Evolution is a Joke IX

Here is another question for everyone reading...

There is an allele for reproduction to produce a viable offspring. Once a mutation happened within that sequence - who did that lifeform mate with? In order to create new species - they (only by definition) shouldn't be able to mate. So, when the species divided and that first lifeform had that mutation to "create" a new species...

Who did it mate with? Please - anyone... Tell me at the point of mutation in the reproduction sequence, when mutation came about and now created a new species within the previous species - who did it mate with?

 

God has nothing to do with people who are card carrying members of the oh-so 19th century religion of Darwinism

 

Many organisms can reproduce asexually as well as sexually.

 

Lenski's work has been debunked.

 

And a sheep does not breed and a goat comes out.

The changes happen over time. A population changes gradually and breeding continues.

If two populations are seperated they could evolve along different lines and one population may not be able to breed back with the original population.

Then you have two different species.

 

But God never said Christians are to argue with people to make them believe?

 

Is the land crayfish still a crayfish?

http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/land-crayfish---who-s-digging-in-my-lawn/

When you have isolated populations of a given species, they will eventually move in different directions, evolutionarily speaking. The two populations experience different mutations and potentially different selection pressures, and over a long enough period they cease to resemble each other. Australia is great for seeing the effects of this, given how unique the critters are there, with marsupials dominating where mammals came to dominate elsewhere. But even the crawdads are different down there, as exemplified by the above creature.

You sound like one of those who is content to deny evolution on principle and refuse to learn about it, which unfortunately doesn't leave you very well qualified to debate the topic.

 

Why should a lifeform with a mutation not be able to breed with others of its kind? Are you assuming that evolutionary changes happen in leaps within just one generation?

 

Here's another interesting crayfish:

Lamington Spiny Crayfish

http://www.flickr.com/photos/igomak/6659149001/

Picture at link, where the text reads:

Lamington Spiny Crayfish, Euastacus sulcatus, in defensive position. During warm and humid rain season these animals walk in rainforest. In case of danger crayfish lifts claws and produce clicking sounds.


There are of course multiple species and subspecies of most if not all groups of lifeforms, but I've always been fond of crayfish and lobsters, so I'm picking on them to make my examples. More distant relatives of theirs, besides of course the lobsters, prawns and other ocean-going types, are the hermit crabs.



They are not actually crabs, though obviously crabs and crayfish aren't terribly far apart from one another either, in the grand scheme of things. There are spectra of creatures to be classified into family, genus, species and so on, and this is the case because of evolution, which sees life continually branching out into different kinds over evolutionary time. Thence we get all of these similar but different creatures around the world.

 

Nope.

It's said.. but never shown..

 

Except that it is perfectly visible most everywhere you look.

Religion wins so many followers because it doesn't require people to research or think - it's a lot of nice-sounding simplistic & fantastic nonsense.

Even ethnicity among humans demonstrates the beginnings of speciation in action. Then there are lions and tigers to consider..

 

This is correct, but those who are not reproducing asexually, kinda causes some problems now doesn't it...?

 

A sheep has a baby and yes, a goat comes out. It’s a new species since that is the separation between species (by definition). Like a horse had a baby and a mule/and-or/donkey came out. They are very similar, but cannot breed between each other… That is exactly it. And breeding cannot continue because of mutation. If the allele from breeding changes in one that doesn’t let it breed with others, the process stops there. Period. There is no “pass go”… done. It is impossible, per genetics to suggest that when a mutation that changes species (cannot breed between each other) that it cannot breed with other species – that it can presto change’o it’s DNA into another lifeform for breeding…

That is the start of speciation, but in speciation when the two breeds are introduced back to each other, they can interbreed. If they were two different species – well, that would be evidence of evolution, but…

THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED…

 

This thread isn't about God, and nobody is trying to make anyone believe in GOD...

 

Yes, the crayfish is still a crayfish… It’s like a crab that crawls across a whole island to breed. I do not see your point in the discussion. Some crabs live their whole lives at sea, other partially on land, other exclusively on land. Some birds fly, some do not… Some people can see while others cannot. Some insects fly while other live exclusively underground.

I am learned about it. I am just wondering why you are posting some “different” species of a family… Do you know how many species there are within a family of life dealing with the scientific classification? I don’t think you fully understand what you just posted. Here, I will help you.

Crayfish belong to family I believe or an order (but, it’s one of those or in-between). When you are saying “crayfish” you are actually like saying “bear” or “bird”. Do you understand? It’s a group of specific animals inside that can and are broke down in what is called the scientific classification. I bet birds are quite different in Australia compared to Northern Idaho… I suggest next time when you are comparing species, you try to stay “within” the species to make a point about a specific species instead of making broad statements on groups and suggesting they are within the same species, because that is, I am guessing, how you were trying to pass it off. I see no point in if you knew that crayfish is a classification of several species…

Looking it up now.. Ah… I was right… Crawfish fall under a Superfamily! That is a “sub” division of well, before family… between Order and Family…

 

First off the University of Berkeley (one of the most well known schools for their studies in Evolutionary Biology) states they don't know if evolution takes leaps within just one generation... are you saying you do?

Also, I will state this again. ONE mutation within the allele that deals with reproduction may not cause death (that was added), but change that lifeform from reproducing with others. This is the creation of a new species (since that is how species is defined - sometimes). BUT, what or who did that species reproduce with?

One mutation in the reproduction allele... that can happen within one generation during - crap I always get these mixed up - my nemesis - during mitosis or meiosis? I forget...

 

Are there any animals in the middle of the evolution process that we can look at?

 

Since I just looked that stuff up - it was easy to just switch it over... That is a hermit crab and they fall under Paguroidea which is separated from crayfish. They are only related by the order which (I hope I spell this right) decapoda. They are split off from from the crayfish… You can probably wiki it if you like…

But, still do not see what you are trying to get at...?

 

That is incorrect. We can look at asexual life that replicates at an alarming rate and watch over just a couple years and that would equate to millions for other life, which evolution states is where new complex features come about, and new species…. Thus, as long as it took us to go from having tails and swinging from trees should only take a couple years for self-replicating life.

Please stop trying to use “religion” as a smoke screen. This has nothing to do with any other religion outside of Darwinism. Unless you are suggesting that the Religion of Darwinism is a lot of nice-sounding simplistic fantastic nonsense….

What does speciation have to do with evolution…? What is your connection on this, can you explain? Why I ask is because there are a lot of people who do not know what speciation is and/or have misunderstood the definition….

 

Okay… I apologize… I misread your post!!! You got the crab right! Now you are suggesting that the different types of crab and crayfish are a reason we need to see evolution for what it is. Well, it’s a good guess on what happened. But, that’s all it is! A good guess without any scientific backing for it whatsoever. If you can find some outside of “we think that is what happened” then I’ll take it for being science. But, as long as I have to have “FAITH” without any evidence that things evolved from other things that evolved from other things, then I will believe Darwinism is a religion.

Do you have any study or any “real” evidence of common descent/ancestry?

 

So having the title in the OP "Evolution is a Joke IX" is not questioning those who don't believe God created everything? Can a person believe what the Bible says in Genesis and believe in evolution at the same time?

 

No, it is questioning those who believe in Darwinism... The religion of evolution. That has nothing to do with God at all...

A person can believe in whatever they want to. If someone want to believe God is a Klingon named Grakk and he beamed down down all the food on his Bird of Prey to make room for loot and that is how we got all our species in Genesis... I really don't care...

It's what they believe in. BUT, if he starts popping off of the mouth saying that someone is "wrong" and Grakk is the true belief... well, he's going to hear an ear full...

 

THE BIG MIX UP!!!!! Ready readers?

What have we heard in this thread and learned? We have heard the Darwinist give examples of what "they think" is evolution. We have heard fish that lose pigment and eyes. We've heard of bacteria that "evolved" new protiens... What else? I'm not going back to find them all, but over and over we see all these examples and I keep saying "that's not evolution"... Do you know "WHY" I say this repeatedly? Because they are explaining ADAPTATION!!!

NOW - FROM THE GENIUSES AT UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY: An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection.

Adaptations can take many forms: a behavior that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource—all of these might be adaptations. Many of the things that impress us most in nature are thought to be adaptations.

Mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation for evading predators. This example is a katydid from Costa Rica.

The creosote bush is a desert-dwelling plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus reducing competition for nutrients and water.

Echo-location in bats is an adaptation for catching insects.

So what’s not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism’s ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism’s environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes’ eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes—but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes’ evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5Adaptation.shtml

So, is something that benefits a lifeform an adaptation OR evolution? Seems to me EVERYONE who has argued “for” evolution has got it backwards… Adaptations are for life, and evolution takes those adaptations away… Now the jury is still out on what is or isn’t an adaptation to say the least. But, it’s right there! For your reading… What people have stated over and over and over again about evolution is completely wrong. We see now, that what most “THINK” is evolution is truly adaptation…

ADAPTATION!

So… where is the evolution…? Anybody?

Anybody?

 

How about during instances when a chromosome or the entire set of chromosomes is multiplied. This can lead to speciation between two successive generations, especially in asexual organisms. Regarding your graphic, the analogy presented is plain wrong and absurd since speciation usually occurs when populations of the same species become isolated from each other geographically and subsequently different environmental pressures as well as chance effects will result in contrasting phenotypes. Hence a correct way to present the graphic would entail the red splitting off into two arrows one morphing into a blue and the other into another choice of colour.

 

If anybody believes the Earth formed from a magnetism of rock formation is looney as a fruitcake.


Evilutionists please explain the Earth's core and the Sun.