Creationists

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

There are plenty of contemporary birds with teeth ... Penguins and geese are just two types ...

Some birds have teeth as chicks and lose them when they get older.

The tooth has no bearing on whether the ancestor could or could not procreate with that entity ... If my ancestors had sharp canines because they ate more meat and as their progeny ate more veg ... Then natural variation causes the teeth to go ... It is not a transformation to another creature ... Birds of type x with teeth and bird of type x without teeth ... But I need to see bird of type z and type y really did both stem from bird of type x ... That is not falsifiable nor provable ... Unless we see it happen somehow.

What level of genetic material drift is classed as variation and what level of genetic drift is classed as speciation ... Please answer that?

[Med911]

Re: Creationists

There are plenty of contemporary birds with teeth ... Penguins and geese are just two types ...

Some birds have teeth as chicks and lose them when they get older.

The tooth has no bearing on whether the ancestor could or could not procreate with that entity ... If my ancestors had sharp canines because they ate more meat and as their progeny ate more veg ... Then natural variation causes the teeth to go ... It is not a transformation to another creature ... Birds of type x with teeth and bird of type x without teeth ... But I need to see bird of type z and type y really did both stem from bird of type x ... That is not falsifiable nor provable ... Unless we see it happen somehow.

What level of genetic material drift is classed as variation and what level of genetic drift is classed as speciation ... Please answer that?

It shows that at the very least, there was a common ancestor to all species of bird, that had teeth. Penguins and chicken (without teeth) are separate species of bird.

How many snakes have you seen with limbs?

Your argument boils down to if I haven't seen it, it still has the possibility of not being true. Perhaps, but evidence shows that evolution is practically a certainty. Im sure there is a minuscule chance that all this evidence is an illusion, but scientists will look to the most likely conclusion, that is that evolution is a certainty. Whether we can see it or not.

Is not the genetic variation we find among dogs an obvious enough indication to attest to the validity of speciation? We as humans do what nature takes Millions of hers to do. And yes dogs are still dogs, but if you know anything of genetics, its that at some point, the dog genome could become so diluted that it would be considered a totally separate species. Why do you ignore the inevitability of genetic variation producing new species?

Genetic drift over a short period time produces small variations. Those small variations over long periods constitute huge changes to produce speciation.

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

It shows that at the very least, there was a common ancestor to all species of bird, that had teeth. Penguins and chicken (without teeth) are separate species of bird.

How many snakes have you seen with limbs?

Your argument boils down to if I haven't seen it, it still has the possibility of not being true. Perhaps, but evidence shows that evolution is practically a certainty. Im sure there is a minuscule chance that all this evidence is an illusion, but scientists will look to the most likely conclusion, that is that evolution is a certainty. Whether we can see it or not.

Is not the genetic variation we find among dogs an obvious enough indication to attest to the validity of speciation? We as humans do what nature takes Millions of hers to do. And yes dogs are still dogs, but if you know anything of genetics, its that at some point, the dog genome could become so diluted that it would be considered a totally separate species. Why do you ignore the inevitability of genetic variation producing new species?

Genetic drift over a short period time produces small variations. Those small variations over long periods constitute huge changes to produce speciation.

Dear Med911

I don't understand why dormant teeth genes in a bird means that it must have had an ancestor that had teeth, but was also so different that it was another species.

My boiled down argument has another name ... It is called the 'scientific' argument.

Now I'm not ignoring your explanation, but it doesn't answer my question ... What is the difference between genetic drift due to variation and genetic drift due to speciation.

When is variation called speciation?

Let me help you ... Think of a horse and a donkey ... Can they procreate?

Yes ... Human and chimp? No ... You will say the horse and donkey are genetically closer, I prefer to use word genetically more similar ....

Ok ... I know horse and donkey have 62 chromosomes and 64 chromosomes ... Mules and Hinneys have 63, hence uneven division of sex cells renders them infertile.

Humans have 46 or 23 pairs, and chimps have 24 pairs making 48 ... Can we hybridise ? No ... Why?

Bird with dormant teeth codons ... The scientists reactivated it's teeth and the hatchlings did have teeth ... The proof of speciation would be that these toothed birds will be either unable to reproduce with their dormant type or only be able to make one infertile generation.

Stop me if I have lost you ...

If after reactivating dormant genes we then attempt to mate the changed specimen with the unchanged we should get the following two things to support evolution ....

No offspring or one generation offspring

BUT .... They need to be able to flourish amongst themselves too ... That is key!

[Med911]

Re: Creationists

Dear Med911

I don't understand why dormant teeth genes in a bird means that it must have had an ancestor that had teeth, but was also so different that it was another species.

My boiled down argument has another name ... It is called the 'scientific' argument.

Now I'm not ignoring your explanation, but it doesn't answer my question ... What is the difference between genetic drift due to variation and genetic drift due to speciation.

When is variation called speciation?

Let me help you ... Think of a horse and a donkey ... Can they procreate?

Yes ... Human and chimp? No ... You will say the horse and donkey are genetically closer, I prefer to use word genetically more similar ....

Ok ... I know horse and donkey have 62 chromosomes and 64 chromosomes ... Mules and Hinneys have 63, hence uneven division of sex cells renders them infertile.

Humans have 46 or 23 pairs, and chimps have 24 pairs making 48 ... Can we hybridise ? No ... Why?

Bird with dormant teeth codons ... The scientists reactivated it's teeth and the hatchlings did have teeth ... The proof of speciation would be that these toothed birds will be either unable to reproduce with their dormant type or only be able to make one infertile generation.

Stop me if I have lost you ...

If after reactivating dormant genes we then attempt to mate the changed specimen with the unchanged we should get the following two things to support evolution ....

No offspring or one generation offspring

BUT .... They need to be able to flourish amongst themselves too ... That is key!

Birds are presumed to be descendants of Dinosaurs. The teeth give weight to this theory along with other anatomical features they share with their ancestors. Is it a certainty that they are related even then? Highly likely. Barring actually seeing these creature emerge from a dinosaur, the best we can hope for is an abundance of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that they are in fact descendants.

Your boiled down argument is not reasonable. There are many things in science that have not yet been seen, but have evidence to concede their validity. The Sun will one day expand into a red giant, and then shrink into a white dwarf. We have never seen this, but this is understood to be fact. Perhaps one day we will have a time machine in which you and i can both trace the lineage of chicken together and hence you will be convinced, but until then, all we can rely on is the mountains of complimentary evidence, and the basic understanding of genetics that illustrates the inevitability of speciation.

Im sorry, but your starting to sound a bit conceded here. Perhaps I'm slow, or perhaps your giving yourself to much credit?

The point is quite simple. Horses and donkey are of the same genus, so they can interbreed. humans and Chimps are not, so they cannot.

The Chicken or bird may or may not be able to mate with its ancestor, but that was not the point. The point was to show that variation does produce new variation, and variation over time, because of the addition of new genetic info through mutation will eventually produce enough change in the genome to constitute a new species.

i understand your argument. Its can we SEE it first hand. Well, no not yet. But then again, just because we can't see it for now, does not mean we ignore it. The evidence tells us it is true and so does basic logic. There is no way around it, evolution and speciation is inevitable, even if we can't see it first hand.

I keep using this simple analogy, but you haven't told me why it would not be valid. You can see an inch, but you can't see a mile. Does that mean adding those inches will not eventually produce a mile? In the same way, how can the addition of genetic information NOT produce a new species over time? How can you ignore whats inevitable?

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

Birds are presumed to be descendants of Dinosaurs. The teeth give weight to this theory along with other anatomical features they share with their ancestors. Is it a certainty that they are related even then? Highly likely. Barring actually seeing these creature emerge from a dinosaur, the best we can hope for is an abundance of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that they are in fact descendants.

Your boiled down argument is not reasonable. There are many things in science that have not yet been seen, but have evidence to concede their validity. The Sun will one day expand into a red giant, and then shrink into a white dwarf. We have never seen this, but this is understood to be fact. Perhaps one day we will have a time machine in which you and i can both trace the lineage of chicken together and hence you will be convinced, but until then, all we can rely on is the mountains of complimentary evidence, and the basic understanding of genetics that illustrates the inevitability of speciation.

Im sorry, but your starting to sound a bit conceded here. Perhaps I'm slow, or perhaps your giving yourself to much credit?

The point is quite simple. Horses and donkey are of the same genus, so they can interbreed. humans and Chimps are not, so they cannot.

The Chicken or bird may or may not be able to mate with its ancestor, but that was not the point. The point was to show that variation does produce new variation, and variation over time, because of the addition of new genetic info through mutation will eventually produce enough change in the genome to constitute a new species.

i understand your argument. Its can we SEE it first hand. Well, no not yet. But then again, just because we can't see it for now, does not mean we ignore it. The evidence tells us it is true and so does basic logic. There is no way around it, evolution and speciation is inevitable, even if we can't see it first hand.

I keep using this simple analogy, but you haven't told me why it would not be valid. You can see an inch, but you can't see a mile. Does that mean adding those inches will not eventually produce a mile? In the same way, how can the addition of genetic information NOT produce a new species over time? How can you ignore whats inevitable?

Peace Med911

:) ... You simply cannot answer my question ...when does variation become speciation ... In order for me to understand the mechanism of what it is you are telling me I need to see a proposed mutation chain to arrive from one creature to another.

To me the similarity can have another explanation ...

Now there are things in the Qur'an that are also in the Bible, it is a common Christian argument that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) copied the Bible, because they do not want to acknowledge the divinity in the Qur'anic revelation ... My answer to them is that the similarity does not necessarily suggest one has come from the other, but that both have come from the same source ... God.

[Med911]

Re: Creationists

Peace Med911

:) ... You simply cannot answer my question ...when does variation become speciation ... In order for me to understand the mechanism of what it is you are telling me I need to see a proposed mutation chain to arrive from one creature to another.

To me the similarity can have another explanation ...

Now there are things in the Qur'an that are also in the Bible, it is a common Christian argument that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) copied the Bible, because they do not want to acknowledge the divinity in the Qur'anic revelation ... My answer to them is that the similarity does not necessarily suggest one has come from the other, but that both have come from the same source ... God.

After reading my last response I realize 1 am, with the wife telling me to come to bed is not the ideal time to produce a coherent response. Will respond to this one a little. Later.

[Krypton]

Re: Creationists

@TLK

1. Islam never suggested that universe creation and Adam’s creation happened at the same time, so yes, earth can be and is billions of years old.

2. Islam never suggested that we were the first form of life.

3. Even philosophically speaking, the fact that you as human asking these questions while no other creature (animals, insects, plants) ever pondered over their existence, suggests that we are special form of life. We can think, argue and rationalize.

4. What about the tree of life?

Islam does not have 6000 years old earth theory.

see. let me say this clearrrrrrrly: no where did my post mention** Islam**. It’s asking the Creationists. Now where/how/why did you make such an assumption. =) Exactly the thing all religious people do.

YOU RUINED MY QUESTION TLK

[Krypton]

Re: Creationists

Med911--will check out VenomFangsxx

[Med911]

Re: Creationists

Peace Med911

:) ... You simply cannot answer my question ...when does variation become speciation ... In order for me to understand the mechanism of what it is you are telling me I need to see a proposed mutation chain to arrive from one creature to another.

To me the similarity can have another explanation ...

Now there are things in the Qur'an that are also in the Bible, it is a common Christian argument that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) copied the Bible, because they do not want to acknowledge the divinity in the Qur'anic revelation ... My answer to them is that the similarity does not necessarily suggest one has come from the other, but that both have come from the same source ... God.

I don't know how anyone could answer your question to your satisfaction. i suspect you already have your answer and are only stringing this along to elicit you "ahaaa" moment.

None the less, i can play along. Variability becomes speciation when enough changes have occurred in a species genome to constitute a new species. One that is incapable of procreating, or producing a viable genetic line, with the species that followed it or other species that descend from a similar ancestor. There is an inevitability to this which you ignore given your understanding of genetics.
Mutation chain is seen in the fossil evidence. Mutation chain is seen in genetic markers which indicate when a species diverged from its ancestor or its level of relatedness to another species.

Lets get this out of our heads that there is any certainty to anything. All things in existence can be of doubt. You may not even exist as an individual for all I know, in fact, you could be a clever computer program dishing out rehashed quotes from creationist websites. However, given what I know, everything points to you being an actual person, so rest assured.

Science is not Philosophy however, and so scientists don't have the luxury of pondering the meaning of reality and what is or isn't real. Science takes the evidence that is given and draws conclusions from that evidence. in the case of evolution, there is a great deal of evidence to support it. The minuscule chance that similarity is a fluke, and god created all things as they are, and the evidence is misinterpreted, is so unlikely that it negates itself.

In science to, theories are often understood to be true on paper well before the are established to be fact through direct visual evidence, simply because the evidence for their support is so overwhelming. Speciation may well be visualized to be true in the future, but it does take a vey long time. Hence, we wil require a time machine of sorts, and then perhaps.
However, what we do have is basic logic, something you are ignoring. We understand that changes to an animals genotype can produce changes to its phenotype. We know that these changes occur over an average time scale, we know how these changes occur. We know that for two species to diverge requires changes in their genome. So logic dictates that speciation is a logical and inevitable consequence.
Why do you ignore simple logic here?

There is of course a small chance that God created all things as they are and similarity is then only the result of god reproducing what works. But science cannot rely on religion. Secondly, even if we do argue this from a religious perspective, creature variation could have come through evolution as a mechanism devised by God himself, or they were made magically and just appear as is. Even then, being logical creatures, knowing what we know, we have to conclude that the most logical and most likely conclusion has to be true. Evolution, and speciation in our case, seems far more logical and reasonable then things appearing as they are. Or would you attest to seeing things magically appear on their own. Did it rain cats ad dogs in England recently? How did I miss that one?

Joking aside, I doubt you have ever seen a new species just emerge magically from nothing. But you have seen animal variability produced right before your eyes. So which is more likely, Animals appearing out of nothing, or animals evolving, gaining variability and then becoming new species?

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

Variability becomes speciation when enough changes have occurred in a species genome to constitute a new species. One that is incapable of procreating, or producing a viable genetic line, with the species that followed it or other species that descend from a similar ancestor. There is an inevitability to this which you ignore given your understanding of genetics. . However, what we do have is basic logic, something you are ignoring. We understand that changes to an animals genotype can produce changes to its phenotype.

We know that these changes occur over an average time scale, we know how these changes occur.

We know that for two species to diverge requires changes in their genome.

Peace Med911

I ask you a simple question and you give me this ... My question has been that I understand how variation works ... But I don't quite understand how speciation works. You are merely saying that speciation is a particular form of variation that disables generation x of a species to sire offspring with generation x +1 and allows at the same time for generation x+1 to sire offspring with itself.

If that is the case then the only important factor in speciation is how the DNA in the gametes works ... Is that true?

Secondly, the part in blue ... You statement makes an assumption, that "for two species to diverge", we don't know that, we are checking to see IF two species do indeed diverge ...

The part in bold black above is a tautology look it over ... You are saying variation tends to speciation when enough variation takes place for speciation.

This is bizarre!

Now look there is another reason why I cannot accept evolution and that is because of the idea of cause and effect ... But that is a matter for my next post where I'll try to explain that the established 'aqeedah of AhlusSunnah disallows the belief in evolution from the fundamental point of view of cause and effect.

[Krypton]

Re: Creationists

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. Random variation, non random selection. Simple concepts.

[Krypton]

Re: Creationists

Ok so psyah, what is the goal/reasoning behind variation within a species, I mean its common sense that given enough time if enough variation is present it will lead to a different species. That is all. It doesn't make us chimps.

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

Ok so psyah, what is the goal/reasoning behind variation within a species, I mean its common sense that given enough time if enough variation is present it will lead to a different species. That is all. It doesn't make us chimps.

Peace philosophy

Common sense is not the right answer when people are asking for a scientific explanation ... Besides - that sense you find so easily to establish I am finding very hard to establish ... And I think of myself a person with common sense in abundance.

Why should time and variation within a species lead to speciation? What has "time" to do with it? Why should variation create speciation? How many variants of hominid were there that led to our existence? I can bet not more than 5 to 10 variants of hominid we have identified are already extinct - According to the way you say it ... lots of variants are needed for speciation ... is 5 to 10 a high number or low number of variants? Then each variant needs to have come about from about around the same number too ... surely?

In fact what you have said regarding "if enough variation is present" then the idea of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is bleak, because then effectively we are saying one type does not become two new types until there are many variants of that type in existence and continue to vary generation on generation ...

You know variation is reversible? Yes, we can reverse variation to acquire the predecessor phenotype ... Furthermore, the predecessors will readily procreate with the variants ...

When, why and how scientifically does it becomes impossible for two related specimens to become biologically incompatible? I think the question is a common sense one to ask ...

I think the mechanism that is being subjected for people to put their faith in is this:

Two different environments for two sub-cultures of the same creature ... So each adapts to its own environment ... So the question here is does environment lead to the changing of a creature? How does that happen? How long does it take? What factors will make it fast or slow? How genetically speaking does that change take place?

[Krypton]

Re: Creationists

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

you choose to pick on the "common sense" out of the whole post. just get over yourself man. all i meant by that was that after you study the scientific principles behind evolution, it becomes EVIDENT that evolution is the mechanism behind biodiversity.

you, sir. DO NOT make sense. do you ever read your posts?

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

you choose to pick on the "common sense" out of the whole post. just get over yourself man. all i meant by that was that after you study the scientific principles behind evolution, it becomes EVIDENT that evolution is the mechanism behind biodiversity.

you, sir. DO NOT make sense. do you ever read your posts?

Peace philosophy

I asked for a scientific explanation, you gave me the common sense vibe ... I sought clarification you end up laughing hysterically ... Is it a fact that you actually cannot answer my question scientifically and hence you are a "believer" in evolution on trust of the 'say so' of these pseudo-scientists?

Otherwise please answer the question ...

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

Anyway ... philosophy ... I think your thread question has been answered already ...

[The_Jinx]

Re: Creationists

psyah man. you pwned everyone in this discussion

It’s always a pleasure to read your replies. I have learnt a lot from your posts and got many clarifications on things that I always believed but did not have a way of expressing those to others who do not believe.

Continue the good work :k:

[Zhenghe]

Re: Creationists

In science to, theories are often understood to be true on paper well before the are established to be fact through direct visual evidence, simply because the evidence for their support is so overwhelming.

this is a contradiction you cannot establish facts before the evidence. Theories are just that theories not fact.

As for the evidence it is far from overwhelming it is speculation at best.

[Bigboi]

Re: Creationists

Why is that we always leave the Topic and discuss other things?

[psyah]

Re: Creationists

@The_Jinx

psyah man. you pwned everyone in this discussion

It’s always a pleasure to read your replies. I have learnt a lot from your posts and got many clarifications on things that I always believed but did not have a way of expressing those to others who do not believe.

Continue the good work :k:

Peace The Jinx

I’m sure you would have done the same … I simply just want to get an understanding - in all honesty … and sometimes that is enough to show there is not really enough understanding around for distribution. I like your posts too by the way …