The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[El_Machinae]

And that's what Creationists mean about 'all mutations/natural selection leads to information loss', I think.

It's possible to lose information to make new 'types' of animals, but (they contend) going the other way ... making new 'types' of animals by adding information doesn't occur.

They may even allow that junk DNA can be added (since it's obvious, to those who've learned about it), but contend that mutating junk DNA into something 'useful' "just doesn't happen".

They then contend that all diversity could be explained by fewer species with 'uber' DNA. i.e., wolves can be bred into pugs and poodles easily, but pugs can't become poodles or wolves

 

[sanabas]

And that's what Creationists mean about 'all mutations/natural selection leads to information loss', I think.

Pretty much. But those who say things like that and mean it either don't understand the theory properly, or do understand it and are being deliberately disingenuous to dupe those who don't understand it.

It's possible to lose information to make new 'types' of animals, but (they contend) going the other way ... making new 'types' of animals by adding information doesn't occur.

Which of course relies on ignoring/dismissing all sorts of evidence of speciation.

 

[Che Guava]

They then contend that all diversity could be explained by fewer species with 'uber' DNA. i.e., wolves can be bred into pugs and poodles easily, but pugs can't become poodles or wolves

I think that's because creationists tend to think in shorter timescales...and why not, if the world is only6000 years old.

Its an interesting balance: mutations acruing to make new genetic possibilities and natural selection streamlining those new mutations based on the organism's environment. I guess what makes the latter easier to beleive is that we have learned to control it, while we are still fumbling a bit when it comes to initiating the former properly...

 

[El_Machinae]

Which of course relies on ignoring/dismissing all sorts of evidence of speciation.

Have we ever created new species with breeding?

Anytime there's a new 'species', they would contend that that's a descendent of a new uberanimal. You could disprove them by showing humans causing new species from breeding.

 

[sanabas]

Have we ever created new species with breeding?

Anytime there's a new 'species', they would contend that that's a descendent of a new uberanimal. You could disprove them by showing humans causing new species from breeding.

Why does speciation have to be initiated by humans? Why not simply disprove them by showing them examples of speciation? Most human breeding programs are after fairly quick results, whether it's for aesthetics, increasing meat or milk yield, etc, etc. Unless you can come up with a way to create mutations on demand to work with, theres no reason to expect human breeding programs to produce new species. The human breeding programs I would expect to possibly cause speciation would be stuff that can run for a lot of generations, with minimal interference. Take two halves of the same very simple organism, run the two programs in isolation from each other for multiple generations, see what comes out the other end.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

In other news about the bears...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly-polar_bear_hybrid

[current_event] tag on.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why not simply disprove them by showing them examples of speciation?

1) because it's not working. They contend that there has always been the two species.

2) how can you ever show that two species were one species? You'd need to find an ancestor to both species, and prove it. Tough to do when they're willing to ignore half your evidence.

The 'booyah' that would ruin their argument is if humans caused speciation, or speciation occurred within a timeframe that could be observed.

In other news about the bears...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly-polar_bear_hybrid

I read the news article recently, which is why I included bears in my dialogue.

 

[Che Guava]

ok, ok, I got it wrong! No need to rub it in

BTW: I forgot about plants! I'm sure that we have created new kinds of crops that are new species. I know that wheat, for eg, we have created new Hexaploid varieties that cannot be crossed with its wild relatives.

EDIT: hmmm..on second though, I'm not sure if messing with ploidy number is a real recipe for a new species. Any geneticists in the crowd?

 

[El_Machinae]

Could you work backwards? Could you breed the hexaploid plants back into wildtype?

 

[Che Guava]

Wheat genetics are incredible complex...I'll have to do some reading and get back to ya...

 

[The Last Conformist]

EDIT: hmmm..on second though, I'm not sure if messing with ploidy number is a real recipe for a new species. Any geneticists in the crowd?

I'm no geneticist, but polyploidy is one of the major mechanisms of speciation among plants, as has been pointed out a few times already in these threads.

Maize is another plant species we've created, as is, apparently, Salvia divinorum.


You can also create new plant species by hybridization, a fact that forced Linnaeus to adopt his initial idea of immutable species.

 

[sanabas]

1) because it's not working. They contend that there has always been the two species.

2) how can you ever show that two species were one species? You'd need to find an ancestor to both species, and prove it. Tough to do when they're willing to ignore half your evidence.

The 'booyah' that would ruin their argument is if humans caused speciation, or speciation occurred within a timeframe that could be observed.

Pfft. They simply say that the ancestor contained the potential to be either, and has just degraded in two different ways to produce the two new species, no new information has been produced. The problem is not in finding examples of speciation on an observable timeframe, the problem is the ability to ignore evidence. Producing new evidence on similar lines will be just as easy for them to ignore.

 

[ironduck]

Well, while you evolutionists are yappering away on your mumbo-jumbo I have been doing serious research in the wonder that is AiG. And the results are in!

Dinosaurs were in fact on the ark! Unfortunately they died out soon after they set foot ashore, probably because there wasn't a whole lot of anything for them to eat (this is according to AiG, btw).

So my question is: Why did they go on the ark in the first place? If god knew they were going to die out pretty much as soon as they set foot on land again, why go through all the trouble?

Sources: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

I also did some research into the issue of the wooly mammoths and other cold-climate animals. Unfortunately I was unable to reach a conclusion, but be assured that Noah did infact have a pair of wooly mammoths on his ark!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/mammoth.asp

Also, there were definitely penguins on the ark! See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/517.asp

And I leave you with this gem:

He’d have known better if he had started with the answers in Genesis instead of compromising with evolutionary teaching!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Didn't AiG schism or something a while ago?

 

[El_Machinae]

If god knew they were going to die out pretty much as soon as they set foot on land again, why go through all the trouble?

Fertilizer and Che's beloved parasites and soil organisms.

They were the transportation.

 

[sanabas]

Well, while you evolutionists are yappering away on your mumbo-jumbo I have been doing serious research in the wonder that is AiG. And the results are in!

Told you it was a fun site. My personal favourite for today is from their 'revised and expanded answers book', talking about how we see stars more than 6,000 light years away. Article is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science. The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable,

And from the dinosaur article you linked to:

Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile ‘walks’ with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles ‘waddle,’ as their limbs project sideways from their body.

Ever seen a freshwater croc gallop? It's a long way from waddling.

 

[ironduck]

They weird me out

 

[ironduck]

Fertilizer and Che's beloved parasites and soil organisms.

They were the transportation.

Soil organisms lived in the dinosaurs?

 

[The Last Conformist]

And from the dinosaur article you linked to:

Ever seen a freshwater croc gallop? It's a long way from waddling.

I'm not sure what you're getting at; while crocs can be quite fast indeed (over short distances), they do have a sprawling stance unlike a dinosaur's or a cow's.

 

[sanabas]

I'm not sure what you're getting at; while crocs can be quite fast indeed (over short distances), they do have a sprawling stance unlike a dinosaur's or a cow's.

Well, yeah. I just got caught up in that AiG spirit, and tried not to let the facts get in the way of a vaguely plausible rebuttal. Besides, crocs look very cool when they're running.