Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

TLK Valentine said:

There are a lot of things you don't know... having established that, how does an artist cover up his mistakes?

Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand why you would ask such a question....The only thing I can come up with is that you are going to try and compare God to an artist. Is that your intent or do you have another reason?

-57 said:

I'm trying to understand why you would ask such a question....The only thing I can come up with is that you are going to try and compare God to an artist. Is that your intent or do you have another reason?

Click to expand...

You already made the comparison... I'm just running with it.

TLK Valentine said:

You already made the comparison... I'm just running with it.

Click to expand...

...but you never made it back to the line of scrimmage.

-57 said:

...but you never made it back to the line of scrimmage.

Click to expand...

And now you're abandoning the artist analogy for football...

TLK Valentine said:

And now you're abandoning the artist analogy for football...

Click to expand...

I'm well past the artist analogy. You've seemed to have dropped the football.

Dr GS Hurd said:

It will help your position if you learned what a biological species is. There is much more to learn than the little online definition you copied.

Well, actually, it would make you change your position which would make you seem less ignorant.

Click to expand...

No, what would make you seem less ignorant is to stop ignoring your own scientific definitions in a sad attempt to run from the truth and keep your Fairie Dust beliefs alive. Science has scientific definitions for a reason - to prevent people like you and evolutionists from making up thier own definitions on the spot to avoid the truth. A lot of good it has done though, since you continually refuse to accept your own biological definition of species.

The only people looking ignorant on here are those claiming to follow science while at the same time refusing to accept their own scientific definitions. Run from your own definitions all you like - it just proves you can't back your claims with science.

Justatruthseeker said:

No, what would make you seem less ignorant is to stop ignoring your own scientific definitions in a sad attempt to run from the truth and keep your Fairie Dust beliefs alive. Science has scientific definitions for a reason - to prevent people like you and evolutionists from making up thier own definitions on the spot to avoid the truth. A lot of good it has done though, since you continually refuse to accept your own biological definition of species.

The only people looking ignorant on here are those claiming to follow science while at the same time refusing to accept their own scientific definitions. Run from your own definitions all you like - it just proves you can't back your claims with science.

Click to expand...

You are under the impression that species definitions are never fuzzy and they are fuzzy, its unavoidable in a world where evolution occurs.

Imaging group A and group B. A and B of course are viable groups that reproduce just fine. Now if A mates with B and they manage to have offspring only half the time . . . and that happens . . . are they seperate species?

If A mates with B and they manage to have offspring at a rate one one hundredth as frequently as in their own groups . . .are they separate species? Biologists would say they were separate species in such cases.

It gets fuzzy.

Such cases do occur.

Hey, he's right , Justatruthseeker. All I found in your comments were lusty salvos of inflammatory rhetoric, wild critics, which have absolutely no basis in the real world of science. There is science matter called “the problem of the species.” It is a problem because there are in fact definitions and anytime you set up s criterion, some exception shows up. For example, one criterion some use for a “species” is he fact that no two species can mate. Well, what about breeding a tiny-size breed dog with a large-size breed dog breed dog? Forget it. If the the tiny-size is a female, the large-size male probability won't be able to insert his penis. Also a tiny-breed dog could not even begin o carry large-size pups . Well, are we dealing with breeds here or species? In a major experiment in Russia that ha been going on for 40 years, they are attempting to turn fox into a dog. What they have succeeded in producing so far a fox that shows that now shows many key dog behaviors, Like what? The foxes acquired and displayed tamebility, which is a major dog trait that was never before in the response repertory of the fox. Some foxes now squat to pee. The experiment is still ongoing. However, have wondered if they have already produced a new species, what with all the dog behavior the foxes are now exhibiting. Another major example where the criteria for determining a species is ambiguous.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You are under the impression that species definitions are never fuzzy and they are fuzzy, its unavoidable in a world where evolution occurs.

Imaging group A and group B. A and B of course are viable groups that reproduce just fine. Now if A mates with B and they manage to have offspring only half the time . . . and that happens . . . are they seperate species?

If A mates with B and they manage to have offspring at a rate one one hundredth as frequently as in their own groups . . .are they separate species? Biologists would say they were separate species in such cases.

It gets fuzzy.

Such cases do occur.

Click to expand...

And if Darwin's finches were not mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes, you might have a reason to question. If the DNA tests could tell differences between them you might have cause to question.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

They would say so just to justify their claims of speciation.

So then why do biologists not say American Indians are separate species since they were geographically isolated from the rest of humanity for 10's of thousands of years? Yet they classify Darwin's finches as separate species because they didn't mate until 10 years after they arrived on the islands??????

You can't justify your willy-nilly classifications.

If they are capable of producing fertile offspring they are the same species - regardless of how often they mate. Failing that - they have to be at least ecologically and recognizably the same. So Darwin's finches certainly are the same species since they produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. Plus the DNA tests could tell no differences between them to justify calling them separate species. There was no more difference between them than between the different races of humans.

So back up your beliefs and claim Asians are a separate species than Africans.

If you refuse to do that then I know you are just blowing hot air and making excuses.

Loudmouth said:

So let's test your kind definition. If chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are in a separate ape kind that is separate from humans then an ape species should not share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species.

When we compare the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan genomes, this is the phylogeny we get:

As it turns out, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with either gorillas or orangutans. Therefore, humans are in the ape kind.

Click to expand...

And where are the pigs? We have similar skin and heart. Or maybe you have fur like an ape.

Hoghead1 said:

Well, what about breeding a tiny-size breed dog with a large-size breed dog breed dog? Forget it. If the the tiny-size is a female, the large-size male probability won't be able to insert his penis. Also a tiny-breed dog could not even begin o carry large-size pups . Well, are we dealing with breeds here or species? In a major experiment in Russia that ha been going on for 40 years, they are attempting to turn fox into a dog. What they have succeeded in producing so far a fox that shows that now shows many key dog behaviors, Like what? The foxes acquired and displayed tamebility, which is a major dog trait that was never before in the response repertory of the fox. Some foxes now squat to pee. The experiment is still ongoing. However, have wondered if they have already produced a new species, what with all the dog behavior the foxes are now exhibiting. Another major example where the criteria for determining a species is ambiguous.

Click to expand...

Oh I'd like to see them try that with a cat! Same "kind".

mickiio said:

And where are the pigs? We have similar skin and heart.

Click to expand...

Not as similar as chimps and other great apes. If you ask why don't we use their parts in humans ever I will point out that we do not have access to hundreds and thousands of apes to use for experiments. In 2012 the hog industry was a 22.5 billion dollar industry. I figure that one hog costs far less than $22,000 dollars. That means that we raise millions of hogs a year. That means they are very cheap for experimental uses. You can't make anywhere near the same claim for great apes. In fact I do believe all of their populations are threatened at the very least.

Subduction Zone said:

Not as similar as chimps and other great apes. If you ask why don't we use their parts in humans ever I will point out that we do not have access to hundreds and thousands of apes to use for experiments. In 2012 the hog industry was a 22.5 billion dollar industry. I figure that one hog costs far less than $22,000 dollars. That means that we raise millions of hogs a year. That means they are very cheap for experimental uses. You can't make anywhere near the same claim for great apes. In fact I do believe all of their populations are threatened at the very least.

Click to expand...

Some similarities - yes. Complete - no. Similar designs is all. All of God's Creatures are similar, designed by God and alive because of God.

mickiio said:

Some similarities - yes. Complete - no. Similar designs is all. All of God's Creatures are similar, designed by God and alive because of God.

Click to expand...

More than just similarities. And your concept of "design" is incorrect. The similarities are there because we share a common ancestor. And just like you are more similar to your brother than you are to your cousin since your cousin has a more distant common ancestor, you are more similar to a chimp than you are to a pig because the ancestor that you and I share with the chimp is much more recent than the ancestor that we share with a pig.

And looking back I see this was a discussion about shared DNA. We share less DNA with a pig than you and I do with our much closer ape cousins. Again, no design, just a closer relationship.

Justatruthseeker said:

And if Darwin's finches were not mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes, you might have a reason to question. If the DNA tests could tell differences between them you might have cause to question.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

They would say so just to justify their claims of speciation.

So then why do biologists not say American Indians are separate species since they were geographically isolated from the rest of humanity for 10's of thousands of years? Yet they classify Darwin's finches as separate species because they didn't mate until 10 years after they arrived on the islands??????

You can't justify your willy-nilly classifications.

If they are capable of producing fertile offspring they are the same species - regardless of how often they mate. Failing that - they have to be at least ecologically and recognizably the same. So Darwin's finches certainly are the same species since they produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. Plus the DNA tests could tell no differences between them to justify calling them separate species. There was no more difference between them than between the different races of humans.

So back up your beliefs and claim Asians are a separate species than Africans.

If you refuse to do that then I know you are just blowing hot air and making excuses.

Click to expand...

There you go again, throwing out nonsense. Indians, Asians, Europeans all mate together and pair up just fine with no issues. But those finches . . . do you have studies that show they all breed together indiscriminately? I think you've only got studies showing its possible to induce them to mate, not that they do so with equal facility in the wild.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

There you go again, throwing out nonsense. Indians, Asians, Europeans all mate together and pair up just fine with no issues. But those finches . . . do you have studies that show they all breed together indiscriminately? I think you've only got studies showing its possible to induce them to mate, not that they do so with equal facility in the wild.

Click to expand...

There you go again, ignoring reality to uphold your fantasies.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.

Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added."

The Grants' team, focusing primarily on finches of the genus Geospiza on the island of Daphne Major, discovered that various "species" not only interbreed but do so highly successfully. For example, a male G. scandens crossed with a female G. fortis, producing four children, 46 grandchildren, and "a lot of great-grandchildren" — "That does not make them all-time champions on Daphne Major, but it puts them high" (Weiner, pp. 120-121). In another instance, a male G. fortis mated with a female G. fuliginosa, and "bred very well;" the female "outproduced all others of her kind" (p. 123).

Such successful crosses are by no means unusual: "Roughly one out of ten of the finches born on the desert islet of Daphne Major now are hybrids, and the hybrids are doing better than any of the others on the island" (p. 206). "Strange as it seems, these hybrids are the fittest finches on the island" (p. 125).

These finches are clearly not showing themselves to be different species: "Life would be so much simpler if lines of animals would only keep to themselves, [evolutionist Jeremy] Searle writes, only half-jokingly. That should not be too much to ask: it is the zoologist's standard working criterion of a good species . . . . 'It is disappointing that even Darwin's finches do not seem to quite fit the bill.' " (Weiner, p. 201).

For all we know, the "inter-specific" matings may be even more widespread than observed to this point: ". . . Darwin's finches have been one of the best-studied groups of birds in the world for most of this century. Yet it is only now, after this extraordinary watch, involving generations of birds and generations of graduate students, that the extent of the mingling of genes among Darwin's finches has come to light" (pp. 198-199).

You can't support your willy-nilly classifications. And your ignoring what is happening right in front of your eyes in an attempt to defend your incorrect classifications is only harming your cause. Now I simply know you will continue to ignore the truth because you want to hold onto your false beliefs. All you are doing is showing me you care nothing for the truth or science - only for supporting your Fairie Dust.

All you are doing is showing me you will do or say anything to support what has been shown to be a total lie.

Justatruthseeker said:

There you go again, ignoring reality to uphold your fantasies.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.

Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added."

The Grants' team, focusing primarily on finches of the genus Geospiza on the island of Daphne Major, discovered that various "species" not only interbreed but do so highly successfully. For example, a male G. scandens crossed with a female G. fortis, producing four children, 46 grandchildren, and "a lot of great-grandchildren" — "That does not make them all-time champions on Daphne Major, but it puts them high" (Weiner, pp. 120-121). In another instance, a male G. fortis mated with a female G. fuliginosa, and "bred very well;" the female "outproduced all others of her kind" (p. 123).

Such successful crosses are by no means unusual: "Roughly one out of ten of the finches born on the desert islet of Daphne Major now are hybrids, and the hybrids are doing better than any of the others on the island" (p. 206). "Strange as it seems, these hybrids are the fittest finches on the island" (p. 125).

These finches are clearly not showing themselves to be different species: "Life would be so much simpler if lines of animals would only keep to themselves, [evolutionist Jeremy] Searle writes, only half-jokingly. That should not be too much to ask: it is the zoologist's standard working criterion of a good species . . . . 'It is disappointing that even Darwin's finches do not seem to quite fit the bill.' " (Weiner, p. 201).

For all we know, the "inter-specific" matings may be even more widespread than observed to this point: ". . . Darwin's finches have been one of the best-studied groups of birds in the world for most of this century. Yet it is only now, after this extraordinary watch, involving generations of birds and generations of graduate students, that the extent of the mingling of genes among Darwin's finches has come to light" (pp. 198-199).

You can't support your willy-nilly classifications. And your ignoring what is happening right in front of your eyes in an attempt to defend your incorrect classifications is only harming your cause. Now I simply know you will continue to ignore the truth because you want to hold onto your false beliefs. All you are doing is showing me you care nothing for the truth or science - only for supporting your Fairie Dust.

All you are doing is showing me you will do or say anything to support what has been shown to be a total lie.

Click to expand...

OK You have evidence for only one of the islands having as many as one out of ten of the birds there being hybreds.

Seems to me that is exactly what I was asserting. Are you willing to concede that these variations, which seem to be separate species, they are that great . . . all came from an initial set of birds that arrived definitely as one species in the past? I don't suppose you're willing to put that past back as far as over a million years ago, as the real scientists do.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

OK You have evidence for only one of the islands having as many as one out of ten of the birds there being hybreds.

Seems to me that is exactly what I was asserting. Are you willing to concede that these variations, which seem to be separate species, they are that great . . . all came from an initial set of birds that arrived definitely as one species in the past? I don't suppose you're willing to put that past back as far as over a million years ago, as the real scientists do.

Click to expand...

You'll do and say anything to keep your false beliefs won't you.

"They sequenced the genomes of multiple individuals from all 15 species of Darwin's finches...

...The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family. This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands....

..."When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."


Not one or two, but all 15 claimed species.

Whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you are furthering a lie. If that takes you blinding yourself to the truth, so be it. But since you can't admit the truth to yourself despite the DNA data - I certainly don't expect you to admit the truth to anyone else, but continue to say whatever it takes to continue the lie.

Justatruthseeker said:

You'll do and say anything to keep your false beliefs won't you.

"They sequenced the genomes of multiple individuals from all 15 species of Darwin's finches...

...The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family. This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands....

..."When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."


Not one or two, but all 15 claimed species.

Whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you are furthering a lie. If that takes you blinding yourself to the truth, so be it. But since you can't admit the truth to yourself despite the DNA data - I certainly don't expect you to admit the truth to anyone else, but continue to say whatever it takes to continue the lie.

Click to expand...

I never said they didn't sequence all fifteen species. For you to assert that I said that is for you to tell a lie.

I was speaking in the post you quoted about the extent of hybredization. The maximum amount of hybedization reported was up to 10 percent on one of the islands.

Please learn to read for comprehension before making accusations like that.

Dr GS Hurd said:

I already know from your past behavior that you are either unwilling to learn, or unable to learn.

However, see if you might learn;

Understanding Evolution

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Dr.Thewissen’s excellent material in whale evolution

The Institute of Human Origins

Nature Magazine's website on human evolution

Click to expand...

When Dr. Hurd quoted from Nature magazine as an authority, I thought of Loudmouth's claim:
“We find rocks on Earth that are over 4 billion years old.”

Good lead line! (I’m being sarcastic). We also found rocks on Earth 6 billion years old. Which is the truth?

Here’s the full story:


Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
byAlexander R. Williams

In 1986 the world’s leading science journal,Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.

W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.

A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.

A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world.

This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!

They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.

This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.

First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.

Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating method?’

I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough. But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? Of course not. In the same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available. 4

References and notes
1. Uranium/uranium concordia—this method involves graphically comparing the238U/206Pb ratio with the235U/207Pb ratio.

2. Uranium/thorium concordia—in this method the238U/206Pb ratio is graphically compared with the232Th/203Pb ratio.

3. The rock unit involved is a metamorphosed sandstone (quartzite) in which the zircon crystals represent grains eroded from source rocks (e.g. granites) and deposited with the sand. Thus the ‘ages’ of the zircon crystals represent the ‘age’ of the source rock(s) and not the ‘age’ of the quartzite.

4. Further details of these examples can be found in my fuller technical article on this subject in theCreation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal6(1):2–5, 1992.

James Wilson said:

When Dr. Hurd quoted from Nature magazine as an authority, I thought of Loudmouth's claim:
“We find rocks on Earth that are over 4 billion years old.”

Good lead line! (I’m being sarcastic). We also found rocks on Earth 6 billion years old. Which is the truth?

Here’s the full story:

Click to expand...

A botanist being quoted as an authority on geology. How did I guess? Well, I guessed because it is pretty much par for the course with creationists.