The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[Jose Fly]

An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.

And do you agree with that prediction?

A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.

Before we go down that road, do you agree with the previous definition of "kind" (organisms that share a common ancestry)?

The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

And as we've seen, by studying fruit flies scientists have gained a lot of key insights into the evolutionary mechanisms behind speciation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's funny to see creationists citing fruit flies as evidence against evolution, since if you actually look at the science, fruit fly studies have provided valuable insight into the evolutionary mechanism behind speciation.

But then like I said before....that's kinda what creationists do. They'll insist until the day they die that black is white and up is down. That's what makes these conversations so entertaining. :chuckle:

It is funny to watch evolutionists claim there is a new species whenever they see a new breed.

by studying fruit flies scientists have gained a lot of key insights into the evolutionary mechanisms behind speciation.

Farmers have been creating new breeds for centuries through the mechanisms you claim are speciation.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is funny to watch evolutionists claim there is a new species whenever they see a new breed.

Wow...you read all that information very quickly. Or did you not bother to read it at all?

Farmers have been creating new breeds for centuries through the mechanisms you claim are speciation.

What would have to happen for something to be a speciation event to you?

Also, 6days claims that rapid speciation is a part of the "Biblical model of creation" (it's how things went from a few pairs of each "kind" to all the species around us after the flood). Is he wrong?

 

[genuineoriginal]

do you agree with the previous definition of "kind" (organisms that share a common ancestry)?

No, that is too simplistic.

_____
What Are the Biblical Kinds?

Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and frogs are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European races are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wow...you read all that information very quickly. Or did you not bother to read it at all?

Did you follow the link you posted?
It was only a google search, not a specific page of information.
Since you didn't have anything specific in mind, I assumed you mindlessly posted the google link hoping I would find something for you.

What would have to happen for something to be a speciation event to you?

You can't give a good enough definition of species for me to answer that question.

Also, 6days claims that rapid speciation is a part of the "Biblical model of creation" (it's how things went from a few pairs of each "kind" to all the species around us after the flood). Is he wrong?

Yes, he is wrong in using the terms that have been slanted to the evolutionary viewpoint.

 

[chair]

To the Creationists here:

What would you expect the fossil record to look like, based on your literal reading of Genesis?

 

[CabinetMaker]

An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.
A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.


The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

This post is meaningless. There are far to many undefined and vague terms to be useful.

Please define "A new kind of animal"
Please quantify "sufficient change in the DNA"
Please quantify if the change must occur in one step of if it can occur in multiple steps over time.

Genetic monsters, by definition, are not part of the evolutionary process. They are considered unsuccessful off spring because they do not mate and, thus, cannot transfer their genes into the gen pool. If you don't understand that rather simple concept then you should bow out.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you admit they are horses, why are you trying to claim they are not?

I drew a distinction between early horses and modern horses. I did not say that they were the same. Would you feel better if I went and dug up the latin names for them?

Maybe you haven't heard of the Shire and the Falabella miniature horse, both of which were on the chart I posted.

Sure. They are still modern horses. And you would not cross either of those horses with say a Percheron which was also on your chart.

 

[Stripe]

What would you expect the fossil record to look like, based on your ... reading of Genesis?

Billions of dead things buried in flood deposits.

Whoa, would you look at that!?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Billions of dead things buried in flood deposits.

Whoa, would you look at that!?

Why would you expect it to separated into layers with dinos at the bottom, modern animals at the top and no mixing of them?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, that is too simplistic.

_____
What Are the Biblical Kinds?

Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and frogs are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European races are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."​

Ok, then what is your definition for "kind"? (your copied article above basically says the criterion is reproductive isolation, except when it isn't because God might have just created things that way, which isn't at all helpful)

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you follow the link you posted?
It was only a google search, not a specific page of information.
Since you didn't have anything specific in mind, I assumed you mindlessly posted the google link hoping I would find something for you.

So your answer is "No, I didn't read any of it before I dismissed it all".

