving away from a point you wish to establish. In the case of lions and tigers it is pretty clear that no absolute inability to breed is required to maintain or even develop diversity. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.