16 May 14
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.
16 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseTwo 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?
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.
16 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNot 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.
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?
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause 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.
I don't see how merely making a statement of fact is rationalization.
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt 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?
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSee, 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.
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?
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIf that is the case, then I don't see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of it.
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI 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.
If that is the case, then I don't see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of it.
17 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, 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.
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, why don't you join humanity in the TWENTY FIRST century then?
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.
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?
17 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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?