Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, xongsmith (5 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,466 Year: 1,112/14,102 Month: 104/411 Week: 0/125 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 33 (850788)
04-14-2019 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tanypteryx
04-14-2019 12:17 PM


I'm sure candle2 can answer you but since I'm on the same topic on the fossil thread I'll add my own thoughts for you to trash as usual based on your indominatlble evo bias.

candle2 writes:

Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.

Haven't been following this so don't know candle's criteria but I've been pursuing the criterion of same body build plus behavioral characteristics to identify a species. So if all these are the same in these respects, which I think is the case, I'd agree they are all of the same Kind. And of course he said "sometimes" they interbreed, meaning as a rule they don't. And I also agree that inability to interbreed can occur within a species and does NOT differentiate between species; i.e. it is NOT "speciation."

The sensible response to this would be to acknowledge that this is a different set of criteria for "species" than the ToE gives, and just leave it at that. You have to twist things too much to insist it doesn't work as criteria.

So, you are saying wolves give birth to dingoes and foxes give birth to wolves and dogs give birth to coyotes because they are all the same kind?

And this is exactly such a case of twisting because of course that is not what he meant and you know it. Just as a tiger and a lion MAY occasionally interbreed so presumably may some of these creatures, and they produce a mixed breed when they do. You just don't want to acknowledge the creationists' rejection of the idea of speciation. That of course makes the supposed "understanding through discussion" described at the top of the board impossible.

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

This is your fantasy. You are making false claims (lies) about evolution and the scientists who study it. You made this up and cannot document any scientist saying it.

.

Word games, word games. This is just another way of saying what the ToE DOES teach, why do you have to fight every little difference in definition? After millions of years the ToE DOES predict an entirely different species will emerge from this one species continuing to breed male with female for all those years. Evos obviously don't care about communication, just twisting stuff to claim they are right.

And he's right when he goes on to say the ToE makes this a matter of small incremental steps.

Evolutionary biologists on the other hand recognize that variation within species are the results of mutations and that there are new mutations in every generation.

Evolutionary biologists ASSUME that such variations are the result of mutations. In fact very few mutations are viable at all and couldn't possibly create a viable allele; most of them are neutral, many are deleterious, and I think all the junk DNA is the result of mutations which basically destroy DNA. Normal variations build from built-in alleles, built into the Kind from Creation.

And you should acknowledge THIS as another explanation that works if you weren't so hidebound. Scientists can't be right if they are glued to the wrong theory.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that each and every generation has a slightly different genetic makeup than the parent generation. This has been documented millions of times.

And misunderstood millions of times. You don't need mutations to the bring about these differences from generation to generation. All you need is the normal variations of sexual recombination from reproductive event to reproductive event.

And you might acknowledge THIS too as a reasonable view of it that contradicts yours.

But I know you'd rather talk about creationists as "hundreds of your kind" rather than consider that sometimes we have an intelligent alternative to offer against your ridiculous ToE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2019 12:17 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021