Comments on: All Together Now, One More Time

By: Joe Wolf

Joe Wolf — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:11:35 +0000

Ivorygirl, don’t worry I do understand where Chris is coming from. However, I did not realize he was simply cutting and pasting from various sources. That makes me feel better as I thought it was coming out of his head: a very scary thought.

To the point of cutting and pasting, Chris you really should have put quotation marks around your third sentence.

Interesting paper, you reference; I would like to see the entire paper; it looks very interesting. Could you send me the full reference?

But you are really changing the subject here. This is irrelevant to the discussion of one species becoming another. I showed you one; admit it.
We can talk about mechanism another time.

By: Ivorygirl

Ivorygirl — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:20:45 +0000

Joe Wolf,
Don’t fall for Chris’s semantics, he just cuts and pastes from creationist web sites or quote mines from anything else he reads. The bottom line, he thinks that all biological life was created in its present form by the biblical god. Perhaps some micro-evolution after Noah’s flood, but that’s it. Chris will squirm around his real intentions. In Chris’s world ID/Creationism is the default position not evolution, of course he never produces a shred of evidence to support this position.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:21:52 +0000

Joe
If reproduction has no influence on speciation that does make sense.
But this paper does seem to question that idea in diatoms.
Virtually nothing however is known about alternative speciation mechanisms. Here we present evidence, based on population-genetic and community-level studies on freshwater and marine raphid pennate diatoms, that allopatric processes may yet play an important role in
diatom speciation.
https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2140694&fileOId=2153273

Correct me if I’m wrong but If I understanding this right a restricted gene pool or lack of crossbreeding could lead to speciation. Thanks

By: Joe Wolf

Joe Wolf — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:01:54 +0000

Chris,
I do not believe I mentioned Darwin or implied anything about him. However, you are correct, as far as I know Darwin did not consider cross-breeding to form new species. Scientists and horticulturalists in general do not either. In general, cross-breeding dies not produce new species.
However, cross-breeding has been shown to produce new species in sunflowers in the southwest. These were crosses of wild sunflowers in nature. I could probably find the papers showing that if I dig far enough.
You asked for a record of the development of a new species, Dawkins describes one in his video. The fact that it is a diatom is irrelevant. The point is that it is a new species of diatom. A species is a species no matter what branch of the tree of life it is on.
Chris, you asked to be shown the path of one species to a new species. We have shown that, admit it and give up.

By: Ivorygirl

Ivorygirl — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:08:41 +0000

Chris

Thats right, I forgot your holy babble tells you that women are inferior to men and how we should remain subservient, good luck with that idea pal.
So tell us all again just how Creationism is a scientific proposition and how we can scientifically test that Yahwah was the creator? *********** sound of crickets chirping.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:47:44 +0000

Ivorygirl
Your foaming at the mouth may show your loyalty to the status quo, but other than establishing the fact you’re no lady you haven’t said much.

By: Ivorygirl

Ivorygirl — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:18:18 +0000

Chris, if you don’t like it when I point out the painful truth of the situation, instead of trolling about how terrible it is that I don’t kiss your ass for being a bigoted, science-hating liar for Jesus, why don’t you try demonstrating and explaining to us exactly how ID/Creationism is supposed to be scientific, and how ID/Creationism is supposed to be magically superior to Evolutionary Biology and all other sciences?

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:23:36 +0000

Chris – please go look up “tiktaalik”. Using evolutionary theory, Neil Shubin and his associates predicted that a certain type of fossil could be found in rocks of a particular age; using geology, they located the right kind of rocks, and, with a great deal of skilled work under harsh field conditions, found fossils of the type expected and filled in another piece of our planetary jigsaw puzzle.

Please go find us _any_ comparable example of _any_ creationist (of the “intelligent design” variety or any other, drawing a logical inference from creo literature, doing the follow-up research, and producing tangible results which expand our knowledge of this world we live in.

I will concede that creationists have attempted to make scientific predictions. Consider Michael Behe, who in Darwin’s Black Box said that no one would ever see the “transitional forms” Darwin speculated as the land-based ancestors of whales. A test saying that something will never be found cannot be proven in finite time, of course – but it can be disproved at any moment. Within one year of Behe’s statement, paleontologists announced Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, thus continuing creationism’s non-stop stream of abject failures when it enters any scientific arena.