tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030885580613135432.post4104545230476173042..comments2023-04-12T01:25:24.384-07:00Comments on The Fantasy of Evolution: What exactly is proved by Ring Species? A CREATIONIST'S PROPOSITION FOR A SCIENTIFIC TESTFaith http://www.blogger.com/profile/00064746447414555577noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030885580613135432.post-58458393798846590492013-03-13T16:06:32.221-07:002013-03-13T16:06:32.221-07:00Hello "Lamarq." That is the most amazi...Hello "Lamarq." That is the most amazing piece of gobblygook I've read in a long time. <br /><br />The idea that ring species "tries to prove something" is completely incomprehensible.<br /><br />Anyway, it's not RING species but speciation itself that demonstrates the inability to interbreed. In fact I'm not sure all ring species demonstrate that point.<br /><br />But in any case I don't care, I disagree that interbreeding means anything about what a Kind is. My argument is that a chain of new populations from a reduced number out of a previous population demonstrates reduced genetic diversity from population to population and that this trend eventually must lead to genetic depletion which is a functional definition of the limits of a Kind. <br /><br />This would have to be proved, which shouldn't be too hard, but it's logical on the face of it, following the model of what happens in breeding or any situation where reduced numbers become reproductively isolated.Faith https://www.blogger.com/profile/00064746447414555577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030885580613135432.post-89661728826369917912013-03-13T04:33:43.760-07:002013-03-13T04:33:43.760-07:00Strawman argument right here. "Ring species&q...Strawman argument right here. "Ring species" was never presented to be proof of macro evolution. It was a counter to the biblical quote "kinds produce of their kinds" where creationists defined kinds as animals that could breed.<br />And those that could not, where not of the same kind. <br /><br />"Ring species" showed that two species that once were one, now can't breed. And that it wasn't sudden. There wasn't a sudden break in the genom. <br />By that i mean, that the 2 species are still linked together through several other species(through breedning), thereby proving that there is no great 'defect'. But that that the problem is the gradual change.<br />Like how you can take 2 or 3 steps up a staircase(or down), but not 5 at once.<br /><br />Now, your article showed that they have decreased information due to the bottle neck effect.Yes, okay, so what?<br /><br />You'd say:"But then its not macro evolution."<br />It doesnt matter. Because that wasn't the issue, the issue was the biblical quote concerning "kinds give birth to kinds".<br /><br /><br />Macro and micro evolution aren't these too foreign concepts, they're actually the same thing.<br />It is neither the increase of decrease of information, but just 'change'.<br /><br />Now to increase information of these bottleneck incidents, yes, we do indeed need alot of time, but you already stated your opinion on that.<br />My main point with this is: <br /><br />-Evolutionists say that all animals can become something completely else with enough time.<br />-Creationists say that they can't, that only kinds can give birth to the same kinds, although changed visually, slightly.(micro evolution).<br />-Evolutionists have then tried to define 'kinds' via their methods, but since they're based on evolution itself, it isn't accepted by the creationists. So they asked the creationists how to define 'kinds'.<br />-Their answer was the biblical quote, which said that "animals that can breed, are of the same kind".<br />-Then evolutionists have presented all sorts of problems like the donkey and the horse(they can breed, but weren't regarded the same kind beforehand for most creationists).<br />The "Ring species" show how 'being able to breed' can't be the defining factor for determining 'kind'.It must be something else.<br /><br />So you see, it is now actually up to the creationists to define 'kinds' since it cannot be 'can breed' anymore.<br />Let me help you here:You'll never find the answer, because it doesn't exist. If the boundary isn't 'breeding' then there is none. Its gradual, shades of grey, all connected.<br />There is only one kind on earth. So maybe the quote was right.(sarcasm)<br /><br /><br />This was the actual problem.<br />But instead you wrote a whole article about something TOTALLY ELSE. You created a strawman argument explaining how 'ring species' doesn't prove macro evolution, although it doesn't even try.<br />Lamarqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18408940004104096923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030885580613135432.post-977112206906603602012-12-04T17:00:26.231-08:002012-12-04T17:00:26.231-08:00Thanks for your comment.Thanks for your comment.Faith https://www.blogger.com/profile/00064746447414555577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030885580613135432.post-5859149301836800292012-12-04T05:22:30.324-08:002012-12-04T05:22:30.324-08:00Interesting. Thank you.Interesting. Thank you.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04193273919067123296noreply@blogger.com