Leef_me wrote:
> Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreeding.
> Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evolve
> between species. 

No, but that's because they're existing. Before they were separate 
species, they interbred. Then they stopped interbreeding, and changed 
more and more over time.

Kind of like how horses and donkeys can breed now, but often make mules. 
Give them a few thousand years more, and they'll be separate species.

> Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for dummies"?

Univeristy of California.

Cats don't evolve into fish. Fish evolved into cats. It took a while.

> Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for several
> centuries. But the result is up to chance

Not so much as you'd think, no.

>> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
>> non-living environments.
> 
> Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evolution, why?

Not only that technology. I equate the computer program to biological 
evolution because it's a simulation of evolution.

>> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
>> TB is evolved from earlier TB?
> 
> Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have developed
> drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variation of
> the TB allowed some of it to survive?

The natural variation of TB allowed some of them to survive. Then they 
bred like mad, because the competition was wiped out, so there were now 
enough with that resistance to that particular drug to make a viable 
collection for other people to get infected.

That's why it's important to finish all your antibiotics when the doctor 
prescribes them, even if you feel better before you're done.

>> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?
> 
> Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
> What is the offspring of a seedless grape?

More seedless grapes. Seeds aren't the only way plants propagate.

But so what if it was influenced by humans? That doesn't mean seedless 
grapes didn't evolve from seeded grapes. Humans just provided a 
different form of natural selection, a different environment if you 
will, than they would have had without humans.

>> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
>> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are of the same species,evolved - no; they are variatons within
> the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
> varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.

I think dogs have much more variability than wolves do.

>> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
>> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,
> 
> Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. 

Not sure I'd say "falsifying", but yeah, I know what you're talking 
about. So?

> Others now
> still tend to obfuscate the issues by saying that observed variation within the
> species is somehow proof of variation between species. 

Not "somehow". Very clearly how.

 > Some theorize that part of the human gene
> split to make the chimp, others think the chimp choromosome merged to make
> human.

I don't think anyone well-informed any longer disagrees about which 
direction it went - you can see the duct-tape on the human chromosomes.

> Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".

And this has what to do with evolution?

>> have no alternate
>> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,
> 
> An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
> All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each animal has
> its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.

And where'd they come from? I mean, you're the one that brought up the 
forming of amino acids.  So what's your reason for thinking all these 
similar beings are completely unrelated, all appeared at the same time?

And if rabbits were around at the time of dinosaurs, why don't people 
find dinosaur fossils next to rabbit fossils?

> All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the amino
> acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex, that
> is, break down with time.

Err, no they don't. And that's only in a closed environment anyway, 
which isn't where evolution happens. Entropy isn't about things becoming 
less complex. It's about things becoming less ordered. Less ordered is 
often *more* complex.

> It sounds crazy that someone would accept naturally occurring increase in
> complexity as the conclusion; when the exact opposite is readily observed.

The exact opposite of naturally occurring increase of complexity?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message