Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK; St_Thomas_Aquinas
In reality, "descent with modifications" has been observed and confirmed innumerable times, making it a fact. That is the method by which, since time immemorial, people have created new varieties / breeds

This has a bearing on the unguided evolution hypothesis only if the definition species is artificially narrowed to breeds and varietals within the same real species. Yes, dogs and wolves, and -- I trust your word, breeds of zebras can produce healthy offspring. This does not prove evolution from one species to another such that when the evolution is done the second species no longer interbreeds at all with the first. The part I highlighted is the definition of the evolutionary theory I find no scientific proof of, only scientific dress-up of a superstition.

Microevolution -- the difficult but possible interbreeding inside several subspecies, -- does not prove the real thing. By the same logic I could "prove" to you that I can fly: I can indeed flap my hands and hop around. My hopping and flapping is not a first step of me becoming a bird. It may be a first step for me isolating myself and fellow hopper-flappers into a human colony that now has a difficulty interbreeding with the rest of humanity. That is all that the presence of breeds shows.

"It took a very long time" is not a proof of anything either , it is simply a storytelling device: "Long, long time ago there lived a unicorn..."

the evidence He left for scientists to examine clearly shows turkeys and bald eagles descending separately from common ancestors

No, He did not. The evidence is that there are two species, turkeys and eagles, and there was another species looking somewhat like both, that is now extinct. There is no evidence of "descending" of anything from anything.

120 posted on 05/16/2012 5:47:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: annalex

-—The evidence is that there are two species, turkeys and eagles, and there was another species looking somewhat like both, that is now extinct. There is no evidence of “descending” of anything from anything.——

Yes. Shouldn’t the fossil record display countless intermediate forms? But it doesn’t. The evidence is unambiguous. The record is in. Millions of fossils have been discovered, and they show that creatures exit the fossil record the same way they enter. Species are static over time.

The most famous supposed “transitional form” is Archaeoptryx. Yet, since the first fossil was discovered, six more have been found, and they look just like the first. So its value in supporting the theory of gradual evolution is ambiguous, at best. IMO, Archaeoptryx is as much of a transitional form as a bat or “flying” squirrel.


121 posted on 05/17/2012 5:29:53 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (hViva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

To: annalex
annalex: "This has a bearing on the unguided evolution hypothesis only if the definition species is artificially narrowed to breeds and varietals within the same real species.
Yes, dogs and wolves, and -- I trust your word, breeds of zebras can produce healthy offspring.
This does not prove evolution from one species to another such that when the evolution is done the second species no longer interbreeds at all with the first."

First, I note your struggles with the definition of the word "species".
Scientifically, it's a simple concept, the key to it being a natural ability to interbreed, but it is only one term of many used to describe family relationships among animals, plants and other living things.
Indeed, there is a whole hierarchy of biological relationships, starting in the case of humans, with our individual families.

Traditionally, biological families grouped into closely related clans, which organized into larger tribes and nations, several of which might include all members of a particular human race/breed, and all of those races together constituting the sub-species homo sapiens sapiens = all human beings.

The overall species of homo-sapiens includes us, plus other subspecies which DNA and other analyses show interbred, including Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo sapiens idaltu, and possibly even Homo floresiensis.

And that is the key scientific distinction: if they successfully interbred, then they are sub-species.
But it not, then they are separate species.

Again, we can follow the zebra example all the way up their scientific hierarchy.
Three separate species do not interbreed in the wild, even when they live together.
Yes, they can be forced-bred in captivity, but their offspring are not fully viable.

But within each species are sub-species which do successfully interbreed in the wild.

The three zebra species, plus donkeys and horses are grouped into a larger genus called equids.
And between species in that equid genus, the best that interbreeding can produce are those infertile offspring of donkeys and horses = mules.

Moving up, the equid genus belongs to the "horse family" which includes many extinct species going all the way back to eohippus about 54 million years ago.

Next up the hierarchy of groupings is the order Perissodactyla = "one toed ungulates".
These include the horse family, rhinoceroses and tapirs.

And so biological classifications go... up the ladder to eventually include all mammals, then all animals with backbones, all animals and finally all living things.
And all that is basic high-school biology, which is why I know it.

So those are the various scientific classifications, as defined by scientists.
Your problem is how to shoe-horn the biblical word "kinds" into those scientific classifications, and I would suggest to you that it simply cannot be done.

One reason: a biblical "kind" is not strictly defined, even in the Bible, and any efforts you make to define it are just matters of your theologically based opinions, and have nothing to do with real science.

annalex: "Microevolution -- the difficult but possible interbreeding inside several subspecies, -- does not prove the real thing."

Sorry FRiend, but as an anti-scientist, you don't get to define scientific terms -- if you wish to argue science, then you have to use the definitions scientists developed.
In the case of micro-evolution it is not what you say.
Rather, the definition (simplified) means the accumulation in every generation of DNA mutations.
As I've said before, most mutations have no effect, and of those which do cause changes most are negative, and so get weeded out by natural selection.

Over many generations -- typically hundreds of thousands or millions of years -- these minor changes eventually produce sub-species, species and genera which can no longer interbreed.
And that's what evolution is all about.

annalex: "There is no evidence of "descending" of anything from anything."

There is almost endless cogent evidence in fossil records and DNA studies showing relationships and ancestry of all living things.
Of course, people with eyes closed can't see it, but the evidence remains persuasive to anyone not committed to an anti-science theology.

125 posted on 05/17/2012 3:09:55 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson