I have read about mechanics of speciation..and so, a "new", more adaptive fruit fly is what you have?? That is still a fruit fly.

I said that I believe in adaption or an evolution within a species, but not that we, all of the "beings" on the earth, came from one "thing".

And, in any interbreeding of species, offspring are born sterile, or are usually not capable of sustaining life.

I have yet to see any of ya'll explain where all the living "things" on earth came from. And, if you use the original definition of evolution, in which all has come from one, then you can't say it is a valid theory. And that is using the same language used to deny creationism the same.

In determining how old the earth is, scientists say - "the rate of radioactive uranium decay is a constant that would not, could not change..."

But with evolution, scientists say "well, it is random, it speeds up and slows down, etc..."

Nope, not buying it. Just like we shouldn't have bought it when I was taught, in science, that we would run out of oil by 1990. And, that oil, well, it is from dinosaurs.....

It takes more faith to believe in evolution, than a creator.

And if you believe in evolution, you aren't saying you believe that a very similar being mutated into another similar being, and they were similar enough that they could have offspring.

You are saying you believe that some fish/insect/ or whatever, mutated from algae or some of lower form of plant life. And, then, that somehow mutated into a mammal...and they somehow produced offspring...nope, can't happen. A horse and donkey can have offspring, albeit sterile offspring, but, that is no where in the universe of what ya'll have to believe to think everything came from one "thing" -- whatever that was.

And, once the jump from plant to whatever happened, what did that entity reproduce with to keep that species going?

Post a link for that.

In a similar discussion, a gent gave me a link to a pretty good study on how the giraffe "evolved". It did take a few "leaps" of scientific faith, but it was well researched and written. The issue I brought up, besides the "missing links", was that with every "evolution" the prior entity died out. So if that is the "proof" of evolution, why didn't all the things that were replaced die out?

Well, how did it happen? the first time a non-mammal turned into a mammal, how did it reproduce? What about the first fish?

If you want to say that all mammals somehow mutated from other mammals, then we can have a discussion that can be argued either way, but when you add in all the other forms of life that somehow came from some other form of life, well, that is impossible.

I know that a fly doesn't just become a bird. And I also know that nature doesn't work like a pristine lab either.
I do know that the first mammals are considered to be the morganucodontids or shrews. And that this creature was a mutation from a part mammal/part reptile creature, or a mammal-like reptile. And that, supposedly, all the mammals known to have existed since "came" from this shrew.
And, with one of the given examples of same species adaption or evolution, it takes 3,000 or more generations for a flounder to change how it breeds. We don't have a new species, it's still a flounder and that took 3,000 generations.
To follow evolution, in the supposed 65 million years since dinos walked the earth, every mammal that has ever existed, came into being; and they all came from a shrew. How many generations of a shrew would it take to make a new and different species? Many, many more than 3,000. Also, when the first true shrew was born, what did it breed to? Siblings, possibly? But it would seem there would be too small of a gene pool to sustain much of a population (and since they would have been litter mates the possibility of non-viable offspring would be high), and certainly not the many 100s of thousands of generations needed to create a new and different species, NOT just an "improved" shrew. So, if the shrew bred back to the "mammal-like" creatures, how many more generations would it take to get back to a 100% shrew (that is 100% mammal, and not part reptile)? That is the point I have made regarding who or what the new species (first mammal, first feline, first whatever) mates withbecause, if there is only one bovine creature walking the earth, to keep the new creation going, and maintain a 100% bovine creature, it HAS to breed to another bovine creature. And, if it doesn't, then through proven science the 3,000 generation change in flounders ( not a new species, just a different flounder), it would likely take 100s of thousands of generations to get "back" to a 100% bovine creature (since the bovine had to breed a totally separate non-bovine creature). And, the likelihood that the bos acutifrons, or the auroch, whichever was first, had a multi-calf litter is very small. Therefore, the first boviine had to breed back to whatever it came from (bison?, I forget). So, again, how many thousands of generations of breeding did it take to get back to a 100% auroch, bos acutifrons, or whatever the first bovine was?
Because of the above, it is my belief, and the math bears this out, it is numerically impossible to have all of the 10s, if not 100s of millions of speciation/evolutional generations to produce all the known mammals in the world in 65 million years.
I raise three-way cross cattle. The reason? To get better overall results at the sale, through hybrid vigor. Black, polled cattle are what most buyers want today, but Angus cattle don't do as well in the West Texas heat and lack of moisture in the summer. Many folks raise Brangus because of this, but the extra "leather" that that breed carries usually causes a loss of revenue. So, I decided, through much research, to make a longhorn/Angus/Romagnola cross to see if they would be a good fit for today's market and for our dryer ranges out here. I arrived upon this cross though a lot of research into passed on traits and acknowledged and proven results from each breed especially in how they do when crossbred. I needed the lh for their heartiness, the angus for the black color and to get rid of the horns, and the Romagnola to add loin width and hip (angus cattle just don't add enough of that to help the lh have a more beefy "look"). I knew I would not have cattle that would be 100% black, but when they would not be black, they would most likely be red which is ok (as long as they are solid), since the 2nd best seller today, is a polled red-angus type cow. I also did a far more extensive study for the best way to breed great roping horses. So, animal husbandry, I get it and use it, I don't just study it, I put it to practice along with a lot of other farm and ranch "science".
Again, I believe in evolution within a species. But, I also believe God put the first bovine, feline, human, etc. on the earth, and the numbers seem to bear this out probability wise.
I also am not a YEC.
I apologize for lack of funny memes and jpegs.

I don't think the earth is anywhere near the 4.5 billion year mark. I would buy into the 65 million year mark. that's enough time for the original creations to evolve to the current form. And for the extinction of all the others.

Maybe a day for God is 10 million years, maybe not. I don't know.

Quote:

---

I know that a fly doesn't just become a bird. And I also know that nature doesn't work like a pristine lab either.

---

We've seen speciation in the lab and in nature. Did you even look up any of the sources I gave? How are you not even curious? Why are you digging your heels in on something you are really ignorant of? your experience with breeding and the fact that you've never bred a new species has nothing to do with it. You aren't understanding the number of generations required.

Quote:

---

Again, I believe in evolution within a species.

---

Help me understand. You are an adult human being. You saw the examples I posted, what is your response to those examples? We've literally proved you wrong in the lab and in natural observations.

Quote:

---

And, with one of the given examples of same species adaption or evolution, it takes 3,000 or more generations for a flounder to change how it breeds. We don't have a new species, it's still a flounder and that took 3,000 generations.

---

When it no longer can breed with the original population it is by definition a new species. yes it's a flounder, yes it's still a fish, yes it still lives in ocean. But it's a new species, it literally can't even breed with the original population. This is why I'm asking what you expect, you think it can change to a salmon in 3000 generations? you aren't understanding the time scales. We can prove new traits, we can prove new species. After that it's just a matter of degrees. You are now left with having to demonstrate that the changes will stop, that this new species that can't breed with the original group even though it's very similar save for a few traits will not keep on changing a few more traits, and a few more traits. So unless you can prove it stops, you've already acknowledged all evolution needs.

Quote:

---

But, I also believe God put the first bovine, feline, human, etc. on the earth, and the numbers seem to bear this out probability wise.

---

No they don't. Also we don't see this in the fossil record or in DNA evidence.

Quote:

---

Your objections don't bother high school biology teachers let alone most every biology professor in the first world.

---

Yet, they bothered you enough to spend your weekend on TexAgs pounding your keyboard in wrath as you argue against the creator you deny exists. Is that normal? Same for the weirdo with the imaginary doctorate.

RangerAg87 said:

---

I don't think the earth is anywhere near the 4.5 billion year mark.

---

Based on what?

Because by every objective, testable and verifiable scientific means we see the earth is on the order of billions of years old. We have rocks and zircons that you can literally hold in your hand today that are over 4 billion years old.

Who's sock is this? Probably a former resident YEC. I wonder if you are one of the ones on our most awesomely bad YEC threads. There were some really great ones over the years.

Astro, I used the flounder as an example of the FACT that it took 3,000 generations to change how a flounder breeds...NOT change a fish into a brand new species,not just change something about a flounder, into another flounder.

So, if it takes 3,000 generations to do that, it will take untold millions to change that flounder into a feline, or whatever - you know, like the part mammal/part reptile, maybe a part fish/part feline...

I don't think you understand how nature actually works.

Now, as to the age of the earth, we don't know, without some HUGE assumptions how old anything much past known history, yes we can use the radiometric dating, but that is assuming that is a NEVER changing constant...which, of course, we really can't prove that is the case past when we starting measuring it's actual decay. Maybe there were forces in nature that would cause that to change, which we can't account for. Maybe not, but to just say, well, we've dated these artifacts using this system, and for the years we have actually measured this decay, it is constant, therefore, we can just assume it has always been constant. That is a very large assumption, especially when talking about millions or billions of years. Yes, I simplified it, but, from what I remember, that is about how we have determined the 4.5 billion years.

You science, and science only folks can't justify the the fact the math doesn't really add up for an evolution of all things from one "thing", or nothing, or whatever. Heck, as I showed earlier, the numbers don't support just the mammal side of evolution in the last 65 million years.

Heck, science can't figure out if bacon is good for us or not. It changes every year...and, yes it's because we learn new things every year. But, let's dig out feet in on a never changing radiometric data...just remember, we were supposed to run out of oil in 1990....

Aggrad08 said:

---

You should really google literally anything, because you keep saying things disproven. Your confidence here is an example of the dunning Kruger effect.

Radiometric dating is extremely reliable, it's one of the most accurate models in all of science. Nutritional science is literary the worst most poorly studied thing out there. Comparing geology, biology, physics, and such to whether bacon is good for you is just ignorant hand waving.

Also you've literally done no math. None. I don't know why you keep referencing math you haven't done.

---

Science, perhaps, has proven how evolution could have happened, and maybe it is correct. It does not disprove intelligent design, it only offers a theory of how it likely happened within the confines of a closed system of laws ( biology, thermodynamics,etc). But obviously there are systems where the known laws begin to break down. What if signs of intelligent design are actually supported through quantum evolution?

Any way, I just wanted to throw out a few multisyllabic words that sound sciency. In the end, whether evolution and the laws governing our known universe were instantly put in place by God in the moment of creation and support the theory of evolution, we won't 'know' until it's too late. It costs me nothing to believe....it will cost me everything if I don't. That's why it's called faith, and not proof.
And whether I believe the earth is 5k years old or 5b, is a minor point. As Christians our salvation is only condition on our faith in Christ.
If you google something, google 'Pascal's Wager'. Then listen to some ethereal music, like the Cocteau Twins, and cogitate on that.

all of you are just NPCs in the simulation created for my benefit.

I've missed out on a fun thread.

For people who reject and/or don't understand evolution, there are LOADS of information on this topic on the internet that explain a complicated topic in easy to understand terms. Kurzgezagt is a great starting point:



As I posted earlier in this thread, even the Wikipedia article on evolution is great and informative.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You should really google literally anything, because you keep saying things disproven. Your confidence here is an example of the dunning Kruger effect.

Radiometric dating is extremely reliable, it's one of the most accurate models in all of science. Nutritional science is literary the worst most poorly studied thing out there. Comparing geology, biology, physics, and such to whether bacon is good for you is just ignorant hand waving.

Also you've literally done no math. None. I don't know why you keep referencing math you haven't done.

---

Science, perhaps, has proven how evolution could have happened, and maybe it is correct. It does not disprove intelligent design, it only offers a theory of how it likely happened within the confines of a closed system of laws ( biology, thermodynamics,etc). But obviously there are systems where the known laws begin to break down. What if signs of intelligent design are actually supported through quantum evolution?

Any way, I just wanted to throw out a few multisyllabic words that sound sciency. In the end, whether evolution and the laws governing our known universe were instantly put in place by God in the moment of creation and support the theory of evolution, we won't 'know' until it's too late. It costs me nothing to believe....it will cost me everything if I don't. That's why it's called faith, and not proof.
And whether I believe the earth is 5k years old or 5b, is a minor point. As Christians our salvation is only condition on our faith in Christ.
If you google something, google 'Pascal's Wager'. Then listen to some ethereal music, like the Cocteau Twins, and cogitate on that.

---

Actually I believe you have to give up everything. You "die" to self.

But you gain everything. Especially peace.

dermdoc said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You should really google literally anything, because you keep saying things disproven. Your confidence here is an example of the dunning Kruger effect.

Radiometric dating is extremely reliable, it's one of the most accurate models in all of science. Nutritional science is literary the worst most poorly studied thing out there. Comparing geology, biology, physics, and such to whether bacon is good for you is just ignorant hand waving.

Also you've literally done no math. None. I don't know why you keep referencing math you haven't done.

---

Science, perhaps, has proven how evolution could have happened, and maybe it is correct. It does not disprove intelligent design, it only offers a theory of how it likely happened within the confines of a closed system of laws ( biology, thermodynamics,etc). But obviously there are systems where the known laws begin to break down. What if signs of intelligent design are actually supported through quantum evolution?

Any way, I just wanted to throw out a few multisyllabic words that sound sciency. In the end, whether evolution and the laws governing our known universe were instantly put in place by God in the moment of creation and support the theory of evolution, we won't 'know' until it's too late. It costs me nothing to believe....it will cost me everything if I don't. That's why it's called faith, and not proof.
And whether I believe the earth is 5k years old or 5b, is a minor point. As Christians our salvation is only condition on our faith in Christ.
If you google something, google 'Pascal's Wager'. Then listen to some ethereal music, like the Cocteau Twins, and cogitate on that.

---

Actually I believe you have to give up everything. You "die" to self.

But you gain everything. Especially peace.

---

Agree, but I didn't want to confuse the argument. Nice catch

P.C. Principal said:

---

I've missed out on a fun thread.

For people who reject and/or don't understand evolution, there are LOADS of information on this topic on the internet that explain a complicated topic in easy to understand terms. Kurzgezagt is a great starting point:



As I posted earlier in this thread, even the Wikipedia article on evolution is great and informative.

---

I find it fascinating how God works.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You should really google literally anything, because you keep saying things disproven. Your confidence here is an example of the dunning Kruger effect.

Radiometric dating is extremely reliable, it's one of the most accurate models in all of science. Nutritional science is literary the worst most poorly studied thing out there. Comparing geology, biology, physics, and such to whether bacon is good for you is just ignorant hand waving.

Also you've literally done no math. None. I don't know why you keep referencing math you haven't done.

---

I have used references to the links you posted(and others), I talked about the part mammal/part reptile creature that apparently you believe somehow created the shrew-like creature (that scientists believe is the first mammal), I also talked about the 65 million years (again using what scientists believe to be the time frame that the mammals all were produced), and I used the 3,000 generations to make a slightly altered flounder example to base the math off of.

I guess you have either reading comprehension issues, don't like to have a civil discussion, or are rally bothered that someone who actually uses science on a daily basis, and has done extensive research into how genes work and what they produce in actual animals. And that I have posed a real issue with the whole evolution model (without even considering the already well documented issues with evolution -- no starting point, missing links everywhere, etc.)

Again, when the first mammal was created from the mutated genes of the breeding part mammal/part reptile first came into being, what did it breed to in order to keep producing the shrew? If it only bred to it's siblings, then they would have most likely not made it very long due to the inherent issues with that small of a gene pool. So, if it bred back to the closest thing to it (which, you know, there is little chance that it could produce offspring with the part mammal/part reptile, but let's say it was able to do so), then the pairing would be producing some variation of a part mammal/part reptile, again. It would most likely take many generations (since there would be reptile dna in the offspring) to get back to a fully mammal shrew. And, that is if only the most mammal-like shrews continued to breed each other. I am fairly confident that the shrew would not be able to breed to any of the part mammal/part reptile creatures, but for the sake of argument, I offered it as a possibility. I know, I know, random stuff happened, it just did, right?

I had seen the video posted as well. Pretty basic, and it didn't even attempt to answer the whole need for multi-species beings, and cross species breeding....

For the fifth time, yes, changes within a species (like the flounder example) happen, and have forever.

I also like how only certain "sciences" are considered reliable...

Quote:

---

I have used references to the links you posted(and others),

---

Where?

Quote:

---

I talked about the part mammal/part reptile creature that apparently you believe somehow created the shrew-like creature (that scientists believe is the first mammal),

---

That no one brought up. I gave you examples of speciation. It's proven, why are you bothering me about a shrew?

Quote:

---

I also talked about the 65 million years (again using what scientists believe to be the time frame that the mammals all were produced), and I used the 3,000 generations to make a slightly altered flounder example to base the math off of.

---

WHAT MATH! Dude, put some numbers down, use a calculator and show me math. I'm very adept at it, use numbers show me your math that doesn't work.

Quote:

---

I guess you have either reading comprehension issues, don't like to have a civil discussion, or are rally bothered that someone who actually uses science on a daily basis, and has done extensive research into how genes work and what they produce in actual animals

---

This is truly ironic. I also use science every day and I know this science dramatically better than you do, and I'm far from an expert. You have not shown an even high school understanding of the subject.

Quote:

---

. And that I have posed a real issue with the whole evolution mode

---

No you haven't. Not once, you just keep repeating the wrong thing that I've disproven with peer reviewed science. Where is your peer-reviewed science challenging my views?

Quote:

---

l (without even considering the already well documented issues with evolution -- no starting point, missing links everywhere, etc.)

---

Well documented by whom? 99.9% of biologist say you're full of it. Who are you referencing here?

Quote:

---

Again, when the first mammal was created from the mutated genes of the breeding part mammal/part reptile first came into being, what did it breed to in order to keep producing the shrew?

---

This is what I'm talking about not even having a high school level education on the subject. You have never taken a university-level class on the subject and I'm guessing you got nothing in high school. Why aren't you curious? You know you don't know this subject, you know you've never studied it formally, why are you so insistently incurious?

New creatures are not instantaneous events. These are populations split off. This is like asking why if people can from apes why are there still apes? Or if Americans came from England why are there still English people.

Quote:

---

If it only bred to it's siblings, then they would have most likely not made it very long due to the inherent issues with that small of a gene pool.

---

Did you read one single study I gave you? I gave you so many. You didn't read one? Look, it's not one single animal that gets this special gene and all of a sudden he can't breed with anyone.It's acting on a group. Let's take 2 million bacteria, and split them in 2 and put them in different environments with different selective pressures. After 5 years bacteria from the first group cannot breed with bacteria from the second group. These changes built up enough that they are distinct. But in no point was any bacteria in one group unable to breed with the rest of the group.

Quote:

---

I had seen the video posted as well. Pretty basic, and it didn't even attempt to answer the whole need for multi-species beings, and cross species breeding....

---

That's because we tend to clear up that misconception in the 9th grade. There is no need for multi-species beings or cross-species breeding. Cross-species breeding is literally impossible by definition. This is literally an objection people make fun of YECs for arguing.

Quote:

---

For the fifth time, yes, changes within a species (like the flounder example) happen, and have forever.

---

And for the 6th time, speciation does happen we've literally proven it. We've made new species, we've watched new species occur naturally.I have given you peer-reviewed science to this effect. When creatures cannot breed they are by definition a distinct species. Even if very similar. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Quote:

---

I also like how only certain "sciences" are considered reliable...

---

This is just reality. Not all things are equally well studied or understood.

And to head off the next round of dunning krugar:


no one letter is very distinct from the letter before, just as no one generation is very distinct from its parents. Each new creature is close enough it can breed with it's parents, it's siblings, and their children, and their grandchildren. But they are a bit different, those change accumulate and eventually they are too different to breed with some other bacteria or whatever that stayed red.

This is going to sound silly, but I think people struggle with how many years and generations this takes.

For sure, I get why YEC will reject this. There simply isn't the time.

diehard03 said:

---

This is going to sound silly, but I think people struggle with how many years and generations this takes.

For sure, I get why YEC will reject this. There simply isn't the time.

---

I agree. I still do not have a problem with evolution as a fact and belief in God. Have never understood the problem.

And my faith is so strong and i have seen so much evidence of God in my own life that even if RNA and lipids were actually the first things in Creation, then I would believe that is how God did it. And then ask of course where the RNA, lipids, or whatever came from.

I like this visual.