Evidence for Evolution? (page 7)

hooberus

ah ... the predicted ad hominem attack materializes . . .

Earlier I presented evidence from a creationist biologist showing the enormous genetic potential possible in a basic animal kind. This is how creationists explain how the many species we see today could come from a relatively few created kinds on the ark. Since rem attacked the source of the information I will here quote from the Encyclopedia Britanica (Macropaedia Knowledge in Depth 1998 edition Volume 18) The arcticle was written by an evolutionist (I believe prominent evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala, although its hard to tell for sure.) Note: I am not saying that the author of this encyclopedia arcticle doesn't belive that creatures came about through evolution, nor am I saying that he doesn't believe in mutation/selection. I am simply quoting him on the genetic variablity issue.

On the bottom of page 863 through the top of page 864 the evolutionary encyclopedia author performes calculations of genetic variability in a similar fashion as Dr. Batten did in his arcticle which was dismissed by rem! He then concludes these calculations with the following statement:

"This enormous reservoir of genetic variation in natural populations provides virtually unlimited opportunities for evolutionary change in response to the environmental constraints and the needs of the organisms."

Therefore it is possible for the many species that we see today to have come from much fewer basic kinds with a lot of original created genetic information.

However these creatures would be limited by their existing genetic information hense the speciation would have bounds as the author of the encyclopedia author satates on p. 858 bottom of fist column:

". . . the extent of genetic variation in natural populations (which sets bounds to their evolutionary potential) . . . "

So in conclusion the creation model of genetic variation within basic kinds is certainly feasable.

Edited by - hooberus on 18 November 2002 15:21:25

Edited by - hooberus on 18 November 2002 15:27:12

hooberus

rem earlier said:

"hooberus,

The article you posted is a laugh. Doctor Meiss is right: most true believers, such as yourself, lack the scientific background to assess the validity of Doctor Batten's spurious claims. I'll let the article speak for itself. It truly is a work of hilarity for people who actually understand science and logic. Sadly, people such as yourself cannot see through the pseudoscientific rhetoric. People like youwill believe anything a Creationist 'Scientist' says. "

When both creation scienists and evolutionary scientists make similar calculations to prove the same thing (enormous possible genetic variability by genetic recombination of existing genes). Why not believe it!

Edited by - hooberus on 18 November 2002 15:39:1

rem

Hooberus,

I was going to ignore this, but I thought I might as well clear up a misconception in your response:

"This enormous reservoir of genetic variation in natural populations provides virtually unlimited opportunities for evolutionary change in response to the environmental constraints and the needs of the organisms."

Notice the word 'populations'? Populations are not the same as two orignial ancestors. Sure there is a lot of genetic variation in populations, no one is denying that. But there is very limited genetic variation from only two original ancestors. Most every breeder, zookeeper, and conservationist knows this.

In your rush to try and show that it is possible for two ancestor animals of a 'kind' to create all of the current species through genetic recombination (and dismissing the importance of mutation), you have again exposed your ignorance of biology and science in general.

rem

Hooberus,

I suggest you spend less time grasping at straws and more time educating yourself. There was no global flood a few thousand years ago. Deal with it and move on.

rem

Edited by - rem on 18 November 2002 15:49:48

Zechariah

Crownboy,

Zechariah, since most bible writers aren't positively identified how do you know they were "educated"?

Most people of times past that could read and write period were considered educated.

You have kings, princes of nations and master architects, high ranking government officials, doctors, etc.

Thats good evidence.

What evidence is anybody relying on that any bible writer wer goat herders as a occupation?

Zechariah

Crazy151drinker

I was under the impression that Moses was a sheep herder. Granted he was educated via the Egyptians but he was indeed a sheep herder.

Zechariah

Crazy151drinker,

The whole purpose of labeling Bible writers as sheep herders is to demean their intelligence. Surely they fail in this to use Moses as an example. Caling Moses a sheepherders is like calling Ben Cartwright of the Ponderosa a cow herders. Certainly a way of demeaning someone in a way that is not merited.

Zechariah

rem

I don't think I'd ever depend on Ben Cartwright's opinion when it comes to understanding the universe.

rem

hooberus

rem said:

"Hooberus,

I was going to ignore this, but I thought I might as well clear up a misconception in your response:

"This enormous reservoir of genetic variation in natural populations provides virtually unlimited opportunities for evolutionary change in response to the environmental constraints and the needs of the organisms."

Notice the word 'populations'? Populations are not the same as two orignial ancestors. Sure there is a lot of genetic variation in populations, no one is denying that. But there is very limited genetic variation from only two original ancestors. Most every breeder, zookeeper, and conservationist knows this.

In your rush to try and show that it is possible for two ancestor animals of a 'kind' to create all of the current species through genetic recombination (and dismissing the importance of mutation), you have again exposed your ignorance of biology and science in general."

Encyclopedia Britanica (Macropaedia Knowledge in Depth Volume 18 p. 864.)

"An individual heterozygous at one locus (Aa) can produce two different kinds of sex cells, or gametes, one with each allele (A and a); an individual heterozygous at two loci (AaBb) can produce four kinds of gametes (AB, Ab, aB, and ab): an individual heterozygous at n loci can potentially produce 2n different gametes. Therefore, a typical human individual has the potential to produce 2 [to the 2,010th power], or approximately 10 [to the 605 power] (1 with 605 zeroes following), different kinds of gametes. But that number is much larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe, 10 [to the76th power], which is trivial by comparison. It is clear, then, that every sex cell produced by a human being is genetically different from every other sex cell and, therefore, that no two persons who ever existed or will ever exist are likely to be genetically identical-with the exception of identical twins, which develop from a single fertilized ovum. The same concept applies to all organisms that reproduce sexually; every individual represents a unigue genetic configuration that will never be repeated again.This enormous reservoir of genetic variation in natural populations provides virtually unlimited opportunities for evolutionary change in response to the environmental constraints and the needs of the organisms."

Edited by - hooberus on 19 November 2002 19:43:13

Edited by - hooberus on 19 November 2002 19:52:34

Evidence for Evolution?

Share this