05 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not getting it. What are you claiming is so preposterous? Are you claiming it is preposterous to think that genetic mutation occurs? Are you claiming it is preposterous to think genetic mutation could occur on any level that could, along with other factors, result in speciation? Are you claiming something that delimits the degree to which genetic mutation could effect traits that are relevant to talk of species classification? Or something else?
you know very well what he is referring to, the preposterous idea that species mutate into other species, what else?
By the way, do you know anything at all on this topic -- a topic that you love declaiming on so much?
05 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thomas Laverybeen through it my friend, as yet we have yet to see ANY evidence as to why God would choose the evolutionarily hypothesis, if it is an unsubstantiated belief then that is one thing, but to state that God used the evolutionary hypothesis is quite another. I would like to see the reason as to why he would do such a thing, plus the actual evidence is quite contrary, for example, perhaps you can provide an example of one species mutating into another? environmental factors may indicate why a lion is a stronger lion than his rival, but this does not mean that he will become a zebra, does it!
There are many people in this world who beleive in God. They see evolution as one way to explain a aspect of His creation.
06 May 09
One species does not mutate into another. God creates a creature but we do not know what this creature is until it matures. Think of the embryo in the womb of the mother. Gradually it grows and developes, and passes from one form to another, until it appeares as man.
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thomas Laveryhow do we know what the creature will be until it matures? for the DNA contains the blueprint for what will ultimately be formed, thus humans produce humans, Lions lions and giraffes, giraffes. not only that, but quite contrary to the idea that mutations are produced by aberrations at a molecular level, DNA is very robust and resists attempts at distortion. are you sure we are referring to the same idea when we state evolution?
One species does not mutate into another. God creates a creature but we do not know what this creature is until it matures. Think of the embryo in the womb of the mother. Gradually it grows and developes, and passes from one form to another, until it appeares as man.
07 May 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit====================================
If you think that's impressive, just think how smart the creator of God [i.e., the source of the source!] must be.
If you think that's impressive, just think how smart the creator of God [i.e., the source of the source!] must be.
========================================
I don't think this kind of infinite regress exists - the source of the source of the source of the source of the source, going back and back to the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of God.
I think the cosmic buck stops with God.
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSurely a being as powerful and intelligent as God did not come to exist by mere chance.
[b]====================================
If you think that's impressive, just think how smart the creator of God [i.e., the source of the source!] must be.
========================================
I don't think this kind of infinite regress exists - the source of the source of the source of the source of the source, going back and back to ...[text shortened]... the creator of the creator of the creator of God.
I think the cosmic buck stops with God.[/b]
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut the DNA does not contain the names of the species in its code. The species names are man-made and used for classification. In fact the blue print of a being we would classify as human is extremely similar to another being that we would classify as chimpanzee with the differences being merely a matter of degree.
for the DNA contains the blueprint for what will ultimately be formed, thus humans produce humans, Lions lions and giraffes, giraffes.
I must also point out that it is perfectly possible for a dog and a wolf to mate and produce offspring that is neither dog nor wolf - and this situation is far from unique.
07 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadas it has been noted, there is clearly variety among a certain species, thus ol Darwin saw variety among his now famous finches, there are big dogs and wee dogs, there are no half cat/half dogs, there are no half mouse half horses! you will also note that attempts to breed even closely related species such as horses and donkeys, produce an animal, impotent, unable to pass its genetic code onto the next generation. Mutations are no basis for the evolutionary hypothesis.
But the DNA does not contain the names of the species in its code. The species names are man-made and used for classification. In fact the blue print of a being we would classify as human is extremely similar to another being that we would classify as chimpanzee with the differences being merely a matter of degree.
I must also point out that it is perf ...[text shortened]... mate and produce offspring that is neither dog nor wolf - and this situation is far from unique.
Consider the conclusion after zillions of experiments
“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila (fruit flies), with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”
- Theodosis Dobzhansky, hereditary and the nature of man, page 126
and on the remarkable ability of ther genetic code to preserve its integrity, the well respected late geneticist Richard Goldschmidt is quoted in the book Darwin Retired, “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”
- Darwin retired, Norman Macbeth, p33
07 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are being extremely inconsistent. Originally you claimed that speciation does not take place. Let me point out that Darwins finches are infact a number of different species:
as it has been noted, there is clearly variety among a certain species, thus ol Darwin saw variety among his now famous finches,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
Your post more or less admits that you believe them to be related - contradicting your earlier claim.
there are big dogs and wee dogs, there are no half cat/half dogs
But there are half dog/half wolf, half dog/half something else for about 5 different species.
you will also note that attempts to breed even closely related species such as horses and donkeys, produce an animal, impotent, unable to pass its genetic code onto the next generation.
Closely related? In what way? Surely you are not implying that horses and donkeys have a common ancestor as that would contradict your 'no speciation' claim.
07 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadcontradicting my earlier claim, nonsense! i stated earlier that there was variation within a species, do you want me to retrieve it and stick it to your forehead? Darwin smarwin! finches are finches, they are not eagles or ospreys, or chickens are they.
You are being extremely inconsistent. Originally you claimed that speciation does not take place. Let me point out that Darwins finches are infact a number of different species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
Your post more or less admits that you believe them to be related - contradicting your earlier claim.
there are big dog horses and donkeys have a common ancestor as that would contradict your 'no speciation' claim.