Big contradictions in the evolution theory

walkingxshadow said:

thats another one of those forced evolution type things. the lizard got moved and had to adapt quickly or die. and even then it didnt happen over night. they were transplanted back in 1971. 40 years. even then that is several hundred generations of lizard later. i should have clarified: when there are no major environmental changes and the organism is just going about its day to day it is awfully slow. but when something drastic changes in its environment the species has to adapt or die.

Click to expand...

Several hundred generations of lizards? Where are you getting your data? It takes about a year for related Podarcis sp. to mature sexually...

so are you telling me that 10 lizards turned in thousands of lizards without at least a couple hundred generations of lizard? yes one lizard may take a year to have a litter(dont know techinical term) or new generation. but what about those that were just born? each one of those will give rise to a new generation. then those will and those will and those will.

walkingxshadow said:

so are you telling me that 10 lizards turned in thousands of lizards without at least a couple hundred generations of lizard? yes one lizard may take a year to have a litter(dont know techinical term) or new generation. but what about those that were just born? each one of those will give rise to a new generation. then those will and those will and those will.

Click to expand...

No they all collectively give rise to one new generation.

Geez dude come on.

now youre just arguing semantics. when applied to people yes generation can be applied that way in terms of relative age. but i dont think so when applied to biological generation unless each litter was born at the exact same time. so we dont agree on how to define generation. big whoop. you still didnt tell me how 10 lizards turned into thousands without at least one hundred generations. see im trying to meet in the middle.

walkingxshadow said:

so are you telling me that 10 lizards turned in thousands of lizards without at least a couple hundred generations of lizard? yes one lizard may take a year to have a litter(dont know techinical term) or new generation. but what about those that were just born? each one of those will give rise to a new generation. then those will and those will and those will.

Click to expand...

http://www.udc.es/dep/bm/genetica/gibe/uploads/gibe/pedrogalan/1996_Herpetol_J_1.pdf

Here's the paper, on P. bocagei. Again, yes, it takes the offspring of those adults a year to reach sexual maturity and have offspring of their own. It's possible that these animals may have reached maturity faster, as they'd have been better competitors and presumably would get more food, but I don't see anything to support several hundred generations.

As for 10 lizards leading to a thousand in 40 years, well, yes, I think that's very possible. According to the paper each lizard female had between 1-3 clutches (most 2-3), and each of these had an average of 4 eggs. Figure the maximum rate of increase is 12 eggs per pair of lizard. If the introduced lizards had a substantial advantage over the native lizards, I could see them having a population growth rate that would be high enough to have thousands of lizards in 40 years.

I can crunch the numbers if you like, but it's Saturday and I'm working on my second cup of coffee still.

Seamus Riley said:

I'm not the one making the claim that i can better interpret the bible...you suggested this. therefore, read my "final suggestion" thusly: if you are better at understanding the bible contextually, perhaps you are better able to appeal to creationists intellectually and shouldn't be suffering from this frustration you often express.

saying a secular theologian is the best authority for understanding the bible in proper context is little different than saying an american linguistics professor is the best authority on colloquial russian, and not a russian living in russia.

edit: is there a particular video you recommend by the user you linked? i'd like to check him out, but not necessarily all of them. is there a particularly strong one you like? thanks.

Click to expand...

As an ex-Christian, he'd be more like a Russian-born American linguistics professor, actually. With religion, people tend to look for what they want to believe when they look at the bible. I think secularism is a more neutral, unbiased position.

Not one video stands out, but this one is a good example of a typical Superfly vid:

YouTube - Noah's two Narratives

Delphiki said:

As an ex-Christian, he'd be more like a Russian-born American linguistics professor, actually. With religion, people tend to look for what they want to believe when they look at the bible. I think secularism is a more neutral, unbiased position.

Not one video stands out, but this one is a good example of a typical Superfly vid:

YouTube - Noah's two Narratives

Click to expand...

There are plenty of theories about Noah and flood.
I found this one interesting

http://www.christianforums.com/t7550589/#post57186903
Was Eden destroyed during the flood?

LittleLambofJesus said:

There are plenty of theories about Noah and flood.

Click to expand...

There are no theories about Noah and the flood. There are ideas and conjecture and maybe even hypotheses, but there are no theories.

Skaloop said:

There are no theories about Noah and the flood. There are ideas and conjecture and maybe even hypotheses, but there are no theories.

Click to expand...

Agreed -- theories exist to explain facts, and there are no facts to support Noah's flood.

Skaloop said:

There are no theories about Noah and the flood. There are ideas and conjecture and maybe even hypotheses, but there are no theories.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, thanks for that correction

walkingxshadow said:

now youre just arguing semantics. when applied to people yes generation can be applied that way in terms of relative age. but i dont think so when applied to biological generation unless each litter was born at the exact same time. so we dont agree on how to define generation. big whoop. you still didnt tell me how 10 lizards turned into thousands without at least one hundred generations. see im trying to meet in the middle.

Click to expand...

However you decide to define generation one thing is for sure: you definitely don't define it as each separate litter produced. That is just silly.

Delphiki said:

YouTube - Noah's two Narratives

Click to expand...

Okay -- I went 2:02 into this video, and he doesn't say the first thing about these 'two stories'.

Instead, he yaks on and on and on about one book after another after another -- and he even says his video is Part 1 of 2.

He's not here to inform us, he's here to sell books, eh?

In short: tl;dr.

(Note: when you see a video that supposedly is going to educate you on a single point, and that video is 18 minutes long -- forget it.)

i find it interesting that ppl are attacking me on how i choose to define words and not what i stated in regards to evolution which is kinda the point of this thread. i was just trying to explain things in a way that non science ppl would understand. and yet there are those out there that just have to prove their superiority. i will admit it. im only a third year biochem student currently taking and acing molecular biology. what do i know on the subject despite how i define things. and im sure there are those out there who have graduate degrees on such matters(which is what im pursuing) and know a lot more than me. but what does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread?! you either agree with what i said or you dont. save nitpicking for threads that are actually about those topics. i wont be responding to this thread anymore.

walkingxshadow said:

i find it interesting that ppl are attacking me on how i choose to define words and not what i stated in regards to evolution which is kinda the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

You've said several things in this thread that some people would regard as incorrect. Being criticized is not being attacked, and as someone a little bit ahead of you on the path towards being a scientist (not that I'm asserting any superior intellect, knowledge or talent, just that I'm a few years older), I'd say get used to people criticizing you. The speed of evolution seems relevant to this discussion.

walkingxshadow said:

i find it interesting that ppl are attacking me on how i choose to define words and not what i stated in regards to evolution which is kinda the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

Because part of your point was the "100 generations" thing. It was something that needed to be addressed before we continued. Helps to prevent confusion. Not about attacked just about clarification of terms. Duh.

AV1611VET said:

Okay -- I went 2:02 into this video, and he doesn't say the first thing about these 'two stories'.

Instead, he yaks on and on and on about one book after another after another -- and he even says his video is Part 1 of 2.

He's not here to inform us, he's here to sell books, eh?

In short: tl;dr.

(Note: when you see a video that supposedly is going to educate you on a single point, and that video is 18 minutes long -- forget it.)

Click to expand...

The purpose of the video is to distinguish between the different narratives in the same story. He points out the parts of the other, older stories that the Noah story borrows from as well. The video is so long because he actually reads the entire Noah arc (no pun intended), which you can skip if you already know it.

Those books he was talking about in the beginning are books covering the older stories the Noah's flood story is based on. Maybe you only understood it as "yaking on and on" because you typically plug your ears an hum loudly most of the time anyway. Lastly, he's not selling anything, he's showing his references.

Delphiki said:

The purpose of the video is to distinguish between the different narratives in the same story. He points out the parts of the other, older stories that the Noah story borrows from as well.

Click to expand...

Then it's not Noah's story, is it?

If it was borrowed from someone, then it is someone else's story.

This guy and his video can take a hike.

He's here to sell books or something.

AV1611VET said:

In short: tl;dr.

(Note: when you see a video that supposedly is going to educate you on a single point, and that video is 18 minutes long -- forget it.)

Click to expand...

I suppose worshipping ignorance and having the attention span of a goldfish are a natural combination.

AV1611VET said:

Then it's not Noah's story, is it?

If it was borrowed from someone, then it is someone else's story.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the point, isn't it, AV -- "Noah's story" was never Noah's to begin with -- it was plagiarized.

did someone say intelligent hands moved the lizards?

JUST KIDDING, i'm not really going there.

ok, so i went ahead and read that offsite debate carico was involved in and i'm quite thankful driewerf sent me there because i think i understand her much better now. perhaps she failed to see what people were trying to explain to her about what an ape is as it relates to superfamilies, but i think everyone failed to catch something in this transaction:

humans are distinguished from "apes" as well as other animals very early on in their education, most often before evolution as a concept is ever introduced. this has nothing to do with religious upbringing. this classification presents new information which challenges previously understood "truths" especially if the subject did have a religious upbringing which challenges or contradicts evolution. can you cut a little slack for this reason? ok, furthermore you ask her to accept concepts about classification and say she must do this in order to understand the idea as a whole. but that wouldn't be anything like asking an atheist to accept biblical concepts in order to understand christianity, would it? i know its already been stated (yet to be proven or even a reasonable argument presented for) that non-creationists understand the bible and that secular theologians are the best authorities, but i have to wonder when i read things like "god sends people to hell for their sexual positions." and no, i won't stick with generalization and would be happy to, given the chance to talk to individuals, help dismantle their own misconceptions about the bible.

on the subject of classification itself, can we agree that criteria for classifications have changed a lot and that changes are ongoing? i hope this isn't challenged because a little honesty shouldn't hurt the theory of evolution (of which i do have a lot of respect for by the way). i wouldn't say that classifications are arbitrary, but given that the criteria has changed often one could easily see why someone could come to such conclusions or how it may appear as if facts are fitted to support theories. a certain cartoon lampooning creationists springs quickly to my mind.

getting back to carico, i think the idea that humans are apes (in the context of just giving a name to something) was simply too offensive to her to get beyond. one could easily have said, "we'll put all the lizards and frogs, etc over here and call them Doodads and we'll put all the gorillas and humans over here and call them Dittybops," merely as a means of classifying different living creatures. certainly participants in this thread care enough to try to educate and she should learn about something before trying to refute it. how many christians have you honestly heard say, "well, they were just too stupid to learn the gospel, so we ridiculed them out of the room?"