Oops...one other question I forgot: How do evolution-deniers explain ring species?

[AV1611VET]

Then I suggest you show me what this boundary is,

What's with the inquisition? I already said I didn't know.

Of course, that's not an acceptable answer with you guys, is it?

... instead of just claiming its existence without any kind of proof whatsoever.

Alcoholics demand proof.

 

[rikerjoe]

What's with the inquisition? I already said I didn't know.

So, as far as you know, there might not be any boundary against "macro"-evolution or anywhere else that prevents evolution to play?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What's with the inquisition? I already said I didn't know.

You said you know the boundaries exist, and that Psalm 104 is how you know. But, Psalm 104 doesn't say that - hence the inquisition.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, as far as you know, there might not be any boundary against "macro"-evolution or anywhere else that prevents evolution to play?

Didn't I show three of them already?

 

[The Engineer]

What's with the inquisition? I already said I didn't know.

Well, if you don't know what and where the boundary is, then that means you're not qualified to propose its existence.

Of course, that's not an acceptable answer with you guys, is it?

Nope.

Alcoholics demand proof.

Well, thanks for not even trying to come across as if you had any arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

You said you know the boundaries exist, and that Psalm 104 is how you know. But, Psalm 104 doesn't say that - hence the inquisition.

Did I not say that Psalm 104 shows that God sets boundaries (well ... one, anyway)?

He does not need to list every single boundary in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if you don't know what and where the boundary is, then that means you're not qualified to propose its existence.

Are you qualified to propose the existence of the heliosphere? or trenches in the Indian ocean? or craters on the dark side of the moon?

 

[The Engineer]

Didn't I show three of them already?

You showed something that might be called a boundary, but it only applied to a single (and not that important) mechanism of evolution.

What I want to see is a boundary that prevents small genetic differences from accumulating over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You showed something that might be called a boundary, but it only applied to a single (and not that important) mechanism of evolution.

If you don't think there's a boundary between a crocodile and a duck, that's your belief.

I don't subscribe to that.

And if there is a boundary, do you mind if I think God set it?

What I want to see is a boundary that prevents small genetic differences from accumulating over time.

I believe that's called microevolution.

 

[verysincere]

Great argumentation method. Instead of addressing my arguments, you just deny their existence.

AV has his own "special" form of nihilism. His goal is to make sure that everything he says is devoid of meaning. And when other people make sense, he calls it "speaking in tongues."

 

[The Engineer]

Are you qualified to propose the existence of the heliosphere? or trenches in the Indian ocean? or craters on the dark side of the moon?

Yes, I am. I know the evidence for these things, or at least I know how to easily find the evidence, whereas you are completely unable to show us any evidence whatsoever for your proposed boundary of evolution. In fact, you do not even know what the boundary might be.

The funny thing is, even if you were right and I wasn't qualified to propose the existence of the heliosphere, then that wouldn't mean you had any qualification, either.

Did I not say that Psalm 104 shows that God sets boundaries (well ... one, anyway)?

The problem is that this boundary does not apply to evolution at all, as you admit yourself.

He does not need to list every single boundary in existence.

So you admit that God never said that there's a boundary to evolution, yet you still propose one.

If you don't think there's a boundary between a crocodile and a duck, that's your belief.

Where did I ever say this? That's a misrepresentation, plain and simple!
(By the way, you should avoid going overboard with the term 'boundary'. In the above context, 'difference' would have fit much better. In fact, I don't even know what the 'boundary' between a crocodile and a duck is supposed to be, but that doesn't mean I don't know what the difference between those two things is.)

And if there is a boundary, do you mind if I think God set it?

First you show me the boundary, then we can talk about whether it was set by God.

I believe that's called microevolution.

And I believe that no one cared about the difference between micro- and macroevolution until the creationists hijacked these terms.

Now, tell me, what exactly prevents small genetical changes (microevolution) from accumulating over time until they make a notable difference, up to speciation (macroevolution)?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did I not say that Psalm 104 shows that God sets boundaries (well ... one, anyway)?

He does not need to list every single boundary in existence.

Indeed not. But, Psalm 104 only says he sets boundaries on flooding. Why do you infer, from that, that he sets boundaries on evolution? What scriptural evidence do you have that he sets boundaries on evolution?

It obviously doesn't matter to me whether the Bible says it or doesn't say it, I just don't see how you got from Psalm 104 to "evolution has boundaries".

 

[JustMeSee]

Alcoholics demand proof.

Are you aware of how annoying you often come across on these threads?
You know very well his intent was the word 'evidence'.

 

[JustMeSee]

Are you qualified to propose the existence of the heliosphere? or trenches in the Indian ocean? or craters on the dark side of the moon?

Both sides of the moon get illuminated.

 

[verysincere]

Indeed not. But, Psalm 104 only says he sets boundaries on flooding. Why do you infer, from that, that he sets boundaries on evolution? What scriptural evidence do you have that he sets boundaries on evolution?

It obviously doesn't matter to me whether the Bible says it or doesn't say it, I just don't see how you got from Psalm 104 to "evolution has boundaries".

As you've observed, the creationists who most emphasize "literal interpretation of the Bible" don't actually believe in it. And many like to do what you just observed in AV: find arbitrary proof-texts in the Bible and pretend that they apply in a given situation. Yes, nobody thinks that the "boundaries" in the Psalm refer to evolution but that doesn't stop AV from interpreting it "literally"! LOL!

 

[OllieFranz]

And you do?

One good example, right off the top of my head, is a donkey (or a mule or something).

As I understand it, they are born sterile; thus sterility is their boundary.

Another example would be a horse and elephant, or a fly and an elephant, or a mosquito and alligator (let's assume in-vitro with these).

That won't even produce anything; thus that's a dead-end right from the start.

Another example is ring species.

Yes, there is a limit to hybridization and the birth of chimeras. And that limit is a result of evolution, not a barrier to it. That is exactly why the question of ring species is an important part of the debate.

Evolution is not about creating new species by combining two existing species. (It happens on occasion, when in plants sometimes the interspecies hybrids are viable -- but that is not evolution as we normally discuss it.) Evolution is about one species splitting into two. It is a slow, gradual process involving a physical barrier preventing two groups of the species from interbreeding until the biological changes will not allow fertile offspring when they are brought back together.

 

[OllieFranz]

Apparently Kent Hovind has accepted the emergence of ring species. He just does not use the word evolution when describing it.

Kent Hovind and Ring Species

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently Kent Hovind has accepted the emergence of ring species. He just does not use the word evolution when describing it.

Kent Hovind and Ring Species

Yes, prison changes a man

 

[verysincere]

I've never understood why evolution-deniers always bring up HYBRIDS and their sterility as some sort of "proof" that evolution can't happen. Obviously they haven't a clue what the theory of evolution states, but it is hard to imagine even a straw-man version of evolution that fits a scenario where hybrids can somehow debunk it.

Of course, one also wonders how anyone could have such a low view of scientists (or such an elevated view of themselves) to think that for 150+ years since Darwin, NOT ONE of the millions of scientists has had a "V-8 moment", wacked himself on the side of the head, and exclaimed, "Oh, no! How could I have forgotten about hybrids?! Obviously, they render evolution impossible!".

This mindset reminds me of the naive individuals who think that:

1) "My cousin knows a guy who created a hydrogen-electrolysis device for his car which gives him 200 miles to the gallon. But the oil companies got the government to shut him down so you'll never see his invention in stores."

2) "The Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon. Anybody with common sense knows that the shadows during the moon walks were all wrong and the sky above them should have been filled with stars."

3) "Carbon dating can't ever be reliable because nobody could ever know the original isotope levels in the materials."

As often stated, one of the signs of advanced education is KNOWING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. The well-informed person knows that there is a huge gulf of knowledge between the average person and somehow who has spent a lifetime specializing in a particular field of research. The people who don't know this are explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[OllieFranz]

As often stated, one of the signs of advanced education is KNOWING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. The well-informed person knows that there is a huge gulf of knowledge between the average person and someone who has spent a lifetime specializing in a particular field of research. The people who don't know this are explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Or by these quotes:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope, An essay on Criticism

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
Attributed to Mark Twain​