Fallacies of Evolution

No. I'm simply saying that if evolution is true then we should be seeing new species. In fact,
we should be seeing so-called transitional species all over the Earth. Alas, there is nothing.

 

You never answered this question. If B isn't a species what is it?

 

What differentiates two species?

 

The idea that animal and plant species were not constant, but changed over time, was suggested as far back as the 18th century.[41] Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, gave it a firm scientific basis. A weakness of Darwin's work, however, was the lack of palaeontological evidence, as pointed out by Darwin himself. While it is easy to imagine natural selection producing the variation seen within genera and families, the transmutation between the higher categories was harder to imagine. The dramatic find of the London specimen of Archaeopteryx in 1861, only two years after the publication of Darwin's work, offered for the first time a link between the class of the highly derived birds, and that of the more primitive reptiles.[42] In a letter to Darwin, the palaeontologist Hugh Falconer wrote:

Had the Solnhofen quarries been commissioned — by august command — to turn out a strange being à la Darwin — it could not have executed the behest more handsomely — than in the Archaeopteryx.[43]

For me, the known primate species along with primate fossil illustrates evolution
There are lots of ancient human fossils that seem closer to a bonobo than to a modern human

 

You should source whatever you quote.

 

What distinguishes a "transitional" species from one that isn't?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

- - - Updated - - -

I think if you find a fossil, it is a species, and therefore non transitional

 

When every organism "exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group," then they are all transitional.

 

The person I quoted used the term "transitional species," which would be an oxymoron if we went with what you're saying here. You're basically defining it out of existence. For the folks who make the claim that evolution requires that we should see "transitional" species or fossils everywhere (as Prunepicker did), I want to know what makes something "transitional."

 

Yes, that was my ironic point. Asking for a transitional fossil seems reasonable but is actually impossible since what ever you present will be a species and then there will be a demand for a transitional fossil between that exemplar and some other species.

 

Evolution takes many, many millions of years. If the earth is only thousands of years old, evolution must be wrong.

• Geology supports a very old earth
• Physics supports a very old earth
• Astro physics supports a very old earth
• Plate Tektonics supports a very old earth

Genetics, Biology and Paleontology directly support TOE. As I said, many different branches of science support evolution.

Besides Michael Behe, name some.

When you put the words "evolution" and "last 100 years" in the same sentence you really show your ignorance of TOE.

Color it any way you want to. Either deny it or admit it.

That sentence is laughable.

 

(highlights inserted for this post)

At least twice you quoted me. At least twice you asked "If B isn't a species what is it?" At least twice you didn't read and understand what I wrote.

 

A fossil is representative of a species.
AND
All fossils are transitional.

 

Basically it's this:

In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is the basic
unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest
group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual
reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

From what the pro evolutionists have said it means a species gradually becomes another species.
The problem is that there isn't any evidence of this happening. It's a logical conclusion but
evidence doesn't support it.

 

Old earth has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with old earth. Old or young is irrelevant.
There is no evidence of a propagating species becoming another propagating species. If
there was you'd have already produced something.

Alas you've provided nothing.

Please stop bringing red herrings into the picture and stick to the subject.

 

Pardon me. If B isn't a mixed species what is it?

 

So if two groups of organisms that were originally a single species were no longer able to produce fertile offspring together, then you would call them different species? You do realize that scientists have observed this.

 

You repeatedly asked:

I repeatedly stated:

And now you ask again...

How many times do I have to say the same thing before you understand it? I even highlighted it in a previous post.

For the last time:

B is a species

"Mixed Species" is a term you pulled out of your a$$.

 

You described a process or event, but before you said we should be seeing transitional species everywhere if evolution is true. Can you elaborate on what a transitional species is? The implication is that we only see non-transitional species. So how would you discern a transitional species from one that isn't transitional?

 

According to the ToE, EVERY 'species' is transitional. Everything is always changing, or adapting, or transitioning. There shouldn't even be sharp contrasts in the genetic structure, evidenced by chromosome pairs, & genes that are specific to each organism, as they should all be descended from the same origins, & share the same genes. But that is not what we observe. There are no 'easy transitions' between organisms, but they are distinctly different, with different genes, different chromosomes, & different dna. Too many people have the mistaken belief of DNA being a long stand of lego blocks.. you just juggle them around & 'create' different organisms, depending on the blocks selected. But that is false. Each gene & basic block in each dna strand is unique to the organism. The genes are different. You can find 'sorta' similar genes, & use them to splice the host organism's gene into, to force a 'hybrid'. That is where the glowing cats come from, or some of the other claims of 'hybrid!' species. But there is no transitional species, as there is nothing to suggest in the DNA that this came from one, or moved to another, organism. Each alleged 'transitional form', is a separate organism, with its own dna, chromosome pairs, & unique genetic makeup. It is only the 'looks like!' fallacy that pretends to 'see' descendancy.

This is merely asserted. There is no evidence that this happened, can happen, or will happen. It is an imagined scenario, only.

