Degradation leads to adaptation and speciation.

[Rumraket]

For example (as an analogy) if we establish that most people die before reproduction, it would follow logically that there were more people in the past

No it wouldn't. It could simply be that when reproduction takes place, pairs produce many more offspring than the environment can sustain.

An extreme example is jellyfish that lay literally billions of eggs every generation. But the vast, vast majority of these die before they ever go on to become reproducing individuals themselves. Despite this, jellyfish populations are growing in size, becoming larger than ever because of a lack of natural predators.

So the two premises you erect don't logically lead to your conclusion. Most jellyfish die before reproductive age, and yet the jellyfish population is growing.

 

[dandan]

Yes I understood your analogy, the thing is that most fossils represent animals that are now extent without “evolving” in to something else. Meaning that extinction is more frequent than speciation in the fossil record.

No you haven't got it. Because species can not go extinct if they don't exist in the first place. The fact that they have gone extinct without evolving into something else is irrelevant, because those species that have gone extinct existed, and some population must have evolved into that extinct species so it could exist and then become extinct.
So if you count 1 for extinction of a species X that hasn't left and daughter species you must not forget to count 1 for when species W speciated into species X.
Now if we count the species that haven't gone extinct but simply adapted into more modern forms, then is an extra 1 for speciation.
With this simply arithmetic its mathematically impossible that there are more extinction than there are speciations, given that species exist where none did before.The only way that you could get more extinctions than speciation is if you have a multiple species X going extinct without X having a parent species, i.e. X hasn't evolved.
So what you are proposing is that those species in the fossil record didn't evolved, they just existed. So in this circumstance I would have to ask which of the species in the fossil record do you think hasn't evolved into that species before going extinct?
Because (as you might have guessed) we don't think that such a specie exist, and that all life on earth share a common ancestor with very humble beginnings, and that for any species that you could possibly name we could name another parent species.

So you can how it looks problematic to just assume things like "extinctions are more common than speciation" just because they appear obvious? Sorry, obvious is wrong.

But its is a good start. If you can muster the time, could you address the question of what do you mean by "degradation" and how do you measure (from my original question how do you contrast function and genome, and I have seen creationists argue one way and the other, the consequences of that I will explain), as well as how do you know that the examples of speciation that you provided were in fact caused by "degredation" instead of the opposite of that?
And this is even before granting you allot of your premises, which after going trough this taught process you will understand why your conclusion was wrong.

Since we all came from a universal common ancestor (just one) and there are millions of species today, then by pure logic extinction can´t be more common than speciation. ¿is that your logic? Do you understand why is that circular reasoning?

Can you present any objective evidence (that doesn’t presuppose evolution) that speciation is more common than extinction? And then explain why is your evidence better than mine

 

[dandan]

For example (as an analogy) if we establish that most people die before reproduction, it would follow logically that there were more people in the past

No it wouldn't. It could simply be that when reproduction takes place, pairs produce many more offspring than the environment can sustain.

An extreme example is jellyfish that lay literally billions of eggs every generation. But the vast, vast majority of these die before they ever go on to become reproducing individuals themselves. Despite this, jellyfish populations are growing in size, becoming larger than ever because of a lack of natural predators.

So the two premises you erect don't logically lead to your conclusion. Most jellyfish die before reproductive age, and yet the jellyfish population is growing.

Ok so lets assume that 90% of the population dies before reproduction…
-IF The remaining 10% has 10 offspring per individual (20 for each pair) the population size would be stable

-If the remaining 10% has less that 10 than 10 offspring per individual the population will eventually go extinct
.
-If the remaining 10% has more than 10 offspring per individual the population size will incease

*in this analogy:
offspring = speciation
individuals who die = species that go extinct

Agree??

So my point is that most fossils represent species that whent extinct before speciation, or before evolving in to something else. The fossil record represents point number two in the list above. We know this because the number of evolutionary dead ends is larger than the number of alleged “ancestors”

but feel free to provide your objecitve evidnece that shows the opposite

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Can you present any objective evidence (that doesn’t presuppose evolution) that speciation is more common than extinction? And then explain why is your evidence better than mine

What evidence have you given thus far that was not already refuted? So far, it seems you have just asserted made up numbers based on your made up ideas about how you think the earth should be because you assert Noah’s flood as literal history.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Besides speciation is also usually caused by humans...

Citation needed.

For example, how many times am I going to have to ask this before we either get your evidence or admit that you have none?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Can you present any objective evidence (that doesn’t presuppose evolution) that speciation is more common than extinction? And then explain why is your evidence better than mine

Show me a rabbit in the cretaceous.

Or better yet. Let's go nuts and take the retardation of your bible and what creationists claim about it, wasn't it supposed that all the "kinds"difference species of felines came from a single pair of feline "kind", or dog "kind", horse "kind" son on and so forth?

Did you even understood what I said here?
And will I have to wait another month before you can answer that? Instead of just mustering courage to babel an incoherent challenges that was completely of the mark?

 

[Rumraket]

No it wouldn't. It could simply be that when reproduction takes place, pairs produce many more offspring than the environment can sustain.

An extreme example is jellyfish that lay literally billions of eggs every generation. But the vast, vast majority of these die before they ever go on to become reproducing individuals themselves. Despite this, jellyfish populations are growing in size, becoming larger than ever because of a lack of natural predators.

So the two premises you erect don't logically lead to your conclusion. Most jellyfish die before reproductive age, and yet the jellyfish population is growing.

Ok so lets assume that 90% of the population dies before reproduction…
-IF The remaining 10% has 10 offspring per individual (20 for each pair) the population size would be stable

-If the remaining 10% has less that 10 than 10 offspring per individual the population will eventually go extinct
.
-If the remaining 10% has more than 10 offspring per individual the population size will incease

*in this analogy:
offspring = speciation
individuals who die = species that go extinct

Agree??

So my point is that most fossils represent species that whent extinct before speciation, or before evolving in to something else. The fossil record represents point number two in the list above. We know this because the number of evolutionary dead ends is larger than the number of alleged “ancestors”

but feel free to provide your objecitve evidnece that shows the opposite

Did you miss the part with BILLIONS OF OFFSPRING pr. pair? I was talking about jellyfish as an extreme example that demonstrates your simplistic notions don't always hold.