B
buffalo
Guest
Shows that an ability once had has been lost. Keep dividing and dividing and dividing more - one ends up with many many species of organisms no longer able to reproduce with each other. And most of them go extinct.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
The claim equivocates “cannot” with “wills not” and “does not.” As you presume “cannot” it is equally logical to assume “does not.”
As there is no evidence the parthenogenic crayfish are new it is equally logical to assume that they are not.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
A species in reality, according to the current evolutionary interpretation of the scientific data, is that of a gene pool belonging to a collection of individual creatures which can produce offspring. It is materialistic and not entirely accurate since beagles and irish setters have difficulty producing viable offspring when they mate, and the marbled crayfish, is considered a species, by virtue of its having a genetic abnormality - a trisomy of the female chromosome.
Since it repeatedly is brought up as an example of evolution, let’s take a look at what it is. The marbled crayfish originated from the slough crayfish and reproducing asexually, it behaves in the same manner as a normal cell, which turns cancerous and generates clones of itself. The danger it poses has to do with its taking over the habitat of other crayfish, so-called survival of the fittest, while its ultimate destiny, its genome unprotected by the benefits that come with sexual reproduction, will be degradation to the point of extinction.
As unsatisfactory as are these scientific attempts to understand life, there is something to what we think of a species. That’s where the idea of kinds of organisms arises, to distinguish the reality of diverse living things to what science has botched up. A kind of being is that which organizes its material and psychological structure into the form that we observe. Its soul is what makes it what it is. Beagles and irish setters are both dogs although together they would likely not have pups. And, the crayfish is a crayfish no matter what its genetic configuration.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Shows that a new ability has been gained. The new species of lacewings (Chrysopa downesi) can breed with other members the new species while the older species (C. carnea) cannot. The new species of crayfish (Procambarus virginalis) has gained the ability to breed asexually, which ability the previous species (P. fallax) lacked.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
They first appeared in home Aquariums about 25 years ago in Germany. Their ancestors are an American crayfish, which was imported into Germany. They evolved in Germany subsequent to the first importation from America, probably not long before they were first noticed.
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
That date that humans first discovered parthenogenic crayfish does not equate to the date they first existed.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
Aloysium
Guest
They have a genetic abnormality having a trisomy of the female chromosome which makes them no less crayfish.o_mlly:
They first appeared in home Aquariums about 25 years ago in Germany. Their ancestors are an American crayfish, which was imported into Germany. They evolved in Germany subsequent to the first importation from America, probably not long before they were first noticed.
rossum
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
H
Hope1960
Guest
And that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to avoid during this thread and the other one where I was the OP. I think we should all avoid personal opinion and stick to the scientific facts.
R
Roguish
Guest
But that is exactly my point, Bradster. Nothing is ever half-formed. It is all perfectly “finished”, or “fully formed” as you put it. We see no species in transition. In other words, we see no evolution happening anywhere.
Or are you saying that fully-formed new characteristics pop up in a single generation as a result of random mutation? E.g. a fish gives birth to an amphibian? Apart from the absurdity of it, that would make RM&NS hardly random, now would it?
BTW, I’m not necessarily a creationist as you (probably) understand that term. I’m just saying the RM&NS part of evolution theory is grossly at odds with the observation – confirmed by you – that species do not exhbit half-formed characteristics.
E
edwest
Guest
Yes, whatever process occurred could not have been random. So the thought that a “blind watchmaker” put all this together without knowing which parts went where is not tenable. The earth has gone through some changes in the last 150 million years, but you can buy a tree straight out of the dinosaur age now. It’s called a Wollemi Pine.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Thanks… I’ve been asking about this for years, an the answer is always something like this…“evolution takes too long for you see in your lifetime.”
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, the American crayfish is now going to die out, because it doesn’t have a survival advantage ?o_mlly:
They first appeared in home Aquariums about 25 years ago in Germany. Their ancestors are an American crayfish, which was imported into Germany. They evolved in Germany subsequent to the first importation from America, probably not long before they were first noticed.
rossum
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I’ve actually had a change of mind about the interpretation of the “according to their kinds” verses in Genesis 1: I used to think these verses referrred to the beginning of creation, but they can be read as being the end of creation; that is to say, the creatures we live with now. The beginning of creation commences with God saying “Let the earth/waters bring forth …” and the end of creation (or when Adam was created) are the “according to their kinds” verses.
In others words, I now have no theological objection to the evolution of non-human creatures. However, I am not convinced that biological evolution is what happened - I still prefer my Progressive Creation model.
On the basis of Genesis 2:7 I reject human evolution.
In others words, I now have no theological objection to the evolution of non-human creatures. However, I am not convinced that biological evolution is what happened - I still prefer my Progressive Creation model.
On the basis of Genesis 2:7 I reject human evolution.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
What science has ever stated that a virgin can give birth, a man can rise from the dead and that bread and wine can become the body and blood of Jesus Chirst?
E
Edgar
Guest
It seems that many Catholics have falled victim to Scientism - a well-known stepping-stone to atheism.
Are there atheists who still consider themselves to be Catholic? Certainly - believe it or not, I knew an atheist Catholic who attendend Mass every Sunday! It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if many of the Church’s modernist theologians are in fact atheists.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
You can’t believe humans could have lived from 900+ years - do believe humans can live forever, as Jesus promised?
H
Hope1960
Guest
Still…nothing.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Just the fact that there should be huge amounts of transitional fossils laying around to account for the 10 million species we have today, and there ain’t none, should be proof enough Darwin was wrong.Hope1960:
Still…nothing.
Last edited:
- Status