The creationist’s rebutal to the goatsbeard wildflower argument

Can be found here.

 

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

 

Is there an evolutionist rebutal equally in the know about gene fusion???!!!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “The creationist’s rebutal to the goatsbeard wildflower argument”

  1. limey Says:

    Classic moving of the goalposts in that article.

    The flower in question evolved into a new species under the category of it not being able to reproduce with its parents species.

    That article is calling foul and deception because the speciated flower is not significantly different, or ‘mutated’ to use the word from the article.

    My question is this: why is the creationist expecting that? what part of the definition of species evolution says that must happen?

    Small changes can lead to large effects, and this is an example of that. Now that these flowers are divergent, they will become more and more different. Come back to the in 100,000 years and they will be many more differences between them. What excuse will the creationists come up with then?

  2. mike00000000001 Says:

    I need to do more research on fused genes as this appears to be a cause of this change. The question is whether or not you could extend this process to the increase in complexity and a higher and completely different species. The creationist, the ones that know more than I do, say that speciation does happen but that in the long run only subtle variations will ever happen at best. You have no new proteins being formed . . . as far as I know. And at best this is a recombination of genes . .. not a complex gene growing from a simple one. There are some complexities to this problem that lend it to further argument and doubt. And, at face value, it is still just a flower. The question is, could you demonstrate how this process would lead to the bigger changes you expect?? Most learned creationists expect some speciation to happen. What they don’t expect to come from this is a species that has increased its complexity or made some drastic change to its makeup that makes it drastically different in appearance. I’m still researching proteins. It is not a simple question. I have yet to compare images of the different flowers.

  3. mike00000000001 Says:

    Ok there is some room for change in appearance, but it is believed that these variations are built in so that the creature can adapt to a variety of environments.

  4. mike00000000001 Says:

    Its a question of genes and dna . .. . not like 2 + 2.

  5. mike00000000001 Says:

    Here is what REALLY causes this . . . see this article

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: