Evolution Fraud and Myths

[lionofjudah60]

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

[para-slights]

Pretty much what very loosely defines a species is the fact that they can breed with each other. Of couse there will be massive differences in the sub species ranges as in a sparrow cant breed with a pelican, a lion can't breed with a lynx etc and there are more to classifications than this but basically within the mammalian species humans are humans because they can mate, dogs are dogs because they cant mate etc. That's a very diluted explanation but is the bare bones basics lol

Of couse it gets tricky when it comes to insects who can self reprodice or clone themselves and lizards that require no males to reproduce etc etc lol

[***super_nova***]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

so, can an African elephant breed with an Indian elephant?

---

apparently not;

the genetic difference between African and Asian elephants is too great to allow them to interbreed.

Moreover, according to a BBC News article, there are actually two different species of African elephants: savannah and forest. Researchers have discovered that these two species are incapable of interbreeding as well, stating that the "difference between the two is more than half the genetic distinction between African and Asian elephants."

[rabbitearbandicoot]

I have just been reading again .....

"When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes."

Any comments?

[crusader-rabbit48]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

Yes, that is true, but in every generation there are some little mutations,  and if populations are separated, after hundreds of thousands of years the difference can be such that they will result in different species, and even if they somehow met each other again they will not be able to crossbreed, because the number of chromosomes mutated.   That is how species happen.  But within each species the mutations and selection for the fittest = best suited to the circumstances, in which they live, results in animals changing in size, or how much coat they have etc.  Dogs are unique in the way they change quite fast and that is why were able to create all the different breeds in mere 10 000 years.  But that is far too short time to change the number of chromosomes, which is the change that makes a different species. 

---

This is against my better judgment, but it is New Year's Eve.

So here goes :

'What do you get when you mix a sheep with a kangaroo'?

A Woolly Jumper.

[aps1080]

You obviously haven't seen the photo of the roo and the sheep ! LOL

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

I have just been reading again .....

"When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes."

Any comments?

---

I suspect an overwhelming majority of geneticists, microbiologists and biochemists would disagree with you, and say that while Darwin's theory was - of necessity -  based mainly on empirical research,  the emergence of the disciplines you mentioned has confirmed his theory to be basically correct.

[zanadoo_56]

---

@lionofjudah60 wrote:

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

---

I guess there's a site for everything these days.

I was raised a Catholic.  The nuns never taught creationism or its variations.  The lesson I got was the Bible was written for the people of those times when scientific knowledge was scarce.  Some of it may be true, some of it may not be.  We were however expected (after years of religious lessons) to believe in God and in Jesus.

I'm a bit of a sceptic these days.  God?  Very possibly (some of those lessons must have worked after all).  Jesus?  Maybe even probably (but most likely the man, not as the son of God).  Noah and the ark?  Nope.

Dinosaurs? Neanderthal man? Definitely!

Mind you here's one for those who believe in the Ark.  I have an old clipping somewhere about how scientists have examined the DNA of cheetahs and apparently they are so genetically similar that scientists have speculated that at some stage in their evolution they could even have been reduced to a single pregant female, which modern cheetahs could be descended from.  Might be the Ark isn't just a story after all.....well at least for the cheetah. heheh

[evil_akuma_2002]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

I have just been reading again .....

"When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes."

Any comments?

---

Yep. Google ...'ring species'.

Here's a couple of links to get you started. Mind you, if you're a died in the wool theist, no amount of evidence will assist in bringing you up to speed with commonly-held science.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@evil_akuma_2002 wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

I have just been reading again .....

"When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes."

Any comments?

---

Yep. Google ...'ring species'.

Here's a couple of links to get you started. Mind you, if you're a died in the wool theist, no amount of evidence will assist in bringing you up to speed with commonly-held science.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

---

no-one is disputing that salamanders can, over time and using adaption to surroundings, become what is loosely called a new species of salamander (insert elephant, tortoise or whatever for each occurence of 'salamander') - what I am debating and will continue to debate is that a salamander can become a dog,cat, horse, kangaroo or any other animal - it will always be a salamander - no matter how many times it is removed from the main 'herd' of salamanders.

The same applies to your examples of green warblers .

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@evil_akuma_2002 wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

I have just been reading again .....

"When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist. If they had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and might not have attempted to advance such meaningless claims. The information determining the species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species through alterations in the genes."

Any comments?

---

Yep. Google ...'ring species'.

Here's a couple of links to get you started. Mind you, if you're a died in the wool theist, no amount of evidence will assist in bringing you up to speed with commonly-held science.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

---

no-one is disputing that salamanders can, over time and using adaption to surroundings, become what is loosely called a new species of salamander (insert elephant, tortoise or whatever for each occurence of 'salamander') - what I am debating and will continue to debate is that a salamander can become a dog,cat, horse, kangaroo or any other animal - it will always be a salamander - no matter how many times it is removed from the main 'herd' of salamanders.

---

Salamanders and dog, cat etc etc have common ancetors. We don't expect one to turn into each other. Small changes happens over millions and millions of year that's why it's so hard to imagine. If you look at our early ancestors Australopithecus, even that's 4 million years ago. We can barely imagine 2000 years ago let alone millions.