Comments on: Macroevolution Demonstrated? http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:05:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1819 Darius Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:53:44 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1819 Though there would still exist the argument that scientists are "intelligent" designers and without their influence, macro-evolution couldn't happen. But yes, that will be interesting if they can prove that macro-evolution is a possibility. Though there would still exist the argument that scientists are “intelligent” designers and without their influence, macro-evolution couldn’t happen. But yes, that will be interesting if they can prove that macro-evolution is a possibility.

]]> By: Atanamis http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1827 Atanamis Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:04:19 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1827 <blockquote>One is that a species splits into groups that adapt to different foodstuffs. If those foodstuffs live in different places, the groups will never meet. Since they no longer meet, they no longer interbreed.</blockquote> Unfortunately, by this definition any separated groups would be defined as separate species. This is not in fact the case, as animals from different regions which <i>don't</i> interbreed, but which <i>could</i> interbreed of placed in the same environment are not generally considered different species. This article seems to be making the claim that a hairless breed of dog would be a different species than a husky, because the hairless dog could not survive arctic temperatures. If the "new bacteriophage" described is no longer able to interbreed with the "mutated bacteriophage" able to live off the "alternate bacteria", I would be far more willing to acknowledge it as possibly being a "different type" of bacteriophage. Evolution still has problems as a theory so long as it cannot demonstrate "missing links" between species. This is a problem in both the fossil record and in the biological research (as indicated by this article).

One is that a species splits into groups that adapt to different foodstuffs. If those foodstuffs live in different places, the groups will never meet. Since they no longer meet, they no longer interbreed.

Unfortunately, by this definition any separated groups would be defined as separate species. This is not in fact the case, as animals from different regions which don’t interbreed, but which could interbreed of placed in the same environment are not generally considered different species. This article seems to be making the claim that a hairless breed of dog would be a different species than a husky, because the hairless dog could not survive arctic temperatures. If the “new bacteriophage” described is no longer able to interbreed with the “mutated bacteriophage” able to live off the “alternate bacteria”, I would be far more willing to acknowledge it as possibly being a “different type” of bacteriophage. Evolution still has problems as a theory so long as it cannot demonstrate “missing links” between species. This is a problem in both the fossil record and in the biological research (as indicated by this article).

]]> By: Jew http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1846 Jew Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:51:27 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1846 I'm currently reading Michael Behe's new book, <i>The Edge of Evolution</i>. I will write a review of it later, but I think it makes it very clear what the limits of evolution are. Whether or not evolution is within the same species or creates a new species isn't really the big deal. It's not a distinction worth arguing about. As with most things, the truth is more subtle. I'll explain more when I write my review in a week or two. I’m currently reading Michael Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution. I will write a review of it later, but I think it makes it very clear what the limits of evolution are. Whether or not evolution is within the same species or creates a new species isn’t really the big deal. It’s not a distinction worth arguing about. As with most things, the truth is more subtle. I’ll explain more when I write my review in a week or two.

]]> By: Jason http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1849 Jason Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:33:42 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1849 I don't I don’t

]]> By: Jason http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1850 Jason Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:39:07 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/10/macroevolution-demonstrated/#comment-1850 I don't believe that this is in fact a new species, but the fact that most single celled organisms don't reproduce by sexual means seems to be a loophole for people believing it is. By the common standard of what a species is, it doesn't apply. I believe that in bacterium, the operative word is "strain" of bacteria instead of species. But using their logic, ALL bacteria are a new unique species, if only differentiated by a small characteristic. I don’t believe that this is in fact a new species, but the fact that most single celled organisms don’t reproduce by sexual means seems to be a loophole for people believing it is. By the common standard of what a species is, it doesn’t apply. I believe that in bacterium, the operative word is “strain” of bacteria instead of species.

But using their logic, ALL bacteria are a new unique species, if only differentiated by a small characteristic.

]]>