Dr J. an email was sent to me by an evo sith. I was wndering what your cmment to this would be. I am what you would call a very very young creation jedi in training. When I read this, I see his point but I do not see where it would relate to a formation of a new species. I was thinking this explination would account for diff. types of a kind of animal but don't knowif this would result in a compete new one. The only example I could think of would be a dusck billed platapus. A beaver/duck. But I do not know of any 2 diff. Species can reproduce a fertile offspring. But I was also presented the example of the exchange of DNA b/t viruses and bacteria. Would this result in a new species since they are diff. to begin w/. What would be your rebutle to this? Please know that i am not looking for a victory in this arguement b/c God warns against foolish quareling. This will solve nothing and my faith is not built on creation evidence but it is only a reinforcement. The message is written below, Thanks Dustin.
Evolution: The cumulative change in the relative frequencies of genetic alleles that occurs over the course of generations.
Evolution is believed to occur through at least four main forces:
(1) Natural selection: A proposed cause of allele frequency change: a collective term for five observations:
(a) Variation: With the exception of clonally reproducing species and identical twins, no two organisms are the same.
(b) Fidelity: some of the variation that exists in the gene pools of populations is heritable; offspring tend to resemble their parents.
(c) Reproduction: Some individuals have more offspring than others. Some organisms die before reaching reproductive age. Some survive but are unable to attract mates, and as a result some organisms have many more than the average number of offspring, while some have fewer.
(d) Adaptation: Some of the heritable characteristics described above have a statistically significant correlation with survival and reproduction. Some organisms will have more offspring because of the differences in their anatomy and/or behavior.
(e) Population: Over the course of generations, those alleles that are statistically, mechanically or in other ways correlated with lower than average fertility will become increasingly less common each generation, while those alleles that are correlated with above average fertility will become more common.
(2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
(3) Drift: Not every organism, even a very well suited organism, is guaranteed to survive and reproduce. In some cases, even particularly well-suited and attractive individuals will have few or no offsprng, so their genes will not be replicated. In some cases, small "founder" populations will settle in a new, previously unoccupied area, but the gene pool of the founder population might not contain a complete representative sample of the gene pool of the parent population. In that case, the generations of offspring born to the founder population will not display the same relative frequencies of alleles that were typical of the ancestral, "parent" population.
(4) Gene flow (migration): In geographically dispersed species, local populations, each of which have their own ratios of alleles, may re-join and reticulate, and in doing so, individuals from one geographically localized population might mate with and reproduce with individuals who live in another geographically localized area and who have descended from founders who had a distinct ratio of alleles. The relative frequencies of the various alleles in the gene pool of the offspring generation of the "migrant recipient" region will differ from both the gene pools of the pre-migration local population that received the immigrants and the pre-migration gene pool that was the source of the immigrants.That, all of that, only that, and nothing more than, less than or other than that is what we mean by "evolution."
If you "don't believe in" evolution, please point to the specific claim or claims above that you consider inaccurate.
Please do not talk about the "big bang" or "stellar formation" or in fact anything other than what is written above.
What is written here IS what "evolution" means, and it is the sum total of what evolution means. So if you don't "believe in" evolution, you must disagree with one or more of those points.
If you do not dispute any of those points, then your disagreement, whatever it is, is not with evolution
_______________________________________________
Dear brother Dustin,
The evo is using a debate tactic called "hurling elephants." The defense against it is ... not to let it impress / distract you. OK.
Everything you said in your post to me, about what the evo said ... is right. You are dead-on right! Here's how you can know.
Look at each of the "proofs" the evo gives.
Every single one of these things is -- actually true.
But every single one of them ... can happen in nature ... without evolution ever happening.
If it can happen without evolution being true ... then you cannot use it as "proof" of evolution.
Right?
The only thing he said that was not true (and that's always the trick ... finding the lie ... the piece of dog poop inside the candy bar) ... was the following excerpt:
2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
It only "increases the total number of alleles" by making new alleles that are mutated -- and don't work! You are right in saying that you cannot see how all his many mechanisms actually can make a new species. In all that he said, he never gave the answer to that.
In effect, he was doing things like ... giving you a very long explanation of why the sky is blue, trying to make himself look smarter and smarter all along, then stating that you have no hope of refuting what he says ... but ... every single thing he said ... hasn't got a thing to do ... with making new genes with new information and new functions ... that actually work.
The above quote in red, from his post ... is the closest thing to actually supporting evolution that he did the whole time. The rest was as irrelevant to evo, as the details of why the sky is blue. None of his stuff explains how new genes with new information and new functions that work ... can come into being and ... add up to make new species.
Of course you feel silly trying to refute his great claims -- they are all right (except for point #2). Unfortunately for him ... none of his claims ... are claims that support evolution ... not even in the slightest. Even his #2 only ... infers ... that evolution is happening.
Ask him how more genetic information is gotten ... by all that he describes
How can any process he described ... get you from fish ... to college students?
None can. Look at them one at a time.
He seems to think that magically ... even though each one doesn't do it ... somehow, taken all together ... they can! That's like saying that a if you use all broken parts from old cars, you can make a new car that not only works, but is better than all the old cars!
You see, everything he said ... was all about "broken parts." He gave no mechanism for making "new and better parts." It all sounded good ... but it never proved his point.
He should go into politics. He says so much -- without answering the question.
-Dr J http://www.crossspot.net/origins/
Ask Dr. J a question: drjxn2004@yahoo.com
Check out his bio here.
You can also subscribe to email bulletins by sending a blank email to Points_of_Origins_75-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
