[sim (OP)]

If you would just google the two words you would find out.

i asked you

please tell us where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from

[_Stefan_]

You obviously don't listen when real information is given, so why should I?

[sim (OP)]

Reply with quote
If you would just google the two words you would find out

i am asking you
you are making the claim
so tell us

please tell us where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from

not how mutant genes or recombinations works
but
 where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from

[_Stefan_]

You will understand where new variation (genes and gene combinations) come from when you understand mutation and recombination. Go forth and read. Wikipedia is a good place to start. While you're there, you should learn more about evolution and natural and artificial selection.

[Ophiolite]

Sim - read what other people say.  Human examples are irrelevant because of modern day medicine. 

Actually quite the reverse. Natural selection favours phenotypes that are fittest for a particular environment. All that medicine has done is to change the character of the environment. Consequently, despite poor eyesight that could have led to my early death, spectacles enabled me to reach breeding age and pass my 'bad eyesight genes' on to my children. My eyesight has little or no relevance in the environment in which I find/found myself. 

[sim (OP)]

Read

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-philosophical-and-theoretical-flaws-of-darwinian-evolution/

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy

[BenV]

Sim, I wish you would make it clear what you are arguing against. 

First you claim that Natural Selection is false.  We point out that you are wrong, and explain why.

Now, you say that speciation somehow proves that natural selection is false, we point out why you are wrong again.

You admit in a post above that natural selection does occur, though with the caveat that it's within species -this shows that not only were your original arguments a load of idiotic nonsense, but also that you do not understand what you are talking about.  If adaptation can occur within a species, then if you spit a species into two different environments, there is no reason they couldn't 'adapt' so far apart that they become different species.

None of your arguments stand up, you're clearly not willing to read other people's posts and actually understand the topic.  You seem to content to remain in ignorance.

For this, I consider you a troll.

[BenV]

Read

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-philosophical-and-theoretical-flaws-of-darwinian-evolution/

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy

You posted this piece of elloquant nonsense while I was typing, so I didn't spot it.  Read it back to yourself and really think about what it says.

I'll give you a clue to help you out.  Evolution and natural selection do not care about the labels that we put on things.

Something evolved from what it was not

Of course it did, you idiot, if it hadn't changed from what it was we could see no evolutionary change.  All things evolve from what they're not.

[BenV]

Actually, I give up.  Sim's wilfull ignorance, wanton stupidity and trolling has irritated me, almost certainly his intention in the first place.  He has been banned for trolling.

[_Stefan_]

It's so sad that there are people like sim who will never know what it's like to understand and appreciate reality, and who encourage others to deprive themselves of the same enlightenment. []

[lyner]

Learning to learn from evidence is a very risky business. One might be forced to change ones mind about things involving faith. That could be uncomfortable for some people.

[stereologist]

It's interesting how someone like sim decides to be a totalitarian figure instead of a part of the group. He certainly misses out on the benefits of this group which is to learn something new.