Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

No. I specifically asked her if we have two populations (A and B), and each population can interbreed and produce viable offspring on their own, but A and B are physically unable to interbreed with each other, would they be separate "kinds".

She said no, they wouldn't.

What? A and B can interbreed and are physically unable to interbreed? She said no? LOL

 

[Jose Fly]

Please feel free to read the following information and post whatever you see to be in error....

From Contents — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

Contents

Question

1 How Did Life Begin? [page 4]

2 Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? [page 8]

3 Where Did the Instructions Come From? [page 13]

4 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? [page 22]

5 Is It Reasonable to Believe the Bible? [page 30]

Bibliography [page 31]

None of that describes a method by which we can differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

 

[Jose Fly]

What? A and B can interbreed and are physically unable to interbreed? She said no? LOL

That's what she said. She said they would only be separate species within a "kind".

 

[savagewind]

That's what she said. She said they would only be separate species within a "kind".

I don't understand what they can interbreed but they can't interbreed means. What does that mean?

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't understand what they can interbreed but they can't interbreed means. What does that mean?

It means the members of population A can all interbreed and produce viable offspring with each other. Likewise, the members of population B can all interbreed and produce viable offspring with each other. But members of population A are physically unable to breed and produce offspring with members of population B.

 

[savagewind]

It means the members of population A can all interbreed and produce viable offspring with each other. Likewise, the members of population B can all interbreed and produce viable offspring with each other. But members of population A are physically unable to breed and produce offspring with members of population B.

I think I misunderstood because you call population A breeding with others in population A "interbreeding". It is just plain breeding. Animals that can breed naturally are called the same "kind".

 

[Jose Fly]

I think I misunderstood because you call population A breeding with others in population A "interbreeding".

Yes, they are breeding with other members of the population.

Animals that can breed naturally are called the same "kind".

That would mean that population A and population B are separate "kinds", which Deeje denied.

 

[savagewind]

Yes, they are breeding with other members of the population.



That would mean that population A and population B are separate "kinds", which Deeje denied.

It may be because to admit they are different kinds would not fit her Noah's Ark model.

 

[Deeje]

None of that describes a method by which we can differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

So you found nothing in that link to criticize?

Let me put it this way......the Creator designed life....all life; and he gave all life the ability to adapt to changing environmental influences. These adaptive changes are basically cosmetic and contained within the same "kinds", producing variety within species. Darwin's finches and iguanas were clearly still the same "kinds" of creatures that he saw on the mainland, but he saw minor changes that allowed the finches and iguanas to adapt to island life and a different food source. The mainland finches would, in all probability, not recognize their Galapagos cousins as those with whom they wanted to mate. Though they would probably still be able to interbreed if they were forced to. This has been brought up numerous times and you have never addressed this fact.

When you look at all the creatures of the world, they are kept separated by programmed instinct. They only mate with those who are their own 'kind', just as Genesis says. When is that not true? What about the examples of "kinds" becoming other "kinds"?
Science says that whales started off as land animals and eventually went into the water and ended up as whales. Now I don't know how ridiculous you want evolution to sound, but that is about as ridiculous as the T-Rex and the chicken.
Where is the proof? If all you have is a few fossils, millions of years apart, with nothing to connect them except a prediction and a handy interpretation of the evidence to show that you think it took place.....how is that proof? How do you use something that flimsy to convince educated people of something that never happened? You seem to think that everyone is as convinced as you are....I assure you that they are not.

Those of us who believe in a Master Designer see everything as designed....from the rocks and the soil on planet Earth, to its placement in our galaxy, to the billions of other galaxies in the universe. What is not designed?

Who can look at these things and say there is no Creator? What awesome power brought these things into existence?

What planet in our solar system is like ours?

Why are we the only planet to support life?

Does science know all there is to know? Hardly. In fact the more scientists learn about creation, the more they realize how little they know compared to what is still to be discovered.

Do ID proponents know everything there is to know about "how" the Creator did what he did? We too have much to learn, but we do not attribute something as monumental as the universe to the blind forces of chance. There are laws that govern everything both on earth and in the universe, that are so precise that they must have had a lawmaker.
Too many things are so utterly magnificent that they could not possibly have arisen by chance. Science wants us all to take an enormous leap of faith and believe what they say.....there is no Creator....but my leap is already taken. I have full confidence in my Maker to reveal himself in his own good time. I have a purpose to my being and a future to look forward to. What has evolution given you?

I guess time will tell for all of us then, won't it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You can't even see how funny that actually is......

You are something, my sister! They're throwing all these snide and belittling remarks at you (this resorting to ad hominem, as CDer's often do, simply underscores their awareness that they lack the concrete evidence they need), yet you remain calm and keep on steadily pluggin' away!

Water off a duck's back, eh?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are these wings of the kiwi providing function? Yes, they are.
....................
"Ah, moving the goalposts eh? Remember, this is what I responded to: "If that were so, we'd observe some populations displaying appendages that are transitional and underdeveloped, with stunted functions".

But now that you've been given an example of exactly what you described, suddenly the goalposts are moved to the appendages being non-functional. Interesting."

No, I just didn't express it clearly enough, my fault. I intended to say that we would see, not necessarily populations, but individual organisms "exhibiting appendages in transition, evolving from one function to another, both functions underdeveloped, with one function in recession, and the other progressive."

This should be observed, somewhere among the extant 1.5 million species that's been discovered!

Variations in the genetic code -- be they ERV's, or by HGT, etc.-- never gain beneficial functions randomly, (and natural selection is based on those random variations), not to the extent of outward-body-changing macroevolution....DNA is too complex.

Yeah, the genetic code can lose information, but that usually results in apoptosis. If the organism survives, and can even be able to reproduce, then sexual selection will ensure its non-propagation.

Wait.....you were expecting an extant species to evolve a new body plan and into a new taxonomic class within a few years?

See above.

I guess I don't really agree with the limiting definition of micro evolution. There have been hybrids of wolves and coyotes, surprisingly.
To me, if they can mate successfully (even if its controlled), and procreate, then that's not macro evolution.

Oh, well.....I'll stand alone.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

None of that describes a method by which we can differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

Pardon me, but "a method" that identifies design? That sounds ridiculous. How about....oh, I don't know....maybe....your eyes?

I mean, observation is part of science!

(I meant to reply to your other post regarding this.)


What causes design? DNA, without which everything would be undesigned mush. And DNA, combining instructional languages (see below), is more evidence of a 'superior reasoning power,' as Einstein put it.

(Yes, Einstein said that. Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book, not mine.)
(Double asterisks and bold type are mine, to highlight.))

Explain to me how the two intelligible languages encoded in the genome, one elegantly written over the other (one language codes for the proteins, the other for gene control -- two separate functions).....

(Genome Uses Two Languages Simultaneously; Try That Yourself Sometime, Why Don't You)

.....could arise by chance, form a living organism, that organism then arranges (another word for "design") its own two -language DNA to replicate asexually, then diverge into 5 separate organic Kingdoms, with some member species developing sexual reproduction? All are manifesting evidence of design that you can observe, whether it is in the organism's symmetry, its ability to take advantage of its environment to succeed and flourish, or some other design feature. All of this could only be evidence of a Higher Source. Utilizing separate creative events.

Language never emerges ex nihilo.

As more and more evidence of integrated complexity is discovered, more and more design is revealed. Professor Flew recognized this, too.

To not see it, is to not want to see it.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, they are breeding with other members of the population.

Please give us examples of this naturally occuring in the wild....not artificially in a lab.

That would mean that population A and population B are separate "kinds", which Deeje denied.

I think there is a little confusion in your mind here. Population A and B can interbreed, do you mean like a lion and a tiger? Is that what you are saying? If so, they are varieties of the same "kind". They can interbreed if forced to do so, but would not mate naturally in the wild. Their offspring are invariably sterile. Which is the end of that genetic line. What is your point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who said so? How can something be a theory AND a fact? Oxymoron perhaps?

Ummm, I just explained in the post you are replying to.

Who said so? Adaptation is a "fact".....evolution is a "suggestion" about how far scientist believe adaptation can actually go.

The demonstrable evidence. The fact that every person isn't a clone of their parents.The existence of RNA and DNA and heritable traits. The fact that everything changes over time.

Evolutionary science is a suggestion about what "might have" taken place.....that is hardly a description of a proven fact.

It's the best available explanation given the current evidence.

You're still getting mixed up here.
That evolution occurs, that things change, that genes are passed down through generations, that allele frequencies within a population can change for a variety of reasons, is a fact.
The scientific theory of evolution (that all organisms share a common ancestor) is indeed the best available explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is comprised of a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and scientists are able to use it to make useful predictions about what sort of phenomenon should be expected to occur. If creationism were the best available explanation it would be the prevailing scientific theory. It isn't.

Gravity is also both a fact and a theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can't even see how funny that actually is......

I find it sad, actually.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You can't even see how funny that actually is......

