Does anyone here know....

[tking]

...much about evolution? I'm wanting to know about how they view a jump in genus. From what I've read, which admittedly isn't much, it doesn't appear that it is held as probable that there is a jump in genus. But, if Darwin's idea about all life coming from a single common ancestor is what the theory of evolution is based on, wouldn't there have to be a jump in genus multiple times?

Terri

[Tallen]

...much about evolution? I'm wanting to know about how they view a jump in genus. From what I've read, which admittedly isn't much, it doesn't appear that it is held as probable that there is a jump in genus. But, if Darwin's idea about all life coming from a single common ancestor is what the theory of evolution is based on, wouldn't there have to be a jump in genus multiple times?

Terri

I have no idea Terri, but I do know that they view change within a species to happen very rapidly a certain points in the evolutionary time line. I know that they view the evolutionary process is trying to happen all the time, by or through, the mutation process. When a mutation happens that is viable, is takes hold and then is part of the species from then on.

As far as a total jump in species. :bigthink:

How that happens must be an act of God. :biglol:

[graceshaker]

i bet james west could help..

[tking]

i bet james west could help..

Probably. But I don't know if he could dumb it down enough for me to fully grasp. I have such a distaste for the whole thing that it keeps me from being objective, to begin with. I mean, I get how species can cross barriers and mate, creating a new and different species (hybrid plants and animals for instance...think beefalo). I just don't get how an entire genus could be jumped. If there is "one" common ancestor, where do the other genuses come from to begin with? That's probably a stupid question and shows how little I know about it...lol.

Terri

[kepano]

Even Darwin admitted that his theory of evolution could not be backed up with the needed proof of "innumerable transitional forms" that have never been found in dug up fossils.
The unfound missing links are explained away as "evolutionary gaps" which I don't consider very scientific.

More recent science has some of the probability factors needed for accidental amino acids occurring out of the "primordial soup" in the range of: 1 out of 10 to the 950 (the 950 being zeros).
Most realistic people round such a probability out as "absolute zero".

I got some of this info by googling "evolution refutation".

[Tallen]

The way my brain works, I have to do this and write that number out to try and comprehend what that would mean. It is my way of making something that doesn't mean anything to me, mean something. So..., I think I typed 950 zeros after the ten, but I might be off a couple. :making_faces:


So after doing this exercise, and putting it into my mind, I am going to say that there is no probablity of that happening. Just as you stated in the first place, Kep. But it puts some meaning behind what you wrote. :bigthink:



1:10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Blessings.

[travelah]

...much about evolution? I'm wanting to know about how they view a jump in genus. From what I've read, which admittedly isn't much, it doesn't appear that it is held as probable that there is a jump in genus. But, if Darwin's idea about all life coming from a single common ancestor is what the theory of evolution is based on, wouldn't there have to be a jump in genus multiple times?

Terri

Well, I don't read or converse fluently in Apish but the idea could be floated on one of the science forums somewhere and see what flotsam surfaces.

[tking]

Ugh...I'm not sure I'm up for that, if it's the forum I'm thinking of. I'd have to be a LOT more well-read on the subject :making_faces:

[Joe S]

Man, don't try that at CARM. I thought irreducible complexity and mathmatical improbability/impossibility were perfectly valid arguments against evolution, as well as my ostrich mating dance theory, but I was poo-pooed right off the forum. It was like they were throwing cyber tomatos at me, to the cry of "fallacious! fallacious!" Then that strange oneness dude (I can't remember his handle, think it started with "c") came to my aid by pouring gasoline on the fire with some stoopid comments. I took a 3 month CARM break after that. :shocked:

[Tallen]

1ness, a religion of pouring gasoline on fires.

That pretty much says it all Joe.

I am inclined to view the funny video shows where the guy tries to snow ski off his roof, or tries to pull his daughters tooth with his 4 wheeler, or the guy that gets out of his jeep sprouting a mullet after burying it in 4 feet of mud..., future 1ness material. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)

[tking]

Man, don't try that at CARM. I thought irreducible complexity and mathmatical improbability/impossibility were perfectly valid arguments against evolution, as well as my ostrich mating dance theory, but I was poo-pooed right off the forum. It was like they were throwing cyber tomatos at me, to the cry of "fallacious! fallacious!" Then that strange oneness dude (I can't remember his handle, think it started with "c") came to my aid by pouring gasoline on the fire with some stoopid comments. I took a 3 month CARM break after that. :shocked:


Yep, that's why I said I'd have to know a whole lot more before I could even post on a forum, whether it's that one or not. I don't even know the basics well enough to argue a point!

I get the impression that what most of us creationists know about evolution is similar to what atheists know about theology. A lot of tidbits here and there, usually in the wrong context, but no real knowledge.

I recently read a few things about fractals and chaos theory, which is what brought up the question to begin with. And I'll tell ya, I had to go to the most simplistic, visual book I could find to even understand a teensy bit of that. Yikes!

[Joe S]

:biglol: