Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Miller wrote:

Nothing puts God to shame!

The bible does a pretty good job.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

Pauligirl, good find. The butterfly article explains what I was trying to explain beatifully.

Actually it doesn't.

While teasing us with the headline that 'the mystery of how species branch into two' may have been solved.........

...........the butterfly case is actually about two groups of butterflys that are already[/u][/i] different species.

Kinda deceptively written, isn't it?

--------------------------------------

But for humor it can't be beat.

The example of geographical isolation given:

Quote:
If a mountain range or river divides a population of animals for hundreds of generations...

Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side?

Are we really expected to believe that these cataclysmic geographical separations are responsible for much or most of the supposed 'speciation' thru history?

How many hundreds of millions of groups of critters suddenly found themselves separated by a mountain range?

Or by a river that was uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years? How did the first group get across?

C'mon.

Maybe the migrated from one side of the mountain to the other...maybe they were chased some distance by predators, maybe they got lost, maybe there was a drought and the river stopped flowing for a summer, maybe it was a cold winter and an ice bridge formed, maybe a warm winter and the mountains weren't snowy, maybe they were chasing food, maybe this, maybe that, maybe god put them there.

If that is your only hang up, then would you say that it is possible today that say giraffes that were brought to America by ship, could evolve into an animal that wouldn't be able to mate with an African giraffe?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

btw hope you are doing well, wandeljw.

I am okay. Thanks for asking, real life. Sorry about the silliness of my previous post. I hope you and your family are doing well.

0 Replies

And why does the event have to be a cataclysmic event? No one but you is saying that.

Couldn't one group of animals simply meander over to the other side of the mountain over the course of a few years and just decide to stay there?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

And why does the event have to be a cataclysmic event? No one but you is saying that.

Couldn't one group of animals simply meander over to the other side of the mountain over the course of a few years and just decide to stay there?

If it's just a case of 'the bear went over the mountain', isn't it likely that others would do so as well (and wander back to the original site as well), and thus the two groups likely would NOT be separated for tens of thousands (or millions) of years?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
And why does the event have to be a cataclysmic event? No one but you is saying that.

Couldn't one group of animals simply meander over to the other side of the mountain over the course of a few years and just decide to stay there?

If it's just a case of 'the bear went over the mountain', isn't it likely that others would do so as well (and wander back to the original site as well), and thus the two groups likely would NOT be separated for tens of thousands (or millions) of years?

Others DID do that, that is how the one bear had someone to mate with. Probably thousand would have to be seperated one way or the other for evolution to work.

I would think that say a herd of buffalo may be geographically seperated from another herd of buffalo, maybe the crossed a river when it was dry one summer, then the river came back to full strength and no more buffalo could cross.

It really isn't that hard to see how these scenerios could play out RL.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

real life wrote:
btw hope you are doing well, wandeljw.

I am okay. Thanks for asking, real life. Sorry about the silliness of my previous post. I hope you and your family are doing well.

Yep, just melting in the heat. Normal summer.

You know how it's been here in the Midwest recently.

But it's always this way. (Way back) when I was a kid, I went to a scout camp. We had rains that were real gully washers. The cars would leave ruts in the dirt roads.

Then it would dry out and the ruts would fill up with so much dust that the cars would get stuck in the dust.

Ros tried to ship me off to Australia the other day. Now I'm thinking I should have gone. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
And why does the event have to be a cataclysmic event? No one but you is saying that.

Couldn't one group of animals simply meander over to the other side of the mountain over the course of a few years and just decide to stay there?

If it's just a case of 'the bear went over the mountain', isn't it likely that others would do so as well (and wander back to the original site as well), and thus the two groups likely would NOT be separated for tens of thousands (or millions) of years?

Others DID do that, that is how the one bear had someone to mate with. Probably thousand would have to be seperated one way or the other for evolution to work.

I would think that say a herd of buffalo may be geographically seperated from another herd of buffalo, maybe the crossed a river when it was dry one summer, then the river came back to full strength and no more buffalo could cross.

It really isn't that hard to see how these scenerios could play out RL.

Please.

Dry summers happen all the time.

Are you trying to say that no summer was dry again for tens of thousands (or millions) of years?

C'mon. Laughing

0 Replies

Interesting article.

