RockSmith372 said:
Booh! said:
RockSmith372 said:
Booh! said:
RockSmith372 said:
dsister said:
I thought that by saying I don't accept macroevolution that it also implies that I don't accept that life has been around for a billion years.
|
Well Macroevolution is because speciation(changes in between species), which scientists have observed numerous times. The main question for creationists is whether or not they accept an old age earth or a young earth. Is your religion the reason why you don't accept the old age earth model or is it something observable in nature that makes you question it? If it's religious issues, then I cannot talk much since there would be no point since there would be bias involved, but if it's something in nature that makes you question the old earth model, ask me and I will try my best to answer.
|
To say the truth none ever observed speciation...
|
Are you kidding? Since there are so many observed speciation, I am just going to link a site showing you all the observed speciation you need. Most are bacteria/single celled organisms due to fast reproductive rates, allowing time for speciation to be much quicker, but there are observed speciations in animals too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
|
That's a perfect example of what I already said: a dogmatic approach to science can only hurt science. The first point of that faq: "Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization" is not speciation, the first example is about Oenothera gigas and Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera gigas is not classified as a species (nor as a subspecies, it's just a mutation) anymore, while Oenothera lamarckiana is a defunct name for Oenothera glazioviana (so that faq uses outdated infos) -> http://plants.usda.gov/java/ClassificationServlet?source=profile&symbol=OENOT&display=63. Polyploidy occurs in humans too -> http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/Bio 100/Bio 100 Lectures/Genetics- Human Genetics/human.htm (and no, polyploid humans are not considered a different species). About the speciations in plant species not involving polyploidy, that article doesn't mention the names of the new species. The maize example is quite laughable: a well known effect of inbreeding is the reduction in fertility.
As for the animals, it's all about those damned fruit flies: what's the name of the new species of fruit flies created from the drosophila melanogaster?
|
In animals, hybridization/polyploid is not a great way for speciation, but for plants since they are capable of sustaining fast chromosomal duplication. The key thing in speciation is when two varients of the same species's genetic composition is so different that they cannot interbreed with each other. As for the fruit flies, Diane Dodd showed in a lab using drosophila pseudoobscura and through reproductive isolation and new food diet, and in only 8 generations, the two fly groups could not interbreed.
To say that there's never been speciation is foolish. I assume you are a Christian Creationist(if you are not, I apologize). If there was no speciation, how could there be such a diversity of life after the flood? Do you Noah could have stored 2 million species(those are just the ones that have been discovered. Scientists estimate there could be up to 50 million species, and there are many extinct species that Noah probably took on the ark)? That's means there were at the least 4,050,000 species since Noah took 7 of each bird).
|
I'm Christian but I'm not a creationist, nor I a deny the occurence of speciation. I just question the scientific basis of the theory of evolution as it is understood today. I do not deny evolution (whatever it is), I just find that the theory of evolution (which is a specific theory) is flawed. For example I think that a few concepts of quantum mechanics are misunderstood (especially the Scroedinger's cat paradox and the entanglement), however I do not deny quantum mechanics as a whole.
Back to the alleged experiments on speciation: I find these experiments flawed or (at least) inconclusive. The fact that the two different populations of fruit flies do not mate, proves nothing since their appearence is different. A similar behaviour was observed among cichlids (fishes from the family Cichlidae). Cichlids in the Lake Victoria display about 500 different colour morph, and these populations are isolated through mate choice, that is they choice their mates by color pattern. In the 90s, Human activity caused the water of Lake Victoria to become murky, so cichlids could not differentiate themselves anymore in some areas of the lake and began to interbreed (producing fertile offspring). Mating and interbreeding are two different concepts, that the fruit flies experiments never take into account.
