Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
Well, then, I guess someone needs to redefine the species of tigers and lions, and horses and donkeys.
They can interbreed and I don't doubt that there are other examples in nature.
It’s amazing how some people put God in a box and then complain about hos small He is.
It’s amazing how some people put God in a box and then complain about how small He is.
Indeed, nevermind they can’t seem to grasp He is in control and is doing it His way.
By definition, two populations are different species if a mating between them do not produce fertile offspring.
Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, but the offspring are sterile; ergo, horses and donkeys are not the same species.
To: MrB
Could not the predictive ability of your working theory also be predicted by the theory that all the ADAPTIVE ability you see and base predictions on is “built into” the organisms you study, and not a matter of adding these abilities through ADDITION of information through mutation?
Aren’t you just observing adaptation and attributing that to “evolution”?
Not really.
If I were going to assume a created system, first of all, I would not expect adaptive changes, since presumably, components of the created system would have been specifically designed for the niche they occupy and wouldn’t need to adapt.
But let’s say that despite that, some change is occurring anyway. In that case, I would only be able to look at the change within any given species in isolation; I would not be able to look at how a given change in, e.g., a protein, occurred in one species and make any predictions about how that protein would have changed in another species. In fact, I wouldn’t even be able to assume the same protein exists—arguably, an organism designed to live in a barrier reef has drastically different needs than an organism designed to live in a temperate deciduous forest, so I wouldn’t assume design similarities between them.
I don’t see anything consistent with a designed world in actual practice. Everything I see is consistent with an evolved world.
Really? Think of primitive man in a desert using tools to make fire or a wheel and then thousands of years later, a soldier on a battlefield in say Norway in the dead of winter pushes a button in a tank and destroys a target.
Man hasn’t evoloved but he sure has adapted! God gave man all he needed and along the way we’ve adapted to cold, not to mention created software to plan and implement modern weapons effective in almost any environment.
I can’t help but see a designed world, as it just seems too fantastical a slim to none chance all of what we’ve experienced to this point was and is driven by non-intelligent forces.
So much for consensus in science.
There are two definitions for species going on this thread. Which one is it?
Not being able to reproduce at all would be the hardest criteria. (no offspring like our fruit flies)
Not being able to reproduce only infertile offspring would be less so. (a sterile mule like horses and donkeys)
Being noticeably different in morphology and habit and DNA and being only theoretically able to reproduce semifertile offspring if put in a cage together. (lions and tigers)
Being noticeably different in morphology and habit and DNA and only occasionally reproducing together in the wild (wolves and coyotes).
Different “ecotypes” of the same species that do interbreed but are somewhat noticeably different in DNA behavior and morphology (many birds).
Words do not define reality. But when someone says there hasn't been an observed speciation event they are wrong.
Now do you think every modern species fit on the Ark - or was there speciation from those primordial “kinds” that could? And how are you going to explain their differentiation if not by utilizing natural selection of genetic variation?
LOL
I think liberals may be a different species. :)
No need to get snippy there dreamer, after all, normal well-adjusted intelligent people have been facilitating you making yourself look like the nutty liberal hater of intelligence and design you ARE for YEARS now! ;)
oh my! Still projecting and still trying in vain to be a liberal know it all with crap like "creation science should not be taught..." blah blah blah...wherever your liberal sensibilities say it shouldn't be taught?
Meanwhile evolution is fundamental to itself and nothing more. That's been proven on here time and time again, throughout multiple threads over several years.
A FReeper that constantly rejects God and bends over backwards to exclude God from science is ALWAYS a liberal poser.
My tagline stands the test of time dreamer. Give it some thought for once!
This is purely ad hoc reasoning that doesn't have anything at all to do with reality or possible reality, merely taste and notion
In the creation/evolution debate, one feature I have observed multiple times is that creationists try to incorporate features of evolution (e.g. "microevolution" or "adaptation") in an attempt to make a scientific sounding "theory" of creation.
But that is dishonest. If we are to accept creation as the method by which life appeared on Earth and exists in the variety that we see, then we must accept the Biblical version of creation, not some version that has had elements of evolution mixed into it. So, since for the purpose of the discussion, I put myself into the position of a scientist trying to design my research on the basis of creation "theory", I'm making assumptions based on creation as the Bible describes it. And the Biblical account of creation makes no mention of any adaptive process or need for one.
Also, I have heard, over and over, "God is perfect," and "God does not make mistakes." Well, adaptation only occurs because of sub-optimal conditions. Sub-optimal conditions don't suggest either perfection or lack of mistakes. Therefore, I would not expect to see adaptive changes in a created system--there wouldn't be any need for them.
errrrp, still the wrong answer dreamer...polls aren’t what make science anymoreso than last time you were educated on this subject. Proving, if anything, that education means nothing if you aren’t willing to apply what you learn!
God created variation within species.
Science cannot lay claim to that and Darwin’s observing it does not make it the sole domain of *science*.
The problem is that scientists have taken the observation of variation within species to speciation, which is only a conclusion reached based on forensic evidence and extrapolation, but which has never been observed. The ToE is only a philosophical construct based on a certain line of reasoning that people who reject God’s hand in thsi universe consider *logical*.
For all man’s attempts to mess with species to highlight certain desirable traits in animals, man has not yet succeeded in developing any new species.
And scientists expect us to believe that something can happen by accident that man cannot make happen on purpose? By design, dare I say?
You seem to reject that life appeared by creation. As an evolutionist please tell us how life came to be on this planet (sounding scientific).In order to know that Biblical creation is absolutely false, you must know what is true. Please tell us.
Further, please explain how the universe came to be at singularity. What was first cause of that singularity? What existed prior to singularity and prior to what Einstein, Hawkin, and other physists reference? What caused Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Good sound observation!
This notion about perfection truly astounds too. Liberals must put aside their own notions about perfection and how they deduct and define what creation is, what perfection is or even means, NOT ONLY are those terms different from person to person, but indeed they are moving targets, that is to say, those notions change even for me, when I was a young man compared to what I think now! It’s perfect insomuch as God’s plan and that is truly all liberals need worry themselves over!
How many times must we remind liberals that God truly is in control?
Perfection would dispatch with the notion of a heaven and hell and free will and so on...
Besides, understanding scripture and God to expound on betty boop’s patiently and logically designed reasoned response; requires more than just reading or speaking or hearing words, The Bible being God’s Word, in order to be understood, requires a Christian heart as well as a mind to understand!
Christians understand what bettyboop and I are talking about, liberals...ummmm, not so much.
Variety is the spice of life.
It would be a dull world if everything that existed was a clone of itself.
By allowing for variation even without the need to adapt to environmental pressure, there can be stability without stagnation.
Infinite variety makes each sunset unique and each creature recognizable from the next.
I guess you have never heard of the Drosophila experiment and other similar scientific endeavors in which new species have been created in the lab. It would be best if you limited your comments to areas involving your opinion and leave science to the professionals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.