Two separate neural control centers, not just one, would have to evolve for us to walk. Anybody believin' this?

Quote:

Study reveals separate brain networks
BALTIMORE, Aug. 9 (UPI) -- U.S. neuroscientists have discovered separate, adaptable brain networks control the movements of each leg.

The findings by Kennedy Krieger Institute scientists are contrary to accepted theory that leg movements and adaptations are directed by a single control circuit in the brain.........

from http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/08/09/study_reveals_separate_brain_networks/6428/

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Isn't it just as likely that the 'new species' may have also been brought over from Europe (perhaps even inadvertently, for instance as a seed ) ?

Why is it assumed that in a few short years (about 40 years. I thought it was supposed to take lllllooooooonnnnnnggggg periods of time? I guess not if the time frame isn't convenient to the story) that 'the evolutionary process had created' (don't you love that phrase?) a 'new species' ?

Isn't it interesting that the 'new species' are said to appear 'suddenly'? No transitionals?

And there were TWO new species? Not just one, eh? Evolution strikes like lightning. Twice.

Laughing

And both in the SAME PLACE?

Laughing

If evolution really works at a breakneck pace like this, we should see numerous (millions) of examples of speciation WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES.

Where are they? Laughing

Sorry, Pauligirl. I am just a doubter.

Don't these kind of questions ever occur to anybody else?

0 Replies

aperson.......there's no proof for evolution.

there I said it.

0 Replies

Now I did not say that.

There is evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution.

But (IMHO) it's just not very convincing.

Too many logical fallacies, as we are seeing with this very basic issue of speciation.

Speciation is the heart and soul of evolution.

If new species cannot be formed gradually, evolution is DOA.

The evidence that is used to support evolution is mostly circumstantial and inferential.

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

STOP!

Once again you are purposefully misstating the theory of evolution. I'm getting sick of talking with someone who is so willfully and FREQUENTLY DISHONEST.

0 Replies

maporsch, real is afraid to acknowledge evolutionary theory, because it proves that his lifelong belief in the bible god has been wrong. That is very scary for anyone.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side? [Laughing]

Wellll. the bear climbed over the mountain
the bear climbed over the mountain
The bear climbed over the mountaaiiiiin
To see what he could see.

The other side of the mountain
and some geographic isolation
geographic i-isolaaatiiiiioooon

was what did happen to he Laughing

Geographic isolation doesnt have to be cataclysmic, viz
.
cave rats over time had become adapted to living deeper in the twilight reaches of caves and had become sexuallty isolated freom the species they most assuredly derived from that still live on the surface. The tribs of the Blue Nile and the okovango have meanered thousands of meters in a few hundred years. In these meander cutoffs, cichlids, have evolved into nioches that have turned this little perch-like fish into variants with huge beaks for eating rock algae, or toothsome maws for ripping flesh like piranhas, all in the space of 4000 years. Imagine what another 200000 would do. (Think of the Missouri River, where meanders of a mile or more have resulted in burial of entire rive boats in less than 100 years

Quote:

Why is it assumed that in a few short years (about 40 years. I thought it was supposed to take lllllooooooonnnnnnggggg periods of time?

Long is realative to the reproductive cycle of the orgqnism. If you doLong is realative to the reproductive cycle of the orgaanism. If you dont believe the issue of the gotsbeard developing a new species that was different freom both the European AND the American (kinda blows your assertion away), (even though the goatsbeard story is well documemnted in botany texts as an example of pan mictic evolution) you are , of course free to continue in your worldview, justdont mind those laughing sounds,

Your trouble is that your mindset doesnt allow ANY processing of evidence that is counter to youre worldview. While any scientist would love nothing better than to be that guy who was able to pitch all of evolution into the trash bin, its not happening. In fact, the data keeps piling up that shows that we can see evolution occuring in our brief lives.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side? [Laughing]

Geographic isolation doesnt have to be cataclysmic, viz

They have to be long term , thousands (or millions) of years. And they have to be numerous, hundreds of millions of instances to account for the number of species alive today plus the many more that are extinct.

The fanciful mountain range and river examples that have been offered so far just exhibit wishful thinking.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Why is it assumed that in a few short years (about 40 years. I thought it was supposed to take lllllooooooonnnnnnggggg periods of time?
Long is realative to the reproductive cycle of the orgqnism. If you doLong is realative to the reproductive cycle of the orgaanism. If you dont believe the issue of the gotsbeard developing a new species that was different freom both the European AND the American (kinda blows your assertion away), (even though the goatsbeard story is well documemnted in botany texts as an example of pan mictic evolution) you are , of course free to continue in your worldview, justdont mind those laughing sounds,

Goatsbeards evolved , this I know
For the textbooks tell me so
Haeckel's drawings they still show too
And speckled moths stuck to trees with glue.

Yes goatsbeards evolved..
yes goatsbeards evolved....
yes goatsbeards evolved....
The textbooks tell me so.

So you believe that not one, but TWO new species 'just happened' to evolve after only a few years (not lllllloooonnnnnngggg ages) and in the very same location at the very same time ?

As I said to Pauligirl:

Quote:

If evolution really works at a breakneck pace like this, we should see numerous (millions) of examples of speciation WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES.

Where are these millions of examples?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

STOP!

Once again you are purposefully misstating the theory of evolution. I'm getting sick of talking with someone who is so willfully and FREQUENTLY DISHONEST.

Even if you were able to support the idea of hundreds of millions of instances of geographic isolation , a 'new species' still cannot be produced because each new member born can still interbreed with existing members OF THE SAME SPECIES.

Thus he is not a 'new species' but a member of the same species.

Also, consider that sexual isolation (inbreeding) often tends to produce results that are negative, not positive.

This is in addition to the widely accepted (even by evolutionists) idea that mutations are only rarely helpful. They are usually harmful or 'neutral' (meaning that the effect is not known at the time).

Do you think that one step forward and ten steps back represents progress?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

STOP!

Once again you are purposefully misstating the theory of evolution. I'm getting sick of talking with someone who is so willfully and FREQUENTLY DISHONEST.

Even if you were able to support the idea of hundreds of millions of instances of geographic isolation , a 'new species' still cannot be produced because each new member born can still interbreed with existing members OF THE SAME SPECIES.

Thus he is not a 'new species' but a member of the same species.

Also, consider that sexual isolation (inbreeding) often tends to produce results that are negative, not positive.

This is in addition to the widely accepted (even by evolutionists) idea that mutations are only rarely helpful. They are usually harmful or 'neutral' (meaning that the effect is not known at the time).

Do you think that one step forward and ten steps back represents progress?

They need an emoticon for 'banging my head agains the wall'.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

STOP!

Once again you are purposefully misstating the theory of evolution. I'm getting sick of talking with someone who is so willfully and FREQUENTLY DISHONEST.

Even if you were able to support the idea of hundreds of millions of instances of geographic isolation , a 'new species' still cannot be produced because each new member born can still interbreed with existing members OF THE SAME SPECIES.

Thus he is not a 'new species' but a member of the same species.

Also, consider that sexual isolation (inbreeding) often tends to produce results that are negative, not positive.

This is in addition to the widely accepted (even by evolutionists) idea that mutations are only rarely helpful. They are usually harmful or 'neutral' (meaning that the effect is not known at the time).

Do you think that one step forward and ten steps back represents progress?

They need an emoticon for 'banging my head agains the wall'.

Neo may be able to help you with that.

Meanwhile, why don't you address the subject honestly?

If a critter is born as 'the first of a new species' , he will (by definition) NOT be able to breed with members of other species, correct?

So the 'new species' is toast.

This applies whether he is part of a group that has been geographically isolated from others, or not.

If he is still able to breed with members of the 'old species' (including those he is 'isolated' with), then he is also still a member of that species, is he not?

Thus, no 'new species' has actually been formed, has it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Neo may be able to help you with that.

Meanwhile, why don't you address the subject honestly?

If a critter is born as 'the first of a new species' , he will (by definition) NOT be able to breed with members of other species, correct?

So the 'new species' is toast.

This applies whether he is part of a group that has been geographically isolated from others, or not.

If he is still able to breed with members of the 'old species' (including those he is 'isolated' with), then he is also still a member of that species, is he not?

Thus, no 'new species' has actually been formed, has it?

We addressed this just 4-5 pages ago. I'll give you a LINK, hence the need to bang my head against the wall.

STOP being so dishonest.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know