The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 27, 2009 | Anika Smith

[Ira_Louvin]

That is called speciation, and is an observed fact. I am asking for the empirical evidence that this is due to a loss for genetic information, or is something other than observable evolution.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

YOU SAID “So how do you explain that fact that due to speciation different species can no longer interbreed?””

I SAID “Reproductive isolation has caused them to LOSE the ability to interbreed. A loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution.”

I was agreeing with YOUR statement that different species can NO LONGER INTERBREED. I made no assertion.
If you need something in writing here is a link to a book. It isn’t a creationist book.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4978&page=41
Second full paragraph down.

Maybe I am not understanding your question.

[Ira_Louvin]

You made the assertion and yet are unable to provide supporting empirical evidence.

That is very telling.

[Ira_Louvin]

What empirical evidence do you have to support the assertion “Reproductive isolation has caused them to LOSE the ability to interbreed. A loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution.”

[metmom]

Where is the evidence, then, of the GAIN of information in DNA?

That’s what evos constantly claim occurred. How do they PROVE it? Or is it only assumed?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Sorry I did misunderstand your question. Here is your empirical evidence. If you don’t want to read the whole thing then Google “speciation a loss of genetic information”. It is the 8th result down.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/5246.full

[ClearCase_guy]

We have trouble defining what a species is -- I'm not at all sure that we have observed speciation.

We have fruit flies turning into other fruit flies. And salamanders turning into other salamanders. But I question how much real speciation has been observed.

I think we have theory and assumptions and that those sometimes get confused with empirical fact.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Ok, still not clear.
Are you asking..

Where is the evidence that it is a loss of genetic information that cause species to lose the ability to interbreed?

Or

Where is the evidence that a loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution?

I have answered the first with a link.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Ok, still not clear.
Are you asking..

Where is the evidence that it is a loss of genetic information that cause species to lose the ability to interbreed?

Or

Where is the evidence that a loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution?

I have answered the first with a link.

[BrandtMichaels]

You made an assertion that I said it was empirical. Very telling also for you. Not to mention too lazy to do your own research.

Although genetic drift probably could be proven empirically if leftists had not already over-taken the science literature and peer-review process through consensus.

Makes one wonder just how much scientific advancement and prosperity the US would enjoy were it not for the liberals and Demos with their bullying and cry-babying tactics (also conservatives / Repubs appeasing same)...

[Ira_Louvin]

Argumentum ad Hominem :

The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

[Ira_Louvin]

Speciation is a part of evolution:

Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.

A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

What empirical evidence do you have to show it is not?

[ClearCase_guy]

Looks like you’re out of bullets.

[Ira_Louvin]

A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

This is an empirical fact., it has been observed both in nature, and in the lab.

[count-your-change]

“Nice try”

[Ira_Louvin]

No just pointing out the obvious.

[ClearCase_guy]

And yet you give no examples.

Go ahead -- tell me about a species that has been observed to form in the lab. And if you tell me about fruit flies turning into fruit flies, I'll give up on you.

[BrandtMichaels]

Oh that’s right, I forgot again, creationists are not allowed to use the same tactics that evos use. Especially if there is a latin term for it. /s

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Speciation is real. It has been observed. “Species” is a man made term to categorize. Taxonomy is a tool. Just because something is listed as a different species doesn’t make it a different animal altogether.

Wolves, domesticated dogs, foxes are all different species. Are you suggesting that they aren’t all the same kind of animal, a dog? They are still all types of dogs. They haven’t went from being a lizard (reptile) to a dog (mammal).

Some species can interbreed, some cannot, some can interbreed but produce infertile offspring. They are still the same types of animals.

Speciation has been extrapolated as “proof” of goo to you evolution. Where is your empirical evidence that speciation results in a reptile turning into a mammal?

I gave you a study about speciation resulting in the loss of genetic information and you tried to change the subject. That study IS proof that speciation does not result in reptile to mammal type evolution but only in variation within a animal. A reptile turning into a mammal requires ALOT of additional information. AGAIN, speciation results in a LOSS of information. What is the mechanism for the gain in genetic information that it would take for a lizard to turn into a dog?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Agreed. You have no argument here. There are alot of different species of dogs. They are still dogs. Now show me the lizard that has changed into a dog.