Evidence Against Evolution

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would I be wrong in assuming that you and a chemical soup are different 'kinds'?

I wouldn't know. 'kind' is a category invented by creationists and since different creationists have different definitions I am never clear about whether or not a given pair of species are the same 'kind' or different 'kinds'. What is your definition, and what is your stand regarding 'horse' and 'donkey' and whether or not they can interbreed?

PS: If the above assumption does not accurately describe the evolutionary process would you care to explain to me what your version of 'evolution' is?
'evolution' the word on its own, is the change of a life form or species over the generations.
The Theory of Evolution is much more than that and does include the fact that all life forms have a common ancestor. This does not mean that I know my full ancestry tree. In fact, I cant go back more than about 11 generations and even then only for some of my ancestors - and even then I must assume that the person who thought he was the father of each child actually was the father.

Do you know where your ancestors came from? Can you trace your ancestry back to Adam?

Originally posted by RJHinds
1n 1976, at a diatomaceous-earth quarry in Lompoc, California, workers
of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp uncovered the fossil skeleton of
a baleen whale standing on end in the quarry as it was being exposed
gradually as the diatomite is mined. The whale was estimated to be
about 80 feet long. This means that the formation was not built up
gradua ...[text shortened]... from the atmosphere, bacteria, and so forth. Evidence for the Genesis
Flood and a young earth?

Of course, you have to pick the idea that bests fits your dogma, another example of cognitive dissonance.

Try looking at this explanation:

http://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

The amazing thing for you is how you would rationalize the folding of these solid rocks in only 6000 years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is something else to consider. There is a cluster of 4 stars in the
Trapezium of the Orion nebula that are rapidly moving away from a
common point. The projection backward at their present speed show
their paths lead to a common point of origin only about 10,000 years
ago. According to Slusher, this raises the question as to whether the
creation itself should be considered more than 10,000 years ago.

You are clutching at straws, anything to try to convince rational people of the creationist lie.

So what if 10,000 years ago they were close, what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Don't know how many light years away they are, lets say 200 light years. So they were close together, space is VERY large. They could have just as easily come from 1000 light years away and just happened to pass close to each other and then separated again. So what? The resolution of astrophotography, microlensing, occultation techniques and so forth are not even close to being accurate enough to say whether they were at one place together at one time. They could have been perturbed by a black hole or another very massive star and flung apart. There could have been any number of scenarios where they were close and then were flung apart, even assuming they were very close to begin with.

You are really clutching at straws here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you state here whether or not 'horse' and 'donkey' are different 'kinds' and whether you stand by the claim that they cannot interbreed without producing sterile offspring?

Dr. Gish defines the Biblical term "kind" as:
"A generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant
genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with
other groups of organisms under normal circumstances."

I am not an expert on this, but it would seem that any animal that
can breed would be the same kind according to the Holy Bible and
I suppose Dr. Gish's definition. He says "normal circumstances", so
there may be some abnormal circumstances that I am not aware of.
Apparently there is only so far they can go, then they become sterile
It is my understanding that the mule is sterile so that seems to be
the limit of the boundary within the kind in that direction. Then the
zebronkey seems to be the limit of another boundary within the kind
in a different direction. That is about all I can tell you because I have
not studied them extensively.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is my understanding that the mule is sterile so that seems to be
the limit of the boundary within the kind in that direction.

Well your understanding is wrong. Not all mules are sterile.
It is well understood by biologists why most mules are sterile and why some are not.
The person you quoted however is not a biologist and doesn't have a clue - which is why he was quite happy to tell falsehoods:
Centuries of breeding experiments have been attopted to cross the boundaries between kinds and the result has never produced more tha a sterile animal.
Examples are:
Horse and donkey producing a sterile mule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
All male mules and most female mules are infertile.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well your understanding is wrong. Not all mules are sterile.
It is well understood by biologists why most mules are sterile and why some are not.
The person you quoted however is not a biologist and doesn't have a clue - which is why he was quite happy to tell falsehoods:
[b]Centuries of breeding experiments have been attopted to cross the boundaries ...[text shortened]... tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
All male mules and [b]most female mules are infertile.[/i][/b]

The person I quoted is a biochemist which is closer to a biologist that you
are so maybe you are the one that does not have a clue.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The person I quoted is a biochemist which is closer to a biologist that you
are so maybe you are the one that does not have a clue.

