Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
(That's a special hi to Jet Black: hilarious profie, dude!)
thanks
It made me realise that I left Bible College the year you were born - interdenominational & international evangelical 1, so, yes, I do realise that many even born-again Christians believe in theistic evolution
nothing existed before I was born.....
I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on
this is what we both expect and observe.
So am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?
That you view all change as progress?
well it's change, though it is difficult to say if it is progress or not. many evolutionary strands are arms races. both sides get better and better in one sense, but often neither side wins the arms race. so while they may both be faster/more poisonous, their prey might also be faster or have better antidotes, and the predators still only catch as much as they did before.
I can't resist asking if you realise that X-Men, 1 & 2, are pure fiction?
That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??
it is a horrible misrepresentation of evolution. I wish they hadn't said that. no scientists expect that kind of thing to happen, but then, that is why it is in a marvel comic. but remember that "comics aren't real" and fortunately relatively few people think they are.
none of the rest is even remotely related to evolution so I will skip it.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Don't you ever sleep or work? I come on the thread and when I am ready to leave, you have already posted a reply and I don't want to be rude and make you wait, but I have to go sometimes and deal with other things. Ah to have such a life of leisure! (I'm just teasing, please don't string me up just yet)
Originally Posted by Jet Black
again, evolution says absolutely no different, though speciations will occur and characters may become so derived as to make the new version completely differnt to the old version, so much so that one would not trivially consider them the same. (if an alien came to earth today, would he really think that Great Danes and Chihuauas shared a recent common ancestor, without doing extensive tests?) The difference is the backwards difference. evolution predicts that intermediates between the different species will be found (and they are) it predicts that there will be a whole host of other similarities, which I have gone over already.
Ahh, the alien, no one has said what they think of my alien cloning theory and how it fits the data, does that mean that it is a good theory or a bad one. Oh well, on to the issue at hand. My previous post addressed much of this issue and since I am running low on time I would ask that you consider it then if you still have questions as to what I hold to, please feel free to ask.
really? then what do you consider the theropod, cetacean and human lineages then? even the therapsid lineage is highly significant in that it shows directly a whole host of intermediate mammalian-reptillian features (including a creature which simultaneously had a mammalian and a reptillian jaw) and what is more, these lineages match up extremely well with the genetic record, both in a quantitative and qualitative sense.
I have also read reports that suggest falsification or fraud as it were of the data. Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?
conflicting reports? I am not aware that anyone is really researching it with vigour anymore. the creationists might have a bit of a try, but given that they cannot even define a kind yet, they have no clue how many organisms were on board the ark, or for that matter how much evolution was required post-landfall. bear in mind that there are a number of cultures which were recording things for the past 6000 years, and there seems to be remarkably little in the way of mentions of rapidly changing animals. Creationist attepts at baraminology are laughable, and when they try something such as characterising the ancestry of the primates using humans as an ourgroup, their results fail miserably.
As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.
mrversatile48: You seem to be confusing objects with intentions.
An explosive is an explosive is an explosive. Its the person that makes it deadly or useful.
Just the same, you seem to be blaming science for the bad actions of people. In europe they took away guns, do people still kill each other? I don't think it was the guns that were forcing people to kill, and to blame them for murder is a logical fallacy.
However, since you seem to be saying science hasn't helped anyone, maybe you should talk to people who live longer thanks to cancer research, or handicapped people who can live a better life through technology, etc. If you are going to personify science and blame it for death, you might as well thank it for life.
And notice, we had the weapons to destroy the world, yet we are still here.
It would seem that you are reading into my belief a bit, I am not saying that it is possible for one cell to evolve into all the species we have today, rather what I am saying is that a mastif and a yorky are both dogs and are decendant from dogs. The variations come from inbreeding, not crossing species lines. To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?
You are right in observing that a yorky and a mastif are both dogs and could both be descendants of a single dog species.
You are right in observing that among currently living species, cats are one species and dogs another. In fact cats and dogs are in different taxonomic families. So of course, a cat will not give birth to a dog or vice versa. Evolution predicts speciation. It does not predict the sudden appearance of a whole new taxonomic category in a single generation or even in a few generations.
What you are missing is history. Go back in time to when there were neither dogs nor cats. When the mammalian carnivores of the time were quite different from the animals we see today.
Could cats and dogs have originated as "sub-species" of a mammalian carnivore which is now extinct, just as yorkies and mastifs both originated from a single dog species, and Persians and Siamese both originated from a single cat species. (Or to take a future-oriented view, could you see yorkies and mastifs becoming different species under the right circumstances?)
If not, why not?
Last edited by gluadys; 11th August 2004 at 01:04 AM.
Reason: adding more clarification to 2nd paragraph.
Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself.
Indeed it can't. Remember speciation means a new species, not a new genus or order. The new species will always be closely related to, and very much like the parent species. It would take a sequence of many, many, many speciations to increase the difference between an ancestor and a descendant species to the point where they belonged in different taxonomic categories.
Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.
What good would that do, when it is nature that is the source of the fuzziness---not our inability to describe species?
In fact, one of the reasons I doubt this species change, is because of the adaptabilty of animals to their environment.
Without evolution there would be no adaptability.
To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and
b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).
The result will be a change in the characteristics of the species over generations. That's evolution.
If the change is significant enough, it may lead to new species. Note that the process is evolution, whether or not it leads to new species.
