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🙁
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
YEC's don't like this one, I'm sure:
16 May '14 14:361 edit
Back to Top