Agreed. all we have are distinct species, & a few that have become reproductively isolated from the parent stock. With some lines, like canids, they can all still reproduce, as far as we know. Others, like equids, have some reproductive isolation. Horses, donkeys, zebras all are descended from the same parent, but have become reproductively isolated. This simple phenomenon does not COMPEL a conclusion that ALL organisms that cannot reproduce came from the same parent stock.. that is a flawed conclusion. It is an equivocation, or a 'correlation implies causation!' argument, with no scientific evidence.

Felidae is another. There is a lot of variety among felids, & some of them can not reproduce with others. Lions & tigers produce sterile 'mules', just like horses & donkeys. But they are not 'becoming' anything other than felids. They have LOST variability from the parent stock, & have become a narrow subset within that genetic family.

Look at any 'family tree' of organisms that have clear genetic descendancy (IOW, mtDNA or some other evidence). What you see is a 'Devolution' within that family. The tiger becomes narrowly defined, & is stuck in a repetitive morphology. You do not see tigers suddenly producing a bobcat, or a lion, or any other felid traits, as those are now gone.. left behind in the dustbin of natural selection.

Canids are even more difficult for the macro evolutionists to explain. Here we have maybe The Most diverse family ever, most of which has been observed over the last 200 yrs or so. As these breeds have 'evolved', they lose the variability from the parent stock, & become fixed in their propagation. You seldom get variety from the fixed breeds.. minor tweaks in the morphology, at most.

So far from seeing 'evolution!', we observe 'devolution'. We are not acquiring new traits, but losing them. We are not 'becoming' another species, but are locked in a genetic structural architecture. If there are new traits forming, we do not see them, nor can we explain a mechanism for this phenomenon, if it is even possible. Genetics, at this time, can see no window for the ToE.. it is assumed, with major flaws in the assumptions, that cannot be observed, repeated, or even defined. The ToE is under more & more scrutiny, with many of the assumptions being questioned. That is a good & proper function of scientific methodology, which no one, except invested ideologues, should resist.

 

I'm trying to get a feel for what folks who don't accept evolution understand the term "transitional" to mean. Prunepicker explicitly said that we don't see transitional species at all. I'm confident, though not 100% certain, that you've said something similar. In order to say that these things don't exist, I think you'd need to be able to specify what you'd expect to see in a "transitional" species that you don't see in any species that exists. Are you able to elaborate on that?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that, for the ToE to be true, you'd expect all organisms to have essentially the same physical genetics? The same number of chromosomes, only slight differences in genes, across all existing organisms? Or that we should be able to take the genomes for every organism that currently exists and be able to line them up in a neat progression? If that's not what you're trying to say, can you clarify?

This is a common misconception, that all genes are different for every organism. A gene just codes for a protein, and there are proteins that are shared across many varied organisms. Even complexes of multiple proteins are shared. I can elaborate further when I have more time later today, but this article provides a good summary of one study that shows just how common this is: https://news.utexas.edu/2015/09/08/organisms-across-tree-of-life-share-common-molecular-tools

This is why I want to understand what those who don't accept the ToE think "transitional species" means. What you wrote here doesn't really mean anything with regards to how that term is used in evolutionary biology.

 

He isn't questioning micro evolution, but macro. You need to read him again. The evidence he wants is hard evidence, not extrapolation, or giving TIME some kind of magical quality. The theory of the atom allowed us to split it, releasing great energy. The macro theory of evolution is not on this level, for it cannot be used in a lab, to replicate what the great claims are. If we know the actual mechanism involved with the rise of a new species, we would be able to replicate it. We cannot replicate it. So we do not know the mechanism, yet we say with great periods of time, somehow it happens. Not good enough. Hard science splits atoms, after understanding the atom well enough. This is missing from biology. Is it asking too much? Since we cannot create a new species. perhaps we do not know as much as we claim? So we leave it up to interpretation of the fossil record? But we are looking with an assumption already in place. We assumed it must have happened, and then try to find the evidence for that. When bible archaeologists do this academia tears them apart. All that I see are observations and experiments were made providing evidence, for micro evolution, adaptation, mutation. But there is no such hard evidence for macro evolution, as there is for micro. So "time" is the major factor, yet there is still no evidence of the actual mechanism that takes place in time. So time becomes the magic. Macro evolution depends upon magic happening. How is that science?

I doubt if the mechanism is ever discovered. For there is an important factor missing, which has got in the way of hard evidence. It will take a new paradigm being discovered, as happened in physics. I personally think it will involve information, similar to the information essential at the quantum level. So information plus matter/energy/environment, equals macro evolution. Physics had little trouble accepting information, being a hard science, but evolutionary biology is strictly materialistic, and they will not so easily accept what physicists had to accept. They have closed themselves off, limiting themselves to philosophical materialism. Reality may not be strictly materialistic in nature, which we know now when it comes to the quantum level.

 

There is no "magic barrier".

 

All species are a single species that produces a propagating species within it's own species. Once they
can no longer propagate the species will eventually disappear. Two different species do not produce
a propagating species.

What does a site that discusses Creation have to do with this? You're not trying to change the
subject from science are you?