Such is the nature of creationism.

You can't give a good enough definition of species for me to answer that question.

Then it is pointless to discuss it with you.

Yes, he is wrong in using the terms that have been slanted to the evolutionary viewpoint.

You should let him know.

 

[Stripe]

Why would you expect it to separated into layers with dinos at the bottom, modern animals at the top and no mixing of them?

I wouldn't.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/horse-non-sense/

Horse Non-Sense by Geoff Chapman In their attempts to prove evolution by the horse series, evolutionists grossly over-simplifiy and ignore some facts. One of the most commonly presented ‘proofs’ of evolution is the horse series. It is claimed that the evolution of the horse can be traced from the tiny, four-toed Hyracotherium—sometimes called Eohippus, which supposedly lived about 50 million years ago—to Equus, the single-toed horse of today. But this is a gross over-simplification and ignores some facts. Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution! The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork. Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other. Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger. In view of the above facts, it is amazing that evolutionists continue to present the horse series as one of their ‘best proofs of evolution’.

 

[Jose Fly]

Billions of dead things buried in flood deposits.

Whoa, would you look at that!?

And there's creationism for ya'....

"Lots of buried dead things"

---plus---

"I guessed"

---plus---

":idunno:"


Great job!! :rotfl:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I wouldn't.

And yet it does.

 

[Stripe]

Ok, then what is your definition for "kind"?

Darwinists love rehashing arguments so they can know what nonsense they can bring to bear.

 

[Stripe]

And yet it does.

No, it doesn't.

 

[CabinetMaker]

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/horse-non-sense/

Horse Non-Sense by Geoff Chapman In their attempts to prove evolution by the horse series, evolutionists grossly over-simplifiy and ignore some facts. One of the most commonly presented ‘proofs’ of evolution is the horse series. It is claimed that the evolution of the horse can be traced from the tiny, four-toed Hyracotherium—sometimes called Eohippus, which supposedly lived about 50 million years ago—to Equus, the single-toed horse of today. But this is a gross over-simplification and ignores some facts. Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution! The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork. Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other. Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger. In view of the above facts, it is amazing that evolutionists continue to present the horse series as one of their ‘best proofs of evolution’.

Has this article been submitted for peer review by other in the field? I'd like to know.

I know that within my small herd, one of my horses, the Arabian, has one less vertebrae than the others. He is still a horse.

Nobody, except creationists, have ever made this claim: Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.

The claim that has been made is that both the smaller and the larger modern horse evolved from a common ancestor. It should also be noted that many of our modern breeds of horses are the direct result of genetic engineering. People have been breeding horses for thousands of years to achieve different and desirable qualities.

 

[Jose Fly]

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/horse-non-sense/

Why do you guys continue to cite sources that even 6days agrees operates under an anti-scientific framework?

Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony).

Gee, you mean it had traits from different taxa? That sounds like that thing creationists insist doesn't exist, even though they can't say what it is. :chuckle:

Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin.

Empty assertion. In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than I say so!

The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location.

Because they're a wide-ranging taxa. :duh: Apparently this dullard from AiG thinks evolution means "ladder-like progression all in a single location".

The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!

Um....got news fer ya....evolution is a fact. We see it happen all the time.

The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

Therefore......? :idunno:

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

And there we see more creationist black/white simplistic thinking. "If you don't know absolutely everything to 100% certainty, then you know nothing!!!"

Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other.

Or, strongly suggesting that the people at AiG have no clue how evolution works. Why they think the parent species must go extinct once the new species arises is a mystery. I guess they're either totally ignorant, or just plain lying. Your pick.

In view of the above facts, it is amazing that evolutionists continue to present the horse series as one of their ‘best proofs of evolution’.

In view of the above, it's readily apparent why only fundamentalist Christians give places like AiG any credibility at all. :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, it doesn't.

Proof please. Bone bed with dino and human bones? Cow bones with dino bones. Dino bones and cow bones in the same strata.

Have you got anything? Anything at all to support your assertion?