Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

No blunder. A metazoan cell is chemically more complex than a bacterial cell. It has the added complexity of mitochondria, and its DNA has all the extra complexity needed to deal with the metazoan body. Plant cells have the extra complexity of chloroplasts as well.

And you also think that a mitochondria was a separate organism and a species on its own which fused with another species to form a single organism?!

R - The blunder was so big time - the walls are still echoeing the laughter which ensued…

It reaches a point that a blunder can only be covered by a bigger blunder.

 

[EndTimes]

It reaches a point that a blunder can only be covered by a bigger blunder.

Yes: Ancient Adage:

1. Oh what wicked webs we weave
2. When first we practice to deceive…

 

[o_mlly]

One species is enough: Marbled Crayfish.

Almost a thousand posts ago now, your Marbled Crayfish as a new species was debunked. New to man is not necessarily new to nature.

Your annually reported evidences of macroevolution, 1) the marbled crayfish was refuted at Geneticists unravel secrets of super-invasive crayfish

o_mlly:

Lyko speculates …

The species might even have emerged in the wild. “The fact that natural marbled-crayfish populations have not been found in the wild does not mean that they do not exist,” he says.

and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/356170v2.full

However, the marbled crayfish could also have originated somewhere in the native range of P. fallax by spontaneous autotriploidy. An individual of this mutant population could unintentionally have been brought to Germany, where parthenogenesis was detected.

Your definition of a new species (see post #345) also included the ability of the new specie to successfully interbreed which the marbled crayfish obviously fails to do.

Let us hope that the only time we read again about the marbled crayfish is on a menu.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

Please remember that each species progeny are not identical to its parents! There are mutations in each generation.

OK.

The children will still be able to breed with its parents but it’s great, great…grandchildren may not.

Or the great great … grandchildren may be able to reproduce. The claim of speciation based on a lack of reproductive capability cannot be demonstrated when one of the potential partners is long dead.

Good grief…

The great great etc grandchildren of both species are concurrent. That this has to be pointed out is mind numbingly frustrating.

 

[Freddy]

Let us hope that the only time we read again about the marbled crayfish is on a menu.

Which your link confirms belongs to the genus Procamburus:

‘Phylogenetic tree construction with mitochondrial COI sequences of marbled crayfish, P. fallax and further 25 Cambaridae from different genera clearly revealed that marbled crayfish belongs to the genus Procambarus.’

The authors base their findings on that proposal. So you must accept that that level exists in the taxonomic rank. Do we agree on that?

 

[o_mlly]

The great great etc grandchildren of both species are concurrent. That this has to be pointed out is mind numbingly frustrating.

Thaw out that numbed mind and let us know what specific species you have in mind?

 

[rossum]

The blunder was so big time - the walls are still echoeing the laughter which ensued…

You are telling us that mitochondria and chloroplasts have zero complexity, so they do not increase the overall complexity of a metazoan cell over the complexity of a bacterium.

Then you have no problem with both mitochondria or chlorolplasts arising from purely natural process instead of being designed. After all, purely natural processes can easily produce zero complexity outputs.

Thank you for showing that mitochondria do not require Intelligent Design.

 

[o_mlly]

So you must accept that that level exists in the taxonomic rank. Do we agree on that?

Do you accept that the angels in heaven are ranked in nine choirs?

The circularity in the reasoning that the arbitrary ranking (didn’t someone write there is no ranking, i.e., hierarchy of species?) in taxonomy proves speciation is a fallacy.

 

[EndTimes]

You are telling us that mitochondria and chloroplasts have zero complexity

Wow! Sure… R

In an effort borne of epic failed desperation to appear relevant wrt science?

Someone continues digging a deeper and deeper ditch!

Definition of desperation

a state of hopelessness leading to rashness

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you must accept that that level exists in the taxonomic rank. Do we agree on that?

Do you accept that the angels in heaven are ranked in nine choirs?

The circularity in the reasoning that the arbitrary ranking (didn’t someone write there is no ranking, i.e., hierarchy of species?) in taxonomy proves speciation is a fallacy.

So we have a link that you want us to accept as being authorative and it is based on something in which you don’t believe.

As I have said to dear ol’ Buffalo on many ocassions, unless you link to specifically creationist literature to try to prove a point then you will be linking to papers which will contain information which you emphatically deny.

 

[o_mlly]

So we have a link that you want us to accept as being authorative and it is based on something in which you don’t believe.

Yes. “Blind squirrel finds nut” kinda thing. The better counter arguments always come from the same camp as your opponent. Do you disagree with the link’s finding?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The great great etc grandchildren of both species are concurrent. That this has to be pointed out is mind numbingly frustrating.

Thaw out that numbed mind and let us know what specific species you have in mind?

I’m afraid I have to say ‘Good grief’ again.

Because the answer to your question is: any species that are still alive today which are shown to have a common ancestor. Which pretty much covers everything.

The question is not so much along the lines of ‘show me an example!’. It’s more along the lines of ‘look how much I don’t understand the subject’.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So we have a link that you want us to accept as being authorative and it is based on something in which you don’t believe.

Do you disagree with the link’s finding?

I honestly don’t know. It’s way above my pay grade. But I do know he bases it on facts which you deny. So should we trust the authors or not?

 

[o_mlly]

Because the answer to your question is: any species that are still alive today which are shown to have a common ancestor. Which pretty much covers everything.

Sounds like down-under is well into cocktail hour as the above is, at best, a non sequitur to the line of thought being pursued.

 

[o_mlly]

I honestly don’t know. It’s way above my pay grade. But I do know he bases it on facts which you deny. So should we trust the authors or not?

It’s not the articles facts I bring to your attention. It is the author’s irrefutable logic.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I honestly don’t know. It’s way above my pay grade. But I do know he bases it on facts which you deny. So should we trust the authors or not?

It’s not the articles facts I bring to your attention. It is the author’s irrefutable logic.

You want us to ignore the articles facts?

 

[o_mlly]

You want us to ignore the articles facts?

That’s up to you. You have a free will, you know that, right?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Because the answer to your question is: any species that are still alive today which are shown to have a common ancestor. Which pretty much covers everything.

Sounds like down-under is well into cocktail hour as the above is, at best, a non sequitur to the line of thought being pursued.

You asked to which species I was referring. I answered you: All extant species. How is a specific answer a non sequitor?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You want us to ignore the articles facts?

That’s up to you.

It’s an honest question. You said it wasn’t the facts in the paper we should concern ourselves with. So are you saying we should ignore them?

C’mon, this isn’t a gotcha. I need to be sure what you’re saying.

 

[o_mlly]

You asked to which species I was referring. I answered you: All extant species. How is a specific answer a non sequitor?

Yeah, I got that. And it doesn’t add to the discussion. We’re looking for evidence of an inability to reproduce between a known (not merely believed) “great great etc grandchild” and its ancestor. Do you not see the circularity? “A new species is, well, a creature that I think is a new species. See, look at my tree thingy, here.”