Example of Evolutionism

[YEC]

EVOLUTIONISM MADE EASY








Did you see how the snoot evolved as the skull length gradually became shorter and flatter? Amazing, isn't it.

Now, isn't evolution simple?

[Jose]

One sure does wonder what this is all about... what is your question for debate? Or should we move this to Random Ramblings?

[YEC]

Currently there is more variations among the dogs and their different breeds than there is evidence of intermediates as presented by the evolutionist.

Example,
Just the difference between the tea cup sized Chihuahua to the Cocker Spaniel thru the Collie into a Saint Bernard and up to a Irish Wolfhound is more than the evolutionist have presented.

If dogs were found in the fossil record the change of the snoot size and its bone structure of a Bulldog and a Collie would be enough to claim a transitional. The difference in leg size of a Corgi and the large leg size and the rear sloping position of the Great Dane would be passed off as evidence of evolution.
The differences in the ribs between the similar Greyhound, Whippet and Saluki would be presented as a major change from the Dachshund and Basset Hound.

Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized animals be confusing the evolutionist?

[juliod]

Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized animals be confusing the evolutionist?

No. It was a study of pigeon breeding that helped Darwin understand and confirm his ideas about natural selection. Since the usual techniques of animal husbandry can easily introduce great changes in animals over only decades, why would you have problems with evolution producing changes over millenia?

Evolution is just changes due to the environment rather than human interference.

DanZ

[YEC]

pigeon breeding .....using micro-evolution to prove macro-evolutionism????

Quite a leap.

[Jose]

pigeon breeding .....using micro-evolution to prove macro-evolutionism????

Quite a leap.

Not a leap at all. That's how it works.

I find it interesting that, some years ago, creationists stated flatly that microevolution was impossible, and that natural selection couldn't happen. Once they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, creationists said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind. There's no such thing as speciation." Once speciation was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, they said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind--you may have new species, but not new genera or phyla. There's no such thing as macroevolution" (where they use macroevolution differently than evolutionists do, but that's a separate issue).

Dog breeding is actually quite interesting. We have, as you noted, lots of different shapes and sizes, all the result of humans making arranged marriages. Different people selected for different characteristics. Certainly there were intermediates, but no one saved them (and there hasn't been time for randomly killed and buried dogs to become fossilized). There are always intermediates in every liineage--you can't have a species die out, and then pop up again years later. You have to have great-great grandparents, then grandparents, then parents, then kids, then grandkids, then great-grandkids, then great-great grandkids, etc. Even you, or so we hope, will be an intermediate, between your great-great grandparents and your great-great grandchildren.

You may be right that many of the apparently-different-looking fossils from the same time might be variations within a species, just as we see with dogs--where "species" is defined as capability of interbreeding. That's OK, though, since we already know about this, and recognize the possibility.

It's also possible that some apparently-the-same-looking fossils that we have called the same species are actually different species, just as there are species today that look very much alike but cannot interbreed. Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans are a classic example.

These different examples simply illustrate that what is relevant to speciation is not necessarily the genes that determine shapes and sizes, but the genes that determine mating compatibility.

Aside from all of this, I'm puzzled by your expectation (or what seems to be expectation, based on what you said) that there should be intermediates between Chihuahuas and Cocker Spaniels, and between Cocker Spaniels and Collies, and between Collies and Saint Bernards, and between Saint Bernards and Irish Wolfhounds. Do you think that the Theory of Evolution suggests that these different kinds of animals switch back and forth? If you want to find "intermediates," you need to look for the ancestors of Irish Wolfhounds in Ireland, in the last 5000 years or so. You need to look for the ancestors of Chihuahuas in (probably Chihuahua, MX, at least in the last 500 years or so; probably Europe before that). There's a lot known about dogs, and a pretty good DNA phylogeny that helps us figure out their history, so you ought to be able to trace both of these varieties back pretty far, and maybe even figure out when the two lineages diverged. Was there an ancestral population of European dogs, some of which were taken to Ireland and bred there, and others of which were taken by the Spanish to Mexico, and bred there? This might be interesting. Why don't you look it up and report back to us on what you find?

[YEC]

pigeon breeding .....using micro-evolution to prove macro-evolutionism????

Quite a leap.

Not a leap at all. That's how it works.

I find it interesting that, some years ago, creationists stated flatly that microevolution was impossible, and that natural selection couldn't happen. Once they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, creationists said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind. There's no such thing as speciation." Once speciation was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, they said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind--you may have new species, but not new genera or phyla. There's no such thing as macroevolution" (where they use macroevolution differently than evolutionists do, but that's a separate issue).

i doubt your above statement is true, sure you might find a few who would agree with your statement but it is more of the extreme being passed off as the norm.
Think about it, for Noahs ark to work there had to have been speciation after the 16,000 animals were left off the ark.

Concerning the dogs...I was just showing the readers how simple it is to use the same species of contemporanious animals to create an apparent "evolutionary" linage.
Now considering that the fossil record was captured during the flood of Noah..it is quite obvious to me that evo-minded scientist have simply arranged fossils in a similar fashion.

[Jose]

I find it interesting that, some years ago, creationists stated flatly that microevolution was impossible, and that natural selection couldn't happen. Once they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, creationists said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind. There's no such thing as speciation." Once speciation was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, they said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind--you may have new species, but not new genera or phyla. There's no such thing as macroevolution" (where they use macroevolution differently than evolutionists do, but that's a separate issue).

i doubt your above statement is true, sure you might find a few who would agree with your statement but it is more of the extreme being passed off as the norm.
Think about it, for Noahs ark to work there had to have been speciation after the 16,000 animals were left off the ark.

You don't remember those days? I do. It's interesting to see how much the goalposts have moved since then. But then, who can really trust the memories of us old geezers?

So tell me, if there had to be speciation after the disembARKment, how did it happen? Did Noah's dogs give rise to wolves and foxes (especially Kit Foxes, which didn't live where Noah did), or did God create the new things, or did speciation happen sort of at random--by frogs giving rise to field mice, or some such thing? Where did the new species come from?

it is quite obvious to me that evo-minded scientist have simply arranged fossils in a similar fashion.

Ah, I see. The logic is that, since you can put a bunch of bones in a row, then there is no validity to scientists' having done so? You'd argue, I guess, that cows and horses are no more similar than cows and birds, or horses and earthworms. It's the same logic, really--that there are no criteria that might cause one to think that this creature might be more like that creature, and less like some other creature. Interesing.

[juliod]

using micro-evolution to prove macro-evolutionism

BTW, those terms are used only by creationists. There is not real distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

There is evolution, i.e. the change in the frequency of alleles in a population. And there is speciation, the development of identifiably new species.

Creationists get all uptight about speciation. But the processes of speciation are so simple (mere isolation of populations) that there is little difficulty in understanding how it happens.

This all just reinforces the fact that creationism is completely vacuous.

DanZ

[YEC]

So tell me, if there had to be speciation after the disembARKment, how did it happen? Did Noah's dogs give rise to wolves and foxes (especially Kit Foxes, which didn't live where Noah did), or did God create the new things, or did speciation happen sort of at random--by frogs giving rise to field mice, or some such thing? Where did the new species come from?

You'll forgive me if I don't answer your stupid question.....frogs giving rise to field mice????

It's obvious from your post that you really are not serious in this discussion.