Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Nephilmeyer wrote in another thread concerning macroevolution:
I don't see evidence that shows a living being had changed to the point of being something totally different. I'm sorry, I apologize but I don't read that in the evidence.
Now, one of the first things we need to get clear is what you mean by "changed to the point of being something totally different". What is "totally different"?
Another thing we need to get clear is that the major transformations, such as land animal to whale, dino to birds, and ape-like creature to human, did not happen with one speciation. Rather, what we have are dozens or hundreds of speciation events. Each of them is a small change but added together they are a huge change. So we are not talking about making the change in one leap.
Remember, in evolution change is in small steps but it is cumulative. I like the analogy of walking from New York to San Fran. Each step is small and doesn't look much different from the step before. It hasn't changed the distance hardly at all. BUT, as the steps accumulate you do get a large change of distance.
Nephilmeyer, remember when I said science works by the hypothetico-deductive method? OK, macroevolution is the statements that all creatures share a common ancestor. Now, make deductions from that. IF all species represent descent with modification from splitting from common ancestors, then a deduction is that we should be able to classify all creatures in a nested hierarchy. That is, species that came from a recent common ancestor would share many characteristics, species that came from a more distant common ancestor would share some characteristics but not as many as those from a recent ancestor. And so forth.
Well, that is exactly how we can classify organisms. Individual organisms that share so many characteristics that they breed freely with other organisms like themselves but not with other groups are species. Species that share many characteristics are grouped in genera. Different genera are grouped in families, which means the different genera share some characteristics but not as many as the species within a genus. Families can be grouped in orders, orders in classes, and classes in phylum. As we go "up" in the grouping, the groups share fewer and fewer characteristics among the group but still share more and different characteristics than other groups at the same level.
This nested hierarchy was discovered and classified by a creationist - Linneaus. But evolution predicts that this heirarchial classification will work.
Hierarchial classifcations do not work for objects that do not share a common ancestor (macroevolution). Gems, for instance, cannot be classed in a hierarchy. Neither can types of stars.
So here is one powerful piece of evidence that macroevolution is true.
There are others, but this is enough to start discussion. We can get into the transitional fossil series later.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Nephilmeyer errors if he thinks an Evolutionist have any ability to reason. How about 1000 mutations that have an effect on a single organ? A reasonable person would understand "totally different" to mean anything that can not be ignored as insignificant or noise.
Another thing we need to get clear is that the major transformations, such as land animal to whale, dino to birds, and ape-like creature to human, did not happen with one speciation.
Speciation, as defined, has nothing to do with Evolution. In theory, a dog could evolve into a cat without a single speciation event. Likewise, a thousand speciation events of dogs would just result in a 1000 dog populations. Please try to apply reason instead of spewing the same lame propaganda. Maybe you don't understand what the word "speciation" means?
Species that share many characteristics are grouped in genera.
Hey, Evolutionists, what is "many characteristics"?
This nested hierarchy was discovered and classified by a creationist - Linneaus. But evolution predicts that this heirarchial classification will work.
Evolution predicts? HAHA Do you work hard coming up with such nonsense? Everything that exists can be classifed into nested hierarchies.
Hierarchial classifcations do not work for objects that do not share a common ancestor (macroevolution). Gems, for instance, cannot be classed in a hierarchy. Neither can types of stars.
First, I give you credit for trying to give an example of your claim. Second, as an Evolutionist, you need to learn never to do that. We could classifiy gems by color. Then we could subclassify the clear gems by hardness. Then we could subsub-classify clear/hard gems by refractivity. Etc. There are a thousand other ways to do this with gems. With a little effort, I could come up with something much more sophisticated (especially as what I did isn't so parsimonious).
So here is one powerful piece of evidence that macroevolution is true.
Your powerful piece of evidence is an absurd joke.
We can get into the transitional fossil series later.
There's nothing to discuss. Be a smart Evolutionist, stick to games and censorship.
Please Saint Philip, if your going to object to anything that lucaspa says, do so in a more mature manner. It's hard enough for some of us to understand one another around here and much less when someone comes into the fold with an attitude like your's. There are correct ways on how to debate and saying something is just nonsense and leaving it at that is not one of them much less calling their evidence as an absurd joke.
__________________ God didn't send His Son to pay for the forgiveness of your sin, and then decide He is going to require you to make installment payments. He only requires you to believe that the FULL PAYMENT was done, over 2000 yr. ago..........then you'll stop trying to make the installments on something you could never pay for anyway. The Good News is that you are debt free!
I believe there is a hell and you won’t go there for what you do, but for what you BELIEVE. (answer: Believe on the Lord Jesus!)
God loves you, and there is nothing you can do or say about it!
Last edited by nephilimiyr; 4th September 2003 at 10:34 PM.
