Challenging Evolution

[The Bellman]

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

Sorry, but there's no hostility in my post - simply facts.

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.

No discussion is needed - creationism postulates "kinds", it's up to creationism to define them. Certainly, if it wants to ever be considered a scientific theory, it needs to actually become one...which means (at the least) coming up with a definition of its terms.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no "old" and "new" definitions of species. What do you (or your son) think they are?

In addition, "kinds" cannot be species, because "kinds" are evolutionarily inviolate, and we have witnessed cross-species evolution (speciation).

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.

I'm not disproving any scientific terminology. I'm asking you for the scientific definition of words involved in the purportedly scientific theory you support. I'm sorry that you think someone who asks you to define a term is hostile, but it's not the case. The definition of "kind" is something that creationists have been repeatedly asked for, and they consistently avoid and evade doing so - just as you are.

 

[Jet Black]

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 do you mean by mutations across the species line?

 

[1Trinity3]

Razzel… just a word of encouragement here: The requirement to define kind is not necessary in order for the Creation Theory to work. This argument over “kind” is a distraction from their lack of a definition between species and class in their taxonomical procedure. Don’t let it bother you. Neither side has EVER been able to give a solid definition.

USincognito wrote:
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:
1. is a matter of theology, not science as it is utterly untestable or unfalsifiable.

As is evolutionary extrapolation of the little observeable evidence. Both are untestable and unfasifiable.

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.

Reptiles producing mammals? Apes producing humans? Now whose is Theory and whose is Science?

3. is falsified by the observations of geologists and paleontologists.

Not true. Creationism has NEVER been falsified. You state in “1” that it is “un-testable” or “un-falsifiable”, throwing it out of the realm of science, and then argue here that it has been falsified. Which is it? Is it science? If so, being un-testable or un-falsifiable, then you are wrong. If it is not science, then it has not been falsified.

4. is falsified by the observations of evolution occuring in studies, the genetic record and the fossil record.

Extrapolations, assumptions, psuedo observations, and suppositions – all are valid descriptions of TOE.

5. is falsified for the same reasons as number 4.

We explained this one. People will say it is not science since it deals with metaphysics. Therefore, demonstrating an a priori requirement for materialism only. If only materialistic answers can be given… then of course Creationism fails the scientific test. HOWEVER, the a priori requirement for materialism cuts both ways. If one is to assume all we see came from materialism… then the requirement for the origin of matter, abiogenesis, etc… becomes that of science. Science, as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread, dismisses this as it falls out of the realm of TOE. If mainstream science demands to frame the argument, then the requirement to demonstrate origins falls into their lap… Creationists have a hypothesis, you may not agree with it… fine, but at least have the integrity to admit the assumptions made with your theory.

Creationism - as in the literal interpretation of Genesis - is forced by the geneologies to adhere to a young Earth, which is clearly false.

NO… we can only trace human history back about 6000 years. Quite a coincidence I’d say.

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.

And there is NO WAY this is due to a common design? Of course that is not included in TOE.



Trinity

 

[Jet Black]

Razzel… just a word of encouragement here: The requirement to define kind is not necessary in order for the Creation Theory to work. This argument over “kind” is a distraction from their lack of a definition between species and class in their taxonomical procedure. Don’t let it bother you. Neither side has EVER been able to give a solid definition.

aah, but we know that species can be fuzzy. kinds should not be.

Reptiles producing mammals? Apes producing humans? Now whose is Theory and whose is Science?

erm. what's a cynodont?

Not true. Creationism has NEVER been falsified. You state in “1” that it is “un-testable” or “un-falsifiable”, throwing it out of the realm of science, and then argue here that it has been falsified. Which is it? Is it science? If so, being un-testable or un-falsifiable, then you are wrong. If it is not science, then it has not been falsified.

to be honest, it depends on which bit of creationism you are discussing. remember creationism covers everything from cosmology to biology.

Extrapolations, assumptions, psuedo observations, and suppositions – all are valid descriptions of TOE.

despite this handwaving dismissal, I have never seen you actually address any of the evidence.

NO… we can only trace human history back about 6000 years. Quite a coincidence I’d say.

only if you ignore the tens of thousands of years of human history before that

And there is NO WAY this is due to a common design? Of course that is not included in TOE.

Trinity

common faults? like for example the crippled gene for vitamin c production in chimps and humans. the ERVs in chimps and humans. the ERVs in Chimps humans and gorilla? the ERVs in chimps humans Gorilla and Orang Utan? all the other shared pseudogenes?

 

[1Trinity3]

Jet Black

aah, but we know that species can be fuzzy. kinds should not be.

Horizontally, perhaps, we would see variations… but not vertically that TOE calls for.

erm. what's a cynodont?

A fossil? A collection of fossil fragments? The lower jaw bone of a reptile?

to be honest, it depends on which bit of creationism you are discussing. remember creationism covers everything from cosmology to biology.

And science doesn’t? If one fails… then the veracity of the others… remember the a priori commitment toward materialism… is highly questionable.

despite this handwaving dismissal, I have never seen you actually address any of the evidence.

Never? OK. Perhaps addressing the 20 other people wanting to take their shots is handwaving.

You want to present the evidence for a uni-cellular organism to “evolve” into a multi-cellular organism… which is assumed, supposed, extrapolated too (pick your description) by TOE, and we can discuss that first.

only if you ignore the tens of thousands of years of human history before that

Really? Tens of thousands? Recorded human history? Please refer me to the evidence for anything beyond… lets say 5000 years.

common faults? like for example the crippled gene for vitamin c production in chimps and humans. the ERVs in chimps and humans. the ERVs in Chimps humans and gorilla? the ERVs in chimps humans Gorilla and Orang Utan? all the other shared pseudogenes?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/pseudogene.asp
http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp147.html

I’m not a geneticist. These two articles do a pretty good job of coherently outlining the problems with your thesis.

Trinity

 

[Arikay]

Since the theory of evolution says nothing about a "vertical" change, you will need to define exactly what you mean by vertical. If it is what I am thinking of (increase of "information") then species can still be fuzzy.

Out of curiousity, did you do any research about pseudogenes outside of AiG and ICR?

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

If it isn't definable, then how can it be scientific? If it isn't scientific, how can we use it in our scientific observations? If we can't use it in our scientific observations, how can we determine if the theory holds true, including E. For as I understand E, it is important to identify different animal groups.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry, but there's no hostility in my post - simply facts.


No discussion is needed - creationism postulates "kinds", it's up to creationism to define them. Certainly, if it wants to ever be considered a scientific theory, it needs to actually become one...which means (at the least) coming up with a definition of its terms.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no "old" and "new" definitions of species. What do you (or your son) think they are?

In addition, "kinds" cannot be species, because "kinds" are evolutionarily inviolate, and we have witnessed cross-species evolution (speciation).


I'm not disproving any scientific terminology. I'm asking you for the scientific definition of words involved in the purportedly scientific theory you support. I'm sorry that you think someone who asks you to define a term is hostile, but it's not the case. The definition of "kind" is something that creationists have been repeatedly asked for, and they consistently avoid and evade doing so - just as you are.

Not at all, what I am saying is, let us work with the scientific definition for species that you are currently working from and forgo creating a new definition. That discussion should give us some place to start from. As to the change in definitions, I am suggesting that because of the new genetic tests available, the definition for species has changed slightly. In order for us to then discuss the issue, we would need to be able to agree on the definition. I am asking you to put forth the definition you are most familiar with working with so that we can continue the discussion. In other words, we don't want to change anything, only be on the same page when discussing the issue. How is that hard or evasive?

 

[Jet Black]

If it isn't definable, then how can it be scientific? If it isn't scientific, how can we use it in our scientific observations? If we can't use it in our scientific observations, how can we determine if the theory holds true, including E. For as I understand E, it is important to identify different animal groups.

exactly, and this is precisely where creationism falls down, because it doesn't define it's terms or it defines them in such a way as to make them untestable. this is what my long post earlier was that you didn't really reply to.

 

[Jet Black]

Horizontally, perhaps, we would see variations… but not vertically that TOE calls for.

what?

A fossil? A collection of fossil fragments? The lower jaw bone of a reptile?

fragments?

...... if you insist.
[/QUOTE] And science doesn’t? If one fails… then the veracity of the others… remember the a priori commitment toward materialism… is highly questionable.
[/QUOTE] the thing with creationism is much of it is based on the rest. if the young earth is falsified you have a problem. if the kinds idea is falsified you have a problem... and so on.

Never? OK. Perhaps addressing the 20 other people wanting to take their shots is handwaving.

You want to present the evidence for a uni-cellular organism to “evolve” into a multi-cellular organism… which is assumed, supposed, extrapolated too (pick your description) by TOE, and we can discuss that first.

sigh, how tiresome. why do creationists always resort to this "lol u can't show a one celled organism evolving into a person"

Really? Tens of thousands? Recorded human history? Please refer me to the evidence for anything beyond… lets say 5000 years.

I guess you are going to argue about dating methods now :/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/pseudogene.asp
http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp147.html

I’m not a geneticist. These two articles do a pretty good job of coherently outlining the problems with your thesis.

Trinity

no they don't. the first article takes an isolated example and then applies it to all cases. it fails to explain for example, the vitamin c gene. do you want to address ERVs now?

 

[razzelflabben]

what do you mean by mutations across the species line?

Changes from one species to another, again, not including sub species. For example, a salamander does not mutate to a creature resembling a fish, it remains a salamander type creature.

 

[Arikay]

One example of a change from one species to another,
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm
Lucaspa has many more, i'll try to find them.

Changes from one species to another, again, not including sub species. For example, a salamander does not mutate to a creature resembling a fish, it remains a salamander type creature.

 

[Jet Black]

Changes from one species to another, again, not including sub species. For example, a salamander does not mutate to a creature resembling a fish, it remains a salamander type creature.

This isn't saltation. all we need is cumulative changes over time. I mean, it isn't that difficult to imagine a reptillian jaw evolving into a mammalian jaw is it? (we have examples of intermediates). if we are going to talk "type creatures" then where is the dividing line? "carnivore like creatures" "doggy/beary type creatures?" "feathery type creatures?" "sort of greater ape type creatures?".......

oh, salamanders can turn into fishy like creatures by the way, it's called neoteny....

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/diteneb.htm

 

[razzelflabben]

exactly, and this is precisely where creationism falls down, because it doesn't define it's terms or it defines them in such a way as to make them untestable. this is what my long post earlier was that you didn't really reply to.

And if we are willing to use the same testable terms that the TOE uses, why can't you give us a definition to work with? My posts to you have pointed out to you that both are theories for this very reason. If E cannot define a critical part of it's theory, then why should C be forced to in order to consider it testable. This is double standard. If C falls down because it cannot define species, then E falls for the same reason, because the definition is vital to the understanding of the theory.

 

[Jet Black]

And if we are willing to use the same testable terms that the TOE uses, why can't you give us a definition to work with? My posts to you have pointed out to you that both are theories for this very reason. If E cannot define a critical part of it's theory, then why should C be forced to in order to consider it testable. This is double standard. If C falls down because it cannot define species, then E falls for the same reason, because the definition is vital to the understanding of the theory.

you're asking me to define "kinds" when "kinds" aren't even a part of evolution?!? creationism uses the same definition for species that evolution does. it jut has an additional group called "kinds" which it does not define.

 

[razzelflabben]

One example of a change from one species to another,
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm
Lucaspa has many more, i'll try to find them.

Now this is definately interesting, but the paper I read in this reference, provides no evidence, and as we have so readily pointed out in this thread, information is readily falsified by some to prove points, so I certainly would expect that the research would have to be examined and reexamined for authenticity before we claimed it as fact. In addition, it opens up many questions about the species definition that E and C neither can define clearly, so how then can we claim that the speicies crossed species lines if E cannot define species in a concrete format.

When we settle these issues, then we can talk, but until then, this is nothing more than interesting read. Please, forward any materials that would close these huge gaps, otherwise, we are still as zero. Thanks for the read however, it truely is interesting and leaves one wondering what all we do not yet know.

 

[razzelflabben]

This isn't saltation. all we need is cumulative changes over time. I mean, it isn't that difficult to imagine a reptillian jaw evolving into a mammalian jaw is it? (we have examples of intermediates). if we are going to talk "type creatures" then where is the dividing line? "carnivore like creatures" "doggy/beary type creatures?" "feathery type creatures?" "sort of greater ape type creatures?".......

oh, salamanders can turn into fishy like creatures by the way, it's called neoteny....

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/diteneb.htm

How please does this equal new species, is a catapillar that must change inside a cacoon a new species, or how about a frog that starts as a tadpole. My that definition, then we all change species, because, when a baby is in the womb, it is a fetus. I would think that scientific E could do better than that a explaining this change. How about that definition for species that is curtial to the TOE?

 

[Jet Black]

How please does this equal new species, is a catapillar that must change inside a cacoon a new species, or how about a frog that starts as a tadpole. My that definition, then we all change species, because, when a baby is in the womb, it is a fetus. I would think that scientific E could do better than that a explaining this change. How about that definition for species that is curtial to the TOE?

so when it does happen it isn't evolution, and when it doesn't happen it is evolution? make up your mind. you said salamanders do not turn into fish type creatures and I demonstrated that they do, unlike frogs and caterpillars, the neotenic salamanders are fully fertile.

 

[razzelflabben]

you're asking me to define "kinds" when "kinds" aren't even a part of evolution?!? creationism uses the same definition for species that evolution does. it jut has an additional group called "kinds" which it does not define.

What I am suggesting to you is that the definition for species is the same definition as kind.

 

[Jet Black]

What I am suggesting to you is that the definition for species is the same definition as kind.

you're suggesting that every single extant species has been alive here on hearth since God made it? and that some point, all the extant and all the extinct species were once alive together?