Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving into New Species
2 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2015 - 4:11PM #11
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Oct 31, 2015 -- 3:46PM, 57 wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 11:36AM, MMarcoe wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 10:07AM, 57 wrote:


The one major problem for the evo-minded is that the wasp is still a wasp and the fruitfly is still a fruitfly.  Micro-evolution or horizontal evolution isn't a problem for the YEC's.   It's expected...and those that believe in evolutionism seem to jump for joy when they discover what the YEC's have said happened.  Kinda strange.




Of course it's a problem for YECs, as we've said for years -- because there's nothing stopping microevolution from becoming macroevolution.


That "odds" thing you bring up as a defense -- not only is it false, but the odds won't even stop macroevolution from happening anyway.


BTW, it was the evos who first said micrevolution happens, not the YECs. But you know that.





I've been telling you this for years...but you keep turning a deaf ear to the truth....NO NEW GENETIC INFO REQUIRED. 


The odds clearly trump your thoughts.  Just not quite enough beneficial mutations in the equation + way two many places for them to occur and the need for a second, third, fourth....to create the NEW GENETIC INFO. 




And you have never, ever offered any evidence for what you've repeatedly asserted for all those years.  You just ignore the evidence and explanations offered to you and make the same assertion all over again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2015 - 4:13PM #12
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Oct 31, 2015 -- 3:47PM, 57 wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 2:43PM, Roymond wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 10:07AM, 57 wrote:



Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species


Study suggests speciation in one group of organisms could trigger speciation in another group


....


As a result, not only did the fruit fly evolve into a new species, but so did each of the wasps. The speciation process took a mere 160 years. The research sheds light not only on how some new life-forms originate, but also how quickly it can happen.




It's about time the evo-minded realized speciation can be rapid.  I've had evo's try to tell me it can't be rapid for years upon years....and finally they realize the truth.




Note that "160 years".


So to go from the few simple kinds on the ark, to the diversity we observe today, would have taken . . . hundreds of thousands of years at the least.


Why is it that YEC think that anything younger than millions means "6000"?




Ref please.




Reference?


For what, the elementary-school math involved, or for your assertion that new species emerging in 160 years means the earth is only 6k years old?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2015 - 5:49PM #13
57
Posts: 28,191

Oct 31, 2015 -- 4:11PM, Roymond wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 3:46PM, 57 wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 11:36AM, MMarcoe wrote:


Oct 31, 2015 -- 10:07AM, 57 wrote:


The one major problem for the evo-minded is that the wasp is still a wasp and the fruitfly is still a fruitfly.  Micro-evolution or horizontal evolution isn't a problem for the YEC's.   It's expected...and those that believe in evolutionism seem to jump for joy when they discover what the YEC's have said happened.  Kinda strange.




Of course it's a problem for YECs, as we've said for years -- because there's nothing stopping microevolution from becoming macroevolution.


That "odds" thing you bring up as a defense -- not only is it false, but the odds won't even stop macroevolution from happening anyway.


BTW, it was the evos who first said micrevolution happens, not the YECs. But you know that.





I've been telling you this for years...but you keep turning a deaf ear to the truth....NO NEW GENETIC INFO REQUIRED. 


The odds clearly trump your thoughts.  Just not quite enough beneficial mutations in the equation + way two many places for them to occur and the need for a second, third, fourth....to create the NEW GENETIC INFO. 




And you have never, ever offered any evidence for what you've repeatedly asserted for all those years.  You just ignore the evidence and explanations offered to you and make the same assertion all over again.




Roymond, you continue to deny the obvious.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook