some_guy quotes from the ridiculously ignorant AiG:
quote:
In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other.
But what is a "kind"? From all examples ever given, a "kind" is just another term for "species" and if so, then the scenario described actually contradicts the conclusion: If A and B can breed with C but not each other, then they most likely evolved and are not the same "kind."
They're called "ring species."
quote:
Also think of this, a mule has lost the ability to interbreed with a horse and donkey
Um, "lost"? A mule never "lost" anything. It is a hybrid of two species that are diverging. It doesn't exist except through the breeding of two species that have nearly severed ties.
Once again, you're simply avoiding defining what a "kind" is.
quote:
Ring species are also all apart of the same kind.
But since a "kind" is a species and ring species are separate species, then that is evidence of new "kinds" appearing, in complete contradiction to your claim.
some_guy then responds to me:
quote:
Think about this, if I have one document and I go over to a photocopier and photocopy it then I have 2 documents, but does that second document tell me anything more than the first did?
Yes.
You see, one of the things we know about genes are involved in morphological traits is the amount of protein that is made. If you have only one copy of a gene, you only get so much. Get two, and you get more.
Thus, an organism with two copies of the exact same gene will be morphologically different from an organism with only one.
You are too obsessed with the surface and need to look at the full implications of what happens when you suddenly have more genetic material floating around.
quote:
"More" is not "New".
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Of course more is new. It wasn't there before, it is there now, it's new. You're forgetting that the biology of the individual is more than simply whether or not you have a gene. It is also about how many copies of the gene you have. If you have more copies of it, you are physically different from your brethren.
quote:
Could you tell me how an animal or plant could evolve my having more chromosomes?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
How is acquiring more chromosomes not evolution right before your eyes? Getting more chromosomes is evolution by definition.
You're asking for an example of blue and when shown a clear sky at high noon, you are claiming that you need more.
quote:
At the moment I am not disputing mutation I am disputing that polyploidy does not produce new genetic information. How does mutation happening during polyploidy prove that polyploidy itself allows for new genetic information to be produced?
Because more is new. It wasn't there before, it is there now, it results in a change in morphology, it is necessarily new.
quote:
Cannot mutations happen outside of polyploidy?
Of course, but you'll just claim that mutation doesn't result in new information, either...merely a change in the information but no increase. See below.
You refuse to synthesize. If chromosome counts can increase (which results in new morphology) and if mutations can change genetic sequences (which results in new morphology), then how does one insist that the two don't work together to produce "new" genes (which results in new morphology) by any definition of "new" one might consider?
When you're trying to open a lock with a key, you need to put the key in the lock, but that won't unlock the lock all by itself. You also need to turn the key, but that won't unlock the lock all by itself. But if you put the key in the lock
and then turn it, you unlock the lock.
Even if we take the unreasonable stance that increasing genetic material through copying doesn't change morphology and if we then take the similarly unreasonable stance that changing genetic material doesn't increase it, how can one possibly claim that copying genetic material
and then changing it doesn't result in new genes?
quote:
Now that we are talking about mutations though can you tell me how genetic mutations can progressively (as in continue to produce new information over time) result in new genetic information being added?
See, you just fulfilled my prophecy. Mutations don't increase genetic information.
You're so stuck on the claim of "no new genetic information" that you cannot see it happening all around you. You refuse to see that increases of genetic material from the smallest such as gene insertion to the largest such as polyploidy followed by mutation upon the copies does precisely what you claim can never happen, even though you admit that the two things can and do happen.
quote:
And allow for evolution to take place.
Do some research on the evolution of the blood clot cascade and you'll answer your own question.
Your argument boils down to this:
1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, and equality exists and works, but none of that shows that 1 + 1 = 2.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