I love these emojis you have! Where can I get them, to put on my iPad?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I just didn't express it clearly enough, my fault. I intended to say that we would see, not necessarily populations, but individual organisms "exhibiting appendages in transition, evolving from one function to another, both functions underdeveloped, with one function in recession, and the other progressive."

This should be observed, somewhere among the extant 1.5 million species that's been discovered!

Then you don't understand the fundamentals of evolutionary biology. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

Variations in the genetic code -- be they ERV's, or by HGT, etc.-- never gain beneficial functions randomly, (and natural selection is based on those random variations), not to the extent of outward-body-changing macroevolution....DNA is too complex.

First, the evolution of beneficial traits and their fixation in populations is a repeatedly observed fact. We're actively fighting against that process right now (antibiotic resistance). Second, the phrase "outward-body-changing macroevolution" isn't a scientific term, and is instead something I'd guess you just made up.

Yeah, the genetic code can lose information, but that usually results in apoptosis. If the organism survives, and can even be able to reproduce, then sexual selection will ensure its non-propagation.

Again, what is this "information" you speak of and how are you measuring it such that you can make quantitative claims about it?

I guess I don't really agree with the limiting definition of micro evolution. There have been hybrids of wolves and coyotes, surprisingly.
To me, if they can mate successfully (even if its controlled), and procreate, then that's not macro evolution.

Oh, well.....I'll stand alone.

True. You don't get to make up terms and criteria, and then demand that scientists meet them.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you found nothing in that link to criticize?

I asked (again) for you to describe the method by which you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned". You (again) dodged the question by posting a series of JW webpages, none of which addressed the question.

Let me put it this way......the Creator designed life....all life; and he gave all life the ability to adapt to changing environmental influences.

By what method did you determine that to be so?

These adaptive changes are basically cosmetic and contained within the same "kinds", producing variety within species.

Again, what is a "kind"?

Do ID proponents know everything there is to know about "how" the Creator did what he did?

So in your mind, "intelligent design" posits a supernatural creator God as the "designer", correct?

 

[Jose Fly]

Pardon me, but "a method" that identifies design? That sounds ridiculous. How about....oh, I don't know....maybe....your eyes?

Do you think "use your eyes" is an acceptable scientific methodology? That if you were to write up a paper outlining the methodology behind ID creationism, you would simply say "use your eyes" and that would be scientifically acceptable?

I mean, observation is part of science!

So what are we looking for to determine something to be "designed"?

What causes design? DNA, without which everything would be undesigned mush. And DNA, combining instructional languages (see below), is more evidence of a 'superior reasoning power,' as Einstein put it.

So your argument here is "because Einstein said so"?

Explain to me how the two intelligible languages encoded in the genome, one elegantly written over the other (one language codes for the proteins, the other for gene control -- two separate functions).....

(Genome Uses Two Languages Simultaneously; Try That Yourself Sometime, Why Don't You)

.....could arise by chance, form a living organism, that organism then arranges (another word for "design") its own two -language DNA to replicate asexually, then diverge into 5 separate organic Kingdoms, with some member species developing sexual reproduction?

First, why do you think evolution occurs by chance? Are you not even aware of the role of selection, which is the opposite of chance?

Second, you're committing the fallacies of false dilemma and argument from ignorance. You're setting the stage to where the only two options are "by chance or by design", and then saying that if no one can explain how it happened "by chance", then "by design" wins by default.

Hopefully you appreciate the fundamental flaws in those arguments.

All are manifesting evidence of design that you can observe, whether it is in the organism's symmetry, its ability to take advantage of its environment to succeed and flourish, or some other design feature. All of this could only be evidence of a Higher Source. Utilizing separate creative events.

All you're doing here is restating your original assertions.

Language never emerges ex nihilo.

Ok. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

As more and more evidence of integrated complexity is discovered, more and more design is revealed. Professor Flew recognized this, too.

To not see it, is to not want to see it.

Again you combine mere empty re-assertion of your original claims with "because this guy says so".

 

[Jose Fly]

Please give us examples of this naturally occuring in the wild....not artificially in a lab.

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

I've actually been fortunate enough to have seen this example personally.

Population A and B can interbreed, do you mean like a lion and a tiger? Is that what you are saying?

No. Population A and B are physically unable to interbreed (in the above example, it's due to differences in chromosome numbers).

If so, they are varieties of the same "kind". They can interbreed if forced to do so, but would not mate naturally in the wild. Their offspring are invariably sterile. Which is the end of that genetic line. What is your point?

We have two populations that cannot interbreed at all, due to chromosomal differences. Are they the same "kind" or not? If they are, then exactly what is a "kind"? If they aren't, then the evolution of new "kinds" is an observed fact.