Well then he is a very poor biochemist, or he lied. It is a well documented fact that some mules are fertile. Or don't you trust Wikipedia on this issue?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Biochemist, Dr. Duane T. Gish said, "Not a single, indisputable,
multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks!
Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the
evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever
existed, have never been found."

"Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" by Duane T. Gish, 1976, page 122.
...[text shortened]... well-defined species?"
"The Origin of Species", Vol. 2, 6th Edition, page 49.

"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."

This quote is 35 years out of date. Multicellular Pre Cambrian life has been found rendering this point mute.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Biochemist, Dr. Duane T. Gish said, "Not a single, indisputable,
multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks!
Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the
evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever
existed, have never been found."

"Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" by Duane T. Gish, 1976, page 122.
...[text shortened]... well-defined species?"
"The Origin of Species", Vol. 2, 6th Edition, page 49.

"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."

This quote is 35 years out of date. Multicellular Pre Cambrian life has been found rendering this point mute.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then he is a very poor biochemist, or he lied. It is a well documented fact that some mules are fertile. Or don't you trust Wikipedia on this issue?

He did not say anything about mules in his definition. I was the one that
brought up the fact that mules are sterile. I have always been told mules
are sterile and I have never seen different. But it doesn't matter that I am
not an expert in biology, even if they did reproduce they still or like horses
and donkeys. So what, if I don't have perfect knowledge, it doesn't change
the fact the animals reproduce after their own kind.

Originally posted by Proper Knob

"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."

This quote is 35 years out of date. Multicellular Pre Cambrian life has been found rendering this point mute.

No references makes your statement like the sound of the wind blowing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He did not say anything about mules in his definition.

Well it wasn't clear from your post what was being quoted by you and what was your own words.

Whatever the case, the following piece of your post remains false:
Centuries of breeding experiments have been attopted to cross the boundaries between kinds and the result has never produced more tha a sterile animal.
Examples are:
Horse and donkey producing a sterile mule.

So what, if I don't have perfect knowledge, it doesn't change the fact the animals reproduce after their own kind.
Which is a somewhat meaningless claim since you have never satisfactorily given a definition for the word 'kind'.
But even after you do give the definition, how does the fact that animals generally do not interbreed between species support creationism? As I said, biologists know why mules are usually infertile and even why some mules are fertile. It is fully compatible with the Theory of Evolution and strongly suggests that horses and donkeys have a common ancestor.

So your claim:
The fact that these hybrids are sterile and do not reproduce is strong
evidence against evolution.
Is false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well it wasn't clear from your post what was being quoted by you and what was your own words.

Whatever the case, the following piece of your post remains false:
[b]Centuries of breeding experiments have been attopted to cross the boundaries between kinds and the result has never produced more tha a sterile animal.
Examples are:
Horse and donkey pr ...[text shortened]... ds are sterile and do not reproduce is strong
evidence against evolution.
Is false.[/b]

If Dr. Gish's definition of "kind" is not good enough for you, then consult
a biologist. Hybrid animals like mules, ligers, and zebronkeys are generally
sterile and do not naturally reproduce, seems to be strong evidence against
evolution to me. And there is no known and scientifically proven common
ancestor that has produced the horse and also the lion and also the bird
or the alligator. So lets not be adding mythology to science in an effort
to prove an invalid and clearly false theory.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If Dr. Gish's definition of "kind" is not good enough for you, then consult
a biologist.

'Kind' is not a biological term, it is a creationist term. A biologist would not be able to give me a definition.

Hybrid animals like mules, ligers, and zebronkeys are generally sterile and do not naturally reproduce, seems to be strong evidence against evolution to me.
Why do you think it is evidence against evolution? It is fully compatible with the theory of evolution as far as I know.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No references makes your statement like the sound of the wind blowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Precambrian_life