"there's more than leather in this soul that's bent for hell..."
"the bugle up my backside blows the blues in me..."
Nice! For years on end I've wondered about those two verses. I'm not sure which of the two you discovered was wrong via Eddie Spaghetti but I suspect it was the latter since the former makes so much sense...
Supersuckers are all-time. A couple others from nearly the same genre are Ditch Bank Okies and 9 Pound Hammer. Check 'em if you haven't already...
You're right. No magnetic reversals have occurred in the past 1000 years. But we do see evidence of them. How do I justify that? Certainly not with the "millions of years" crutch.
Take a look at the paleomagnetic measurements of the lava that came out of Steens Mountain (in oregon).
Coe, R.S. and Prevot, M., 1989
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
This source shows that a very rapid magnetic reversal happened within the time frame of about... 2 weeks.
"...geomagnetic polarity reversal at Steens Mountain, Oregon suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day. The evidence is large, systematic variations in the direction of remanent magnetization as a function of the temperature of thermal demagnetization and of vertical position within a single flow, which are most simply explained by the hypothesis that the field was changing direction as the flow cooled."
"suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day."
This citation you tried to pawn off does nothing to discredit the fact that we have recorded over 10,000 reversals. Do you have evidence of each of the ten thousand reversals happening very rapidly? If not, your assumptions based upon a single citation is quite incomplete.
That was just one example of a solid scientific example that shows an EXTREMELY rapid switch in the magnetism of the earth.
I'm not trying to discredit the 10,000 reversals. But think about it. If rapid field can happen, what evidence do you have that it takes a long time to do so?
It's just like cave, canyon, stalagmites, stalactites, and various other things that you evolutionists try to pass off as proof as the old age of the earth. They don't take that long, just like in this example.
"what evidence do you have that it takes a long time to do so?"
90% of all field reversals took quite a long stretch to complete. This is evident by the speed at which divergent plate boundaries move and the length that the magnetic field is recorded. Your trying to look at volcanic activity for proof when you need to be looking at the prime examples of DP boundaries. Thats why your assumptions are quite incomplete.
Furthermore, you've completely ignored the fact that stretching all the way across the atlantic are recordings of reversals, MIRRORED on both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge. So, unless you have some secret mechanism that causes the sea floor to spread at several miles per hour or more, MEANWHILE reversals happening over the course of days (ALL of them), then you're just outta gas.
You know, funny thing is- I do have a mechanism that would cause the sea floor to spread out very rapidly at the same time that the magnetic field would be reversing.
What I am going to do is tell you what this explanation is and then wait until you tell me to continue.
You can say anything you like, but saying "Noahs Flood" doesn't provide an answer unless you have the underlying mechanisms which drives the cause and effect.
Now, you must provide a way for a year long flood to make the ENTIRE atlantic ocean open up from solid land, meanwhile causing 10K+ magnetic reversals to happen at the same time.
You must explain this in light of the mirror pattern found on either side of the mid-Atl ridge. The reversals AND tectonic movement happened together. See?
And again, you are relying on a single instance to explain all the rest.
You fail to comprehend that tites and mites in caves throughout the world are not formed by supersaturated water. They occur as a result of rainwater seeping through the rocks above the caves and displacing the minerals in the form of "mites and tites". Unless you can provide a way for these isolated occurrences to form rapidly, then your assumptions that ALL of them form rapidly is, again, based upon incomplete analysis.
"I didn't say mites and tites form from supersaturated water."
What do you think "stalagmites/stalactites growing on pipes, and under monuments built by humans" are? City water supplies are extremely high in calcium carbonates, thus "plumbing" and from plumbing under "that one monument" used in creationist propaganda.
Oh, and the upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.
"You missed my quote from physicscentral: "At Yellowstone, stalactites can grow as fast as an inch per year""
And you fail to understand that finding a single or several instances where they grow that fast does NOT mean that ALL grow that fast. In fact, most grow extremely slowly. So, again, you cannot rely ONLY on the evidence that supports your hypothesis, you must take ALL the available data into consideration. Do do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
All that I was trying to point out is that naturally forming stalagmites and stalactites can form quickly. Just because the rate of growth that we see today is extremely slow, doesn't make it mandatory for every single instance to be extremely slow all the time.
My guess is that you checked into the growth rates at Yellowstone, and realized I'm not lying. If you continue to assume uniformitarianism on a subject like this, you are the one being intellectually dishonest.
The present is not always the key to the past, and I think you need to realize that.
Yes, we see a majority of mites and tites forming slowly- today. But, in the face of actual, scientific, peer reviewed evidence of rapid formation, you (and many others) continue to believe that it takes a long time to do so!
Don't you see how you're just fooling yourself? Maybe it's not intellectual dishonesty. Maybe it's simply an inability to realize that uniformitarianism... isn't.
"There is evidence that shows that both stalagmites and stalactites can form rapidly. That's all I'm saying."
YE, the mere fact that you are here to discuss YE creationism while injecting the pointless observation of a few isolated rapidly forming tites/mites attests to the lengths at which you're willing to traverse to fool yourself.
But, the mere fact that you persist on these videos gives me comfort knowing that if you keep going, you'll eventually realize your wrong in your dogma.
The fact that you're dismissing these events as isolated events is nothing more than your denial of the possibility of these events occurring in nature.
Keep using the word "isolated". I think it makes you feel better.
So, you just erroneously felt the need to tell me that some tites/mites form rapidly? Just out of the blue, you wanted to inject a factoid which does nothing to bolster your position?
"My point is that mites/tites/canyons/caves and rocks can all form rapidly.
This, in turn, would nullify the claims that you evolutionists seem to relentlessly push."
No person who understands evolutionary theory believes in a static earth where nothing changes. That was an erroneous factoid which is suppose to be used by creationists to debate with, silly. It's meant to be used in sermons and the like. You seem to have completely overlooked the strategic use of your propaganda...
"The theory of evolution is based on those ideas."
Bullshit strawman. two words: Puncuated Equilibrium
Whoever told you, or where ever you read that Evolutionary theory does not account for nor acknowledges the existence of abrupt changes in selective pressures WAS MISLEADING YOU into an incomplete understanding to keep you in the proverbial dark.
Punctuated equilibrium was not a direct result of darwin.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about the passage of evolution, formulated by Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972 to explain gaps in the fossil record.
Exactly! PE explains that evo isn't governed ONLY by long spans of time with static/gradual changes in environment and selective pressures. Abrupt changes (catastrophism) in the form of earthquakes meteor strikes and climate change are also responsible for evo and speciation.
Thus, modern evolutionists aren't just uniform, gradual or punctualists, THEY'RE ALL THREE!!!! Each train of thought explains one or more aspects within the framework of evo theory.
So, your accusations of "evolutionists being gradual/uniform-ists" are baseless since no living evolutionists are strictly one or the other. There's no truth to your statement.
Darwin was wrong about many little details but he was spot-on in the majority of his observations and predictions! Most importantly, his basic framework for the theory of natural selection explaining the origin of species still stands to this very day.
Darwin did not come up with natural selection, but that doesn't stop everyone from claiming that he did.
It was Edward Blyth, and he published a book on natural selection a couple years before darwin did. Blyth did not call it natural selection, but crediting Darwin for Blyth's ideas isn't nice.
But, of course, Blyth was a creation scientist, trying to figure out the variation from the inital biblical "kinds", so his discovery is discarded by the scientific community.
"Darwin did not come up with natural selection, but that doesn't stop everyone from claiming that he did."
Thats elementary. Darwin, however, was the first person to synthesise a working model/framework for NS. Nobody, until Darwin pinned descent with modifications underlying principles. Therefore, Darwin gets credit for figuring out how natural selection works.
You're grasping at straws again.
Regardless, have you abandoned your view that all evo-ists are strictly uniform/gradualists?
"But, of course, Blyth was a creation scientist, trying to figure out the variation from the inital biblical "kinds", so his discovery is discarded by the scientific community."
You're retarded. Blyth's model didn't work! It STILL doesn't and never will. Blyth never explained how the variation occured. His hypothesis' explanatory power halted at the species level. Not to mention it's major difficulties in explaining the order of insects...
His model was rejected because it failed miserably.
I've modified my argument. Evolution is founded on the ideas of gradualism and uniformitarianism. Later, after the fossil record showed evidence contradictory to these ideas, punctuated equilibrium was formulated.
Is punctuated equilibrium a direct result of reproductive isolation?
Good! Thats progress. Now you know that modern evoscience does not imply a solely uniform and/or gradual process.
"Is punctuated equilibrium a direct result of reproductive isolation?"
No, thats speciation. PE says that most of the time, sexually reproducing organisms experience little change but when phenotypic evo occurs, it happens in rare, rapid events such as geographical reproductive isolation. Research: Allopatry, Peripatry, Parapatry and Sympatry
"what processes could possibly cause punctuated equilibrium."
Imagine a "ring species" spread out over a span of land. Now imagine an earthquake that causes the land to crack open right smack in the middle of the ring species terrain. Now imagine water filling in the crack to create a large river. Part of the ring species would be geographically cut off from the rest of it's genepool. Now, where there was once a large genepool of interbreeding species is two reproductively isolated species.
"I thought there were a few things that the origin of species couldn't explain... such as punctuated equilibrium."
There are a TON of things that wasn't explained in Origin of Species. But, origin wasn't meant to be a complete theory that explained everything. It merely laid the foundation and framework for the theory of natural selection. To boot, Darwin figured as much as he did based solely upon physical observations. As for Origins and PE... (cont)
(cont) , Although Darwins favored explanation for the lack of smooth transitional speciation events observed in the fossil record was the observed incompleteness itself, he was intuitive enough to comment in PE:
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
So, PE has been a part of NS since Origins. It just wasn't stressed enough.
You just explained reproductive isolation in that analogy.
This actually did happen, and the grand canyon is the divide that separates 2 different squirrel populations. They are believed to be the same species (because of reproductive possibilities), but they have been geographically isolated.
From what I can tell, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than rapid speciation, which I agree with completely.
I would have to disagree that this idea validates evolution- only speciation.
The Albert squirrel lives on the south rim of the grand canyon and the Kaibab squirrel lives on the north rim of the grand canyon.
While these 2 squirrel populations are phenotypically different, they are still considered the same species because of the genetic similarities. It seems that the geographic isolation occurred not very long ago.
These 2 squirrel populations descended from the 2 on the ark. The grand canyon formed by a catastrophic flood separated them.
If the grand canyon took millions of years to form, how is it possible that there are 2 separate squirrel populations that still have the ability to interbreed? They've been separated for millions of years!
I understand how speciation occurs. What I was asking (and cannot seem to find) is what causes punctuated equilibrium?
"From what I can tell, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than rapid speciation, which I agree with completely." (me)
"If the grand canyon took millions of years to form, how is it possible that there are 2 separate squirrel populations that still have the ability to interbreed? They've been separated for millions of years!"
Just because the grand canyon is extremely ancient does not mean that the two sqirrel species were separated when the grand canyon formed. There's MANY, MANY ways for them to have diverged and become isolated reproductively.
"These 2 squirrel populations descended from the 2 on the ark. The grand canyon formed by a catastrophic flood separated them."
So, are you implying that there were 2 sets of the same squirrel species on the ark? And THEN they occupied separate niches? What does that say for all 100+ species from around the world?
How did Noah get those two sets of squirrels all the way to america?
Surely you realize I'm going to discuss this even more deeply...
I am in no way suggesting that there were any more than 2 squirrels on the ark. Actually, it might not of even been a squirrel.
I'm still sticking to my ideas that say the "kinds" of animals on the ark are very closely related to the taxonomic rank "family".
Squirrels belong to the Sciurinae family. I believe (I have no idea if AiG confirms this) that a little Sciurinae was on the ark. The other subfamily of squirrels, Pteromyini, came from these 2 Sciurinae!
"How did Noah get those two sets of squirrels all the way to america?"
That's a loaded question. Noah did not bring the squirrels to America. Actually, humans stayed in the middle east until the diversification caused by the language mixup at Babel.
At this point, people of the same language diversified throughout the earth, and adapted to their environments. Lighter skin for Irish people, dark skin for africans all because of the need for vitamin D.
It's actually a fairly good possibility that the australian dingos were a result of a person bringing them to australia. The kangaroos were already there.
As you can tell, it's nowhere near impossible for the diversification of animals to have occurred after Noah's flood. I'm certain you disagree.
I still do wonder how these 2 populations of squirrels could have diverged recently if the grand canyon was formed millions of years before modern squirrel evolution.
"it's nowhere near impossible for the diversification of animals to have occurred [in 4,000 years]"
Let's explore:
So, you're saying that all 350,000 species of beetle came from a single species 4,000 years ago? That's 87.5 speciation events each year for 4,000 years, for beetles alone.
There are 12,000 species of Ant. Are you suggesting that a single queen from a species of ant became 12,000 different species in 4,000 years while walking across ice?
"After the landing of the ark, animals diversified across the earth. Of course, this was not a speedy process."
4,000 years ISN'T SPEEDY?!?!
Do you mean the "Baramin" Noah nabbed genetically possessed every characteristic trait that every species of living squirrel has today? And that they are diverging, taking specific pre-existing traits with them in congruence with the story of "the fall"?
"Squirrels belong to the Sciurinae family. I believe (I have no idea if AiG confirms this) that a little Sciurinae was on the ark. The other subfamily of squirrels, Pteromyini, came from these 2 Sciurinae!"
From 2 sciurinae to 100's of non-interbreeding species spread out across the globe in only 4,000 years!?!?
Super Evolution. Impossible.
Do you know of any geneticists who purport that speciation of this magnitude is even genetically possible within 4,000 years?
"Remember, they are still able to reproduce successfully, that means the divergence wasn't very long ago."
If they can still reproduce successfully, then they are not isolated reproductively and therefore NOT a separate species. That means there's still mixing between the two populations.
How do you think these two squirrels were separated?
Easy, the same way most animal species are propagated today, Humans and their shipping of goods worldwide. The Founder effect.
Actually, yes. I do know a geneticist who confirms this. My biology professor received his PhD in genetics (human genome) and he is the one who told me about this.
Dog breeds are a perfect example. Yes, this is artificial selection, but all of the dog breeds descended from a domesticated dog a few thousand years ago.
Reproductive isolation results in new species. That's obvious.
Super evolution is a stupid term. There is no evolution going on in this example.
"If they can still reproduce successfully, then they are not isolated reproductively and therefore NOT a separate species. That means there's still mixing between the two populations."
That's exactly the point!
It is known that these 2 populations are not interbreeding currently, yet they are still able to reproduce. That implies a separation that occurred recently.
The founder effect? So a human did throw 2 across the canyon!
No, the specimen that Noah had on the ark did not have the characteristics of every modern squirrel. This is a result of individual populations adapting to their environment.
Exactly how humans have adapted to different environments. Darker skin in places with more sun, lighter skin in places with less. Each population requires vitamin D, but africa has much more sunlight than ireland.
Skin color is an adaptation, just like squirrel characteristics.
After the flood, plenty of extinctions occurred- like the dodo bird and the dinosaurs.
That's why we have so many different types of fish too! Because the flood didn't wipe out the fish, because they were in water. It was fresh water, and after the waters receded, the salt mines broke open. This slowly made the oceans more salty, and natural selection helped the fish adapt to the new environment.
Some fresh and salt water organisms still exist- such as the bull shark.
"No, the specimen that Noah had on the ark did not have the characteristics of every modern squirrel."
Then where did the genes for coding the characteristics we see in the squirrel genome come from? The two founding squirrels would have needed to have carried, in their DNA, enough information to code for EVERY LAST TRAIT you see within the modern squirrel genome. Two squirrels cannot bring about the variation we see today without beneficial mutations somewhere along the line.
How did the Human genome go from a maximum of 16 alleles for each loci to over 400 within 4,000 years?
That begs 2 beneficial mutations each generation. Since less than 1% of mutations are beneficial, this means that around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION.
Wanna know what happens to an organism who goes through THAT much mutation?
"All of this is after an extreme genetic bottleneck- which is why we see a greater variety in the fossil record."
Lets apply this statement to squirrels. There are 100 plus species of squirrel nowadays. Looking back further and further in the fossil record, we see less and less species of them. Where are all the other species?
"This process only requires natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift (or the lack of it), gene flow and adaptations."
It requires much more than you even comprehend. By the way, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection, they are not "all that is required".
You are so ignorant of this field, It's sickening.
"The founder effect? So a human did throw 2 across the canyon!"
"After the landing of the ark, animals diversified across the earth.
Of course, this was not a speedy process."
Now for the coupe de grace:
If you claim the flood is responsible for the separation of the two species, then you imply that the squirrels were already living there before the flood cut the canyon. But you also claim all sqrrls descended from 2 on the ark.
"Actually, yes. I do know a geneticist who confirms this. My biology professor received his PhD in genetics (human genome) and he is the one who told me about this."
geneticist, not a professor. I want the name of a practicing geneticist whom has written a paper (peer reviewed) showing that the diversification we see today is possible within 4,000 years from the original "kinds".
The lack of any true freshwater sharks? Probably because most freshwater fish are smaller, and saltwater fish are generally larger. But I do have several freshwater sharks in my fishtank! haha!
Limestone deposits 1000s of feet think proposes no problem with the flood. Sedimentation organized the limestone, and there was plenty there. How do you explain it?
I've never said that beneficial mutations don't exist! I'll say it again. Beneficial mutation exist. The beneficial mutations are not the only driving force for speciation.
A perfect example of this, like I've said before, is the artificial selection of dog breeds. Many differences, thousands of years.
I've claimed that the grand canyon is the object separating the squirrels. I am also saying that these two populations are still able to interbreed, which means that the genetic divergence occurred fairly recently. The flood didn't necessarily cause the separation.
If you claimed that "reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection" on a biology test, you would fail.
You really shouldn't be so impressed with yourself. Stop being so condescending, it doesn't bolster your argument. Unless, of course, it makes you feel better. Then go right ahead.
And I'm very sorry that you don't think that my professor, with a Ph.D. in genetics, is not a qualified source."
Qualified source for what? A second hand answer to a question I don't know the precise wording of? I want something to cross referrence! I want a single peer reviewed paper proving that it is genetically possible to reach the level of diversification from the original "kinds" to what we see today.
"I've claimed that the grand canyon is the object separating the squirrels... The flood didn't necessarily cause the separation."
If the flood caused the GC and the GC is the reproductive barrier, then the flood caused their divergence no matter what. Now, you tried to ridicule me for suggesting the impossibility for a pair of squirrels to have crossed the canyon and here you are, forced to admit the very same thing.
"you claimed that "reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection" on a biology test, you would fail."
Oh, pardon me. My point was that you used a sloppy, seriously incomplete list and deemed it, "all that is needed".
"I'll say it again. Beneficial mutation exist. The beneficial mutations are not the only driving force for speciation."
So, you now agree that new information can arise within a genome? Thats what beneficial mutation implies. Without new information arising within a genome, how is one species to become two?
Dog breeds donot exhibit beneficial mutations (new information) for us to select for as you've implied. It's a recombination of genes, not speciation.
"Speciation results in new species. Where am I confused?"
Thats elementary and not even worth stating. However, you're confusion is in the relationships and descriptions of the mechanisms which drive evolution. This is apparent in your grouping and wording of what you purported as being "all that is needed".
"Freshwater coral reef? Why? What does that have to do with the price of beans in china?"
Can you show that coral reefs descended from freshwater coral reefs? The ancient coral reefs found exposed and/or buried worldwide must have been freshwater. Remember, they grow EXTREMELY slow and MUST have been doing so for LOOOOONG amounts of time to be so thick.
So, let's see a single species of freshwater coral. Surely out of the many 1,000's, at least one should still exist, right?
"I don't know enough about the KT boundary to answer that question. I'll check it out."
You know the globally homogeneous layer (GBL) of sediments the flood should have deposited (which was never found)? Well, truly global events DO leave GBL's. This meteor hit the yucatan peninsula left a layer of iridium which can be found WORLDWIDE! Find a single human fossil, whale fossil, rabbit fossil, etc under this layer and you'll prove Evolution wrong.
"The lack of any true freshwater sharks? Probably because most freshwater fish are smaller, and saltwater fish are generally larger."
How does size matter? It doesn't.
You're dead wrong about most saltwater fish being large. Don't forget, your talking to a 3rd generation fisherman.
Now, if ALL sharks were originally freshwater, there should be some left somewhere. Where are they? You said bulls but that would mean all sharks are descended from bullsharks.
heh well the largest fish are saltwater, but look at that mega huge catfish found a few years back, or the Ariprima in south america that thing gives me the willies just looking at it in aquriums.
"Limestone deposits 1000s of feet think proposes no problem with the flood. Sedimentation organized the limestone, and there was plenty there."
So, sedimentation during a global flood, which would undoubtedly have massively churning seas, organized pure limestone into 1,000's of feet thick deposits without a single layer of any other sediment, nor animal remains, found within.
Do you know what the primary source of calcite in limestone is? MARINE organisms. Not freshwater organisms.
When? Proof? If not, you're blowing hot air. I'm growing increasingly impatient with your wild rationalizations that you fail to back with ANY peer reviewed documentation.
As for the Egyptians. What proof do you have that they were killed in "the flood"? You realize we have recorded history of their that stretches through the "time of the flood", don't you? Or were they lying and recording events that never transpired?
@XyoungearthX You do realize that geologists are not stupid, and can tell the difference between a single flood sediment and annual flood layers stretched over millions of years. Its pretty easy actually. And no, Barringer crater is at least 49,000 years ago, attested by several dating methods. And no, the egyptians were not killed in any flood--not as a nation anyway. They fell to Alex. The Great, who divided the country among his generals on his death.
p.s.
i know i'm wrong,
i talked to the singer about it,
he likes my interpretation though...:)
steviepig 4 years ago
i do believe...,
its...
"there's more than leather in this soul that's bent for hell..."
as in hell bent for leather,:)
also "the bugle up my backside blows the blues in me..."
howeber, i don't hab the tectbonic plates to proovb it...:)
cheers.
steviepig 4 years ago
"there's more than leather in this soul that's bent for hell..."
"the bugle up my backside blows the blues in me..."
Nice! For years on end I've wondered about those two verses. I'm not sure which of the two you discovered was wrong via Eddie Spaghetti but I suspect it was the latter since the former makes so much sense...
Supersuckers are all-time. A couple others from nearly the same genre are Ditch Bank Okies and 9 Pound Hammer. Check 'em if you haven't already...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
You're right. No magnetic reversals have occurred in the past 1000 years. But we do see evidence of them. How do I justify that? Certainly not with the "millions of years" crutch.
Take a look at the paleomagnetic measurements of the lava that came out of Steens Mountain (in oregon).
Coe, R.S. and Prevot, M., 1989
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
This source shows that a very rapid magnetic reversal happened within the time frame of about... 2 weeks.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"...geomagnetic polarity reversal at Steens Mountain, Oregon suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day. The evidence is large, systematic variations in the direction of remanent magnetization as a function of the temperature of thermal demagnetization and of vertical position within a single flow, which are most simply explained by the hypothesis that the field was changing direction as the flow cooled."
-nature(dot)com
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"suggest the occurrence of brief episodes of astonishingly rapid field change of six degrees per day."
This citation you tried to pawn off does nothing to discredit the fact that we have recorded over 10,000 reversals. Do you have evidence of each of the ten thousand reversals happening very rapidly? If not, your assumptions based upon a single citation is quite incomplete.
Nice try but no cigar...
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
That was just one example of a solid scientific example that shows an EXTREMELY rapid switch in the magnetism of the earth.
I'm not trying to discredit the 10,000 reversals. But think about it. If rapid field can happen, what evidence do you have that it takes a long time to do so?
It's just like cave, canyon, stalagmites, stalactites, and various other things that you evolutionists try to pass off as proof as the old age of the earth. They don't take that long, just like in this example.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"what evidence do you have that it takes a long time to do so?"
90% of all field reversals took quite a long stretch to complete. This is evident by the speed at which divergent plate boundaries move and the length that the magnetic field is recorded. Your trying to look at volcanic activity for proof when you need to be looking at the prime examples of DP boundaries. Thats why your assumptions are quite incomplete.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
"stalagmites, stalactites"
Got any proof of REAL stalagtite/mites forming rapidly? Or just saturated city water supplies leaving bicarbonates around leaks?
I thought so....
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
Furthermore, you've completely ignored the fact that stretching all the way across the atlantic are recordings of reversals, MIRRORED on both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge. So, unless you have some secret mechanism that causes the sea floor to spread at several miles per hour or more, MEANWHILE reversals happening over the course of days (ALL of them), then you're just outta gas.
Again, nice try but no cigar...
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
You know, funny thing is- I do have a mechanism that would cause the sea floor to spread out very rapidly at the same time that the magnetic field would be reversing.
What I am going to do is tell you what this explanation is and then wait until you tell me to continue.
It's the Flood. Noah's flood
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
You can say anything you like, but saying "Noahs Flood" doesn't provide an answer unless you have the underlying mechanisms which drives the cause and effect.
Now, you must provide a way for a year long flood to make the ENTIRE atlantic ocean open up from solid land, meanwhile causing 10K+ magnetic reversals to happen at the same time.
You must explain this in light of the mirror pattern found on either side of the mid-Atl ridge. The reversals AND tectonic movement happened together. See?
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
REPOST FOR EMPHASIS
"stalagmites, stalactites"
Got any proof of REAL stalagtite/mites forming rapidly? Or just saturated city water supplies leaving bicarbonates around leaks?
I thought so....
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
You are so cocky.
You assume that I can't answer your claims, and then pretend that you're right based on your own assumptions.
phyicscentral says this: "At Yellowstone, stalactites can grow as fast as an inch per year"
The have found stalagmites/stalactites growing on pipes, and under monuments built by humans.
This is not an outlandish claim, twothless. All that is needed to form stalactites/mites is dripping of mineralized solutions.
Remember, you're allowed to agree with me.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
Oh, and I'm in the middle of making the video that shows how the flood meets all of your needs.
Please be patient, the information that I need is not as google-able as your information.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
Oh goody, I can't wait to supply you with oodles of contrary evidence...
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
Here's some topics:
A global layer of sediments caused by a single flood...
A source for such huge amounts of water...
A location for the water to disperse to...
Can you debunk the existence of a dendrochronological record going back tens of thousands of years?
Can you prove that such a huge wooden arc could survive the extremely high seas (hundreds of feet) inherent in a global flood?
Can you prove, genetically, that everyone is descended from Noah 4K years ago?
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
And again, you are relying on a single instance to explain all the rest.
You fail to comprehend that tites and mites in caves throughout the world are not formed by supersaturated water. They occur as a result of rainwater seeping through the rocks above the caves and displacing the minerals in the form of "mites and tites". Unless you can provide a way for these isolated occurrences to form rapidly, then your assumptions that ALL of them form rapidly is, again, based upon incomplete analysis.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
I didn't say mites and tites form from supersaturated water.
And it looks like I'll be making a couple of videos on the subject of Noah's Ark.
ps. Ark is spelled with a K.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"I didn't say mites and tites form from supersaturated water."
What do you think "stalagmites/stalactites growing on pipes, and under monuments built by humans" are? City water supplies are extremely high in calcium carbonates, thus "plumbing" and from plumbing under "that one monument" used in creationist propaganda.
Oh, and the upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.
You make it too easy.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
"ps. Ark is spelled with a K."
Thanks, I've been drafting a lot and the spelling kinda stuck with me.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
You missed my quote from physicscentral: "At Yellowstone, stalactites can grow as fast as an inch per year"
It's not only around pipes and monuments. It's in caves too.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"You missed my quote from physicscentral: "At Yellowstone, stalactites can grow as fast as an inch per year""
And you fail to understand that finding a single or several instances where they grow that fast does NOT mean that ALL grow that fast. In fact, most grow extremely slowly. So, again, you cannot rely ONLY on the evidence that supports your hypothesis, you must take ALL the available data into consideration. Do do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
All that I was trying to point out is that naturally forming stalagmites and stalactites can form quickly. Just because the rate of growth that we see today is extremely slow, doesn't make it mandatory for every single instance to be extremely slow all the time.
My guess is that you checked into the growth rates at Yellowstone, and realized I'm not lying. If you continue to assume uniformitarianism on a subject like this, you are the one being intellectually dishonest.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
The present is not always the key to the past, and I think you need to realize that.
Yes, we see a majority of mites and tites forming slowly- today. But, in the face of actual, scientific, peer reviewed evidence of rapid formation, you (and many others) continue to believe that it takes a long time to do so!
Don't you see how you're just fooling yourself? Maybe it's not intellectual dishonesty. Maybe it's simply an inability to realize that uniformitarianism... isn't.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"you (and many others) continue to believe that it takes a long time to do so!"
Again, point out to me where I stated that ALL mites and tites forma t the same pace? If you can't, I'll be removing your comment within days.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
"If you continue to assume uniformitarianism on a subject like this, you are the one being intellectually dishonest."
And you deduced that from my quote?:
"So, again, you cannot rely ONLY on the evidence that supports your hypothesis, you must take ALL the available data into consideration."
Calling ME a uniformitarian is a fucking joke.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
Exactly.
There is evidence that shows that both stalagmites and stalactites can form rapidly. That's all I'm saying.
Don't ignore that scientifically verified fact.
XyoungearthX 4 years ago
"There is evidence that shows that both stalagmites and stalactites can form rapidly. That's all I'm saying."
YE, the mere fact that you are here to discuss YE creationism while injecting the pointless observation of a few isolated rapidly forming tites/mites attests to the lengths at which you're willing to traverse to fool yourself.
But, the mere fact that you persist on these videos gives me comfort knowing that if you keep going, you'll eventually realize your wrong in your dogma.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
The fact that you're dismissing these events as isolated events is nothing more than your denial of the possibility of these events occurring in nature.
Keep using the word "isolated". I think it makes you feel better.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Isolated events means that they are not the norm, average, nor a standard. Therefore, they are anomolous.
Your insistence that I dismiss these events is dead wrong. I have repeatedly acknowledged them as can be clearly found throughout our conversation.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Ok then.
These events do occur.
That's all I wanted to impart to you!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Ok then.
These events do occur.
That's all I wanted to impart to you!"
So, you just erroneously felt the need to tell me that some tites/mites form rapidly? Just out of the blue, you wanted to inject a factoid which does nothing to bolster your position?
Or did you get sidetracked into a corner?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Sidetracked into a corner? No, silly.
My point is that mites/tites/canyons/caves and rocks can all form rapidly.
This, in turn, would nullify the claims that you evolutionists seem to relentlessly push.
Catosrophism is a valid scientific viewpoint.
Uniformitarianism is also a valid scientific viewpoint.
When concerning the unobservable past, you must choose one.
If catastrophism can result in the grand canyon, it cannot ruled out.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"My point is that mites/tites/canyons/caves and rocks can all form rapidly.
This, in turn, would nullify the claims that you evolutionists seem to relentlessly push."
No person who understands evolutionary theory believes in a static earth where nothing changes. That was an erroneous factoid which is suppose to be used by creationists to debate with, silly. It's meant to be used in sermons and the like. You seem to have completely overlooked the strategic use of your propaganda...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Uniformitarianism claims that what we see today is the same process that went on for all of history.
Gradualism states that large changes can occur very slowly over a long time.
The theory of evolution is based on those ideas.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"The theory of evolution is based on those ideas."
Bullshit strawman. two words: Puncuated Equilibrium
Whoever told you, or where ever you read that Evolutionary theory does not account for nor acknowledges the existence of abrupt changes in selective pressures WAS MISLEADING YOU into an incomplete understanding to keep you in the proverbial dark.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
what?
So, you're denying that the theory of evolution was founded on the idea that the present is the key to the past?
Because if you are saying that, I better not listen to you, because I will fail my bioogy final.
It was Charles Lyell that introduced the ideas of gradualism and uniformitarianism. These ideas influenced Charles Darwin directly.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Punctuated equilibrium was not a direct result of darwin.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about the passage of evolution, formulated by Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972 to explain gaps in the fossil record.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Exactly! PE explains that evo isn't governed ONLY by long spans of time with static/gradual changes in environment and selective pressures. Abrupt changes (catastrophism) in the form of earthquakes meteor strikes and climate change are also responsible for evo and speciation.
Thus, modern evolutionists aren't just uniform, gradual or punctualists, THEY'RE ALL THREE!!!! Each train of thought explains one or more aspects within the framework of evo theory.
Omitting PE is intellectual dishonesty.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
So, your accusations of "evolutionists being gradual/uniform-ists" are baseless since no living evolutionists are strictly one or the other. There's no truth to your statement.
Darwin was wrong about many little details but he was spot-on in the majority of his observations and predictions! Most importantly, his basic framework for the theory of natural selection explaining the origin of species still stands to this very day.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Darwin did not come up with natural selection, but that doesn't stop everyone from claiming that he did.
It was Edward Blyth, and he published a book on natural selection a couple years before darwin did. Blyth did not call it natural selection, but crediting Darwin for Blyth's ideas isn't nice.
But, of course, Blyth was a creation scientist, trying to figure out the variation from the inital biblical "kinds", so his discovery is discarded by the scientific community.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Darwin did not come up with natural selection, but that doesn't stop everyone from claiming that he did."
Thats elementary. Darwin, however, was the first person to synthesise a working model/framework for NS. Nobody, until Darwin pinned descent with modifications underlying principles. Therefore, Darwin gets credit for figuring out how natural selection works.
You're grasping at straws again.
Regardless, have you abandoned your view that all evo-ists are strictly uniform/gradualists?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"But, of course, Blyth was a creation scientist, trying to figure out the variation from the inital biblical "kinds", so his discovery is discarded by the scientific community."
You're retarded. Blyth's model didn't work! It STILL doesn't and never will. Blyth never explained how the variation occured. His hypothesis' explanatory power halted at the species level. Not to mention it's major difficulties in explaining the order of insects...
His model was rejected because it failed miserably.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Blyth came up with natural selection, darwin edited Blyth's ideas.
That's the nature of science, isn't it?
Blyth's ideas didn't fail miserably, and they still don't. They fail about as much as Darwin's do, simply because of the time it was written.
You know all this, twothless. An idea is proposed, and when more information is obtained, the ideas are edited.
Blyth, Darwin, Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, and then modern biologists. I'm not claiming that Blyth is 100% correct!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I've modified my argument. Evolution is founded on the ideas of gradualism and uniformitarianism. Later, after the fossil record showed evidence contradictory to these ideas, punctuated equilibrium was formulated.
Is punctuated equilibrium a direct result of reproductive isolation?
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"I've modified my argument."
Good! Thats progress. Now you know that modern evoscience does not imply a solely uniform and/or gradual process.
"Is punctuated equilibrium a direct result of reproductive isolation?"
No, thats speciation. PE says that most of the time, sexually reproducing organisms experience little change but when phenotypic evo occurs, it happens in rare, rapid events such as geographical reproductive isolation. Research: Allopatry, Peripatry, Parapatry and Sympatry
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
" Blyth came up with natural selection. Blyth, Darwin, Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, and then modern biologists."
No, no, no. Heh, try: Empedocles (490-430 bc) Lucretius Aristotle al-Jahiz Maupertuis And even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather)
All of these men attempted to explain the diversity within the orders of the animal kingdom. Darwin got the formula right.
Blyth's model proposed the maintenence of species archetype, it couldn't explain species origins. It fails.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
I knew that speciation was a result of reproductive isolation, I was trying to figure out what processes could possibly cause punctuated equilibrium.
Oh, and you forgot about Anaximander (610-545 BC).
Each of these people that you mentioned (plus anaximander) each had an idea, and was modified when we learned more.
"darwin got the formula right." I thought there were a few things that the origin of species couldn't explain... such as punctuated equilibrium.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"what processes could possibly cause punctuated equilibrium."
Imagine a "ring species" spread out over a span of land. Now imagine an earthquake that causes the land to crack open right smack in the middle of the ring species terrain. Now imagine water filling in the crack to create a large river. Part of the ring species would be geographically cut off from the rest of it's genepool. Now, where there was once a large genepool of interbreeding species is two reproductively isolated species.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"I thought there were a few things that the origin of species couldn't explain... such as punctuated equilibrium."
There are a TON of things that wasn't explained in Origin of Species. But, origin wasn't meant to be a complete theory that explained everything. It merely laid the foundation and framework for the theory of natural selection. To boot, Darwin figured as much as he did based solely upon physical observations. As for Origins and PE... (cont)
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
(cont) , Although Darwins favored explanation for the lack of smooth transitional speciation events observed in the fossil record was the observed incompleteness itself, he was intuitive enough to comment in PE:
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
So, PE has been a part of NS since Origins. It just wasn't stressed enough.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
You just explained reproductive isolation in that analogy.
This actually did happen, and the grand canyon is the divide that separates 2 different squirrel populations. They are believed to be the same species (because of reproductive possibilities), but they have been geographically isolated.
From what I can tell, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than rapid speciation, which I agree with completely.
I would have to disagree that this idea validates evolution- only speciation.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"You just explained reproductive isolation in that analogy."
Reproductive isolation describes ALL speciation events. ALL of them.
Hahahaha, squirrels... How does that fit into "the flood"?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Actually it fits quite well.
The Albert squirrel lives on the south rim of the grand canyon and the Kaibab squirrel lives on the north rim of the grand canyon.
While these 2 squirrel populations are phenotypically different, they are still considered the same species because of the genetic similarities. It seems that the geographic isolation occurred not very long ago.
These 2 squirrel populations descended from the 2 on the ark. The grand canyon formed by a catastrophic flood separated them.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
How do these squirrels fit into your theory?
If the grand canyon took millions of years to form, how is it possible that there are 2 separate squirrel populations that still have the ability to interbreed? They've been separated for millions of years!
I understand how speciation occurs. What I was asking (and cannot seem to find) is what causes punctuated equilibrium?
"From what I can tell, punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than rapid speciation, which I agree with completely." (me)
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"If the grand canyon took millions of years to form, how is it possible that there are 2 separate squirrel populations that still have the ability to interbreed? They've been separated for millions of years!"
Just because the grand canyon is extremely ancient does not mean that the two sqirrel species were separated when the grand canyon formed. There's MANY, MANY ways for them to have diverged and become isolated reproductively.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"These 2 squirrel populations descended from the 2 on the ark. The grand canyon formed by a catastrophic flood separated them."
So, are you implying that there were 2 sets of the same squirrel species on the ark? And THEN they occupied separate niches? What does that say for all 100+ species from around the world?
How did Noah get those two sets of squirrels all the way to america?
Surely you realize I'm going to discuss this even more deeply...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Definitely. I would wonder where the real twothlesswonder went if you do not discuss it more deeply.
How do you think these two squirrels were separated? Did 2 of them run to the other side of the canyon? That would have been quite the trip!
Remember, they are still able to reproduce successfully, that means the divergence wasn't very long ago.
Maybe the T-Shirt launching man (at sports games) launched the squirrels across the grand canyon!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I am in no way suggesting that there were any more than 2 squirrels on the ark. Actually, it might not of even been a squirrel.
I'm still sticking to my ideas that say the "kinds" of animals on the ark are very closely related to the taxonomic rank "family".
Squirrels belong to the Sciurinae family. I believe (I have no idea if AiG confirms this) that a little Sciurinae was on the ark. The other subfamily of squirrels, Pteromyini, came from these 2 Sciurinae!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Actually, it would have been 2 little Sciurinae. The creationist word for this is Baramin.
After the landing of the ark, animals diversified across the earth.
Of course, this was not a speedy process.
Animals diversified in the same way evolutionists believe they did. They walked.
Land bridges most likely existed between the continents (going along with catastrophic plate tectonics).
The unique conditions required to cause an Ice Age may have been a result of the flood.
Animals crossed the ice!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"How did Noah get those two sets of squirrels all the way to america?"
That's a loaded question. Noah did not bring the squirrels to America. Actually, humans stayed in the middle east until the diversification caused by the language mixup at Babel.
At this point, people of the same language diversified throughout the earth, and adapted to their environments. Lighter skin for Irish people, dark skin for africans all because of the need for vitamin D.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
It's actually a fairly good possibility that the australian dingos were a result of a person bringing them to australia. The kangaroos were already there.
As you can tell, it's nowhere near impossible for the diversification of animals to have occurred after Noah's flood. I'm certain you disagree.
I still do wonder how these 2 populations of squirrels could have diverged recently if the grand canyon was formed millions of years before modern squirrel evolution.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"it's nowhere near impossible for the diversification of animals to have occurred [in 4,000 years]"
Let's explore:
So, you're saying that all 350,000 species of beetle came from a single species 4,000 years ago? That's 87.5 speciation events each year for 4,000 years, for beetles alone.
There are 12,000 species of Ant. Are you suggesting that a single queen from a species of ant became 12,000 different species in 4,000 years while walking across ice?
Should I continue with examples?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"After the landing of the ark, animals diversified across the earth. Of course, this was not a speedy process."
4,000 years ISN'T SPEEDY?!?!
Do you mean the "Baramin" Noah nabbed genetically possessed every characteristic trait that every species of living squirrel has today? And that they are diverging, taking specific pre-existing traits with them in congruence with the story of "the fall"?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Squirrels belong to the Sciurinae family. I believe (I have no idea if AiG confirms this) that a little Sciurinae was on the ark. The other subfamily of squirrels, Pteromyini, came from these 2 Sciurinae!"
From 2 sciurinae to 100's of non-interbreeding species spread out across the globe in only 4,000 years!?!?
Super Evolution. Impossible.
Do you know of any geneticists who purport that speciation of this magnitude is even genetically possible within 4,000 years?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Remember, they are still able to reproduce successfully, that means the divergence wasn't very long ago."
If they can still reproduce successfully, then they are not isolated reproductively and therefore NOT a separate species. That means there's still mixing between the two populations.
How do you think these two squirrels were separated?
Easy, the same way most animal species are propagated today, Humans and their shipping of goods worldwide. The Founder effect.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Actually, yes. I do know a geneticist who confirms this. My biology professor received his PhD in genetics (human genome) and he is the one who told me about this.
Dog breeds are a perfect example. Yes, this is artificial selection, but all of the dog breeds descended from a domesticated dog a few thousand years ago.
Reproductive isolation results in new species. That's obvious.
Super evolution is a stupid term. There is no evolution going on in this example.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"If they can still reproduce successfully, then they are not isolated reproductively and therefore NOT a separate species. That means there's still mixing between the two populations."
That's exactly the point!
It is known that these 2 populations are not interbreeding currently, yet they are still able to reproduce. That implies a separation that occurred recently.
The founder effect? So a human did throw 2 across the canyon!
Must have been a heck of a throw.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
No, 4,000 years is not a speedy process.
That's more than half the lifetime of the earth.
You're thinking that evolution is occurring, and if it was, this would be impossible. Remember, evolution has never occurred.
This process only requires natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift (or the lack of it), gene flow and adaptations.
All of this is after an extreme genetic bottleneck- which is why we see a greater variety in the fossil record.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
No, the specimen that Noah had on the ark did not have the characteristics of every modern squirrel. This is a result of individual populations adapting to their environment.
Exactly how humans have adapted to different environments. Darker skin in places with more sun, lighter skin in places with less. Each population requires vitamin D, but africa has much more sunlight than ireland.
Skin color is an adaptation, just like squirrel characteristics.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
After the flood, plenty of extinctions occurred- like the dodo bird and the dinosaurs.
That's why we have so many different types of fish too! Because the flood didn't wipe out the fish, because they were in water. It was fresh water, and after the waters receded, the salt mines broke open. This slowly made the oceans more salty, and natural selection helped the fish adapt to the new environment.
Some fresh and salt water organisms still exist- such as the bull shark.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
remember, speciation doesn't take millions of years. We find new species of animals very frequently.
All you need is a population of reproducing animals that becomes separated. It's nowhere near impossible.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"remember, speciation doesn't take millions of years. We find new species of animals very frequently."
Discovering a new species and a speciation events are two totally different things. DONOT confuse them or you'll look stupid like you do right now.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"It was fresh water, and after the waters receded, the salt mines broke open."
Do you understand basic chemistry at all? Do you understand pH and KH? Obviously NOT!!!
Explain the lack of any TRUE freshwater sharks.
Show me a single freshwater coral reef.
Why do we find ancient limestone deposits 100's even 1,000's of feet thick?
Why didn't the flood fill in meteor crater in Arizona?
Why weren't the Egyptians killed in the flood?
Why no modern mammals under the K/T boundary?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"No, the specimen that Noah had on the ark did not have the characteristics of every modern squirrel."
Then where did the genes for coding the characteristics we see in the squirrel genome come from? The two founding squirrels would have needed to have carried, in their DNA, enough information to code for EVERY LAST TRAIT you see within the modern squirrel genome. Two squirrels cannot bring about the variation we see today without beneficial mutations somewhere along the line.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Let's talk about the Human genome:
How did the Human genome go from a maximum of 16 alleles for each loci to over 400 within 4,000 years?
That begs 2 beneficial mutations each generation. Since less than 1% of mutations are beneficial, this means that around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION.
Wanna know what happens to an organism who goes through THAT much mutation?
Extinction.
Rebuttal?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"All of this is after an extreme genetic bottleneck- which is why we see a greater variety in the fossil record."
Lets apply this statement to squirrels. There are 100 plus species of squirrel nowadays. Looking back further and further in the fossil record, we see less and less species of them. Where are all the other species?
You failed again.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"This process only requires natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift (or the lack of it), gene flow and adaptations."
It requires much more than you even comprehend. By the way, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection, they are not "all that is required".
You are so ignorant of this field, It's sickening.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"The founder effect? So a human did throw 2 across the canyon!"
"After the landing of the ark, animals diversified across the earth.
Of course, this was not a speedy process."
Now for the coupe de grace:
If you claim the flood is responsible for the separation of the two species, then you imply that the squirrels were already living there before the flood cut the canyon. But you also claim all sqrrls descended from 2 on the ark.
You're very inconsistent.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Actually, yes. I do know a geneticist who confirms this. My biology professor received his PhD in genetics (human genome) and he is the one who told me about this."
geneticist, not a professor. I want the name of a practicing geneticist whom has written a paper (peer reviewed) showing that the diversification we see today is possible within 4,000 years from the original "kinds".
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
The lack of any true freshwater sharks? Probably because most freshwater fish are smaller, and saltwater fish are generally larger. But I do have several freshwater sharks in my fishtank! haha!
Limestone deposits 1000s of feet think proposes no problem with the flood. Sedimentation organized the limestone, and there was plenty there. How do you explain it?
The crater in Arizona occurred after the flood.
The egyptians were killed in the flood.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Speciation results in new species. Where am I confused?
When I said that the salt-mines broke open, OBVIOUSLY that is not the only process that results in ocean salinity.
Freshwater coral reef? Why? What does that have to do with the price of beans in china?
What other species of squirrels? What are you talking about?
I don't know enough about the KT boundary to answer that question. I'll check it out.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I've never said that beneficial mutations don't exist! I'll say it again. Beneficial mutation exist. The beneficial mutations are not the only driving force for speciation.
A perfect example of this, like I've said before, is the artificial selection of dog breeds. Many differences, thousands of years.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I've claimed that the grand canyon is the object separating the squirrels. I am also saying that these two populations are still able to interbreed, which means that the genetic divergence occurred fairly recently. The flood didn't necessarily cause the separation.
If you claimed that "reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection" on a biology test, you would fail.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
You really shouldn't be so impressed with yourself. Stop being so condescending, it doesn't bolster your argument. Unless, of course, it makes you feel better. Then go right ahead.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I don't personally know any geneticists.
And I'm very sorry that you don't think that my professor, with a Ph.D. in genetics, is not a qualified source.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"I don't personally know any geneticists.
And I'm very sorry that you don't think that my professor, with a Ph.D. in genetics, is not a qualified source."
Qualified source for what? A second hand answer to a question I don't know the precise wording of? I want something to cross referrence! I want a single peer reviewed paper proving that it is genetically possible to reach the level of diversification from the original "kinds" to what we see today.
If it's true, you COULD find a source.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"You really shouldn't be so impressed with yourself."
Hahaha! What I'm impressed with is the level of ignorance you display while you ape the faulty arguments of your apolagetics heroes.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"I've claimed that the grand canyon is the object separating the squirrels... The flood didn't necessarily cause the separation."
If the flood caused the GC and the GC is the reproductive barrier, then the flood caused their divergence no matter what. Now, you tried to ridicule me for suggesting the impossibility for a pair of squirrels to have crossed the canyon and here you are, forced to admit the very same thing.
Go ahead, rationalize this one away too!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"you claimed that "reproductive isolation, genetic drift, gene flow and adaptations are all descriptions of natural selection" on a biology test, you would fail."
Oh, pardon me. My point was that you used a sloppy, seriously incomplete list and deemed it, "all that is needed".
You were, of course wrong, all the same.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"I'll say it again. Beneficial mutation exist. The beneficial mutations are not the only driving force for speciation."
So, you now agree that new information can arise within a genome? Thats what beneficial mutation implies. Without new information arising within a genome, how is one species to become two?
Dog breeds donot exhibit beneficial mutations (new information) for us to select for as you've implied. It's a recombination of genes, not speciation.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Speciation results in new species. Where am I confused?"
Thats elementary and not even worth stating. However, you're confusion is in the relationships and descriptions of the mechanisms which drive evolution. This is apparent in your grouping and wording of what you purported as being "all that is needed".
Understand? If not, you've proven my point.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"When I said that the salt-mines broke open, OBVIOUSLY that is not the only process that results in ocean salinity."
Obvious? Really? Let's re-read your quote together:
"It was fresh water, and after the waters receded, the salt mines broke open. This slowly made the oceans more salty,"
Obvious, huh? Why would it matter if there ARE other ways for the oceans to get saltier? It does nothing to help your position, nor hurt mine?
Try again.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Freshwater coral reef? Why? What does that have to do with the price of beans in china?"
Can you show that coral reefs descended from freshwater coral reefs? The ancient coral reefs found exposed and/or buried worldwide must have been freshwater. Remember, they grow EXTREMELY slow and MUST have been doing so for LOOOOONG amounts of time to be so thick.
So, let's see a single species of freshwater coral. Surely out of the many 1,000's, at least one should still exist, right?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"I don't know enough about the KT boundary to answer that question. I'll check it out."
You know the globally homogeneous layer (GBL) of sediments the flood should have deposited (which was never found)? Well, truly global events DO leave GBL's. This meteor hit the yucatan peninsula left a layer of iridium which can be found WORLDWIDE! Find a single human fossil, whale fossil, rabbit fossil, etc under this layer and you'll prove Evolution wrong.
Good luck! Creationist have tried for 150 yrs!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"The lack of any true freshwater sharks? Probably because most freshwater fish are smaller, and saltwater fish are generally larger."
How does size matter? It doesn't.
You're dead wrong about most saltwater fish being large. Don't forget, your talking to a 3rd generation fisherman.
Now, if ALL sharks were originally freshwater, there should be some left somewhere. Where are they? You said bulls but that would mean all sharks are descended from bullsharks.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
heh well the largest fish are saltwater, but look at that mega huge catfish found a few years back, or the Ariprima in south america that thing gives me the willies just looking at it in aquriums.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
"Limestone deposits 1000s of feet think proposes no problem with the flood. Sedimentation organized the limestone, and there was plenty there."
So, sedimentation during a global flood, which would undoubtedly have massively churning seas, organized pure limestone into 1,000's of feet thick deposits without a single layer of any other sediment, nor animal remains, found within.
Do you know what the primary source of calcite in limestone is? MARINE organisms. Not freshwater organisms.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"The crater in Arizona occurred after the flood."
When? Proof? If not, you're blowing hot air. I'm growing increasingly impatient with your wild rationalizations that you fail to back with ANY peer reviewed documentation.
As for the Egyptians. What proof do you have that they were killed in "the flood"? You realize we have recorded history of their that stretches through the "time of the flood", don't you? Or were they lying and recording events that never transpired?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
@XyoungearthX You do realize that geologists are not stupid, and can tell the difference between a single flood sediment and annual flood layers stretched over millions of years. Its pretty easy actually. And no, Barringer crater is at least 49,000 years ago, attested by several dating methods. And no, the egyptians were not killed in any flood--not as a nation anyway. They fell to Alex. The Great, who divided the country among his generals on his death.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
Excellent points, Twothless!
Another fine addition to the ever mounting pile of evidence and proofs to embarrass Creationist literalists.
Great job!
ThatOneQuestion 4 years ago