31 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusI take it that he is still using his own extremely stupid made-up definition contrary to any scientific definition of evolution just like he always does thus proving he still is a moron. You cannot reason with him. He is just a massive time waster that just wastes your time. Personally I would just ignore him and not ever respond to any of his posts and, to eliminate all temptation to responding to his endless moronic posts, never ever read them!
Sequential variation is evolution.
31 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo if two species can no longer reproduce with each other, now they are different kinds.
Biological reproduction and selective breeding is also evolution to some, but not to me. When one kind of animal has changed to another kind of animal then I would say evolution has happened.
01 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseFact #1 – While interbreeding defines things of the same kind, the inability to interbreed does not define new or different kinds of life.
Ring species CAN reproduce with each other, but not where the ring converges. So they are no different kinds.
As two geographically separated populations of the same kind experience mutations, and lose different parts of their genetic information, it can result in sufficient genetic differences such that there is no longer a sufficient match in genetic information so as to allow successful breeding. Both populations are still the same kind, but because of a loss in genetic information their genes can no longer combine to create offspring.
Fact #2 – Ring species are not an example of evolution, which requires an increase in genetic information. They are an example of a loss of genetic information, a degradation of life, and the opposite of what evolution is supposed to be.
01 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe problem with fact 1 is that speciation is defined as the inability of two populations from a common ancestor species to reproduce with one another. So by definition they are now two different species. It's enough that the non-reproduction should be based on mating preference rather than actual genetic incompatibility.
[b]Fact #1 – While interbreeding defines things of the same kind, the inability to interbreed does not define new or different kinds of life.
As two geographically separated populations of the same kind experience mutations, and lose different parts of their genetic information, it can result in sufficient genetic differences such that there is no lon ...[text shortened]... ic information, a degradation of life, and the opposite of what evolution is supposed to be.[/b][/b]
With fact 2, why do you think evolution requires an increase in genetic information? What counts is adaptation to the environment, so if there's an environmental change and a simpler genome does better for some reason, that is the one that will be selected for.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFact #1 is referring to kinds. So regardless of how you wish to define species that does not make it a new kind of animal according to the biblical account.
The problem with fact 1 is that speciation is defined as the inability of two populations from a common ancestor species to reproduce with one another. So by definition they are now two different species. It's enough that the non-reproduction should be based on mating preference rather than actual genetic incompatibility.
With fact 2, why do you thi ...[text shortened]... nge and a simpler genome does better for some reason, that is the one that will be selected for.
Fact # 2 is considering the normally accepted definition of the theory of evolution as being that different and more complex organisms grew from a beginning simple single cell organism through mutation and natural selection. So most people believe that to evolve into a more complex organism an increase in genetic information is necessary because more complex organisms have more genetic information.
01 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's amazing how much utter Bullshyte you spill out of your ass over evolution.
Fact #1 is referring to kinds. So regardless of how you wish to define species that does not make it a new kind of animal according to the biblical account.
Fact # 2 is considering the normally accepted definition of the theory of evolution as being that different and more complex organisms grew from a beginning simple single cell organism through mutati ...[text shortened]... n genetic information is necessary because more complex organisms have more genetic information.
There does not have to be an 'increase' in information, that is just a creationist ploy in their ever decreasing arsenal of mis-information they puke out.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat I should have said is that new genetic information is necessary to evolve into a more complex organism and generally that would assume an increase in genetic information. Ring species is not an example of evolution.
It's amazing how much utter Bullshyte you spill out of your ass over evolution.
There does not have to be an 'increase' in information, that is just a creationist ploy in their ever decreasing arsenal of mis-information they puke out.
In the case of ring species, there is a deterioration or loss of genetic information that causes those species to be unable to breed. But the fact that they can no longer breed does not mean they have changed kinds anymore than it would mean my wife and I have changed to different kinds because we can no longer breed.
02 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyHope springs eternal.
I take it that he is still using his own extremely stupid made-up definition contrary to any scientific definition of evolution just like he always does thus proving he still is a moron. You cannot reason with him. He is just a massive time waster that just wastes your time. Personally I would just ignore him and not ever respond to any of his posts and, to eliminate all temptation to responding to his endless moronic posts, never ever read them!