Do you agree with these statements?

inquiring mind said:

So, to me anyway, that begs the question, would one kind ever change into another kind?

Click to expand...

But what is a "kind" in the first place? Nobody knows.

inquiring mind said:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound too argumentative. It’s just that TOE requires so much time that it’s not even close to observable. It can’t be proven or disproven, and yet it is considered absolute by the brightest minds.

Click to expand...

Wrong. That is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution and of science generally. I hope it is not intentional. Scientific theories are never "absolute." They are always accepted provisionally, merely as the best explanation to date, subject to further evidence which may disprove them.

Does that suggest there’s a lot of evidence that stacks up in its favor… certainly.

Click to expand...

And that's as good as it gets in science--so long as there is none which contradicts it, which hasn't happened so far. Of course once a theory is disproved it stays disproved, and failure of a subsequent theory won't bring it back. I think that accounts for part of the confusion creationists feel when they think evolution is being pushed on them as "absolute truth." Biblical creationism is a disproved theory. It's a certainty that it won't come back, no matter that the theory of evolution itself is not absolute truth.

Where does that leave me? Seeing the reasons to doubt it, still asking questions and thinking maybe that knowledge is and always will be beyond the scope of science, thereby rendering the naturalistic-only view forever questionable, and that God made sure the Genesis ‘God did it’ answer, however so, will always remain an option for any level of education.

Click to expand...

The "naturalistic only" view is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. The theory of evolution does not address the question.

pitabread said:

But what is a "kind" in the first place? Nobody knows.

Click to expand...

I think everyone has sort of agreed to genus (and possibly on up the scale) as being equal to Kind. Kind is sort of my go-to word because it's biblical language. It certainly wouldn't be species... you sort of have difficulties with that catagoration as well... don't you?

Speedwell said:

Wrong. That is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution and of science generally. I hope it is not intentional. Scientific theories are never "absolute." They are always accepted provisionally, merely as the best explanation to date, subject to further evidence which may disprove them.

Click to expand...

Sort of splitting hairs aren't you? Absolute in that evolutionists are unwavering from what they consider the best evidence to date.

inquiring mind said:

I think everyone has sort of agreed to genus (and possibly on up the scale) as being equal to Kind.

Click to expand...

No, there is no agreement of any kind that I've seen. I've seen creationists define "kind" at anywhere from the species level all the way to kingdom level.

There is no methodology for distinguishing different "kinds" and consequently why there is no consistency of definition.

It certainly wouldn't be species... you sort of have difficulties with that catagoration as well... don't you?

Click to expand...

I recognize that categories are entirely artificial constructs. Even species is an artificial construct.

Such categories are used just to make different groups of organisms easier to talk about.

inquiring mind said:

I think everyone

Click to expand...

Everyone?

has sort of agreed to genus (and possibly on up the scale) as being equal to Kind. Kind is sort of my go-to word because it's biblical language. It certainly wouldn't be species... you sort of have difficulties with that catagoration as well... don't you?

Click to expand...

What sort of difficulties did you have in mind?

Speedwell said:

Biblical creationism is a disproved theory. It's a certainty that it won't come back, no matter that the theory of evolution itself is not absolute truth.

Click to expand...

Do you think I’m stupid or silly Speedwell? Do I throw faith-only claims at you? What I mean is do you think I haven’t studied and investigated biblical creationism to the best of my ability thus far, looked at non-physical evidence for and against it, considered its physical possibilities and lack of, weighed it against the naturalistic-only alternative to the best of my ability, and drawn reasonable conclusions in addition to a faith-only perspective? Don’t you think I can articulate a pretty good argument based on those grounds? My point is, I say TOE has holes in it, you say Biblical creationism is disproved. How can you say that when you admit TOE is not absolute truth?

inquiring mind said:

Do you think I’m stupid or silly Speedwell? Do I throw faith-only claims at you? What I mean is do you think I haven’t studied and investigated biblical creationism to the best of my ability thus far, looked at non-physical evidence for and against it, considered its physical possibilities and lack of, weighed it against the naturalistic-only

Click to expand...

There's that false dichotomy peaking out from behind the scenery again.

alternative to the best of my ability, and drawn reasonable conclusions in addition to a faith-only perspective? Don’t you think I can articulate a pretty good argument based on those grounds?

Click to expand...

I'd like to see you do it.

My point is, I say TOE has holes in it, you say Biblical creationism is disproved. How can you say that when you admit TOE is not absolute truth?

Click to expand...

No scientific theory is considered "absolute." But a theory with confirming evidence, even if it's spotty, beats a theory with evidence against it every time. "Absolute Truth" doesn't come into it.

Speedwell said:

I'd like to see you do it.

Click to expand...

And to think, "I can live on a compliment for two months." Mark Twain

inquiring mind said:

And to think, "I can live on a compliment for two months." Mark Twain

Click to expand...

Perhaps you deserve one. But all I've seen from you so far are efforts to find fault with evolution. And even if you succeeded in disproving it all you would have is a disproved theory. You would not have advanced the cause of creationism one bit.

inquiring mind said:

... TOE requires so much time that it’s not even close to observable. It can’t be proven or disproven, and yet it is considered absolute by the brightest minds.

Click to expand...

Not absolute; beyond reasonable doubt. There are multiple independent lines of evidence supporting it, no evidence against, it has made many fruitful predictions within each line of evidence, and is based on a simple and verifiable logical algorithmic principle (heritable variation with selection) reliable enough to have commercial applications. After ~150 years of challenges, it's stronger than ever.

... never mind.

Shemjaza said:

Can you support that claim?

Because it sounds like a mistake.


Adaptation had always been a part of evolutionarily theory.

Click to expand...

Adaption is related to environmental adaptions normally and are not evolutionary in the original sense of the theory. It is not a mistake. Changes can occur but they do not result in a new species for instance the Galapagos finches who developed longer beaks are not evolutionary as first reported. After the conditions returned to normal the finches beaks actually returned to their original size. While this observers the ability of a species to adapt it is not an evolutionary change.

CaspianSails said:

Adaption is related to environmental adaptions normally and are not evolutionary in the original sense of the theory. It is not a mistake. Changes can occur but they do not result in a new species for instance the Galapagos finches who developed longer beaks are not evolutionary as first reported. After the conditions returned to normal the finches beaks actually returned to their original size. While this observers the ability of a species to adapt it is not an evolutionary change.

Click to expand...

I don't think you get evolution.

Selection pressure acts on traits already in the population. So if the environment changes so the long beak variant is more favourable then it will become more common in the population.

A phrase commonly used is:
"change of allele frequencies within a population"

So short term changes in environment can lead to short term changes in frequency of traits. It's over a long period that these traits get fixed in a population.

CaspianSails said:

Adaption is related to environmental adaptions normally and are not evolutionary in the original sense of the theory. It is not a mistake. Changes can occur but they do not result in a new species for instance the Galapagos finches who developed longer beaks are not evolutionary as first reported. After the conditions returned to normal the finches beaks actually returned to their original size. While this observers the ability of a species to adapt it is not an evolutionary change.

Click to expand...

Non-evolutionary adaptations are physiological changes in individuals in response to environmental pressures, such as increasing stamina or strength, tolerating heat or cold, coping with dietary changes, etc. Such adaptations may well precede evolutionary adaptation if the environmental conditions persist over many generations. Those that are better able to physiologically adapt to the conditions will contribute more genes to subsequent generations of the population and will skew the range of physiological adaptability in the population towards fitness for those conditions.

Mature finches don't change beak size or shape, so consistent changes in beak size or shape in the population would be generational and so either epigenetic or evolutionary. Neither case necessarily justifies designating them as a new species. But if the population no longer interbreeds with other finch populations, they might be designated a new species. In the case of the Galapagos finches, some populations were geographically isolated and evolved separately for some time, leading to peripatric speciation.

CaspianSails said:

Adaption is related to environmental adaptions normally and are not evolutionary in the original sense of the theory.

Click to expand...

Gee, if only Darwin and Wallace hadn't outlined such adaptation in their original, jointly presented, paper:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F350&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

CaspianSails said:

It is not a mistake. Changes can occur but they do not result in a new species for instance the Galapagos finches who developed longer beaks are not evolutionary as first reported. After the conditions returned to normal the finches beaks actually returned to their original size. While this observers the ability of a species to adapt it is not an evolutionary change.

Click to expand...

Again, Wallace (and to a lesser extent Darwin) addressed this in their original publication. And dismissed it as not being supported by the evidence. Here's the closing paragraph:

I suggest you read 'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type' by Wallace.

Shemjaza said:

I don't think you get evolution..

Click to expand...

This is, as I am sure you have observed, a problem for many who oppose evolution. They do not seem able to appreciate that large changes, while they may be swift on a geological timescale, are typically extremely slow on human time scales. They fail to understand or refuse to recognise deep time. I still find myself moved by the profound scientific importance and eloquent phrasing of James Hutton: The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

Ophiolite said:

This is, as I am sure you have observed, a problem for many who oppose evolution. They do not seem able to appreciate that large changes, while they may be swift on a geological timescale, are typically extremely slow on human time scales. They fail to understand or refuse to recognise deep time. I still find myself moved by the profound scientific importance and eloquent phrasing of James Hutton: The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

Click to expand...

No, speaking for myself, I ‘recognize’ the possibility of deep time (considering gaps/delineation and all that), beyond the approx. 7,000 years required to mesh a literal biblical creation and historical/archeological evidence. But, I don’t ‘understand’ it, and I don’t think evolutionists do either, not like they think they do. I just don’t agree that the macro-level large changes you allude to happened.

inquiring mind said:

No, speaking for myself, I ‘recognize’ the possibility of deep time (considering gaps/delineation and all that), beyond the approx. 7,000 years required to mesh a literal biblical creation and historical/archeological evidence. But, I don’t ‘understand’ it, and I don’t think evolutionists do either, not like they think they do. I just don’t agree that the macro-level large changes you allude to happened.

Click to expand...

If you choose not to drink from the water trough you must remain a thirsty horse. That macro evolution is a reality is the concept best supported by the evidence. No alternative explanation has even a miniscule fraction of that level of support.

Perhaps on a more productive note, what is it you think evolutionists don't understand about deep time?

Ophiolite said:

Perhaps on a more productive note, what is it you think evolutionists don't understand about deep time?

Click to expand...

Much of the speculative connections they make over such a long time.