This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Two Moons on 19 January 2014 - 13:01
Took you two weeks to drag this back up again Shtal......LOL
You should have spent the time doing research.
You should have spent the time doing research.
by Sunsilver on 19 January 2014 - 15:01
Shtal, YOU ARE WRONG. Do your homework. Bread wheat originated from the hybridization of 3 different grasses. Usually hybrids are sterile, however, due to a doubling of the chromosome number, in this case, the hybrids were fertile and able to reproduce themselves:
http://www.newhallmill.org.uk/wht-evol.htm
http://www.newhallmill.org.uk/wht-evol.htm
by vk4gsd on 19 January 2014 - 19:01
SS, Shtal is not interested in facts and evidence; he has not, will not and can not function at any normal level of basic intellectual processing. to respond to him is what he desperately craves but it is not a conversation, you do not exist to him, just the same cutting and pasting of the same discredited, false, asinine, garbage.
by vk4gsd on 19 January 2014 - 19:01
whoops
by Shtal on 23 January 2014 - 19:01
Sunsilver, I recently spoke to my science teacher in regards what you said and this is what he told me.
He said to me:
Your reply to this young lady was correct. You were also correct in noting her "touchyness". What relevance is it that she studied science for 4 years. I studied science for 6 years, then taught science in public schools for 20 years. I acted as an advisor to the UK government on how to teach science. Yet such arguments are fallacious - "Argument from authority".
She is right that most hybrids are sterile. But not all are. Wheat is a hybrid. Is it sterile? no. Is it a grass? Yes! So a grass has been hybrized from other grasses! This is not evolution. This is speciation. You are correct that Darwinian evolution, involving the spontaneous creation of new genetic information from nothing, has never been observed. It is impossible, by the first law of Information Science.
He said to me:
Your reply to this young lady was correct. You were also correct in noting her "touchyness". What relevance is it that she studied science for 4 years. I studied science for 6 years, then taught science in public schools for 20 years. I acted as an advisor to the UK government on how to teach science. Yet such arguments are fallacious - "Argument from authority".
She is right that most hybrids are sterile. But not all are. Wheat is a hybrid. Is it sterile? no. Is it a grass? Yes! So a grass has been hybrized from other grasses! This is not evolution. This is speciation. You are correct that Darwinian evolution, involving the spontaneous creation of new genetic information from nothing, has never been observed. It is impossible, by the first law of Information Science.
by GSDtravels on 23 January 2014 - 19:01
Science teacher for six years huh? Funny that he doesn't know that "Darwinian" evolution does not deal with spontaneous creation, that's a different science. Telling fibs Shtal? To bolster your "Argument from Authority"?
by Two Moons on 23 January 2014 - 20:01
Remember that's (shtals) science teacher.....LOL
by Sunsilver on 23 January 2014 - 23:01
[sigh] Microevolution is the adaptation of a species to fit a changing environment.
Macroevolution is the evolution of new species, in this case, by hybridization.
Yes, it is still a grass plant, not an elephant. What did you expect?
Ah, but I guess you're thinking of the evolution of animals, for example, the evolution of a pair of lungs, where before there were only gills. Or the development of a really complex organ like an eye.
These so-called 'organs of perfection' are some of the things that are very hard to explain in evolutionary terms. Evolutionists in general believe that evolution occurs by slow, gradual genetic change over a long period of time. The fossil record, OTOH, often shows sudden jumps where old species disappear, and brand new ones appear seemingly from nowhere.
However, the above example of the evolution of wheat shows how a brand new species can evolve instantly by a doubling in the number of chromosomes. Similar mechanisms could be involved in animal speciation.
Macroevolution is the evolution of new species, in this case, by hybridization.
Yes, it is still a grass plant, not an elephant. What did you expect?
Ah, but I guess you're thinking of the evolution of animals, for example, the evolution of a pair of lungs, where before there were only gills. Or the development of a really complex organ like an eye.
These so-called 'organs of perfection' are some of the things that are very hard to explain in evolutionary terms. Evolutionists in general believe that evolution occurs by slow, gradual genetic change over a long period of time. The fossil record, OTOH, often shows sudden jumps where old species disappear, and brand new ones appear seemingly from nowhere.
However, the above example of the evolution of wheat shows how a brand new species can evolve instantly by a doubling in the number of chromosomes. Similar mechanisms could be involved in animal speciation.
by Shtal on 24 January 2014 - 01:01
[sigh] Microevolution is the adaptation of a species to fit a changing environment.
Microevolution does not add new generic information, period.....new trait is not the same as new generic information.
The fossil record, OTOH, often shows sudden jumps where old species disappear, and brand new ones appear seemingly from nowhere.
No evidence in fossil record of MacroEvolution....
However, the above example of the evolution of wheat shows how a brand new species can evolve instantly by a doubling in the number of chromosomes. Similar mechanisms could be involved in animal speciation.
Here is something for you to think about:
Example: Horses and donkey’s are particular you can consider same kind of animal, and what is interesting that horses has 64 chromosomes and donkey’s has 62 chromosomes and it only differ by 2 chromosome and yet they are part of one kind….Evolutionist say human has 46 chromosome and apes has 48 chromosomes and the differences again only of 2 chromosome, so in one case you have a difference but it’s not enough to put horses and donkeys in different kinds, and in another case you have generic difference; but evolutionist argue it is not enough chromosomes to put humans and apes in to different kind category.
So if we are looking for logical consistency of understanding?
Number of chromosomes is an interesting study, and it is indeed true that chimps have 48 and humans have 46 and tobacco also has 48 chromosomes… lol, Ooohh!
Amoebas have 50 and they say we came from Amoeboid; they have more chromosomes than we do. Chickens and dogs both have 78 they are identical twins… Fern has the most chromosomes 480, that is the ultimate goal of all evolution to become a fern, so; I think common sense will tell you if you look through - you know Opossum, Redwood tree and Kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes. The similarities I think are evidence of common designer; now if you want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestor - you certain welcome to believe that.
Microevolution does not add new generic information, period.....new trait is not the same as new generic information.
The fossil record, OTOH, often shows sudden jumps where old species disappear, and brand new ones appear seemingly from nowhere.
No evidence in fossil record of MacroEvolution....
However, the above example of the evolution of wheat shows how a brand new species can evolve instantly by a doubling in the number of chromosomes. Similar mechanisms could be involved in animal speciation.
Here is something for you to think about:
Example: Horses and donkey’s are particular you can consider same kind of animal, and what is interesting that horses has 64 chromosomes and donkey’s has 62 chromosomes and it only differ by 2 chromosome and yet they are part of one kind….Evolutionist say human has 46 chromosome and apes has 48 chromosomes and the differences again only of 2 chromosome, so in one case you have a difference but it’s not enough to put horses and donkeys in different kinds, and in another case you have generic difference; but evolutionist argue it is not enough chromosomes to put humans and apes in to different kind category.
So if we are looking for logical consistency of understanding?
Number of chromosomes is an interesting study, and it is indeed true that chimps have 48 and humans have 46 and tobacco also has 48 chromosomes… lol, Ooohh!
Amoebas have 50 and they say we came from Amoeboid; they have more chromosomes than we do. Chickens and dogs both have 78 they are identical twins… Fern has the most chromosomes 480, that is the ultimate goal of all evolution to become a fern, so; I think common sense will tell you if you look through - you know Opossum, Redwood tree and Kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes. The similarities I think are evidence of common designer; now if you want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestor - you certain welcome to believe that.
by Shtal on 24 January 2014 - 02:01
Sunsilver, On this first page of that thread http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=737166-ark .....I replied to vk4 regarding Evolution.....
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top