"Evolution isn't science"

kmortis said:
To be fair, Belz..., this isn't an example of speciezation, iddit? I mean, they're both Canis Lupus. In theory, the chihuahua could impregnate the wolf...
Click to expand...

Well the reproductive definition of species is a group of organisms who are able to naturally reproduce and produce fertile offspring. By those lights a morphological impediment is as good as a genetic one.

If chihuahua's are physically incapable for beeding with wolves, they might be classifiable as a different species.
 
Last edited:
DeviousB said:
Well the reproductive definition of species is a group of organisms who are able to naturally reproduce and produce fertile offspring. By those lights a morphological impediment is as good as a genetic one.

If chihuahua's a physically incapable for beeding with wolves, they might be classifiable as a different species.
Click to expand...
There's always the turkey baster.....
 
Would you shove a turkey baster up a wolf's {rule8}? You're braver than I!
:eye-poppi
 
An interesting conundrum for taxonomists is 'ring species'. Basically, A can interbreed with B can interbreed with C can interbreed with D, but D can't interbreed with A.
:faint:
 
DeviousB said:
An interesting conundrum for taxonomists is 'ring species'. Basically, A can interbreed with B can interbreed with C can interbreed with D, but D can't interbreed with A.
:faint:
Click to expand...

From what I heard on Evolution101 there's a possibility that the human/chimp split occured due to a ring species. There's scant evidence, but it's been put forth as a possibility.
 
I've seen it done with horses. That requires a glove that goes up to your shoulder. I used to work with brood mares on a horse farm and part of my job was to hold her steady while the vet wore the glove. I had the end that bites and he had the end that kicks.
 
jesus_freak said:
Here we go with about 50 questions and point for me to answer and rebut against.
First sorry I did mean I think the age of the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old...probably closer to 6000.
Click to expand...
Any time you'd like to address this post would be great.

jesus_freak said:
Second maybe my point isn't clear enough...I do believe in evolution to the point of for example a horse to a donkey...not from a horse to say a rabbit...
Click to expand...
Strawman argument. Evolutionary theory about a common ancestor does not state that a proto-horse diverged in to a horse and a rabbit.
Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
References:
Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Click to expand...
source

jesus_freak said:
I know it's an extreme but the fruit flies always produced fruit flies and finches always produce finches.
Click to expand...
Claim CB910.1:
Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 104.
Response:
Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.


There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range.


Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.
References:
Korol, A. et al., 2000. Nonrandom mating in Drosophila melanogaster laboratory populations derived from closely adjacent ecologically contrasting slopes at "Evolution Canyon." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 12637-12642. See also Schneider, C. J., 2000. Natural selection and speciation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 12398-12399.
Wheeler, M. R., 1987. Drosophilidae. In: Agriculture Canada, Manual of Nearctic Diptera, vol. 2, Hull, Quebec: Canadian Government Publishing Centre. pg. 1011.
Click to expand...
source
And
Claim CB901.3:
Darwin's finches show only microevolution. In a long-term study, the changes were small and oscillated back and forth. They show no evidence for macroevolution.
Source:
Yahya, Harun, 2003. Darwinism Refuted, The true origin of species. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html
Response:
The extensive work on Darwin's finches done by the Grants shows in some detail how microevolution works, including details of transmutation and the power of natural selection (Weiner 1994). In the years that the Grants have been studying the finches, we would not expect to see macroevolution.


Darwin's finches show a pattern of morphological differences that indicate that they all derived from a common ancestor. The difference between the woodpecker finch and the large ground finch are about as great as those within the whole finch family. Darwin's finches do not show macroevolution occurring, but they are evidence that it has occurred.
References:
Weiner, J., 1994. (See below.)
Further Reading:
Weiner, Jonathan, 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: Knopf.

Grant, B. Rosemary and Peter R. Grant, 2003. What Darwin's finches can teach us about the evolutionary origin and regulation of biodiversity. BioScience 53(10): 965-975.

Grant, Peter R., 2002. Selected abstracts. http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Grant_P/PRG_Abstracts.pdf

Kimball, John W., 2003. Speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
Click to expand...
source

jesus_freak said:
I think that it is very well documented on how inaccurate cabon dating is but if not here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm and yes I am well aware that it is a Christian site but I think it makes my point.
Click to expand...
Claim CD011:
Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
Response:
Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.


Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
References:
Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
Further Reading:
Higham, Tom, 1999. Radiocarbon WEB-Info. http://www.c14dating.com/

Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability
Click to expand...
source
jesus_freak said:
Obviously I do not agree with your statement of 6000 year old or older civilizations, but can you give me some examples?
Click to expand...
Khuzestan 6000 years
Syria
China

Additionally, this is a red herring. It is not necessary to provide proof of civilization more than 6000 years ago. Any proof of life is sufficient.
 
Belz... said:
6 inches of water per minute will more than just "soften" the earth. It'll destroy every form of plant life in existence. Graze that, ark-survivors.
Click to expand...

I've also heard that it would swamp an aircraft carrier in short order. Noah's ark wouldn't have stood much of a chance unless it were a submarine.
 
jesus_freak said:
you are either lying or wrong...sorry
Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.
Weird but according to the Bible thats about when the flood was
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_rings
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html
http://www.dendrochronology.com/
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/uvtrl.htm
http://www.mta.ca/madlab/
 
jesus_freak said:
Have you read it?...doesn't sound like it.

Yep Duck has proved that.

Alot of assumptions here like the earth was like it is now before the flood...I think the earth was mostly flat and all the water softend the earth and caused the shifting of the plates...Im not sure of the exact number but I think if the earth was flat now there is enough water to cover it 12,000 feet deep, so the water is still here. Oh and also it clearly says that the water not only came from above but below the earths surface as well, so no crushing accured...It's like God knew what he was doing or something huh?
Click to expand...

How'd I miss that comment?

MOSTLY FLAT?
1) How was it mostly flat? Was it fan shaped with a little leather buckle at the handle?
2) When did it become a spheroid?
3) HOW'D it become a sphereoid?
4) Why didn't anyone notice?
5) Your evidence for this claim is......

Really, if you want to stop being peppered with all the quesitons, try answering one with a rational answer. One that doesn't make the rest of us scratch our collective heads at the obtuseness.
 
kmortis said:
To be fair, Belz..., this isn't an example of speciezation, iddit? I mean, they're both Canis Lupus. In theory, the chihuahua could impregnate the wolf...(hrm...I wonder if MdC would pay money to watch that.) Your point is, at least on me, not lost. .
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I was just trying to show that a fruit fly doesn't necessarily give birth to fruit flies, in the sense that mutations DO occur and, in the case of dogs, we have very obvious examples of their effects, macro-wise.
.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But that would only be a meaningful form of accuracy if we still have the orignal understanding of the languages involved. Quite a bit of doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Good point, because I doubt many people who swear by the KJV are scholars of Elizabethan English. Many of the words used are obsolete (what the heck does 'consupicance' mean?), and many others have different meanings now than they did then (such as the word 'charity').

It doesn't help that many people who read the King James bible are barely literate in modern English to start with...
 
kmortis said:
How'd I miss that comment?

MOSTLY FLAT?
1) How was it mostly flat? Was it fan shaped with a little leather buckle at the handle?
2) When did it become a spheroid?
3) HOW'D it become a sphereoid?
4) Why didn't anyone notice?
5) Your evidence for this claim is......

Really, if you want to stop being peppered with all the quesitons, try answering one with a rational answer. One that doesn't make the rest of us scratch our collective heads at the obtuseness.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think he meant there were no deep abysses and tall mountains, and that they were carved by the flood.
 
You know, this thread is fun up to a point. It is, after all, a blast to argue with (and demolish) creationists. But soon it becomes depressing to me, when I realize that despite all reasoned, rational argument, and against all evidence, the creationist is simply immune to education, and nothing we can do or say will change his mind. Our words bounce off his skull, leaving no imprint and making no mark. His ignorance is destined to persist, despite our best efforts.

I then I realize just how many people there are like him in the US, many of whom are in positions of power, and I'm no longer depressed. I'm f@*&in' terrified.
 
I've always wondered how a male wolf would react to a female chihuahua in heat. Based on what I've seen of male dogs...

Words fail me.

Anyhow, dogs are really just funny behaving wolves. Genetically a Siberian husky has more in common with a wolf than a chihuahua--there is no genetic basis for distinguishing between a wolf and a dog.
 
ChristineR said:
I've always wondered how a male wolf would react to a female chihuahua in heat. Based on what I've seen of male dogs...

Words fail me.

Anyhow, dogs are really just funny behaving wolves. Genetically a Siberian husky has more in common with a wolf than a chihuahua--there is no genetic basis for distinguishing between a wolf and a dog.
Click to expand...
Dog as wolves that have been bred to retain as much of their puppy characteristics and as many of their puppy behaviors as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom