Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[Cabal]

I don't know of any one person here who stands out as proactive at answering questions around here outside of myself.

Cabal comes close.

I'm hoping this is somewhat complimentary - not quite sure of what you're saying.

I wouldn't have said I did that great a job, considering how much time I spent in the last couple of days yelling at you about basic genetics and not managing to get the point across...mea culpa, I guess.

 

[Dream3wb723]

One method of speciation, and one that can potentially jump a new species into a new genus is Hybridization. This is when two differnt species mate and produce viable offspring. This is rare, but does happen in plants. It generally does not happen with animals.

Interestlingly, there are examples of Beardogs in the fossil record. There were animals with the dentition of dogs, but the stocky body of bears. Their evolutionary line eventually led to both dogs and bears that exist today. Rather than bears and dogs producing beardogs, the beardogs were ancestrial to both dogs and bears. However, there were never any "catdogs," nor should you expect to see any in the future.

Ask And you shall recieve I think is the motto here. Got that part.
I think I got my answer now. Now let 's go back to the origional toppic. But I will ask questions again.

Here is one to get back on track:
What about the theory about volcanos? Some are proven not even to be very old, but according to some scientists there are some in Miami claims to be quite old. I beg to differ.

 

[Cabal]

OK

I just asked for an fact answer. Now you are all going again. Can an evolutionist explain this then. Comming from a creationist mouth I think I will only get a theory.

Seeing as AV mentioned me...I'll give this one a shot, as simply as I can put.

From a typical creationist point of view (I am theistic evolutionist however, just so you know), microevolution is evolution within a "kind", as the Bible puts it.

Macroevolution is evolution between "kinds", i.e. one creature drastically changing into something else, usually between two modern-day species, like your catdog example.

The reason why evolutionists are saying there's no difference between the two is that the two processes, from our point of view, are fundamentally the same - the number of steps (mutations, if you like) and the time taken is just different. A microevolving creature only changes a few steps, a macroevolving creature has taken more steps.

An analogy would be - microevolution is like walking to your friend's house down the street. Macroevolution is like walking to your friend's house on the other side of the country. There is nothing stopping you from doing so, one just seems more extreme than the other. But the process is still the same - just one foot in front of the other, step by step at a time.

From the creationists' point of view, they say that God has imposed barriers upon creatures of a certain kind that do not allow them to change kinds. From our point of view, this seems somewhat ridiculous - like saying you can walk down the street but for some reason not across the country.

That, coupled with the fact that no creationist (at least, not in my experience) has produced either a working definition of what a "kind" is nor any evidence of a supernatural genetic barrier does not help the creationist argument either.

Edited to add: Also, the examples of macroevolution a typical creationists thinks of usually do not take into consideration of how evolution works - a catdog would be a good example (sorry) as people have explained. Kirk Cameron's "crocoduck" is another example. You can't just pick two random creatures, say to evolutionists "where's this then?" and make like that is proof. There are some amazing evolved changes over time - but not instantaneously like many creationists make out.

 

[Cabal]

Ask And you shall recieve I think is the motto here. Got that part.
I think I got my answer now. Now let 's go back to the origional toppic. But I will ask questions again.

Here is one to get back on track:
What about the theory about volcanos? Some are proven not even to be very old, but according to some scientists there are some in Miami claims to be quite old. I beg to differ.

Dream3, what is it exactly about the age of volcanoes that is important for this discussion? Is it something to do with a young age for the Earth? I am not sure how to try and answer your question otherwise.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Hello Dream3wb723,

I gather you are new here and therefore not used to dealing with AV1611VET. Here's the 411 on him: nothing he says is ever right. Ever. I know you have questions and I understand that for somebody who isn't exactly familiar with the topic, what he says looks insightful and logical. Needless to say, it's not. AV1611VET has no idea of what he is talking about when it comes to science (if you think I'm rude, ask him - he will tell you the same) and I wager that you and him wouldn't have too much common ground on Christian issues either.

To demonstrate why you shouldn't listen to him, I'll do a refutation of his post now.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody ever claimed that a dog would or did give birth to anything but the most minuscule variation of another dog, let alone a different genus. A sentence you will hear often in discussions about this subject is "individuals don't evolve, populations do".

A blatant lie. No such debate ever took place, and AV1611VET knows it. I asked him once already about this supposed event, and he couldn't remember when this supposedly happened. Ask him if you don't trust me. In any case, this is a strawman argument anyway, because no scientists ever claimed that such a thing was either necessary for evolution or even possible.

Needless to say, no such reorganisation ever happened either.

SplitRock already explained that both "micro-" and "macroevolution" are terms that are still in use, so this claim is wrong too - and how could AV1611VET know any better? He flat out refuses to read anything that could potentially contradict his weltanschauung, not even if it's not contradicting any Christian belief at all.

It seems to me that some people like to welcome the newbies with wrong info just as a welcome gift to protect there own space here. I do have my facts but asking a question and getting bombed from all directions is not my way of having fun. I think I'll stick to reading and believing in what I allready looked up myself.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Dream3, what is it exactly about the age of volcanoes that is important for this discussion? Is it something to do with a young age for the Earth? I am not sure how to try and answer your question otherwise.

Sort of. Point been we were (before I asked about micro and macro) discussing the flood. Could id bee that this accurance had anything to do with the flood?

Genesis 7:
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened

 

[mpok1519]

Correct me if Im wrong: But that means if I want to get a catdog, I have to wait a very long time before its going to happen? (If this claimes to be true?)

actually, you'd have to go back in time when cats and dogs were actually the same species if you wanted a cat-dog. I don't think that their species would ever fuse back together.

But to answer your question; you'd at least have to wait for someone to invent a time machine.

Go to your local university and take a course on physical anthropology or evolutionary biology if you want to know the serious questions and the serious answers. I recommend it to anyone.

 

[Cabal]

Sort of. Point been we were (before I asked about micro and macro) discussing the flood. Could id bee that this accurance had anything to do with the flood?

Genesis 7:
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened

The only geological flood theory I've heard of that would produce dramatic geological events on the scale of volcanoes would be hydroplate theory (if you don't know what it is, do a google search for it - it basically claims that the flood water arose from under the earth's crust) - however I suspect that water erupting from under the ground instead of magma would produce something quite different from volcanoes.

The other point I wanted to make is that while some volcanoes are young, the fact that many much older ones exist would be a tough fact for young-earth creationism to deal with.

 

[mpok1519]

the Bible isn't consistent with real earth history at all.

YEC is at best a fantasy, but right now, its just another false assertion, aka, a lie.

 

[Dream3wb723]

actually, you'd have to go back in time when cats and dogs were actually the same species if you wanted a cat-dog. I don't think that their species would ever fuse back together.

But to answer your question; you'd at least have to wait for someone to invent a time machine.

Go to your local university and take a course on physical anthropology or evolutionary biology if you want to know the serious questions and the serious answers. I recommend it to anyone.

I dont have to if some one had find the bones. But till then, I'm still waiting.

 

[Dream3wb723]

the Bible isn't consistent with real earth history at all.

YEC is at best a fantasy, but right now, its just another false assertion, aka, a lie.

Why not. if the bible is proved wrong, Christianity could be as good as non existing.

 

[gaara4158]

Why not. if the bible is proved wrong, Christianity could be as good as non existing.

The Bible isn't proven wrong, just certain interpretations are.

 

[Cabal]

Why not. if the bible is proved wrong, Christianity could be as good as non existing.

Do not worry. The Bible will not be proven wrong - just certain mens' interpretations of it.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Do not worry. The Bible will not be proven wrong - just certain mens' interpretations of it.

Now that make sence.

 

[Cabal]

Now that make sence.

Please note - by this I do not mean to claim that my interpretations are definitely right and creationists are definitely wrong. I am just saying that it is not the correctness of Bible that is always at stake here - but instead, how we choose to read it that is important.

 

[uke2se]

Ya --- you've said that now about half a dozen times.

It's not taught today --- as I also mentioned.Ya --- and what's the diagnosis? (For the fifth time.)

I am not a psychiatrist. If you really want to know, as on a forum for psychiatrists.

 

[mpok1519]

Why not. if the bible is proved wrong, Christianity could be as good as non existing.

not necessarily. People will still ignore the proof. Many believe the truth, but still are also Christian. I am. I don't believe the entire YEC fantasy 6000 y/o world, but I'm still Christian.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Please note - by this I do not mean to claim that my interpretations are definitely right and creationists are definitely wrong. I am just saying that it is not the correctness of Bible that is always at stake here - but instead, how we choose to read it that is important.

I did get that. I do read with all 4 my eyes.

 

[uke2se]

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

Is this another broken ninth, AV, or are you really this ill-informed? You cannot even get the science side right. No type of evolution has ever been described by a scientist as one spieces of animal giving birth to another. The offspring will always be of the same spieces as the parent.

Thus, we can safely conclude that your entire post is a grave misrepresentation of the truth, and at worst, an outright lie. "Evolutionists" have never talked about micro and macro evolution, except, I suspect, to explain the more indepth theories about spieciation. If you were taught that in school, your science teacher should have been fired.

 

[Dream3wb723]

not necessarily. People will still ignore the proof. Many believe the truth, but still are also Christian. I am. I don't believe the entire YEC fantasy 6000 y/o world, but I'm still Christian.

That is for each human to go by himself. Just insaine poeple like me will litteraly go into the bible and count the years.(Ps: its not 6000. its more in the line of 8000.)