Originally posted by jaden101i've already given several documented examples of a single species become 2 separate species...its documented...it's fact...it happened with a variety of north american frog so rapidly that we were able to document easily...its also happened with north European Seagulls
That's an example of a "ring species", When a population gets isolated a reproductive barrier may arise stopping the the same species from interbreeding. Loss of information through a combination of mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed, but this does not support macro evolution why because no new information has been introduce In fact genes have been lost from the population and the population may eventually become a homozygous population but it can not gain completely different traits that were never present in the species gene pool.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Jaden how are these new traits introduced, last I checked there isn't any evidence showing mutations add new traits so where is your evidence.Sorry for the double post.
What is a "new trait"? If you look at every living thing at the cellular level, all animals and plants look very close to being the same. So, tell me what a "new trait" is, but only talk about the cell.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is a "new trait"? If you look at every living thing at the cellular level, all animals and plants look very close to being the same. So, tell me what a "new trait" is, but only talk about the cell.
So since they look similar they are the same is this what your trying to say?
Anyway a plant cell looks different than an animal cell and they also have various different traits.
You tell me what a new trait is since you darwinist believe traits can appear from mutations, they can be altered but I have yet seen you post any proof of a mutation creating a trait that wasn't ever there.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So since they look similar they are the same is this what your trying to say?Anyway a plant cell looks different than an animal cell and they also have various different traits.
You tell me what a new trait is since you darwinist believe traits can appear from mutations, they can be altered but I have yet seen you post any proof of a mutation creating a trait that wasn't ever there.
There is no such thing as a new trait. That is why I was asking you. Your concept is flawed, in that you think that there is some boundary that holds everything together. Time after time, we humans have found that when we draw a boundary and say "this is the rules of nature", we turn around and find something that ignores that boundary. So, you tell me what you mean by “new trait” because there is no such thing. Nature can do what ever it needs to do.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as a new trait. That is why I was asking you.
So you must believe these traits were always there.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Time after time, we humans have found that when we draw a boundary and say "this is the rules of nature", we turn around and find something that ignores that boundary. So, you tell me what you mean by “new trait” because there is no such thing. Nature can do what ever it needs to do.
That's a good theory but evolution isn't the only way that explains origin of species, as matter fact it doesn't explain it at all, maybe there exist another process but it's not evolution. And as for nature breaking boundaries you speak as if it has a conscious do you believe that?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So you must believe these traits where always there.That's a good theory but evolution isn't the only way that explains origin of species, as matter fact it doesn't explain it at all, maybe there exsit another process but it's not evolution.
The idea of traits, in the way that you are using the word, is still talking about boundaries. There are no boundaries in nature; there is survive or not survive, and that is all.
Well, tell me what this theory is.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea of traits, in the way that you are using the word, is still talking about boundaries. There are no boundaries in nature; there is survive or not survive, and that is all.Well, tell me what this theory is.
How naive to say there are no boundaries is a bold claim,because if the were no boundaries a cat and a dog could interbreed; there are boundaries but they can be bent not broken.
As for the theory of ID give me a minute.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How naive to say there are no boundaries is a bold claim,because if the were no boundaries a cat and a dog could interbreed; there are boundaries but they can be bent not broken.As for the theory of ID give me a minute.
I'm not talking about that kind of boundary. I'm talking about mutations. Just when I think we are on the same page, you change to a different book. 😱 😆
ID is divided into 2 catergories really
The first one tries to prove life is a "Design" a complex one at that and the other tries to prove the designer but that ties into philosophies and etc, lets focus on the design for now.
The teleological argument or design argument is for a designer based on based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not talking about that kind of boundary. I'm talking about mutations. Just when I think we are on the same page, you change to a different book. 😱 😆
😆 Oh you mean boundaries in mutations, you should have said so, well mutations like I said have not been shown to create new traits so like I said unless there is proof that it can , there is no argument I really don't see what's so hard about that.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
ID is divided into 2 catergories reallyThe first one tries to prove life is a "Design" a complex one at that and the other tries to prove the designer but that ties into philosophies and etc, lets focus on the design for now.
The teleological argument or design argument is for a designer based on based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.
I believe that the universe is an intelligence, but I see no conflict between this and evolution.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that the universe is an intelligence, but I see no conflict between this and evolution.
So do I but there is a conflict evolution was supposedly started by random chance and is futhered by random choice,In other words there is no intelligence behind it yet there exsit complex systems with purpose that follow patterns factor in the "mutations never being observed creating traits" part then you have problem.
I don't see how they go together unless the designer becomes natural selection but again no proof of mutations generating traits.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So do I but there is a conflict evolution was supposedly started by random chance and is futhered by random choice,In other words there is no intelligence behind it yet there exsit complex systems with purpose that follow patterns factor in the "mutations never being observed creating traits" part then you have problem.I don't see how they go together unless the designer becomes natural selection but again no proof of mutations generating traits.
There is no such thing as chance. All events are due to cause and effect. Chance is a way to describe an unknown for statistical reasons.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as chance. All events are due to cause and effect. Chance is a way to describe an unknown for statistical reasons.
I don't get it, your quotes seem to suggest you do not belive in darwinism (Universe has intelligence) yet you do, where do you stand.