Please Saint Philip, if your going to object to anything that lucaspa says, do so in a more mature manner. It's hard enough for some of us to understand one another around here and much less when someone comes into the fold with an attitude like your's. There are correct ways on how to debate and saying something is just nonsense and leaving it at that is not one of them much less calling their evidence as an absurd joke.
If I didn't call their evidence an absurd joke, I would be giving them more credit than they deserve. I do not believe they have a sincere desire to debate else they would pay more attention to reason.
Critics do like to disrupt forums, and Evolutionists are more guilty of that than most. The hosts of this BBS have gone to great measure to limit this disruption with their creation and everyone versions of forums. Preterists aren't allowe to disrupt the eschatology forum. Non-charimatics are allowed to disrupt the charismatic forum. Etc. Yet, they have done little to keep the most disruptive group of all, Evolutionists, from disrupting the origins forum. I don't object to them posting, but half of their posts ammount to spamming. The problem with that is that very little gets accomplished. That's why things are hard enough. . .
If I didn't call their evidence an absurd joke, I would be giving them more credit than they deserve. I do not believe they have a sincere desire to debate else they would pay more attention to reason.
Where do these people come from? :rolleyes:
Critics do like to disrupt forums, and Evolutionists are more guilty of that than most. The hosts of this BBS have gone to great measure to limit this disruption with their creation and everyone versions of forums. Preterists aren't allowe to disrupt the eschatology forum. Non-charimatics are allowed to disrupt the charismatic forum. Etc. Yet, they have done little to keep the most disruptive group of all, Evolutionists, from disrupting the origins forum. I don't object to them posting, but half of their posts ammount to spamming. The problem with that is that very little gets accomplished. That's why things are hard enough. . .
Who the heck are you, a complete newbie (or one of the evolutionists in disguise, hehe), to come on to these forums and dictate to its regulars how they should post here?
Who are you to come on here and call us all "twits", "stupid", "silly" and whatever else you've allowed to spew forth from that mouth of yours? If you can't play by the rules here then clear off, the moderators have no time for the likes of you.
In case you had not noticed this forum is called "Creation Science &Theistic Evolution" so we have just as much right to talk about evolution as the creationists have to talk about creationism in here. So either put up or shut up.
__________________ "Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
In case you had not noticed this forum is called "Creation Science &Theistic Evolution" so we have just as much right to talk about evolution as the creationists have to talk about creationism in here. So either put up or shut up.
Fourth wall! You're breaking the fourth wall!
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Yet, they have done little to keep the most disruptive group of all, Evolutionists, from disrupting the origins forum. I don't object to them posting, but half of their posts ammount to spamming. The problem with that is that very little gets accomplished. That's why things are hard enough. . .
Saint Philip, have you looked at the titles of the forums? One is Creation vs Evolution and this one is Creation Science & Theistic Evolution. Since evolution is in each title, the forum hosts are inviting evolutionists into the discussion. We are supposed to be discussing evolution. For from disrupting the forum, evolution is the object of the forum.
It looks like you would like to discuss "origins" and exclude evolution as part of it.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Dear me. The most disruptive and disrespectful poster for some time comes and criticises evolutionists for posting in a forum on evolution.
Whatever next? Baptists only in the Inter-denominational dialogue forum?
Is there an ignore feature on this board?
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
Speciation, as defined, has nothing to do with Evolution. In theory, a dog could evolve into a cat without a single speciation event.
Not really. In that case you would have a series of what are called chronospecies spread out in time.
Anagensis: a linear transformation of one population to another population. The number of species stays the same, but the new species is distinct from the old. For this process we use the morphological species concept rather than the biological species concept. The biological species concept is based on whether the populations interbreed. Since we don't have a time machine to take the new population back in time to see if they interbreed, we have to rely on the observations that two species that morphologically (appearance) are very different can't interbreed.
Cladogenesis: Where one population splits into two or more populations which don't interbreed with each other. This increases the number of species.
Likewise, a thousand speciation events of dogs would just result in a 1000 dog populations.
No, it would result in 1,000 species in the genus canine.
Hey, Evolutionists, what is "many characteristics"?
Reason it out. For mammals it is warm blood, hair, live birth, nursing the young, internal skeleton, backbone, 4 limbs, etc. For vertebrates in general the characteristics are more limited to internal skeleton, backbone, and 4 limbs. After all, you have noted the classification scheme by Linneaus. Look it up and see what the defining characteristics are for each group.
Evolution predicts?
Yes. Prediction in science is knowledge you will find based on deductions from the statements that are hypotheses and theories.
We could classifiy gems by color. Then we could subclassify the clear gems by hardness.
Try it. It's not a nested hierarchy. Rubies are red. Sapphires are blue. Where is your nested hierarchy. Those are separate colors. THe same with hardness.
So please, do post your nested hierarchy of gems. Where gems are grouped into ever larger and larger groups based on shared characteristics. None of the classifications of gems by jewelers or geologists is a nested hierarchy.
Unless you can do that, your objection, to use your own words "is an absurd joke."
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Linear Mode
