But does this "new genetic information" result in speciation?
Are you moving the goalposts?
someguy writes:
But there is one crucial aspect of that change that creationists believe that evolutionist's don't. The amount of chromosomes cannot increase. As in genetic information is never added, which must be true for evolution to work. Therefore with the "created kind" thinking, the very first horse kind would have had the most chromosomes. And all the variations of that kind would have the same or less chromosomes.
yes id like an evolutionist to prove to me that "new" genetic information can be added.
You have been shown that chromosomes can increase. The chromosomes increasing is a falisfication of your "crucial aspect". Therefore kinds, as you were defining them are wrong. Care to try again?
Not even a new sub species (such as the zebra is to the horse)
A zebra is
not a subspecies of a horse. They are all of the same genus (Equus) but all are separate species.
It is not possible, There are clear and obvious breeding barriers between at least the taxonomic level of "class", but if a clear definition and test for "kind" could be developed these breeding barriers would be defined specifically by "kind".
Of course there are barriers between classes. But they are only the same barriers that are between species. There are, after all, nothing but species. We then group them into higher things called classes and other groupings. Since the species and genus "barrier" is crossable and there aren't anything different for any taxa above species there aren't any other barriers.
As of right now I have no test to prove that. But what kind of test do evolutionist propose to determine a common ancestor? Because "created kind" is somewhat similar to "common ancestor" (in that all creatures with a certain kind have all descended from a certain common first created kind) it may require a similar test.
The common ancestors are observable in the fossil record. Where are the fossils of your "created kinds"?
Evolution cannot happen by chromosome duplication. Did you read my quote and link in my last post?
Correct me if I'm wrong but that post seems to be very muddled. Chromosome doubling has produced new species. Changing the argument to worrying about information doesn't stop them from being new species. Saying that they are in some way weak may be true some of the time but it is not all the time. In any case the claims were, no chromosome increase, no new species, no new traits. They weren't discussing strengths and weaknesses. Once you've admitted to all the past errors then we can move on to this new position that you might be trying to adopt.
The chromosome doubled species are not identical to the parent species therefore they have "new traits".
Now, if you will admit that much of what you've posted and sited has been wrong we can move on to the arguement about new "information" (I will take it that this means different, novel genetic sequences in the DNA).
Once we find a case for novel sequences your last argument is gone isn't it?
™ Version 4.2
