@MGW
When a biological life form reproduces that reproduction is not going to be a perfect copy. So are you saying this is not correct? And as I said when a biological lifeform reproduces that reproduction isn't a perfect copy. Making mutations being as common as reproduction...We are not identical clones of our parents what I was talking about is genetic variation between parent and offspring, which most defiantly does occur in sexual reproduction and is a big part of natural selection. When a cell divides it creates a copy of it's DNA, sometimes this copy is imperfect aka a mutation.
Do you see what you did? You confused an idea called "DNA recombination" with another idea called "genetic mutation". So that's the second time you'll have to know that. And now you could stop. By the way, most genetic mutations are lethal not benign. I just made sure of that to write it, so you'll have to correct yourself next time.
My point is that I'm all in favor of new species coming from "DNA recombination", since that's something that's already in place, like goumas13's butterfly example.
I don't agree that new species can come from random mutations that create so much new DNA that the new organism can no longer reproduce with its parent species and is also better adapted to some new environment. That just sounds ridiculous. So that's why I don't agree with that part of evolutionism, and is why Creationism makes more sense to me.
Also, as Alt said, that part of macroevolution is still under debate and being researched and lots of complicated ideas are floating around so the matter isn't really clear on how species are formed from the evolutionists' view. But the matter is settled for Creationists, which is that everything is intended, no random chance. I'm just more in agreement with Creationism than Evolutionism.
You want evidence for Creationism? It starts with the origin of the Universe. You once rejected that, saying it's Cosmology. Well look at the title of this thread. It's about Evolutionism OR Creationism. Meaning if you want my evidence for Creationism, then that's about the moment of Creation, and it's tough if that's Cosmology and you don't like it, cause that's what Creationism is all about. I believe the Universe did not happen by random chance, it was intended. This intention goes all the way thru my philosophy on life, the earth was intended, all life on earth has been intended. Because of this, I don't believe random chance mutations create new species. I only believe when you have DNA it can recombine to make new species or better adaptations. This is DNA recombination. The reason is that the DNA was created by intention, whether that intention is to make new offspring or new species doesn't matter.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
Using creation explain how this occurred?
You didn't give the full story and I spent almost my entire weekend looking it up. And I'm upset at you for this by the way. Why would you give half the information and hide the other half? Afraid you'd lose yet another point? Well, you were right.
This example was the result of DNA recombination. I would have known that earlier if you had given the other half of the story. Those so-called new species are actually called tetraploids and alloploids. In a normal organism there diploid meaning 2 sets of chromosomes. The first new species has 4 sets of chromosomes and the alloploid one has an unequal number of chromosomes from the two parent species.
At first they had trouble. This is becuase most of the offspring were triploids, meaning 3 sets of chromosomes. Three chromosomes can't seperate equally during reproduction, so these were steril. Only the ones with even numbers of chromosomes could.
So obviously, in some organisms that make polyploids, it's probably not a good idea to talk about what evolutionists think, since these are way complicated examples.
Anyway, the Creationist answer is that it's just the result of DNA recombination. The reason this fits with a Creationist's viewpoint, is that you have the starting material in the new flowers but no new functioning DNA was added by random chance.
Are you starting to understand my viewpoint yet? Cause it's hard to tell by your responses.
