Evidence for Evolution? (page 10)

Zechariah

Eric,

Let us begin and end with Websters Dictionary.

breed

12.
A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance.

13. Class; sort; kind; -- of men, things, or qualities

species

2. A group of individuals agreeing in common attributes, and designated by a common name; a conception subordinated to another conception, called a genus, or generic conception, from which it differs in containing or comprehending more attributes, and extending to fewer individuals. Thus, man is a species, under animal as a genus; and man, in its turn, may be regarded as a genus with respect to European, American, or the like, as species. 3. In science, a more or less permanent group of existing things or beings, associated according to attributes, or properties determined by scientific observation.4. A sort; a kind; a variety; as, a species of low cunning; a species of generosity; a species of cloth.

Zechariah

Eric

Zech,

Let us begin and end with Websters Dictionary.

If that is the depth to which you choose to limit your education on the subject, there is certainly nothing I can do about it.

Enjoy your ignorance. Revel in it, even.

Makes no difference to me.

Eric

dubla

rem-

The earth is round. Deal with it.
Doesn't sound so ridiculous now, does it?

i never said it sounded ridiculous....i said it was a "hard and fast argument". please re-read my original post for verification on this.

aa

truthseeker1

Why would we use webster's dictionary for our definitions? He was a Jew and we all know that Jews control the world. Its a conspiracy to keep white people down and overtax us.

"And in case you didn't know, I was being sarcastic" -Homer Simpson

Crazy151drinker

My penis is evolving, it keeps getting bigger......

hooberus

funkyderek said:

"hooberus,

Without mutation there could only be a total of four alleles for each gene from a breeding pair. If some of them were lost over time, as you claim is likely, there would obviously be fewer. But in reality, there are many genes with far more than four alleles meaning that either there was more than one breeding pair right at the start (whatever that may mean), or mutations occur and are passed on. Either way, your silly little flood myth is woefully inadequate.hooberus,"

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Batten regarding the issues raised by derek.

Dear Brian,

On our web site you will find many articles that talk about mutations. Mutations are a reality in our fallen world. The creation model of earth history does not preclude mutations. Many variants of genes could have arisen since the Flood by mutations. Many mutations are neutral; that is, they do not cause defects in the organism and so are accumulated over time.

Actually, the article in question said all this and more. I doubt that the Skeptic even bothered to give it more than a brief skim. There was even a hyperlink to 'Is your dog a degenerate mutant?'

The skeptic should also be challenged to show that there are more than four alleles for any one dog gene locus (he has assumed that this is so, it would appear) and that if there are more than four then they have not arisen by mutations since the time of the Flood (about 4,500 years ago).

I hope this helps.

Don Batten

Dr Don Batten,

lecturer, writer and researcher with

Answers in Genesis Ltd, Brisbane , Australia ABN 31 010 120 304

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 13:29:24

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 13:30:5

hooberus

rem said:

" But then again, you are not interested in evidence. You are only interested in worshiping your bible. No amount of evidence would ever convince an intellectually dishonest person, such as yourself."

Actually rem the best example of intellectual dishonesty on this post was your first response which you copied from your talk-origin friends.

" It seems as though Wallace is attempting to say that macroevolution has never been directly observed. In this he is correct. However, he goes on to imply that microevolution has never beenobserved as well. He does this by incorrectly defining his terms so that he confuses the reader about what he is describing. His sentence, "There is an abundance of material, published by evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike, affirming that Isaak's claims regarding genetics and 'observed' evolution are based more in dogmatic 'interpretation' than in a scientific, objective approach to empirical data," is his summary of his section on observed evolution. Not only does he not point to any empirical data to support his claim but the authors of the two books he quotes know that microevolution is fact (see below)."

Wallace never implied that Micro-evolution has never been observed. Your source Wayne Duck set up a major straw man which you perpetuated. Look at what Wallace actually said

Tim Wallace: Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits appear and vanish in successive generations within a population of organisms. A populations adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon micro-evolution,...
In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation... They serveto confirm the observable nature of genetic variation [i.e., micro-evolution], while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian macro-evolution, which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms...

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 13:37:24

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 13:46:16

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 14:41:6

hooberus

Speaking of "intellectual dishonesty" rem, isn't your consistent use of ad hominem attacks a classic example of faulty argumentation?

Edited by - hooberus on 30 November 2002 13:49:17

Evidence for Evolution?

Share this