Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 72 of 314 (508097)
05-10-2009 3:51 PM


THOSE FINCHES
Darwin collected what he regarded as 9 finch species during his voyage on Beagle 1831-1836). These finches were classified as sparate species based on their beak shape, size, colour, feeding etc. darwin's argument sounded so good, no-one bothered to test it by seeing if they were really separate and could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Now it has been discovered that Darwins finches can interbreed and produce fertile offspring if given the opportunity, so they are really one species, and provide no evidence for the evolution of new species, and never have. This historic first and foundational evidence for Darwin's theory turns out to be false.
All creatures adapt but they don't evolve into another creature. Adaption is the built in ability of living creatures to cope with changes in their environment. The same goes for humans, the different skin colours were all in-built so that the sons of Noah and their generations adapted to the various climates as they spread across the globe.
Incidently Darwin was still a creationist when he came off the Beagle, but later was influenced by the infamous X-club of humanists.
(David Lack, Darwins Finches 1968)

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2009 4:30 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 05-10-2009 4:33 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 6:55 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 8:24 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 78 by pandion, posted 05-11-2009 1:54 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 79 of 314 (508238)
05-11-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
05-10-2009 9:04 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Hi Evolutionary friends
Seriously I wouln't discredit Darwin, I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES. Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc. With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms. Never mind human bones, -sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people. Stretch it maybe to 10000 years, -then what? There would have to have been either many different disasters limiting the population and in primitive conditions, or a worldwide disaster every 5-10000 years. To reach 50000 years would be relly stretching it. Historic world population just dosen't fit with the evolutionary model.
Just think guys -world history, - 6000 years- thats it!
God bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:30 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM Trev777 has replied
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2009 8:04 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2009 8:13 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 8:20 PM Trev777 has replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 85 of 314 (508363)
05-12-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
05-11-2009 7:58 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
On population - assume a much higher growth rate than 0.5% per annum.
I take my creationism very seriously, I don't take a simplistic view like many Christians, -as if God waves a wand for all miraculous Biblical events, He controls nature -so natural events will proove His existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2009 7:09 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2009 8:43 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 90 by pandion, posted 05-13-2009 1:07 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 05-13-2009 9:42 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2009 4:19 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 86 of 314 (508365)
05-12-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
05-11-2009 8:20 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
I didn't think I mentioned anything religious, but now you mentioned- the Bible is peppered with science.
-Gen 1v1 In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).....V2 and God
said let there be light (ENERGY).
The first Days work, -TIME SPACE MATTER AND ENERGY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 8:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 7:14 PM Trev777 has replied
 Message 91 by AdminModulous, posted 05-13-2009 5:50 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 94 of 314 (508539)
05-14-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by lyx2no
05-12-2009 7:14 PM


Re: WHAT
I ain't speaking to you, but thanks to RAZD and the others for their rebuffs.
No seriously heres a quote from Denton- "It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality which so mitigates against the idea of chance..In particular every field of fundemental biological research, ever increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever accelerating rate. The credibility of natural selection is weakened, therefore not only by the perfection we have already glimpsed by the expectation of further as yet undreampt of depths of ingenuity and complexity" (P342)
Concerning mutations, the problem here is the mathematics, they occur one in every 10million duplications of a DNA molecule. Our bodies have nearly 100 trillion cells so there is a good possibility of a couple of cells of a mutated form in any gene. The problem for evolution is when you require a series of related mutations to build a structure. Odds of getting 2 related mutations is 100 trillion, which would be far from producing a new structure. So then 3 related mutations -odds are a billion trillion. It was at the level of 4 related mutations that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to 4 different antibiotics at the same time. The odds were to great. But they discovered that using cultures routinely kept for long periods of time the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were invented. Genetic variability was built right into the bacteria. Was this by mutation -No, resistant forms were already present. Furthermore certain bacteria have little rings of DNA called plasmids that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn't mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 7:14 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 7:54 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 96 by lyx2no, posted 05-14-2009 9:27 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 PM Trev777 has replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 102 of 314 (508850)
05-16-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by RAZD
05-15-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Mutation drives transitions ?
Hi Razd , etc
If mutations can accidentally add information, they may improove functionality. If genes were inadvertently duplicated and both copies changed by mutations would there be the prospect of more complex kinds? The problem is -natural selection is a blind process that cannot see ahead to select a new improoved function. If mutations were the first step towards for e.g. a wing then natural selection would eliminate it as having no function. The formation of a wing would involve a hugh amount of genetic information, and the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible.
Genetic mutations can involve a single nucleotide or displacement of a whole gene within a chromosome. Since they are a change in a highly complex system, each involves a loss of information. Over generations there is gradual deterioration. In time unless the mutation can be selected out this leads to extinction of the species.We humans have over 3500 mutational disorders, hemophilia, cancers, ageing process etc. The reason we don't show up many of these disorders is we have 2 sets of genes -from each parent, the good genes cover up the bad. But the idea of two close relations marrying (because they were both intelligent) , to create intelligent offspring would be foolish as the dangers of this would be far greater.
To change an ape-like gene into a human-like gene you need to know the whole DNA information sequence in advance. Natural selection being blind, would produce an increasingly less fit ape-like gene and would therefore be selected against.
I won't mention maths again incase I get suspended , but evolution just dosen't add up.
-God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 05-16-2009 7:49 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 9:54 PM Trev777 has replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 105 of 314 (509096)
05-18-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
05-16-2009 9:54 PM


Re: Mutation drives transitions ?
Hi RAZD ;-
Thanks for the detailed analysis, you cannot conclude my evidence as all wrong, as you are biased from an evolutionary viewpoint just as I am biased from a Creationist viewpoint. The walkingstick insects are still a "kind " no matter what their diversification.
The problem of the incredible complexity of some creatures on the lower branches of the evolutionary tree of life vanishes if you abandon the assumption that they evolved. New Scientist(June2007) says - "Recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong...The entire tree of life has been built on the assumption that evolution entails increasing complexity." So loss of features is the key to understanding evolution they say. " Proponents of this idea argue that classical phylogeny has been built no rotten foundations, and tinkering with it will not put it right. Instead they say we need to rethink the process of evolution itself."
Concerning chimps and vocalisation, evolution suggests our language evolved from gestures not vocalisation. Babies use gestures before they learn words. But a baby's throat is designed so that speech is only possible once danger of choking over food is past. Then the larynx drops to a suitable position for speech. This drop dosen't happen with primates.
I'm at the OK corrall, and my cap pistol - but Ive got Clint Eastwood with me!
I'll get back to you about sickle cell anemia.
God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 05-18-2009 5:57 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 6:18 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 108 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-18-2009 6:29 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2009 8:08 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 9:37 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2009 12:49 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024