So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[Jazer]

I missed the bit where they mentioned the nylon digesting bacteria.

That was a big topic. You have bacteria that are producing enzymes that they claim no bacteria has ever produced before. Of course there was no need for those enzymes before they made nylon.

 

[USincognito]

{snip giant wall of text}

Please get the facts of the argument straight on this one.

Oh the irony. You entire longwinded post was nothing but Creationist boilerplate and PRATTs.

You talk about gains or losses of "information" with regard to genetics as if Creationists have ever actually provided a quantifiable definition. As soon as a C/IDer can show me the math on calculating the presence of X number of, say, "Mendels" in an ostensible created "kind" and how there are X-Y "Mendels" present in derived species, I might start taking them seriously.

You talk about dogs and cats. Why is it that Creationists never refer to created mollusk "kinds"? Why do they limit their examples to the barnyard? Why do they have such trouble understanding that Feliforms and Caniforms share a common Carnivora ancestor? Why do they have such trouble understanding that whatever cats and dogs (or scallops or Humbolt squids) turn into in the future, they'll never stop being cats/dogs, feliforms/caniforms, carnivores, mammals, etc.?

You use a lot of phraseology that means nothing except to Creationists like "general theory of evolution", "general theory of descent" and "true evolution". You're repeating sound bites, not making a point when you do so.

And no, there are no motors in "chloroform" bacteria. You're referring to coliform bacteria which is just a group of genera used to identify fecal contamination. Kenneth Miller and others have debunked the IC claim with regard to bacterial flagellum.
The Flagellum Unspun

 

[USincognito]

I like the storytelling in OP that tries to invent the idea that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse[sub]1[/sub] -- just "not so-s you would notice".

LOL!!

The problem is that the genome does not add in new genes over time[sub]2[/sub] - the prokaryote does not become a eukaryote[sub]3[/sub], the amoeba does not "acquire the genes" to become a multicelled animal[sub]4[/sub] etc --- and the ancient tree dwelling hyrax no matter how much time given - does not become a horse[sub]5[/sub].

Let me try and translate this from Creationist to English.

1. The Creationist straw man is existing taxa giving rise to other existing taxa. Sometimes it's a generic saltational straw man like a dog giving birth to a cat. Sometimes it goes after a specific target like dinosaur evolution with something like a stegosaurus hatching a clutch of ostriches. In this case he's trying to cover a broad swath of evolutionary history and because it would clearly be rediculous for an amoeba to give birth to a horse, they instead "one day turn into" one. Such a straw man might sound good to the uneducated, but to anyone familiar with what evolutionary theory actually says, amoebas are a genus in the kingdom Protista while horses are a species (actually a sub-species, learn something new every day) in the kingdom Animalia and have been on separate lines since the Ur-Eukaryote more than a billion years ago.

2. Here he probably meant to say "information", but unfortunately said genes. Of course gene duplication happens all the time with all sorts of results from nothing to diseases to functional changes in the organism.

3. Well, we can't know for sure. That said, given the use of an imprecise term (again, quite common for Creationists), it's likely that the LCA of Eukaryotes, Bacteria and Archaea would be most likely resemble a Prokaryote. This is the same situation with have with "humans coming from apes" and "humans coming from monkeys". The LCAs humans share with our fellow primates would most likely have resembled them more than us.

4. Covered in 1. Amoebas and animals share a unicellular Eukaryote LCA. The former did not "{eventually} turn into" the latter.

5. In the Creationist straw man version of horse evolution, the Hyracotherium was not a misidentified horse ancestor, but was a modern hyrax (in this particular case, one of two tree dwelling species), despite the fact that the two look completely different and had completely different dentition.
Hyracotherium and Hyrax

 

[Guy1]

That was a big topic.

The production of a new enzyme is a fairly small topic.

You have bacteria that are producing enzymes that they claim no bacteria has ever produced before. Of course there was no need for those enzymes before they made nylon.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Now what does this have to do with the fact that there was no mention of nylon eating bacteria in the scripture you quoted?

 

[SkyWriting]

I misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize.

I am obtuse sometimes.

Right. That's what you want to call it. And can it's offspring split into two different groups that eventually change to suit their new environments?

1.That's the definition. Jus look it up.
2. Absolutely.

Nobody even knew about them until 400 years ago. Sadly for you though, they're not considered animals these days.

I not sad. When the scriptures were written, there were plants and animals.

I wouldn't recommend eating any of those.

Some things do.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffinance%2Fnewsbysector%2Fenergy%2Foilandgas%2F7964175%2FMicrobe-eating-spilled-oil-in-Gulf-of-Mexico.html&ei=TjGjT8rGB-Ge6AH3q60Y&usg=AFQjCNEUU6tTA2LksYnI1ALVf3uypg-YAA&sig2=s6nG1VUeuGTzJjz2qa4KTw

 

[SkyWriting]

You and me both.

(And I've spent a lifetime in the Hebrew text of Genesis.)

Some people who do that are Born-Again by the Spirit of God.

John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why did you post on this thread?

17 seconds was worth the ego boost to give a mini-sermon.
Its part of the expectation theory where you feel you'll get some
results for your efforts.

 

[Guy1]

2. Absolutely.

Can the changes these "kinds" go through, build up to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed?

I not sad. When the scriptures were written, there were plants and animals.

And not a single mention of bacteria.

Some things do.

I am fully aware of this.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

And not a single mention of bacteria.

To those who insist the Bible is literally "God's Word", I say "gee, woulda been nice if he'd mentioned germ theory. Might have been more useful than some of the begats, maybe?"

 

[SkyWriting]

Can the changes these "kinds" go through, build up to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed?

Completely possible.
"Kinds" are "parents of".

There are no limitations on how the offspring develop
except for the designed in limitations that keep (most) animal variation inside the biological parameters.

I used the illustration before: You can look at the amount of variation in the faces of every person on
this planet and see that no two are exactly alike. All of that variation is possible, but you will find a
very tiny percentage that looks like it was randomly generated. You will find some "mistakes"
but it will be clear as a bell to you that most of what is going on is "Variation within Specification".

That's what all life is, "Variation within Specs." The "Kinds" that the Bible refers to are the carriers of
those specifications that allow for seemingly infinite variation. But all within spec.
But we are born in a World of Sin, so even the specs get messed up by mutation and life comes out wrong.

And not a single mention of bacteria.

They were not classified as separate from the rest of the animals until 1866.

 

[Guy1]

Completely possible.
"Kinds" are "parents of".

There are no limitations on how the offspring develop
except for the designed in limitations that keep (most) animal variation inside the biological parameters.

I used the illustration before: You can look at the amount of variation in the faces of every person on
this planet and see that no two are exactly alike. All of that variation is possible, but you will find a
very tiny percentage that looks like it was randomly generated. You will find some "mistakes"
but it will be clear as a bell to you that most of what is going on is "Variation within Specification".

That's what all life is, "Variation within Specs." The "Kinds" that the Bible refers to are the carriers of
those specifications that allow for seemingly infinite variation. But all within spec.
But we are born in a World of Sin, so even the specs get messed up by mutation and life comes out wrong.

You've almost convinced me here, but first I have to make sure I understand this revolutionary idea of yours. You're telling me that:

A) A "Kind" can split off into two groups that, over time, change to suit their environment (These changes being acted on by a form of selection).

B) The changes can eventually add up to make two groups of the same "Kind" that can no longer interbreed.

C) The above applies to all descendants of these "Kinds".

Am I right so far? Is this what you're saying?

They were not classified as separate from the rest of the animals until 1866.

We didn't know they even existed until 1676.

 

[SkyWriting]

You've almost convinced me here, but first I have to make sure I understand this revolutionary idea of yours. You're telling me that:

A) A "Kind" can split off into two groups that, over time, change to suit their environment (These changes being acted on by a form of selection).

B) The changes can eventually add up to make two groups of the same "Kind" that can no longer interbreed.

C) The above applies to all descendants of these "Kinds".

Am I right so far? Is this what you're saying?

All correct. I don't know what the limits are.

That's like asking how much water can we keep from this growing tree, how much sunshine, what amount of each possible nutrient can we withdraw from this growing tree and still have it survive. (an illustration about systems)

One needs to know the limits of each dependent variable and each possible combination of variables to know exactly what the limits are. That's why nobody knows what the boundaries of a "Kind" are.

"Dogs" are an excellent illustration of this. Dogs may actually be part of a wolf Kind. Or a Bear Kind. Dogs are one of the most varied species. In fact the smallest cannot mate with the largest. Different species by one definition. But any breeder looking over all that's been done, will tell you that they are all dogs. Something is limiting their variation - by design.

We didn't know they even existed until 1676.

The effects were noted some time before that and there
have been many proposals.
Just as atoms were proposed 2000 years ago.

 

[Guy1]

All correct.

Now my last question: How is this any different than evolution? You've outlined the basic gist in those three points. Species diverge, populations are isolated, they change due to the environment and eventually can't interbreed. The above being applied to all divergent populations. The animals are always the same ting no matter how many generations pass, just a subset of something.

No matter how many generations pass a dog will always be a:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris[1]

The only thing that will change is that eventually you'll just get a subset of the the species (Or possibly subspecies).

The effects were noted some time before that and there
have been many proposals.
Just as atoms were proposed 2000 years ago.

Note how neither were actually discovered until much later.

 

[SkyWriting]

The biologists will shred the scientific errors of your post so I'm fine fielding the task of dealing with your errors from the scriptures.

As a Berean, my task is to check your teachings because you use
false teachings from other sources.

1) No. The Bible says NOTHING to indicate that Adam and Eve were "made from scratch". You have confused TRADITIONS about the Bible with what the Bible actually says.

When referring to the actual text, lets refer to the actual text.....

1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Here the Bible explains that Adam, the one man, was Created directly by God, within one generation. No long drawn out birthing process over millions of years.
Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Here we see the type of time-frame we can use for examination:
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

A day, a week, a month, maybe a year would be possible.

Here we have the New Testament interpretation of the Genesis story:
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Here we have testament to the approximate time-frames used for the naration:
Genesis 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

"What does the text ACTUALLY say and what traditions have I always inserted here?"

I always go by a person's actions because they illustrate what a person is really believes over what they think they believe.
I provide links to the actual text that includes 15 translations of the original text and the ability to read the context of any passage.
This covers your points 2-4. Just read the passages in context. There is no grand conspiracy to hide the millions of years required for natural selection to have formed all the variety and forms of life we see. No hint of it even.

And Jesus preached specifically against natural selection by raising up the weak and even the dead.
And God choose the meek and weak and infirm for his work. God stands in opposition to "Natural Selection", period.
All of the stories in the scriptures go against the nature of "Natural Selection" in every way.
Not one word is compatible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now my last question: How is this any different than evolution?

No difference. You've covered most of the testable and scientific aspects of Evolutionary theory and natural selection.
All provable aspects of reproduction that fit with the "Creation" story and the "Flood" story.
Good sleuthing.

Glad I could help!

 

[Guy1]

No difference. You've covered most of the testable and scientific aspects of Evolutionary theory and natural selection. All provable aspects of reproduction that fit with the "Creation" story and the "Flood" story.
Good sleuthing.

Congratulations, you accept the theory of evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Congratulations, you accept the theory of evolution.

To a certain extent. Not the theory, just the facts. The theory goes into screwball places trying to make sense about ancient earth.
If ya can't duplicate it, it ain't science.

 

[Guy1]

To a certain extent. Not the theory, just the facts.

I can assure you; you've accepted the theory. You just don't like some of the evidence that's been found for it.

The theory goes into screwball places trying to make sense about ancient earth.

"Trying to" implies that we haven't already.

If ya can't duplicate it, it ain't science.

We can't replicate planetary orbits (Because we don't have the technology necessary to move planets). Does this mean everything we know about them isn't scientific? Don't be silly, of course it's science.The reason the theory of evolution is so well isn't because it can be repeated (It can, but that's not the point here), it's that it provides a useful model that allows us to make a wide variety of accurate predictions.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can assure you; you've ac.....<snip>..

I don't need your assurance. But thanks.

 

[RickG]

To a certain extent. Not the theory, just the facts. The theory goes into screwball places trying to make sense about ancient earth.
If ya can't duplicate it, it ain't science.

Screwball places? An example perhaps, so I don't misunderstand what you are saying.