Not true: around bomb craters in London after WWII plant species that had never been observed before were discovered. It turned out to be possible to figure out what their forebears had been, but they were definitely new species.
Also in botany class we learned of cases where the number of chromosomes in seeds differed enough from the parent that the offspring could only produce infertile offspring when crossed with the parent. These were interesting because the new species grew along with the parent population but could not reproduce viable offspring with them.
Heredity was discovered independently of evolutionary theory, if I’m remembering my history of science correctly. And the relationship is the reverse: evolution was only hypothesized because heredity existed.
We’ve been over this, and the claim is still wrong – my university biology professors who were atheists would call your position prejudiced and said that ToE is religiously neutral.
No, it doesn’t! ToE only explains how a few species (or one) became many species.
Wow! A non viable change. Really helpful for evolutionary theory.
I am guessing that should have read impossible. Not sure what it proves but the outside influence of an expllosion is not part of regular evolution.
See above. I was looking for a viable change. Plus the plant physiology is much less delineated in terms of components. Animal species are much more diverse.
The point about specieiation is that the differences between (animal) species are wider.Much more than a simple Mendolion heredity.
Again I think you are talking simple heredity not deep genetic claims.
knit picking. God cannot be part of scientific theory unless His existence is proven. And it will never be (scientifically at least).
Knit picking again. Especially as science is desperate to prove abiogenesis.
Evolution claims God has nothing to do with speciation. The Bible claims God made everything according to its kind. I think that is fairly conclusive. I take that to mean that if speciation is caused by Evolution then God is part of it, and not just a spectator…
You misunderstand. The new plants are different from the old and reproduce with others of their species. The very definition of a new species and the basis of evolution. What more do you want.
So this was a mass mutation? Repeated enough times to be able to reproduce itself?. That was not obvious from your post.
However, that is still a long way off from animal speciation. One incompatable change is not really very significant. Was there any causal factor for the mutation? (The proliferaton would imply that the change was not random) And was the new “species” better adapted? Or maybe it was just the exception that proves the rule.
These amount to no more than unsupported hasty generalizations as stated. Rejecting or accepting them simply accepts or rejects the stated opinions. None of these statements comprise accurate syllogisms. Therefore, calling something an “ultimate point” without defining terms of use engages vague rhetoric.
A mutation in one plant can be passed down to all the seeds generated by this plant. These seeds when grown can cross pollinate and reproduce. Since the new species can’t reproduce with the parent species it is genetically isolated and the two species can continue to pick up mutations over time.
Not really. It is sexual reproduction which is very similar for plants and animals. You know the whole male and female parts so to speak. So the basic idea is the same.
Precisely. In plants one plant can produce enough offspring to make a viable community. That is not the case with (most) fauna. Perhaps some rodents could do it.
All the elements that happen in an explosion can happen independently.
Huh? It was a viable change.
So why aren’t you in arms about geology? meteorology?
No, it’s sticking to the topic.
No, YOU claim that evolution claims that. Not a single one of my university biology professors who were atheists claimed that, and they would have corrected you for making that claim
All animal species which are potentially self-fertilizing hermaphrodites (like Pyramidellidae and a number of other gastropods), can reproduce by fission (like many cnidarians and echinoderms), or are parthenogenetic (like some lizards) can establish a population from a single individual. Most animals can establish a population from just two.
Not so. A mutation can spread through the population if it is inheritable. The population as a whole remains viable and the number of individuals with the mutation can increase with each successive generation. Add an environmental change that makes the individuals with the mutation a little better at survival and before too many more generations all or most of the population will have the mutation. Basic evolution 101.
If the progeny cannot mate with the original host then they will die out before there are enough to form a viable gene pool. The deviation cannot be passed within the original population, it can only come from the original host, unless the same deviation is repeated elsewhere. And there is no reason, within Evolution, for a deviation to be repeated identically, especially in the same area.
Ignoring basic biology. A plant can produce multiple seeds. The seeds contain the mutation. A portion of the seeds will sprout, grow, mature, and produce new seed with the same mutation. The offspring can’t cross pollinate with the original species but can with their own. Understand now?
Once a creature reaches a basic level of complexity the difference between species becomes greater, let alone cats & dogs for instance. There is no mechanism within Evolution to make the amount of changes needed even to instantly change species so the idea of changing a reptile into a mammal becomes ludicrous.
Evolution is a gradual process whereby the changes slowly split the two groups apart rather than an instant incompatability
Plant physiology and reproduction is much more basic.
What’s ludicrous is the total lack of understanding of evolutionary theory that the above expresses. It is the equivalent of saying that because the minute hand on a clock can’t advance ten minutes from the two to the four all at once it will never reach nine o’clock.
I’d give up on analogies if I were you. It just demonstrates your lack of understanding,
It is the scope of change that governs the capacity. Evolution works slowly. But it doesn’t matter how long you have you will never build a physical bridge to the moon. It is physically impossible for so many reasons. And it is this concept of the impossible that you continually fail to grasp.
There is a physical limit to the size of structure that you can build with match sticks. Even if you had enough available there are tensile limits to any structure. There are limits to what the process of evolutionary change can achieve without some sort of outside influence, be it the explosion of a bomb, or some other energy (or God).
The point, in the context of this thread is this. Scripture claims a participation in creation that science (Evolution) does not. So you have to decide at some stage whether Scripture has any relevance and say, or whether it is to be dismissed as ignorance. It is not a case of YEC or Evolution. It is a case of admitting that Evolution, as it stands is incapable of doing the whole job. And some of its claims are as unrealistic as YEC,
There is no mechanism within Evolution to make the amount of changes needed even to instantly change species so the idea of changing a reptile into a mammal becomes ludicrous.
That’s exactly the same as my analogy since both depend on claiming that because a big change can’t happen in one step little changes can’t get to the same place.
That just repeats your error. There is nothing that happened with the explosion of those bombs that can’t happen naturally – it’s a difference only in degree, not in kind.
That’s your prejudice, it isn’t science or even related to science. It’s really the old argument from incredulity – you can’t imagine it, so you don’t believe it.