Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 May '14 14:36 / 1 edit
    YEC's harp about "kind", a dog always makes a dog, blah blah blah.

    But there is one little detail they definitely don't want to confront in their hatred of evolution:

    Ring Species.

    This is where a species slowly moves away from its original stomping grounds but takes two paths, say one going around the left side of a mountain and the other path around the right side of a mountain.

    So they do their thing, reproduce, 'kind for kind'. And the creationist say it's a different 'kind' if they cannot reproduce.

    So here we have a number of present day examples of JUST that happening.

    When the two diverging lines say, meet at the bottom of that mountain range, lo and behold, they can't now reproduce where the two lines meet.

    Now that they can't reproduce, they MUST be different 'Kinds'. DOH

    http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

    This is here and now folks, not some 'you can't know anything about 10,000 years ago since there WAS no 10,000 years ago Bullshyte argument.
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 May '14 19:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    YEC's harp about "kind", a dog always makes a dog, blah blah blah.

    But there is one little detail they definitely don't want to confront in their hatred of evolution:

    Ring Species.

    This is where a species slowly moves away from its original stomping grounds but takes two paths, say one going around the left side of a mountain and the other path aro ...[text shortened]... n't know anything about 10,000 years ago since there WAS no 10,000 years ago Bullshyte argument.
    Two different species of lizards will still produce a lizard. Two different species of birds will still produce a bird. Two different species of cats will still produce a cat. So what?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 May '14 19:31
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Two different species of lizards will still produce a lizard. Two different species of birds will still produce a bird. Two different species of cats will still produce a cat. So what?
    Not THOSE species of lizards, THAT'S THE POINT. They can now only reproduce among the last bunch because they are not the same 'kind' any more.
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 May '14 19:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Not THOSE species of lizards, THAT'S THE POINT. They can now only reproduce among the last bunch because they are not the same 'kind' any more.
    I believe that is called losing genetic information.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 May '14 21:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I believe that is called losing genetic information.
    Another rationalization. You are quite good at that. Distractions only though.
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 May '14 00:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Another rationalization. You are quite good at that. Distractions only though.
    I don't see how merely making a statement of fact is rationalization.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 May '14 10:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't see how merely making a statement of fact is rationalization.
    Because they didn't lose information. The number of chromosomes and such are IDENTICAL. You don't lose information looking at one 'kind' vs another, the information just gets jumbled around, with life forms having similar numbers of chromosomes and such, some less some more but they don't LOSE anything.

    But if you had actually studied evolution instead of lapping up your creationist buddies wacko pseudoscientific nonsense in their political push to ban evolution, you would know that.

    Instead you are stuck in the tenth century along with all the other YEC crowd.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 May '14 11:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Because they didn't lose information. The number of chromosomes and such are IDENTICAL. You don't lose information looking at one 'kind' vs another, the information just gets jumbled around, with life forms having similar numbers of chromosomes and such, some less some more but they don't LOSE anything.

    But if you had actually studied evolution instead o ...[text shortened]... uld know that.

    Instead you are stuck in the tenth century along with all the other YEC crowd.
    It appears to me that if they lost the ability to mate, then some DNA information was lost is the process. Something in the gene makeup had to change, so what else could it be?
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 May '14 12:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It appears to me that if they lost the ability to mate, then some DNA information was lost is the process. Something in the gene makeup had to change, so what else could it be?
    See, there is a HUGE difference between 'lost' and 'changed'. There is a whole branch of genetics called Epigenetics that explores the changes of gene EXPRESSION controlled by outside influences.

    A gene doesn't have to be lost for it to be not expressed, it can simply be told to not participate. That's basically all it is to it. NOTHING is lost.

    Later when a different set of conditions appears, like more moisture, less heat, more food, etc., epigenetics will again allow that same gene to participate in the general production of proteins.

    The WORLD controls epigenetics and that is what leads to different 'kinds' or new species.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 May '14 12:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    See, there is a HUGE difference between 'lost' and 'changed'. There is a whole branch of genetics called Epigenetics that explores the changes of gene EXPRESSION controlled by outside influences.

    A gene doesn't have to be lost for it to be not expressed, it can simply be told to not participate. That's basically all it is to it. NOTHING is lost.

    Later ...[text shortened]... s.

    The WORLD controls epigenetics and that is what leads to different 'kinds' or new species.
    If that is the case, then I don't see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of it.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 May '14 12:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If that is the case, then I don't see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of it.
    I am punching holes in that absurd word ''Kind". That is just a stupid creationist construct designed to confuse gullible minds in their quest for political domination of science in the US.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 May '14 12:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am punching holes in that absurd word ''Kind". That is just a stupid creationist construct designed to confuse gullible minds in their quest for political domination of science in the US.
    Well, I can't help that "kind" is the word that has been used since about 1500 A.D. Each animal is supposed to reproduce after its kind, whatever that means.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 May '14 13:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, I can't help that "kind" is the word that has been used since about 1500 A.D. Each animal is supposed to reproduce after its kind, whatever that means.
    Well, why don't you join humanity in the TWENTY FIRST century then?

    You HAVE to stick with 600 year old definitions?

    Exactly what did they know about genetics and such 500 years ago?

    You think knowing genetics makes ZERO difference in our knowledge of life?
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 May '14 13:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well, why don't you join humanity in the TWENTY FIRST century then?

    You HAVE to stick with 600 year old definitions?

    Exactly what did they know about genetics and such 500 years ago?

    You think knowing genetics makes ZERO difference in our knowledge of life?
    I doubt if those people knew anything about genetics other than animals of a certain kind always reproduced after their kind. It looks like that is still the case to me, today.
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 May '14 13:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I doubt if those people knew anything about genetics other than animals of a certain kind always reproduced after their kind. It looks like that is still the case to me, today.
    Of course, since you are clearly part of the 1500's and not the 2000's. DUH.