|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Some Implications for the Study of Intelligent Design ...
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 10. May 2004 23:34
Nosivad,
We both can see that the very beginning is clear:
As I stated in my Literature Review "Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life":
"Real life is originated only from Life" (the "Law of Pasteur"), behind the works of Pasteur against the "Spontaneous Generation" (which also had a very practical end, leading him to be considered "The Father of Microbiology").
If there is no "Spontaneous and Random Generation" today, there was none of that in any point in the past in any oceanic "soup". That was the first "Quality Control for Life"!
We also can see that today there is no 'speciation', there is only evolutionary speculation.
The only point that I have is the clear evidence of a non-linear origin of 'true species' and the fallacies of any 'evolutionary' scenario which claims on the need of linearity, of common descent, and of millennia (as the illusions of molecular or radioactive dating).
I have no problem to understand that the 'working prime matter' (i.e., nucleic acids, proteins, etc.), once created perfect at once, then was taken and 'reshaped' with ID.
My observations then indicate a non-linear use of that 'reshaped' material for the origin of the different true species, and that happening suddenly, i.e., in the same day, from one day to another, during the first week, etc., without the need of any long periods of time and without any need to happening again today, it happened once and it was good, and it was then perfect... since the very first time.
[ 10. May 2004, 23:39: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. May 2004 08:20
Fernando
I agree with much of what you say with the exception of common descent. Common descent is a mandatory assumption for any evolutionary hypothesis and I am not prepared to abandon it with the following proviso. The original representatives of the various phyla were so fundamentally different from one another that I have difficulty imagining their evolutionary transformations one to another. On the other hand, that could easily be understood within the framework of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which I have proposed.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 12. May 2004 21:11
Nosivad comments:
quote:
In short, Darwinism is not an experimental science and never was. It is a religion.
I agree with you that Evolution has become a religion based on assumption and assertion. However, wouldn't the Darwinists claim that they have attempted to to experimental science with all the fruit flies they have mutated?
Alternatively, wouldn't some of them also claim that they can't do real experimental science because of the vast amount of time required for a species to "evolve"?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. May 2004 07:38
Nobody
You have put your finger on it. The Darwinian model still depends on gradualism which of course demands long periods of time. There is not a single demonstration of the gradual transformation of one kind of living thing into another kind. Quite the contrary, like all other genetic alterations, evolutionary change was instantaneous. Furthermore, by requiring long and unspecified periods of time, the Darwinian scheme becomes untestable, thereby rendering it of no value. In short, it is not scientific.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 13. May 2004 11:43
quote:
Quite the contrary, like all other genetic alterations, evolutionary change was instantaneous.
Then why haven't all the years of fruit fly mutations resulted in any "evolution"?
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 13. May 2004 11:53
Hi Fernando,
I think that's a wonderful idea!
quote:
I thought that, if all those cranes were also only varietes of one same species, as the finches are, they were then able to interbreed among themselves, and then, they were able to have a fertile offspring (the second generation fertility test.)
In that way, we can save the genetic load of the varieties endangered (the Canadian, the Siberian, and the Japanese), through crossing some of them with varieties not endangered, and according to Mendel's Laws, at least 1/3 of the F2 will present features corresponding to the endangered ones, and if we cross those, plus backcrosses with the original endangered ones, we can gradually increase and take out of the list the number of the 'endangered' varieties. We don't want those same organisms ever present on those lists.
This is another practical example of a perspective completely based on 'Intelligent Design' and in total opposition to evolution and to the mistakes of the 'morphological' classification of organisms.
Tell me what do you think about that, and how possible is for you or for likeminded researchers to 'team up' to propose a grant, to do such recoveries of 'endangered' organisms. That's a lot of work, but is worthy.
That will shut down the wrong idea of 'speciation', and will preserve and produce deliberately biodiversity in different natural and new locations.
Unfortunately I am not currently in a position to assist with such a grant proposal. And I'm concerned that the evolutionists would attempt to squash research of this type, for the obvious reasons.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 13. May 2004 19:14
Nobody,
>with all the fruit flies they have mutated?
1-
Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2003 Nov;57(11):2557-65. Divergent environments and population bottlenecks fail to generate premating isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Rundle HD.
"Bottlenecks alone did not generate any premating isolation, despite an experimental design that was conducive to bottleneck-induced speciation"
2-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Apr 25;92(9):3983-6. Founder-effect speciation theory: failure of experimental corroboration. Moya A, Galiana A, Ayala FJ.
"Our results provide no support for the theories proposing that new species are very likely to appear as by-products of founder events"
3-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 5;98(12):6714-9. A locus for female discrimination behavior causing sexual isolation in Drosophila. Doi et al.
“The genetic basis of sexual isolation that contributes to speciation is one of the unsolved questions in evolutionary biology.”
4-
Bioessays. 2000 Dec;22(12):1134-41. Dualism and conflicts in understanding speciation. Schilthuizen M.
"Speciation is a central but elusive issue in evolutionary biology"
"Over the past sixty years, the subject has been studied within a framework conceived by Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky... The more prominent debates in speciation (i.e., the species definition, sympatry/allopatry, and the role of reinforcement) all derive from an inherent conflict between the "isolation" theory and Darwin's "selection" view on species and speciation (in which disruptive selection is crucial). New data, mainly from field ecology, molecular population genetics, laboratory studies with Drosophila and computer analysis, all suggest that the isolation theory may no longer be the most desirable vantage point from which to explore speciation.”
5-
Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Apr;17(4):601-15. Evolution of nucleotide substitutions and gene regulation in the amylase multigenes in Drosophila kikkawai and its sibling species. Inomata N, Yamazaki T.
“…we do not know whether there was any evolutionary relationship between the two.”
6-
Heredity. 2000 Jan;84 ( Pt 1):97-102. Are the same genes responsible for intra- and interspecific variability for sex comb tooth number in Drosophila? Nuzhdin SV, Reiwitch SG.
“One of the most interesting unresolved puzzles is the relationship between intraspecific variability in morphological traits and their interspecific divergence” “…the vast majority of intraspecific variants could be deleterious mutations … In this case intraspecific variation would not ultimately generate interspecific trait differences.” “Whether or not these effects result from the same genes requires further examination.”
7-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7768-75. Genetics and the origin of bird species. Grant PR, Grant BR.
"Ideas about the genetics of speciation in general trace back to Dobzhansky who worked with Drosophila. These ideas are an insufficient guide for reconstructing speciation in birds…” “The genetic basis of the origin of postmating isolating factors affecting the early development of embryos (viability) and reproductive physiology (sterility) is almost completely unknown"
8-
Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2002 Mar;56(3):527-45. Divergence of mitochondrial dna is not corroborated by nuclear dna, morphology, or behavior in Drosophila simulans. Ballard et al.
"Evidence presented in this study suggests that mtDNA is not a good indicator of organismal subdivision in D. simulans. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Wolbachia causes any reduction in nuclear gene flow in this species"
9-
Betancourt AJ, Presgraves DC. Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13616-20.
"Together these findings suggest that linkage limits the rate and degree of adaptation even in recombining genomes."
10-
Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):715-9. Adaptive evolution drives divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila. Presgraves DC, Balagopalan L, Abmayr SM, Orr HA. [Comment in: Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):699-700.]
“Almost nothing is known about the genes involved in such hybrid incompatibilities or the evolutionary forces that drive their divergence.”
11-
Heredity. 2003 Jul;91(1):28-35. Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans rescue strains produce fit offspring, despite divergent centromere-specific histone alleles. Sainz A, Wilder JA, Wolf M, Hollocher H.
“A recent theory proposes that the independent evolution of centromere-binding proteins in isolated populations may be a universal cause of speciation among eukaryotes" "we demonstrate that divergent cid alleles are not sufficient to cause inviability or female sterility in hybrid crosses." "cid... is not a speciation gene.""
12-
Genetics. 2002 Aug;161(4):1517-26. Hybrid sterility, Haldane's rule and speciation in Heliconius cydno and H. melpomene. Naisbit RE, Jiggins CD, Linares M, Salazar C, Mallet J.
"Most genetic studies of Haldane's rule, in which hybrid sterility or inviability affects the heterogametic sex preferentially, have focused on Drosophila. It therefore remains unclear..."
13-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5302-7. A rapidly evolving MYB-related protein causes species isolation in Drosophila. Barbash DA, Siino DF, Tarone AM, Roote J.
"Matings among different species of animals or plants often result in sterile or lethal hybrids"
-----------
The idea of Haldane to include 'sterility' in the equation of possibilities for 'speciation' was as brilliant as the theory of 'spontaneous generation'.
The book of Darwin should have been related to "subspecies", it is, to "varieties" within 'true species'. He or the rest of the evolutionists 'in all their doses and shapes' are unable to explain anything about the origin of nothing, but at least it will be more close to the facts and today we will be able to truly originate a wonderful array of varieties and subspecies in the most variable environments (like those new subspecies of cranes that I have proposed). That has been done with many varieties of dogs developed by man.
A list of possibilities of animals pertaining to the same true species but mistakenly classified as if pertaining to different species will be of great use for that purpose, and also to prevent 'the mischievous exploitation of ignorance' that has been going on with the evolutionists, darwinists, and with every other 'speciation'-ist.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 14. May 2004 11:08
Good morning Fernando,
I appreciate your mention of dogs. I even met one evolutionist of the internet, on another board, who believes that dogs have already been "evolved" into different species due to the dramatic size difference between a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard (to mention just two).
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 14. May 2004 15:44
Nobody and Nosivad:
I have read in J.A. Davison that dogs and wolves can interbreed and have a fertile offspring, can you validate that information with a reference please?
I must say that Davison writings have a lot of interesting biological facts that have been dismissed by mainstream evolution, like the non-homology of the gametes between different families, that must be called also a specific feature that destroys the continuum of the 'evolutionary thinking'. Or that sexual reproduction exists to 'preserve' true species instead of to 'evolve' them in something different, congratulations for that specific details J.A.!
But I must say that instead of thinking in the possible production of "hopeful monsters" by random rearrangements of chromosomes (I am putting together some recent references of such rearrangements and all of them are deleterious and negative for the organisms carrying them, an oncologist can help to clarify that), as I understand that Davison proposes in several of his papers, I think that we can start producing an amazing variability by carefully and wisely interbreeding what we still have now in nature, Mendel's laws are the only ones practically, immediately and predicable ('predictable') useful here.
I have read that as Bateson, Davison is disillusioned of Mendel's Laws, but are the only ones really practical and really useful and really proven, contrary to all that 'dark net of evolutionary speculations'.
Mendel's Laws did not worked with evolution because they are facts, evolution is speculations. Bateson went to Mendel's laws with the preconceived idea to try to prove evolution with them, he and all the evolutionary preconceptions failed, why? Because were only imaginary...
I deeply appreciate the next Davison's statement:
"Shortly after the publication of the Origin, Gregor Mendel published his papers documenting the laws that now bear his name. Carl Naegeli, at that time the czar of European botany, in a letter to Mendel, described Mendel’s findings as “You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they can not be proved rational.” (Stern and Sherwood, 1966) Of course that which is empirical doesn’t have to be rational! Wisely, Mendel had elected to publish his work in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, a journal for which he was an editor. It is questionable if his work would have survived a review had Mendel sent it to one of the major botanical journals of the day."
However I don't see true to facts the next one:
"Mendelism is the genetics associated with sexual reproduction, the very means that apparently is incapable of supporting macroevolutionary change. So it would seem that the influence of these two authorities has been largely inhibitory to the progress of our understanding of phylogeny."
Of course that Mendel's Laws are NOT going to support any of the speculative 'macroevolutionary change'. To put together Mendel's Laws with every Evolutionist speculations (being those Darwinian or Nagelian, who also proposed the 'jumps', how his 'jumps' differ other than in more details today with any of the modern 'jumping' theories?) is like to try to blend oil with water, the product, if any, only can be 'a sterile hybrid'. But rather, I think that any evolutionary theory is sterile within itself. And then to blame also Mendel's Laws as to preventing the progress?... as evolution and darwinism have done...
It is like Newton and a possible experimental Einsteinian biologist, did any of them 'prevented any kind of progress' or actually both of them may and can, as Newton and Einstein indeed 'helped to further our knowledge'
Why, because is to try to discredit Mendel's Laws and to substitute them by a 'speculative' evolutionary scenario is NOT just and fair?
By other side, evolutionists always have tried to discredit Mendel's Laws, like that statician Fisher that tried to 'prove' that Mendel's work was flawed and 'cheated', what does he 'won' with that?
He and his evolutionary staticians that I don't even remember will go back to 'the average', while Mendel's work will still prove to be useful to preserve different subspecies (many of them called by mainstream biology as different 'species') before they go to extinction... To discredit the 'second generation fertility test' and its potential in the development of innumerable new varieties is not fair. NO controlled experiments in nature have been done on that. Is time consuming and maybe 'nobody' wants to perform them. It took Mendel more than 8 years to complete his classic paper... That may depend on the reproductive cycles of each group of sub-species.
Let's see:
//////////////
Meanwhile these have been some of my findings:
1-
The two different colored snow geese were once thought to be two separate species. However, since the blue and white birds nest together and interbreed, taxonomists have determined that the blue goose is simply a color phase of the snow goose.
http://www.inetshops.com/newipnews/naturewalkl.htm
2-
Many duck species will interbreed, so these species often need to be aviary bred.
http://www.goodzoos.com/Animals/birds.htm
3a and 3b-
This species occurs in two forms in Europe, the all-dark Carrion Crow of western Europe and the grey-bodied 'Hooded Crow' of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. Although these birds look completely different, they often interbreed where the range overlaps, producing hybrids which look intermediate between the two.
The Carrion Crow is a common resident except in northern Scotland where it is replaced by the Hooded Crow. The two races interbreed and intermediate individuals are common in the zone of overlap.
http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Corvus_corone.htm
4-
12 Sep 1999 AFRICA: Gorillas in a mystery age.
By Graham Phillips
Two groups of mountain gorillas. One lot lives in Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the other in Bwindi, Uganda. The two populations are separated by just 40km, yet that distance has been sufficient to prevent them mixing and interbreeding. The result of this separation is the Bwindi and Virunga apes look different and even have different behaviours... both would be in even more precarious situations, with only 300 in each sub-species. What's a caring conservationist to do here? The two groups don't naturally breed with each other, but they would if put in the same jungle... . It turns out the two sub-species of mountain gorilla have been around for only 500 years or so. It was human farmers carving up the forest that separated a single population of mountain gorillas into two distinct groups... there are differences between the two groups of apes: the Virunga are larger and have shaggier coats; the Virunga sleep on the ground while the Bwindi sometimes sleep in trees; the Bwindi eat more fruit... By the old definition of sub-species (there's no interbreeding, and there are visual and behavioural differences) the Virunga and Bwindi are separate... [but] interbreed them [to preserve them]
http://www.yowiehunters.com/crypto/reports/other_crypto_1.htm
5-
Grus rubicundus, related to the other crane species, particularly the Australian sarus crane, with which they can interbreed.
http://www.wellingtonzoo.com/animals/animals/birds_and_fish/brolga.html
6-
The BALTIMORE ORIOLE is an example of a taxonomist's nightmare. Its found throughout eastern North America, ranging as far west as the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains. Its cousin, the BULLOCK'S ORIOLE is found out west. The two ranges overlap in Cottonwood creek bottoms in western Kansas and Nebraska, where they interbreed... Because BALTIMORE and BULLOCK'S ORIOLES interbreed, they were lumped together into the NORTHERN ORIOLE. There was no more BALTIMORE ORIOLE, much to the dismay of the baseball team.
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103e&L=birdeast&F=&S=&P=1102
7-
“Alder Flycatcher.” Although they were nearly indistinguishable even in the hand, they occupied different habitats and sang different songs. Careful study demonstrated that they rarely, if ever, interbred. Yet portions of their ranges overlapped – i.e. they were “sympatric.”. Using absence of hybridization in areas of sympatry as its main criterion, AOU split them into “Alder Flycatcher” (Empidonax alnorum) and “Willow Flycatcher” (Empidonax traillii)... If the test of a species is whether or not two populations hybridize where their ranges overlap, how do you decide when their ranges do not overlap any where? (The scientific term for not overlapping is, “allopatric”).
Recently, however, some of the most prominent splits have been of geographically-separated populations. Examples are Florida Scrub-Jay, Western Scrub-Jay and Island Scrub-Jay, which formerly were a single species called, “Scrub Jay.” Presumably DNA testing helped to demonstrate that those newly-named species are genetically different enough so that they probably would not hybridize if given the opportunity.
http://www.mobirds.org/Ezine/Ornithology101/Ornithology101.htm
[Where is in the last example an evidence of the second generation fertility test? Here is like going backwards]
8-
a Black-bellied Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis - BBWD) has been seen at their site. This South American bird, as far as I can recall, was sighted by a team at Nylsvlei during BBD. The individual BBWD at TWT does not have a ring, sometimes carried by ascaped birds. This bird is capable of interbreeding with Whitefaced and Fulvous Ducks...
The Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicinsis) originating from both America's, has, as far as I can remember, also established sizable feral
breeding populations in Britain and Spain, and have started to interbreed with local species (I can't recall which - tell me please), creating a conservation problems.
http://birdnet.zarf.com/archive/9801/980127.htm
9-
The once dominant and undoubtedly valuable Biological Species Concept places emphasis on the ability of individuals to interbreed: forms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are regarded as members of the same species... It is thus often associated with 'lumping', which is the downgrading of similar species into subspecies of a single species. A local example of a situation where application of the Biological Species Concept might be misleading is that of the recently-discovered narrow hybrid zone between Karoo Lark and Barlow's Lark. These two distinctly different species are not even each other's closest relatives, and their inappropriate 'lumping' into one species would obscure the myriad and fascinating differences shown between these forms.
http://peter.maxitec.co.za/birdingafrica/Resources__Taxonomy.html
/////////////
By those references you can see that the two last ones are opposed to interbreed subspecies because the diversity of the parental line will 'disappear'.
I think that under a strictly rational and controlled interbreeding between subspecies, instead of the 'disappearance' of the parental lines we will have 'more diversity'. So it is just question of doing it wisely, don't you think?
That is a straight Mendelian application to preserve the genetic pool of very endangered species before they become actually extinct and then, nothing else could be done.
And again, this destroys any 'speciational' fallacy, as we have been dealing with varieties or subspecies all the time, only...
[ 14. May 2004, 16:06: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. May 2004 16:38
Fernando
Thank you very much for your long list of references questioning the Darwinian perspective. Don't misunderstand my position about Mendel's laws. They are sound. They deal however with sexual reproduction, which I claim is antievolutionary. I believe there was a different kind of inheritance that was involved in evolution, a mechanism which involved the release of previously latent information contained in the genetic material, information that did not derive from the environment but was prescibed into the genome somehow. I am also not convinced that chromosomal rearrangements were random in the process of expressing that prescribed information. There is nothing random about the expression of prescribed information during ontogeny so why should that be assumed for phylogeny? There is really nothing new in my suggestions as revealed by the following:
"If that be the case, if the tendency toward variation be predetermined, if the production of variations is governed by law, the importance of natural selection is then reduced to zero, as was so admirably expressed by Strakhov so long ago as 1873."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 150, English edition 1926
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 17. May 2004 10:08
Dr. Davison:
I have documented your statement that all the canis (domestic or feral) can interbreed and have a fertile offspring, being all of them members of the same species:
1-
www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/coyote.html
Coyotes and wolves can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In fact all members
of the genus Canis (dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals) are interfertile.
2-
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/add_resource/hybrid.asp
Wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce [fertile] offspring. Wolves can be crossed with any breed of dog. The most common hybrids are wolf bred with malamute, husky, or German shepherd. Although wolf hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, this happens very infrequently due to the territorial nature of the wolf. Most hybrids are the result of deliberate breeding in captivity.
3-
www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/wwolf.html
[Wolves and dogs] are so closely related that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
One important difference between wolves and domestic dogs is that dogs can breed twice a year and wolves can only breed once a year.
In captivity, wolves typically live to be about thirteen or fourteen years of age, and the oldest wolf on record lived to be eighteen years old. In the wild, however, wolves rarely live past ten years of age, because of disease, injuries, and parasites.
Most wild wolves do not live past five years, although there is one record of a wild wolf living to be thirteen years of age.
4-
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0852593.html
Three wolf species [again those are NOT 'species' but 'subspecies' !] (the gray wolf, red wolf, and coyote) are generally recognized, although there is much local variation within them.
Other living members of the genus Canis are the jackal and the dog. All Canis species can interbreed, producing fertile offspring; the Eskimos have interbred wolves and dogs to produce hardy animals for pulling sleds.
Taken from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 [http://www.bartleby.com/65/wo/wolf.html]
5-
http://dsc.discovery.com/stories/dinos/bbc/howdoweknow/q43.html
Species are usually defined as a population of animals which can only mate with each other to form fertile offspring.
[D]ogs can interbreed with wolves to form fertile wolf-dog hybrids. This tells us that dogs are technically not a different species from wolves. There are many other examples of this.
6-
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99524.htm
Wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs are so closely related that
they can interbreed with fertile offspring.
J. Elliott
7-
http://www.bullovedbulldogs.com/sarf.htm
The Relationship Between The Wolf And The Domestic Dog
As further evidence of the wolf and the domestic dog being a single species, wolves and domestic dogs can also interbreed and produce fully fertile offspring
To deny this to deny a fact of nature.
8-
http://www.courteouscanine.com/isitawolf.shtml
Is It A Wolf And What Will It Do?
By Elisabeth Duman, BA
Wolf-dog hybrids continue to grow in popularity.
If an animal is much wolf at all, it cannot be kept as a simple family pet. I hope that you will be able to help people make educated decisions in keeping these animals safely and humanely.
9-
http://www.api4animals.org/562.htm
Over several generations, the more tractable and useful animals were kept, each forming a breed: a tamed Northern wolf-dog here, an Asian wolf-dog there, a jackal-dog in another place, a dingo-dog some place else, and an African wild dog-dog or coyote-dog in other places and at other times.
Today, wolves, jackals, dingoes, and coyotes can all interbreed with the domestic dog and produce fertile offspring.
-----------
Have a good monday.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 17. May 2004 11:33
quote:
The Relationship Between The Wolf And The Domestic Dog
As further evidence of the wolf and the domestic dog being a single species, wolves and domestic dogs can also interbreed and produce fully fertile offspring
To deny this to deny a fact of nature.
Thanks Fernando,
That's all good information. I don't know your position on Noah's Flood, but it seems to me like this removes one of the key complaints by evolutionists. They say an ark of the size specified in the Bible could not hold all the species. But you are proving that, at least in some cases, evolutionists are using inflated numbers.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 20. July 2005 09:35
Back to my very first posting board!
To my previous poster: Yes, the Biblical record is trustworthy. The Bible is the inspiration for my research.
In an attempt to answer to your last question I wrote a second article for ISCID:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html
As you know, I was unable to post at ISCID for a while, but at that time I found (through Google) your ARN post dealing with my first paper submitted to ISCID:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/12/t/001218
That was a topic that even peaked at Google, until some Moderator at ARN dumped it from the "Intelligent Design Forum" to the "off-topic forum" (in the days of pseudonym "dayton") ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001050.html
Anyway, William Dembski better articulates the medullar topic conveyed there, as his related and notable work manifests:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf
Since then, other individuals have taken their times to ask questions or to comment on it. One example is next (for the record):
1. Aptamer had a question at ARN's "Intelligent Design Forum":
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002164/p/1.html
And,
2. Scholar Google noticed it:
[url= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fernando+Castro-Chavez%22]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fernando+Castro-Chavez%22[/url]
So, a brief article can start unraveling something useful at the end, don't you think? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 27. October 2005, 14:50: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 04. August 2006 14:48
Another recent example on how a new VARIETY of Butterfly is produced from two different & compatible varieties of butterflies.
Again and again, the deliberate misuse of terms is wrongfully biased towards Evolutionism.
Like if the product of two differently skinned humans was producing "a new species". Isn't that "scientific" non-sense? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5080298.stm
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic