Replies

I don't think you two are that far apart. As far as I know in animals there has never been a case of a new species arising actually observed. There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that it has occurred- but only through LOSS of information. For example, a group of frogs may have the capacity to bred from May until September. Over time a small subgroup that breeds in May and June forms because they lose all of there members that breed later. Perhaps further north there is a group that breeds only from August through September. Most members of the species can breed throughout the whole time. If the species almost goes extinct so that only those two sub-groups survive, you have two species of frogs. They cannot interbreed.

That explains how species splitting occurs, but it is through LOSS of information. That is more consistent with Swabe's idea, and Creationist ideas, than evolution. Where do you get all of the information needed to get the original groups if speciation occurs soley, or even predominantely, by loss of information?

It is hardely molecules to man evolution if a group of organisms begins with the genetic potential to radiate into a dozen closely related species. The genetic potential was there from day one. The environment just brings out how it was expressed.

For Darwinism to be true, you must have new species arise through the injection of NEW information. The information must improve the fitness of the organism for their environment, and the new information must arise at a rate that explains the biological diversity of Earth and the fossil record. The first two conditions seem at least theoretically sound but have not been shown and the last has not come close to being met.

. Over time a small subgroup that breeds in May and June forms because ...

This gets kind of speculative here. It requires that every member of every subsequent generation of that subgroup cannot breed at different times than the general population (which would be a true loss of genetic information from that population). At least it seems speculative to me because I am unaware of this situation ocuring naturally. Is there one?

For Darwinism to be true, you must have new species arise through the injection of NEW information.

That's basically why (Darwinian) evolution never seems to pan out on close examination. This has never been demonstrated to happen, even under laboratory manipulation. And everything seems to go from higher organization to lower organization (Loss of information, as you mention in the frog example), not the reverse. It would seem to me that we are DEvolving, not Evolving, with fewer species and less genetic potentials.

For Darwinism to be true, you must have new species arise through the injection of NEW information.

We do from the Carassius Gibelio to the Carassius auratus, The Gibel Carp to the Goldfish

There has been plenty of "New" information that has evolved in the Goldfish that are not found in the original Gibel Carp, So it's a gain not a loss. There are scores if not hundreds of new structures, organs, body shapes, tails shapes and numbers, types of scales, colors, tolerances, etc. Most of which are the result of multiple genes (i.e. the bubble eye in the bottom center picture takes 3 separate genes just for the sacs to form) that were gained separately/independently.

The information must improve the fitness of the organism for their environment,

It did, Try raising a carp in a fishbowl and see how long it last

and the new information must arise at a rate that explains the biological diversity of Earth and the fossil record.

Goldfish arose ~1100 years ago, So even if we take an extremely unlikely low estimate and say the Goldfish only differentiate from the carp by only 0.0005% (Their different chromosome number guarantees it's way higher) using simple math that would mean that if the genetics of a species can change 0.0005% in 1100 years then in 4.5 billion years the genetics of an organism can change by 2,250,000% which way more than the diversity of all life on Earth.

The first two conditions seem at least theoretically sound but have not been shown and the last has not come close to being met.

Yes it has in the Goldfish .