ChatterBank0 min ago
Darwinism Finches And The Pepper Moth
87 Answers
Darwinism finches beaks and the Pepper moth are given as just two examples of evolution.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
Answers
A few weeks ago, evolutionist
15:31 Sun 20th Sep 2015
I checked the internet and it wasn't an artificial insemination experiment, it was a genetic study which found evidence of gene flows subsequent to diversification into species variants, leading to a "messy" family tree.
http://
http://
Theland. Could you please explain how the different races of people emerged? Black, white, asian, african, european etc. Maybe there is an explanation in the bible how these changes came about?
I believe one of the 'three Kings' was a dark skinned individual, so these must have been a round for at least 2000 years. Is 4000 years enough to diverge some european men into asian?
I believe one of the 'three Kings' was a dark skinned individual, so these must have been a round for at least 2000 years. Is 4000 years enough to diverge some european men into asian?
Theland, in the absence of evidence, apart from the improbability of the existence of supernatural entities (why would ANYTHING that exists be deemed ‘supernatural’?), the main problem I have with intelligent design is that the people who promote the concept think they know who or what the designer is – and insist on telling the rest of us.
thx hypo at last some sense in this thread
kinds - the first time I heard it -does it occur in the Bible ?
the Latin would be 'genus'
you know like: Hosea chap X: and God said to Solomon " Darwin is disproved by examination of genus and genera - for myself I go for Intelligent Design. O and by the way H dont worry if you dont understand. It is called a prophecy "
kinds - the first time I heard it -does it occur in the Bible ?
the Latin would be 'genus'
you know like: Hosea chap X: and God said to Solomon " Darwin is disproved by examination of genus and genera - for myself I go for Intelligent Design. O and by the way H dont worry if you dont understand. It is called a prophecy "
@peter_pedant
I have yet to understand why they resort to argumentum ad absurdum such as "birds can't evolve into dogs" when all that does is display extreme ignorance of the principles of evolution, descent with modification, or whatever you wish to call it. A classic case of "you can't get there from here, sir".
The long term pattern is of ever increasing variety of life forms, more and more branching, interrupted by mass extinction events which were not caused by the lifeforms but by external factors, like "iceball earth", the "dinosaur killer asteroid", atmospheric change from long lasting volcanism (eg the Deccan Traps), rapid switching from interglacial to glacial conditions, in the post-dinosaur era and so on. But a species can only ever branch from something very much like it - there is no possibility of leaping to another 'limb' of the tree, figuratively speaking.
I have yet to understand why they resort to argumentum ad absurdum such as "birds can't evolve into dogs" when all that does is display extreme ignorance of the principles of evolution, descent with modification, or whatever you wish to call it. A classic case of "you can't get there from here, sir".
The long term pattern is of ever increasing variety of life forms, more and more branching, interrupted by mass extinction events which were not caused by the lifeforms but by external factors, like "iceball earth", the "dinosaur killer asteroid", atmospheric change from long lasting volcanism (eg the Deccan Traps), rapid switching from interglacial to glacial conditions, in the post-dinosaur era and so on. But a species can only ever branch from something very much like it - there is no possibility of leaping to another 'limb' of the tree, figuratively speaking.
A few weeks ago, evolutionists and myself shared disagreements on the missing definition of species especially among the scientific community. This discussion, once again, highlights the confusion that reigns without any consensus on such a definition.
Strangely, we see the venerable Stephen Jay Gould's banner raised as an epitome of evolutionary defense, however… this is the guy that proposed Punctuated Equilibrium as the most logical substitution to the usual Darwinian examples. As seen here:
"...What do the Finches demonstrate about evolution?
Though the finches were not important in the work of Charles Darwin, they do tell us something about evolution. In particular, over the past few decades, two scientists have done an excellent long term study on the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands. This is accurately described by the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger…
However, this proved not to be the end of the story. If it continued in this way, the average beak size of G. fortis would continue to get larger and larger. But this has not happened (p. 153)
This cumulative change does not occur for two reasons. (1) There are disadvantages to having a large beak, especially when a bird is young. This can outweigh the advantages. (2) The selection pressure on the island fluctuates. In 1982 the drought stopped and there was selection for birds with small beaks.
It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits.
The Galapagos finches afforded an excellent example of adaptive radiation. It is assumed by evolutionists that a stock of ancestral finches reached the islands from the mainland and then, in the absence of much competition, evolved to fill many of the empty ecological niches occupied on the mainland by species absent from the islands.” (p. 725) Advanced Biology. Roberts, M., M. Reiss, and G. Monger. 2000. Nelson
The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.
This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
I especially find it incongruous that Stephen Jay Gould is once again hoist as a paradigm of evolutionary thought, since his writings, most notably his 1981 "Mismeasure of Man" wherein he strongly criticizes typical classroom evolutionary teaching since he saw it as a basis for promoting racisim, were at odds with the usual slow, steady "advancement" of development of species (whatever that may be)...
Strangely, we see the venerable Stephen Jay Gould's banner raised as an epitome of evolutionary defense, however… this is the guy that proposed Punctuated Equilibrium as the most logical substitution to the usual Darwinian examples. As seen here:
"...What do the Finches demonstrate about evolution?
Though the finches were not important in the work of Charles Darwin, they do tell us something about evolution. In particular, over the past few decades, two scientists have done an excellent long term study on the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands. This is accurately described by the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger…
However, this proved not to be the end of the story. If it continued in this way, the average beak size of G. fortis would continue to get larger and larger. But this has not happened (p. 153)
This cumulative change does not occur for two reasons. (1) There are disadvantages to having a large beak, especially when a bird is young. This can outweigh the advantages. (2) The selection pressure on the island fluctuates. In 1982 the drought stopped and there was selection for birds with small beaks.
It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits.
The Galapagos finches afforded an excellent example of adaptive radiation. It is assumed by evolutionists that a stock of ancestral finches reached the islands from the mainland and then, in the absence of much competition, evolved to fill many of the empty ecological niches occupied on the mainland by species absent from the islands.” (p. 725) Advanced Biology. Roberts, M., M. Reiss, and G. Monger. 2000. Nelson
The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.
This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
I especially find it incongruous that Stephen Jay Gould is once again hoist as a paradigm of evolutionary thought, since his writings, most notably his 1981 "Mismeasure of Man" wherein he strongly criticizes typical classroom evolutionary teaching since he saw it as a basis for promoting racisim, were at odds with the usual slow, steady "advancement" of development of species (whatever that may be)...
Well all that is presented here is pure speculation on the part of evolutionists.
At least listen to the scientists on YouTube and consider the evidence.
No additional information is added to gene mutation, in fact, information is lost.
Observable mutations are either negligable in their effect, or harmful to the organism. Check it out.
At least listen to the scientists on YouTube and consider the evidence.
No additional information is added to gene mutation, in fact, information is lost.
Observable mutations are either negligable in their effect, or harmful to the organism. Check it out.
There you go, my impression of Gould is not far off the mark, and I am only a member of the Great Unwashed.
The scientists I urged you to look at can comfortably demolish the pseudo science presented to support evolution.
Mind you, I am in hospital at the moment, and have evolved into an old fat sick geezer, maybe a finch next eh?
The scientists I urged you to look at can comfortably demolish the pseudo science presented to support evolution.
Mind you, I am in hospital at the moment, and have evolved into an old fat sick geezer, maybe a finch next eh?
Just an observation, I never cared one way or the other about the existence of God, until I read the evidence, and compared it to the evidence for evolution, and I became convinced, and a Christian.
Comparing how the world is going, and Bible prophecy, convinces me even more that mine is not a blind faith, and that evolution indeed is.
I think most atheists don't WANT there to be a God, and grasp at straws to comfort themselves that they are right.
Hi Clanad, I wish there was some way we could swap e mail addresses.
That would be interesting for me.
Comparing how the world is going, and Bible prophecy, convinces me even more that mine is not a blind faith, and that evolution indeed is.
I think most atheists don't WANT there to be a God, and grasp at straws to comfort themselves that they are right.
Hi Clanad, I wish there was some way we could swap e mail addresses.
That would be interesting for me.
"most atheists don't WANT there to be a God, and grasp at straws to comfort themselves that they are right."
Why would it be comforting to be convinced there is no god ? Surely it would be the other way round. If believers find their beliefs comforting, then it follows - in your opinion - that unbelievers must find their unbeliefs uncomfortable, surely ?
Why would it be comforting to be convinced there is no god ? Surely it would be the other way round. If believers find their beliefs comforting, then it follows - in your opinion - that unbelievers must find their unbeliefs uncomfortable, surely ?
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.