But over time, it is pretty much inevitable that you will get new species through the accumulation of many changes.
I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven,
Sure it does. You can't show that speciation has occurred unless you have criteria for what is and is not a species. And in many cases we can say that a group is a species. It is only in borderline cases where things get fuzzy. Just as most of the time there is no question as to whether a colour is green or blue. But when you get to those in-between cases of greenish-blue or blue-green, it is not so easy to categorize them.
And having a better definition doesn't help, because the fault is not in the definition. The fuzziness is part of the reality of nature.
So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations.
It is not a matter of manipulating the data. (Manipulated data would have a hard time getting through peer review.)
Rather it is recognizing that it is nature itself that is creating the fuzzy species line.
And that TOE explains this reality; TOE expects the lines to be fuzzy, because if evolution is fact, the species lines must be fuzzy during the process of speciation.
I don't know if you are saying that creationism expects the species lines to be clear-cut. But if it does, its expectations are not supported by observation.
You are covering a lot of bases. I'll respond only to those that are pertinent to biological evolution.
Originally Posted by mrversatile48
I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on -(which again brings us to the millions of missing links - @ every supposed step/stage
So..
am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?
Yes.
That you view all change as progress?
No. And this is a very important point as biological evolution has often been misrepresented as a "ladder of progress". It is not.
Evolution is change in a species PERIOD.
The change is not necessarily progress, it is not necessarily in the direction of greater complexity (often less complexity makes for better adapatation or fitness). Changes can even reverse themselves: producing new limbs in one generation (fish to tetrapods) and discarding them in another (tetrapod reptiles to snakes).
Evolution more often follows a "branching pattern" than a "ladder" pattern. Which leaf on a tree has made more "progress" than other leaves?
That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??
Good, you know that! Another very important point to remember. Even when evolution is happening in a hurry, it is still happening with lots of fast, little steps, not a few big leaps.
You are right in observing that a yorky and a mastif are both dogs and could both be descendants of a single dog species.
You are right in observing that among currently living species, cats are one species and dogs another. In fact cats and dogs are in different taxonomic families. So of course, a cat will not give birth to a dog or vice versa. Evolution predicts speciation. It does not predict the sudden appearance of a whole new taxonomic category in a single generation or even in a few generations.
What you are missing is history. Go back in time to when there were neither dogs nor cats. When the mammalian carnivores of the time were quite different from the animals we see today.
What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats. The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence. In order for there to be conclusive evidence, we would have to 1. have eye witness accounts, which is impossible due to the presumption that man did not exist at that time either, or 2. we would have had to had examined the vast majority of fossil remains, in and of itself an impossible task. Therefore the idea that dogs and cats have never existed in our ancient world, is an unproven theory. So to clear things up from the start, this is an assumption based on theory.
Could cats and dogs have originated as "sub-species" of a mammalian carnivore which is now extinct, just as yorkies and mastifs both originated from a single dog species, and Persians and Siamese both originated from a single cat species. (Or to take a future-oriented view, could you see yorkies and mastifs becoming different species under the right circumstances?)
If not, why not?
It is possible, however, I highly doubt this to be the case. Remember when I said that the adaptability of animals to their environment is why I doubt that evidence will ever be found to support the evolution of animals crossing the species lines. In order for them to cross the species lines, it would be necessary for them to first be in the same family. If the animal/animals in that family needed to adapt in order to survive, they would have had built in mechanisms for survival. Even the TOE as I understand it, has this built in concept of survival of the fittest. By this theory, it would be just as likely for the animal family to have become extinct as it would have been possible for it to have evolved into new species. So is it possible, absolutely, I have never said that it was not possible, do I believe that it is the most likely senario. No, I think it is more likely that the species existed as seperate species from the beginning of creation. Do we currently know beyond reason, No which is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning of this thread, both are theories.
What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats. The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence.
well the fact that as we descend through the fossil record, the canidae fossils become less and less canid like.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Don't you ever sleep or work? I come on the thread and when I am ready to leave, you have already posted a reply and I don't want to be rude and make you wait, but I have to go sometimes and deal with other things. Ah to have such a life of leisure! (I'm just teasing, please don't string me up just yet)
Ahh, the alien, no one has said what they think of my alien cloning theory and how it fits the data, does that mean that it is a good theory or a bad one. Oh well, on to the issue at hand. My previous post addressed much of this issue and since I am running low on time I would ask that you consider it then if you still have questions as to what I hold to, please feel free to ask.
I have also read reports that suggest falsification or fraud as it were of the data. Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?
As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.
Hi!
I'm fairly sure it awas Henry Morris, in Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood, who said that it had been calculated that all the species who needed to go on the Ark would fit into 1.5 decks, & the food needed for humans & animals fit on half a deck, leaving a full deck for Noah & his family
I now eagerly await all the jokes about me not playing with a full deck..
Oh: Arinak (?) - of course I'm grateful for medical advances etc
What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists, who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business, yet totally discount the unique wisdom, knowledge, integrity & power of Almighty God
I must away to the creation v evolution thread, where I know some hilarious posts wait my unique brand of attention..
What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists, who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business
erm, no we don't.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
I come on the thread and when I am ready to leave, you have already posted a reply and I don't want to be rude and make you wait, but I have to go sometimes and deal with other things. Ah to have such a life of leisure! (I'm just teasing, please don't string me up just yet) 
This reminds me of the answer... 
Linear Mode
