Challenging Evolution

[Mistermystery]

Even evo-loopies admit those 2 statements
.... Evo-loopies expect uys .......
So evo-loopy-poop is unscientific

Besides the glaring mistakes you make (for example you think somehow that the Big bang involves an explosion), I would like to refer you to the newer rules. I don't want to get into this here any further, but we can both act like adults here and don't call each other names, okay?

 

[Aron-Ra]

trinity mentioned information and was asked to define information three times, but has not yet done so.

Trinity has a life away from the computer. Trinity does not spend his entire existence replying to babble on this board. I am replying now

Trinity was also asked to explain what a monkey or an ape is, so that we could identify one if we ever discovered a new species. While one would think this a very simple question, he has repeatedly refused to answer it. I have noticed that every creationist queried so far has refused to answer it too, as if they thought that just doing that would automatically comprimise their position. But how could it if their position was really true?

 

[Arikay]

2) But thats not quite what creationism says, it says that not only do animals recreate after their kind, but that they can't change beyond this "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier (none has ever been shown). Other creationist groups have dropped this and they say that there are no "upward" mutations or mutations that increase the information. And again, its very hard to get anyone to define information or what an increase is. But this as well is false.
Creationism is basically super hyper evolution with barriers.

As I was leaving this thread, something struck me and I would greatly appreciate someone answering the question I have without the usual circular logic and arguement.

On according to the biblical account of creation, two elements apply.
1. God created the world and all that is in it.
Now we have already established that this is not testable, so as far as scientific methods go, Neutral.

2. Animals recreate after there kind.
Now science has been observing this phenomina for as long as science has been studied. So how then has science disproven the TOC?

I would seem to me that by the definitions given, C is fact and theory just as you claim the TOE to be.

Hummm, How then has science disporven the TOC???? Any help on this one?

 

[The Bellman]

Creation is fact, the standard theory of creationism is a falsified one.

If you mean by "creation is fact" "we're here, so SOMEthing/one must have created us," yes, it is fact. If you mean by "creation is fact" "creation by a god is fact" then that is not in evidence.

 

[Mistermystery]

If you mean by "creation is fact" "we're here, so SOMEthing/one must have created us," yes, it is fact..

I think taht this is exactly what notto means. He just believes that God did it.. Right?

 

[razzelflabben]

It comes down to the definition of kind.

How many kinds were created and what are they?

If kind=species (in the classic taxonomic definition of species), then species must be "fixed" such that no species changes over time to become or produce a different species.

This was the creationist position of the mid-19th century, and the one that Darwin spent the most of his work on refuting.

TOC did change this position and today, both TOE and TOC would agree that "kind" is not equivalent to "taxonomic species". Taxonomic species do change over time; they do produce new species.

That fact, accepted by TOC and TOE is what I have been referring to as the "fact" of evolution.

The current TOC definition of kinds envisages the creation of something wider than a taxonomic species, but still sees the creation of many kinds such that the "rabbit kind" is distinct from (and not related to) the "mouse kind".

TOE generally does not use the concept of "kind", but if it did, it would envisage the creation of only one or a very few simple kinds of prokaryotic life forms of which all present-day life forms are descendants.

Science has proven that the TOC definition of "kinds" is invalid, by showing that all life forms are indeed phylogenetically related i.e. related through descent from common ancestors --- and presumably--- from a single common ancestor of all currently existing species.

As I stated at the very outset, a lot of creo-evo disputation is not grounded in disagreement about actual observation, but in how we define and label those observations. For evo's changes in species, whether or not those changes lead to speciation, is evolution. But creo's define evolution differently so that these changes do not, by their definition, add up to evolution, even when they do lead to speciation.

We agree on the observation. We disagree on the label.

So where evo's see evolution as a fact, creo's don't see evolution at all.

So if I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that this entire argument is occuring because neither side understands the definitions being used when discribing terms and that would equal lack of communication as I see it. Have I about covered what you are saying adequately.

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

 

[razzelflabben]

The theory of Creationism as often used by youth earth creationists which contents that the earth is under 10,000 years old and that all 'kinds' were created as is at one time has been falsified by evidence and observation. Throw in the global flood which has also been falsified and the 3 major points of standard creationism have been falsified by science.

Creation is fact, the standard theory of creationism is a falsified one.

You left quite a bit out of the definition of creationism.

I beg to differ, you put a lot into the standard theroy of C. The theory of C originated in the bible, the bible being the (supposed) primary authority of the christian community. That theory pretty much so starts and stops a
1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
2. Animals recreate after their kind.

Now it is true that some C hold to the young earth, etc. parts of the theory. But this is to assume that all do, or that this is a part of the original theory. As I have stated before, the TOE is self healing, the TOC is self healing as well. Both have unanswered questions, both leave room for new evidence, etc. But if we assume to know what is not there, there will never be communication. This is truely sad for we can certainly all learn from each other.

 

[Mistermystery]

1. God created the universe and all that is in it.

Don't you mean to add "literary according to genesis"?

2. Animals recreate after their kind.

Where kind = species? Is a wolf diffrent from a dog kind? From a cat and a lion kind?

 

[The Bellman]

So if I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that this entire argument is occuring because neither side understands the definitions being used when discribing terms and that would equal lack of communication as I see it. Have I about covered what you are saying adequately.

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

Come on. You've done enough dodging. The definition of "kind" is central - indespensible - to creationism, yet you persist in NOT giving one. This is one of the main aspects of creationism that will for ever prevent it being seriously examined by the scientific community. Its advocates can't even define the most central aspect of it - what the boundaries are between "kinds".

And before you say it, the fact that real science cannot accurately define "species" is irrelevant - the definition is fuzzy because under the theory of evolution species, themselves, are fuzzy. This is NOT the case with creationism, where there are precise boundaries beyond which creatures cannot evolve. Yet creationists can't even define those boundaries! Just another reason creationism will forever be pseudo-science, and rank right up there with phrenology, flat-earthism and geocentrism.

 

[razzelflabben]

2) But thats not quite what creationism says, it says that not only do animals recreate after their kind, but that they can't change beyond this "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier (none has ever been shown). Other creationist groups have dropped this and they say that there are no "upward" mutations or mutations that increase the information. And again, its very hard to get anyone to define information or what an increase is. But this as well is false.
Creationism is basically super hyper evolution with barriers.

Again, we are assuming to know what others believe without ever really taking the time to find out first. I am sure if I took the time, which I refuse to do so don't ask or issue a challenge, because it is counterproductive to my argument and provides futher opertunity to get off target, I could find aspects of the TOE and I am sure many C do, that do not fit your beliefs, and argue with you based on the notion that you believe these aspects of E. How is this conducive to discussion, the exchange of ideas? The theory as put forth in the bible has not been disproven. The theory as put forth in the bible is as proven as the theory of E, by scientific observations. There are individual nuances (did I sp. that right?) within the theory which individuals use to close some gaps, we can call this self healing, just as the TOE is self healing. Adapts and changes based on the data observed from scientific methods.

Many people fail to understand that God wants us to experiment and find answers. Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Why would this passage be in the scriptures except that God wants man to ask questions and explore his environment for answers. The TOC as put forth in the bible leave plenty of room for explorations of our world.

To the believers, this assures them that the theory of Creation as stated in the bible cannot be disproven or else, God wouldn't ask man to search it out.

To the nonbeliever, this means that to claim that the theory of Creation is false, disproven, is to claim that all of christianity is false and disproven and we all know that for centuries, people have set out to do just that but with no real success, only further questions.

So to make claims that the TOC is falsified, is to claim that christianity is falsified, which is equivelant to attacking ones belief system. This then starts unnecessary arguing. Let's equate it for the moment to the E being accused of a belief system and questioned accordingly. Not a pretty sight for either and one I purpose to you need not happen.

 

[Jet Black]

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

why don't you ask your son, and tell us what the definitions are?

 

[razzelflabben]

Come on. You've done enough dodging. The definition of "kind" is central - indespensible - to creationism, yet you persist in NOT giving one. This is one of the main aspects of creationism that will for ever prevent it being seriously examined by the scientific community. Its advocates can't even define the most central aspect of it - what the boundaries are between "kinds".

And before you say it, the fact that real science cannot accurately define "species" is irrelevant - the definition is fuzzy because under the theory of evolution species, themselves, are fuzzy. This is NOT the case with creationism, where there are precise boundaries beyond which creatures cannot evolve. Yet creationists can't even define those boundaries! Just another reason creationism will forever be pseudo-science, and rank right up there with phrenology, flat-earthism and geocentrism.

i should not even address this post at all because of the hostility in it, but I will say this.

If you read my entire post, I offered discussion in which we could find a common ground for the definition of kind. Note my post where it says

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

But you are too busy disproving scientific terminology to address the discussion with any sincerity which is why I was on my way out of the discussion to start out with. I will continue the discussion with anyone who wants to rid themselves of this hostility first but otherwise, I cannot stay. I have much to learn and much to teach and have no interest in the emotional banter used to prove how wise one is in his own eyes.

 

[razzelflabben]

why don't you ask your son, and tell us what the definitions are?

Currently, he is asleep, he was up a midnight helping his dad so that we can feed our family. I think that is sufficient enough reason to ask you? Besides, isn't the discussion here not between my son and myself?

 

[Jet Black]

well fair enough, but remember that it is not us defining kinds for you. note that one of the the main problem with the whole definition of kinds is that if you set it at too low a level there isn't enough room on the ark, and if you set it at to high a level, it becomes meaningless. This ignores the lack of predictive ability of the kind definition. Most creationist groups (such as AIG and so on) accept the modern definition of species as groups of organisms which can interbreed, and also accept speciation (as this has been observed, it is a bit difficult not to) however the 'kind' argument, which is basically an extension to the evolution argument leaves us with a problem, since it is impossible to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. Sorry I don't remember exactly where I read this, I think it was AIG, but to paraphrase, their idea of a kind follows thus: "if two organisms can interbreed, they belong to the same kind (and species) but if they cannot then they still may belong to the same kind (though different species) though possibly not." so the definition of a kind becomes untestable, and as we look through history at the fossil record, we can no longer say what kind a particular fossil belongs to. I mean are dogs the same kind as cats? what about the fossils that are intermediate to dogs and cats? are they in the dog or cat kind, or are they in their own kind? what kinds do the various therapsid groups belong to? how about the different members of the cetaceans? should different kinds share ERVs? should different kinds share ALU sequences? should different kinds share similar chromosome sequences? for example, the chimp chromosomes are closer to human chromosomes than zebra chromosomes are to donkey chromosomes, however both zebra and donkeys can breed with horses, and are hence of the same kind (dunno if zebra can breed with donkeys though!). this is another major weakness in the "kind" argument, since it is simply not testable and makes no real predictions. It can't even really claim the species thing as a prediction since that is an evolutionary prediction that has just been tacked on to give the kind definition some credibility.

 

[razzelflabben]

well fair enough, but remember that it is not us defining kinds for you. note that one of the the main problem with the whole definition of kinds is that if you set it at too low a level there isn't enough room on the ark, and if you set it at to high a level, it becomes meaningless. This ignores the lack of predictive ability of the kind definition. Most creationist groups (such as AIG and so on) accept the modern definition of species as groups of organisms which can interbreed, and also accept speciation (as this has been observed, it is a bit difficult not to) however the 'kind' argument, which is basically an extension to the evolution argument leaves us with a problem, since it is impossible to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. Sorry I don't remember exactly where I read this, I think it was AIG, but to paraphrase, their idea of a kind follows thus: "if two organisms can interbreed, they belong to the same kind (and species) but if they cannot then they still may belong to the same kind (though different species) though possibly not." so the definition of a kind becomes untestable, and as we look through history at the fossil record, we can no longer say what kind a particular fossil belongs to. I mean are dogs the same kind as cats? what about the fossils that are intermediate to dogs and cats? are they in the dog or cat kind, or are they in their own kind? what kinds do the various therapsid groups belong to? how about the different members of the cetaceans? should different kinds share ERVs? should different kinds share ALU sequences? should different kinds share similar chromosome sequences? for example, the chimp chromosomes are closer to human chromosomes than zebra chromosomes are to donkey chromosomes, however both zebra and donkeys can breed with horses, and are hence of the same kind (dunno if zebra can breed with donkeys though!). this is another major weakness in the "kind" argument, since it is simply not testable and makes no real predictions. It can't even really claim the species thing as a prediction since that is an evolutionary prediction that has just been tacked on to give the kind definition some credibility.

This is all very interesting and gives us insight into what the organized C groups are discussing, but it not answering the questions I asked.

What is the old and new definition for species? and please highlight the differences in the definitions so that we can narrow down our understandings and discussions.

 

[Jet Black]

What is the old and new definition for species? and please highlight the differences in the definitions so that we can narrow down our understandings and discussions.

I don't have a clue, I'm not old enough to know the old definitions. how old are we talking by the way? pre darwinian? the problem is that there are alot of species that have been identified as separate species that aren't, and alot that have been defined as the same species that aren't. the fact that I don't have a clue is why I suggest you ask your son, since he put it forwards it's all well and good defining something, but what use is it if the definition is untestable?

 

[USincognito]

I beg to differ, you put a lot into the standard theroy of C. The theory of C originated in the bible, the bible being the (supposed) primary authority of the christian community. That theory pretty much so starts and stops a
1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
2. Animals recreate after their kind.

I don't know where you got this as the "standard" definition of Creationism. Creationism as defined by the Christian scientists who investigated it 180 years ago - as well as current Creationists add the other following hyptheses to thier theory:

3. The geology of the world as we see it is explained by the Noachian flood.
4. All "kinds" (or species if that makes you more comfortable) were specially and individually created.
5. Humans are a singularly special creation in God's image and should not exhibit any genetic - and though they won't admit it - morphological connection to extant or extinct "not entirely human" species.

1. is a matter of theology, not science as it is utterly untestable or unfalsifiable.
2. is so ill defined by Creationists, it hardly warrents inclusion as part of an actual scientific theory. If "kind" is defined to mean species, then since we have fossil and genetic evidence that species only reproduce after their "kind," it's false based on the evidence demonstrating reptiles producing mammals, wolf or bear "kind" producing whale "kind," and ape "kind" producing humans.
3. is falsified by the observations of geologists and paleontologists.
4. is falsified by the observations of evolution occuring in studies, the genetic record and the fossil record.
5. is falsified for the same reasons as number 4.

Now it is true that some C hold to the young earth, etc. parts of the theory. But this is to assume that all do, or that this is a part of the original theory. As I have stated before, the TOE is self healing, the TOC is self healing as well. Both have unanswered questions, both leave room for new evidence, etc. But if we assume to know what is not there, there will never be communication. This is truely sad for we can certainly all learn from each other.

Your assertions are patently incorrect.

Creationism - as in the literal interpretation of Genesis - is forced by the geneologies to adhere to a young Earth, which is clearly false. Creationism - as in believing God created - period - cannot be falsified and thusly isn't scientific. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter. Theistic Evolutionists have an origins trump card in that they can appeal to both a first cause and a driving force without much need for explainations of mechanisms - luckily they have them.

Now, about your assertion about the Theory of Creation being self-correcting. I can't imagine a more rediculous assertion in this debate. Creationism begins with a premise that must be demonstrated to be correct - Genesis is literally true. How can there possibly be any correcting device with that presmise? Let me demonstrate how this isn't true using a real life example.

Creationism presumes a lack of transitional fossils between species, families, genus', orders, etc. The existance of these fossils aren't inculcated into Crationism, but poo poo'd or hand waved away. Evolution presumes that genes will show a connection between species. When genetic evidence finally showed a lack of descendant connection between Neanderthals and humans... science shrugged and looked a little farther back between the two species and their common ancestor.

In Creationism the correction was just calling the new evidence bunk, while in Evolution the new evidence was inculcated easily.

If you want to get even further into "self-correction" we can discuss how Creationism treats fossil fish on the tops of mountains in light of plate tectonics vis a vis the reaction of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

So if I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that this entire argument is occuring because neither side understands the definitions being used when discribing terms and that would equal lack of communication as I see it. Have I about covered what you are saying adequately.

As far as the ordinary adherent of TOC is concerned, that may be the case, but I expect that agreement on the terms would not lead to agreement that evolution has occurred.

For there is a reason why leaders of the creationist movement refuse to use the scientific definition of evolution. And that is an a priori position that "evolution does not happen".

Historically we can see how creationism has changed its stance in order to avoid admitting the reality of evolution---and that is by changing from scientific terminology to a specialized creationist terminology for the same observations.

Phase one: "fixity of species" Pt. 1
Actually, as Darwin discovered, this should be listed even more narrowly as "fixity of sub-species". Darwin was a pigeon fancier, among other things, and he knew a bit about the different breeds of domesticated pigeon. And he knew other pigeon breeders. He could tell a jacobin from a fantail from a poulter, etc. Darwin came to the conclusion that all domestic breeds had descended from one wild species: the common rock pigeon.

But he found other breeders did not take kindly to this idea. You see, if Darwin was right, then breeders, not God, had "created" the different breeds of pigeons through artificial selection. The breeders were horrified by that sacreligious idea. They insisted that it was impossible for a jacobin and a fantail to have a common ancestor. They insisted that they did not "create" new breeds; they only improved the breeds which God had initially created. (Don't know what it says about their theology, to think they could improve on God's creation.)

This notion of fixity of breeds was applied, even by scientists of the day, to the human species as well, with a number of prominent scientists (e.g. Louis Agassiz) taking the position that humans of different races had each been created separately. i.e. Africans, Orientals, Amerindians, and Caucasians at least were separate original "kinds" each owing their origin to a separate creation event.

Phase two: "fixity of species" Pt. 2
Darwin's own work pretty much put the kybosh on the extreme creationism described above. For the next few decades, creationists agreed that several sub-species could have a common ancestor in the originally created species. But they still insisted that species themselves did not change and that a species could not change to the point that it became another species (or several species). In short, they insisted that each of Darwin's Galapagos finches was a separate creation, and that as a group, they did not owe their origin to a common ancestor from South America. However, by the early 20th century, it became impossible to deny the observed evidence that species do change and can be ancestors of new species. To save the assertion that evolution does not happen, creationist leaders proposed to replace "fixity of species" with "fixity of kinds".

Phase 3 "fixity of kinds"
This is still the mainstream position of creationism, and the one I was introduced to as a teenager way back in the 1950s. This position divorces the Genesis term "kind" from the scientific term "species" and agrees that several closely related species can have a common ancestor in an originally created "kind". A corollary of this position is that humanity is an originally created kind, and not related by descent to any other kind. * (See further note on this below.)

It was also at this point that creationism began to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and to affirm that macro-evolution was a different process than micro-evolution. Micro-evolution, in this perspective, is the observed variation which allows a kind to diversify into several species and sub-species so that it can adapt to various environments. It is "ok" evolution. But macro-evolution demands a mechanism that allows one kind to become another kind, and that mechanism does not exist, nor is there any evidence of one kind becoming another kind. So macro-evolution, according to this theory, is "not ok" evolution and does not happen.

There is both strength and weakness in this form of creationism. Scientifically, all evolution beyond the species takes place at the point of speciation (and therefore within the "kind"), so by granting that a "kind" is a wider grouping than a species, the actual observed evolution from one species to another becomes allowable in creationism. On the other hand, this form of creationism has always been plagued by two objections. The first is the definition of "kind". If it is not a species, what is it? Creationists have always resisted attaching it to any recognized scientific category. But the groups that have been suggested as "kinds" range from a single species (Homo sapiens) to a whole domain of many phyla (bacteria). The second objection is that from a scientific perspective there is no known mechanism which differentiates micro-evolution from macro-evolution. Scientifically, these are not seen as different processes, but as phases of the same process: within a species and beyond the level of species. Creationists have never been able to demonstrate that such a mechanism, which keeps evolution within the bounds of a kind, exists.

Phase 4: changing the vocabulary
Perhaps it became too confusing to discriminate between "good" (micro-) evolution and "bad" (macro-) evolution. In any case, within the last decade I have noted a trend among creationists to drop the term "micro-evolution" and to use the term "evolution" to refer only to what was formerly called "macro-evolution".

What was formerly called "micro-evolution" is now often referred to as "variation" or "adaptation". And I have seen more than one creationist assert that "variation (adaptation) is NOT evolution."

To someone in science, or to someone who knows the history of the conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution, this is an astounding statement. In effect it says that "evolution is not evolution."

For a biologist, evolution IS precisely variation in a species from one generation to the next. Such variation is often adaptive and may give rise to new species.

Yet a new generation of creationists is being raised with the notion that variation and evolution are not at all the same thing.

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

Scientifically, there are no "old" and "new" definitions of species. At least none that I am aware of. The only major change is that while species used to be defined primarily on the basis of morphological characteristics (what they look like), the impact of DNA research is now being felt. But by and large, species defined on the basis of genetic difference and those defined on the basis of morphological difference turn out to be pretty much the same species.

As outlined above, it is not science that has made big changes in its terms, but creationism. The changes in creationist terms have been adopted solely in order to avoid admitting that evolution is an observed process and therefore a fact.

It was precisely because the "old" (and still scientific) definition of species led to the unavoidable conclusion that one species/kind does change over time and does give rise to new species/kinds that creationists abandoned the attempt to identify kinds as species in the first place.

*Note re bolded section above
That humans are a specially created original "kind" with no relationship to a non-human ancestor is the fundamental heart of creationism. One poster (unfortunately I forget who and when) once observed that it would appear creationists really don't care about the relationships between non-human species. As far as creationism is concerned, they could all have one common ancestor. As long as the human species is kept separate. Unfortunately for this promising solution, there are no scientific grounds for exempting the human species from an evolutionary origin among the primates and a relationship to other species of primates. Quite the reverse.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know where you got this as the "standard" definition of Creationism. Creationism as defined by the Christian scientists who investigated it 180 years ago - as well as current Creationists add the other following hyptheses to thier theory:

3. The geology of the world as we see it is explained by the Noachian flood.
4. All "kinds" (or species if that makes you more comfortable) were specially and individually created.
5. Humans are a singularly special creation in God's image and should not exhibit any genetic - and though they won't admit it - morphological connection to extant or extinct "not entirely human" species.

1. is a matter of theology, not science as it is utterly untestable or unfalsifiable.
2. is so ill defined by Creationists, it hardly warrents inclusion as part of an actual scientific theory. If "kind" is defined to mean species, then since we have fossil and genetic evidence that species only reproduce after their "kind," it's false based on the evidence demonstrating reptiles producing mammals, wolf or bear "kind" producing whale "kind," and ape "kind" producing humans.
3. is falsified by the observations of geologists and paleontologists.
4. is falsified by the observations of evolution occuring in studies, the genetic record and the fossil record.
5. is falsified for the same reasons as number 4.




Your assertions are patently incorrect.

Creationism - as in the literal interpretation of Genesis - is forced by the geneologies to adhere to a young Earth, which is clearly false. Creationism - as in believing God created - period - cannot be falsified and thusly isn't scientific. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter. Theistic Evolutionists have an origins trump card in that they can appeal to both a first cause and a driving force without much need for explainations of mechanisms - luckily they have them.

Now, about your assertion about the Theory of Creation being self-correcting. I can't imagine a more rediculous assertion in this debate. Creationism begins with a premise that must be demonstrated to be correct - Genesis is literally true. How can there possibly be any correcting device with that presmise? Let me demonstrate how this isn't true using a real life example.

Creationism presumes a lack of transitional fossils between species, families, genus', orders, etc. The existance of these fossils aren't inculcated into Crationism, but poo poo'd or hand waved away. Evolution presumes that genes will show a connection between species. When genetic evidence finally showed a lack of descendant connection between Neanderthals and humans... science shrugged and looked a little farther back between the two species and their common ancestor.

In Creationism the correction was just calling the new evidence bunk, while in Evolution the new evidence was inculcated easily.

If you want to get even further into "self-correction" we can discuss how Creationism treats fossil fish on the tops of mountains in light of plate tectonics vis a vis the reaction of evolution.

You are still limiting yourself to certain strains of the TOC. I do think you could benefit greatly from reading The Genesis Record. It is a book that looks in depth at what is and is not stated in the theory as recorded in Genesis, and BTW. There are gaps in the geneological accounts in the bible which to make it possible to take the theory literal and still not conflict with the scientific evidence found. Just one fallicy of the theory of C that argueing does not ever deal with.

The theory originated in the bible, that is where we must go to find out what is and is not able to change according to scientific evidences found. Look at it this way, there is a theory of E, at it's base, things evolve. Different strains, or aspects of that theory give us more in depth theory as to how and to what degree. This is also true of the TOC there is the basic theory, the base, and then you have different strains, or aspects of the theory that give more depth into the how and to what degree. These strains or aspects can vary based on the scientific evidences shown, but to date, the base of the theory has not been disproven, thus making it a still viable theory. Does that make more sense? The Genesis Record is a really good book for learning what is and is not possible within a literal account of creation as put forth in Gen.

 

[razzelflabben]

As far as the ordinary adherent of TOC is concerned, that may be the case, but I expect that agreement on the terms would not lead to agreement that evolution has occurred.

For there is a reason why leaders of the creationist movement refuse to use the scientific definition of evolution. And that is an a priori position that "evolution does not happen".

Historically we can see how creationism has changed its stance in order to avoid admitting the reality of evolution---and that is by changing from scientific terminology to a specialized creationist terminology for the same observations.

Phase one: "fixity of species" Pt. 1
Actually, as Darwin discovered, this should be listed even more narrowly as "fixity of sub-species". Darwin was a pigeon fancier, among other things, and he knew a bit about the different breeds of domesticated pigeon. And he knew other pigeon breeders. He could tell a jacobin from a fantail from a poulter, etc. Darwin came to the conclusion that all domestic breeds had descended from one wild species: the common rock pigeon.

But he found other breeders did not take kindly to this idea. You see, if Darwin was right, then breeders, not God, had "created" the different breeds of pigeons through artificial selection. The breeders were horrified by that sacreligious idea. They insisted that it was impossible for a jacobin and a fantail to have a common ancestor. They insisted that they did not "create" new breeds; they only improved the breeds which God had initially created. (Don't know what it says about their theology, to think they could improve on God's creation.)

This notion of fixity of breeds was applied, even by scientists of the day, to the human species as well, with a number of prominent scientists (e.g. Louis Agassiz) taking the position that humans of different races had each been created separately. i.e. Africans, Orientals, Amerindians, and Caucasians at least were separate original "kinds" each owing their origin to a separate creation event.

Phase two: "fixity of species" Pt. 2
Darwin's own work pretty much put the kybosh on the extreme creationism described above. For the next few decades, creationists agreed that several sub-species could have a common ancestor in the originally created species. But they still insisted that species themselves did not change and that a species could not change to the point that it became another species (or several species). In short, they insisted that each of Darwin's Galapagos finches was a separate creation, and that as a group, they did not owe their origin to a common ancestor from South America. However, by the early 20th century, it became impossible to deny the observed evidence that species do change and can be ancestors of new species. To save the assertion that evolution does not happen, creationist leaders proposed to replace "fixity of species" with "fixity of kinds".

Phase 3 "fixity of kinds"
This is still the mainstream position of creationism, and the one I was introduced to as a teenager way back in the 1950s. This position divorces the Genesis term "kind" from the scientific term "species" and agrees that several closely related species can have a common ancestor in an originally created "kind". A corollary of this position is that humanity is an originally created kind, and not related by descent to any other kind. * (See further note on this below.)

It was also at this point that creationism began to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and to affirm that macro-evolution was a different process than micro-evolution. Micro-evolution, in this perspective, is the observed variation which allows a kind to diversify into several species and sub-species so that it can adapt to various environments. It is "ok" evolution. But macro-evolution demands a mechanism that allows one kind to become another kind, and that mechanism does not exist, nor is there any evidence of one kind becoming another kind. So macro-evolution, according to this theory, is "not ok" evolution and does not happen.

There is both strength and weakness in this form of creationism. Scientifically, all evolution beyond the species takes place at the point of speciation (and therefore within the "kind"), so by granting that a "kind" is a wider grouping than a species, the actual observed evolution from one species to another becomes allowable in creationism. On the other hand, this form of creationism has always been plagued by two objections. The first is the definition of "kind". If it is not a species, what is it? Creationists have always resisted attaching it to any recognized scientific category. But the groups that have been suggested as "kinds" range from a single species (Homo sapiens) to a whole domain of many phyla (bacteria). The second objection is that from a scientific perspective there is no known mechanism which differentiates micro-evolution from macro-evolution. Scientifically, these are not seen as different processes, but as phases of the same process: within a species and beyond the level of species. Creationists have never been able to demonstrate that such a mechanism, which keeps evolution within the bounds of a kind, exists.

Phase 4: changing the vocabulary
Perhaps it became too confusing to discriminate between "good" (micro-) evolution and "bad" (macro-) evolution. In any case, within the last decade I have noted a trend among creationists to drop the term "micro-evolution" and to use the term "evolution" to refer only to what was formerly called "macro-evolution".

What was formerly called "micro-evolution" is now often referred to as "variation" or "adaptation". And I have seen more than one creationist assert that "variation (adaptation) is NOT evolution."

To someone in science, or to someone who knows the history of the conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution, this is an astounding statement. In effect it says that "evolution is not evolution."

For a biologist, evolution IS precisely variation in a species from one generation to the next. Such variation is often adaptive and may give rise to new species.

Yet a new generation of creationists is being raised with the notion that variation and evolution are not at all the same thing.




Scientifically, there are no "old" and "new" definitions of species. At least none that I am aware of. The only major change is that while species used to be defined primarily on the basis of morphological characteristics (what they look like), the impact of DNA research is now being felt. But by and large, species defined on the basis of genetic difference and those defined on the basis of morphological difference turn out to be pretty much the same species.

As outlined above, it is not science that has made big changes in its terms, but creationism. The changes in creationist terms have been adopted solely in order to avoid admitting that evolution is an observed process and therefore a fact.

It was precisely because the "old" (and still scientific) definition of species led to the unavoidable conclusion that one species/kind does change over time and does give rise to new species/kinds that creationists abandoned the attempt to identify kinds as species in the first place.

*Note re bolded section above
That humans are a specially created original "kind" with no relationship to a non-human ancestor is the fundamental heart of creationism. One poster (unfortunately I forget who and when) once observed that it would appear creationists really don't care about the relationships between non-human species. As far as creationism is concerned, they could all have one common ancestor. As long as the human species is kept separate. Unfortunately for this promising solution, there are no scientific grounds for exempting the human species from an evolutionary origin among the primates and a relationship to other species of primates. Quite the reverse.

This is interesting, thanks for sharing it also sheds a great deal of light on the issue at hand, for it assumes to know the theory of C based on the belief systems of those who historically asserted the theory. I am guessing this is also the cause of strong feelings for and against the TOE.

This may be a very good place to explain to you what I believe. Why I am a harsh perponant for equality of the theories, etc.

My beliefs on the origin of the world and the creatures therein, is very broad indeed. I do not really fit into any of the camps or theories. I know, you all assumed I was a C because of my posts, but in actuallity, I am C only in the very broadest sense. Here's what I mean. I believe because of my research, that the bible is true and can be taken literally. But, it cannot be taken literally if we are to read understanding into it that is not there. So when I say I lean towards C I mean that I support the TOC as put forth in the bible. Period, end of it. Within that theory, are many oppertunities for exploration. Since I take the bible literally, I also take the vs. literally that says, For it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the honor of kings to search it out. Therefore, I am also a very firm believer in the evidences and observations we find in science and how they apply to our lives, in reality and theory. As such, I see strengths in both theories, as well as weaknesses and so I guess one could call me a hybread of both the TOE and the TOC and maybe some ID thrown in for good measure.
This belief system is why I find it counterproductive to argue theory against theory, because it does not allow someone to addhere to both theories. Which I do. I also believe that if people stopped argueing and started looking at the "facts", one would be able to see that both theories hold truths as well as flaws. Communication however, is necessary. This constant assuming and argueing about what one doesn't really know will always leave the two theories miles apart rather than with common ground that they both do hold to.

No more excusses, no more redefining, no more argueing, but start communicating. Where the two theories primarily conflict, as best as I can tell from these discussions, is that C says, that mutations accross species lines, (species being lions, salamanders, etc. Based on the definitions provided here, not subspecies. )are not possible. This is based on the original theory and on scientific observations over hundreds of years. Whereas the TOE says that mutations that cross this species line is possible and will be proven over time. This statement is boastful and is not proven by any evidence that has currently been presented. There are experiments that suggest the possibility, but unless it is proven, it still remains a theory.

What am I missing? The papers I read that were recommended here, confirm that this evidence that species cross this species (not sub species) line is not confirmed. Definition of species as I understand it being that salamanders are salamanders, but there are different variations within the group, those being subspecies of that species. Such as, red bellied, etc. These subspecies mutations suggest that species barriers can possibly be broken but it is not yet fact.

If I got that correct, then currently, the two theories are totally compatable with each other as stated in their original format.