Challenging Evolution

[Arikay]

So basically you don't like it so you are going to ignore it?
Speciation Has been observed, and thus if you define "kinds" as "species" then creationism has been falsified.


Here is part of Lucaspa's list,
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

These are hybrids of two other species, but won't go back and hybridize with either of the original species.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Since these are not sexually reproducing, hybridization is not possible.

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.


AiG even agrees that speciation has been observed. They have just changed their claim from "no new kinds" to "No vertical evolution" and of course its very hard to get them to define what a vertical change is.

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

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.

 

[HRE]

A separate species is usually defined as one that can reproduce within itself but with no other species and produce viable, fertile offspring, is it not?

That is why the Hybrid Bass is not considered an individual species; it cannot reproduce with any other species, but it is not fertile, either.

I may be very wrong. Other evolutionists will probably correct me.

 

[Arikay]

Edit: Bah, reading is not what it used to be.

A separate species is usually defined as one that can reproduce within itself but with no other species and produce viable, fertile offspring, is it not?

That is why the Hybrid Bass is not considered an individual species; it cannot reproduce with any other species, but it is not fertile, either.

I may be very wrong. Other evolutionists will probably correct me.

 

[gluadys]

Now this is definately interesting, but the paper I read in this reference, provides no evidence,

That is because it is a news report. To see the evidence, you need to go to the scientific report as published in a scientific journal.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Can I ask why there has been 3 more pages of semantics and evasion about "kinds" when gluadys effectively nailed the coffin shut on any assertion that it has any basis in science in the above quoted section?

 

[gluadys]

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.

Away back in post 158 (july 30) I posted this definition of species. It is basically the biological definition. As far as I am concerned it is the most useful working definition of a species.

Do you have any problems with using it as a standard definition?

Species: the nearest thing we have to a workable definition of species is the biological definition. This defines a species as a population whose members freely mate with each other and produce viable offspring, but cannot or do not mate with those outside the group. Different species are "reproductively isolated."

This is workable, with some fuzziness in differentiating closely related species, for species that reproduce wholly by sexual means. But it doesn't work for single-celled species that reproduce a-sexually by simple cell division. In the latter case, scientists have to proceed on the basis of morphological and genetic differences and arbitrarily declare where one species ends and another begins.

But for our purposes the biological definition is as good a working definition as any.

 

[gluadys]

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.

What do you mean by "mutations"?

If you mean changes in the DNA, mutations never "cross" a species line. Heck, they don't even migrate from one individual to another, except through reproduction.

Mutations occur in cells. And they are of no evolutionary importance unless:

1. The cell they occur in is a germ cell (not a somatic cell, like on the tip of your nose), and
2. That particular germ cell is used in a reproductive event (not wasted like the vast majority of sperm and eggs), and
3. The conception realized in the reproductive event leads to the birth of an organism which is viable and fertile and goes on to reproduce.

This is the sequence that has to be followed in order to get an event which occurs in a single cell into the gene pool of the species.

And even then, it may have no special impact on the species at all. There are lots more conditions to be met to get evolution. And even more to get speciation.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Henry Morris ascribes to each of the tenets I described this morning.

Here's what you wrote (1 and 2) and what I added (3-5) compared with the ICRs tenets of creationism:
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

2. Animals recreate after their kind.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

3. The geology of the world as we see it is explained by the Noachian flood.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

4. All "kinds" (or species if that makes you more comfortable) were specially and individually created.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
- see also the tenet below 2 above

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.
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

Are you trying to tell me that there's something in The Genesis Record which doesn't comply with the tenets of Morris' own Creationist organization? I'm familiar with his work and have read enough ICR materials, many autored by Morris himself that he fully subscribes to the 5 tenets we listed. Did he not include them in The Genesis Record?

As long as we're making book recommendations I'm going to offer one up about the history of modern Creationism - The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers. If you can get hold of a copy of it, you might see that there's actually quite the incestuous relationship - and dogmatic fixity amongst the highest profile creationists.

 

[USincognito]

You really chopped up my message here so I'm going to need to reconstruct it as we go.

Razzelflabben, presenting Creationist tenets wrote - 1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
I commented - 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.

This comment is a non sequitor. That God created is a theological tenet and not scientifically testable or falsifiable. Specific claims about how God created can be tested and falsified, and indeed have. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, testable and falsifiable. All we have to do is find dinosaur fossil with a trilobite, or genetic similarities than cannot be explained by common descent and the whole thing folds. Thus far we have not.

Of course that has no relavence as to whether God is scientifically testible or falsifiable or thus your comment is a non sequitor.

Razzelflabben's second tenet - 2. Animals recreate after their kind.
I commented - 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?

Do you even understand what the words "theory" and "science" mean? If not, please familiarize yourself with it (hint, don't check the dictionary, try a science department at a university)

And yes. We have fossil, morphological and genetic evidence that mammals developed from reptiles. The evidence has been presented here hundreds of times. I'm sorry you're new and haven't seen it yet, but if you stick around, you'll get it in spades.

As far as humans from apes, I'll ask you the same thing I've asked many creationists - thus far I haven't recieved an answer:

The above skulls start with a chimpanzee and end with a modern human. Where do you draw the line between ape and human, and why?

I added to Razzelflabbens's tenets with -3. The geology of the world as we see it is explained by the Noachian flood.
And then commented - 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.

See this is why I like written debate. My comment about untestability and unfalsifiability in relation to tenet 1 applied specifically to that tenet. It does not apply to the specific assertions and predicted observations of Creationism. That God created cannot be tested or falsified. That the geology of the Earth is explained by the Noachaian Flood is testable and falsifiable, and has been. Please either don't twist what I wrote, or pay closer attention to it.

This essay demonstrates the many problems with the Noah narrative. The theory that the Earth is the way it is because of the Flood has been falsified for 180 years, just as I said. If you have evidence pointing to a Flood, please present it.

I added another tenet - 4. All "kinds" (or species if that makes you more comfortable) were specially and individually created.
And commented - 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.

1. Claims are not evidence.
2. Polysyllabic words without context or evidence are meaningless.
3. Here you go sport. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. Start debunking.

I added a fifth tenet - 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.
And commented - 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.

I don't even know where you're going with this, apart from down the platitude rabbit hole. Let's get away from the armchair philosophy for a moment and get back to the actual evidence. I'm waiting for your comments on the skulls above, your evidence for Noah's flood and your evidence against evolution. Maybe after that we can discuss abogenesis, the Christian scientists who disproved Noah's Flood and the naturalistic presupposition of science.

I wrote - 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.

Guess again. Human history goes back far farther than writing or agriculture. Don't confuse civilization with history.

I wrote - 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.

No, especially when we start looking at the genes. Edogenous retroviruses cannot be explained by common design. The only way they could occur is through common descent. Also, unless one starts making ad hoc explainations about how the designer designed a less than perfect eye, back and throat (etc.) for humans, you need to explain why the designer chose to design for evolutionary fitness and not perfection or at least use of the best design.

But like I said, we can discuss metaphysics later... lets look at the evidence for now.

 

[The Bellman]

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.

False. That there be absolute "kinds" over which evolution cannot step IS a requirement of creationism; it is not of evolutionary theory. "Species is merely a convenient label used to split up biological entities; it is not intended to be an absolute or inviolable line. The definition of it is fuzzy because species, themselves, are fuzzy. "Kinds", however, are NOT "fuzzy" - that is the entire point. There is a rigid line over which evolution can NEVER step - yet creationists can never point out that line.

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

False. Both creationism and evolutionary theory are testable and falsifiable, and have, in fact, both been tested. Creationism has been found to be false; evolution has not.

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

Not quite sure what this means, since theory IS science. Evolution is both theory and science; creationism is neither.

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.

Creationism has been falsified, any number of times. The fact that is not science is irrelevant - hypotheses outside of science can be and are falsified.

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.

Yes, science does not deal with metaphysics. This, in and of itself, means that creationism is not science.

Unfortunately for you, neither current scientific theories as to the origin of matter or abiogenesis deal in metaphysics - thus, they are not outside of science.

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

Who on earth told you that? It's complete nonsense. In my own "backyard", aboriginals have been in Australia for between 40,000 and 50,000 years.

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

Of course it's POSSIBLE that it is due to a common design; that hypotheses, however, lies outside of science, and hence is not included in the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory.

 

[The Bellman]

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?

That's no good. EVERY definition of "species" we have is of no use to creationism, because we have repeatedly seen evolution cross these species boundaries. It is creationism which proposes a biological category (which it calls "kind") over which evolution can NEVER step - yet it cannot define this category. Creationists don't want to change anything, they want to evade the issue completely, because despite repeated appeals, no creationist has EVER come up with a definition of "kind" which even comes close to working.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

First, when did I say that any of this was E, for or against? Secondly, if the neotenic salamander grows into a giant salamander, and resproduces the same meotenic salamander that grows into a giant salamander, you have not proved species change, you have proven that an animal can look like one thing when it is young and grow into something that looks quite different. We observe this in nature all the time. Now, if the neotenic salamander did not mature into a giant salamander, we would have a discussion with merit. It has nothing to do with E vs. C but rather with finding answers to our world. Why is seeking truth so scary to so many people. (sorry if I have some wrong terminology, I looked at the info yesterday but am only now getting back to the post and I am terrible at remembering names and dates). Idea is the say, I remember the pictures and the captions well.

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

That would be the theory, except of course in the case of man's manipulation of the plant or animal, for example, cross pollinating or grafting in the laberatory. This is outside the theory because it is not naturally occuring, infact, many hybreds are starile which would suggest C to be true, however, there are things that we have observed, such as DNA evidences, the would suggest E to be true, so the bottom line is that both are theories and neither is proven or disproven.

 

[razzelflabben]

So basically you don't like it so you are going to ignore it?
Speciation Has been observed, and thus if you define "kinds" as "species" then creationism has been falsified.


Here is part of Lucaspa's list,
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

These are hybrids of two other species, but won't go back and hybridize with either of the original species.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Since these are not sexually reproducing, hybridization is not possible.

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.


AiG even agrees that speciation has been observed. They have just changed their claim from "no new kinds" to "No vertical evolution" and of course its very hard to get them to define what a vertical change is.

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I really don't think I am following your point here, science cannot define accurately what a species is so they can move the bar at will to prove that plants and animals evolve? Is that what you are trying to say? Or are you saying that the world developed in a large lab, not unlike the alien theory I suggested many posts back? Or maybe you are suggesting that, we are to believe whatever we are told by scientists because they are telling us? (that sounds like blind belief system to me) I really don't get your point, these are the only possibilities I can think of, please share if you have a different point in mind.

 

[razzelflabben]

Away back in post 158 (july 30) I posted this definition of species. It is basically the biological definition. As far as I am concerned it is the most useful working definition of a species.

Do you have any problems with using it as a standard definition?

If all groups accept the fuzziness, not at all, it seems to work fine for me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Henry Morris ascribes to each of the tenets I described this morning.

Here's what you wrote (1 and 2) and what I added (3-5) compared with the ICRs tenets of creationism:
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

2. Animals recreate after their kind.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

3. The geology of the world as we see it is explained by the Noachian flood.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

4. All "kinds" (or species if that makes you more comfortable) were specially and individually created.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
- see also the tenet below 2 above

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.
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

Are you trying to tell me that there's something in The Genesis Record which doesn't comply with the tenets of Morris' own Creationist organization? I'm familiar with his work and have read enough ICR materials, many autored by Morris himself that he fully subscribes to the 5 tenets we listed. Did he not include them in The Genesis Record?

As long as we're making book recommendations I'm going to offer one up about the history of modern Creationism - The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers. If you can get hold of a copy of it, you might see that there's actually quite the incestuous relationship - and dogmatic fixity amongst the highest profile creationists.

This post assumes that one adheres to the teachings of a man as it's authority. I maintain that the authority on the subject, is not Morris or any other man, but rather God through the knowlege He gives us through the Bible.

The Genesis Record is a discussion of what is and is not possible in the Gen. account of the creation of the world. For example, the Gen. account of a literal 6 day creation, can be literal and longer than 6 days at the same time for the bible says that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Therefore, one cannot know from the text which is referred to. A literal 24 hr. day or a span of time that is like a day to God. The book goes on to explain other theories involved in the day issue, but it points out these inexact issues, that many assume to exist in the TOC. This is why I recommended the book, not as a means of explaining what any teacher is putting forth, but as a way to begin to understand what is and is not in the original theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

Bellman, I am confused by something you wrote in post #430, can you explain?

False. Both creationism and evolutionary theory are testable and falsifiable, and have, in fact, both been tested. Creationism has been found to be false; evolution has not.

Not quite sure what this means, since theory IS science. Evolution is both theory and science; creationism is neither.

Now what I don't understand is how, C can be testable and flasifiable, and tested, and that theory is science, but C cannot then be scientific or theory? Sorry to say that this sounds like a lot of double talk.

I think you have some interesting things to say, but double talk makes your arguments meaningless, because you do not even seem to agree with yourself. Can you clarify your statements so that we can see some consistancy? Thanks.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's no good. EVERY definition of "species" we have is of no use to creationism, because we have repeatedly seen evolution cross these species boundaries. It is creationism which proposes a biological category (which it calls "kind") over which evolution can NEVER step - yet it cannot define this category. Creationists don't want to change anything, they want to evade the issue completely, because despite repeated appeals, no creationist has EVER come up with a definition of "kind" which even comes close to working.

As I have already said, I will happily accept the definition of species as science identifies it, provided that both sides understand the fuzziness of the definition. And since I take the bible literally, I would assume you could call me a C since the theory originated in the bible. However, in order for the discussion to continue, you also must do away with the notion that you already know what I believe because you have argued or read about C.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Bellman, I am confused by something you wrote in post #430, can you explain?

Now what I don't understand is how, C can be testable and flasifiable, and tested, and that theory is science, but C cannot then be scientific or theory? Sorry to say that this sounds like a lot of double talk.

I think you have some interesting things to say, but double talk makes your arguments meaningless, because you do not even seem to agree with yourself. Can you clarify your statements so that we can see some consistancy? Thanks.

I think I can clear the confusion up for you., I think the following is what Bellman is trying to say.

Evolution is testable and has been tested and survived repeated attempts at falsification. There for it continues to be a valid scientific theory. However YEC has been tested and falsified therefore it is no longer a theory it is a falsified concept. Continuing to believe a falsified concept without correcting it is not science it is dogma in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I hope that helps.

Ghost

 

[The Bellman]

Bellman, I am confused by something you wrote in post #430, can you explain?

Now what I don't understand is how, C can be testable and flasifiable, and tested, and that theory is science, but C cannot then be scientific or theory? Sorry to say that this sounds like a lot of double talk.

I think you have some interesting things to say, but double talk makes your arguments meaningless, because you do not even seem to agree with yourself. Can you clarify your statements so that we can see some consistancy? Thanks.

You are confusing the meanings of the word "theory". It can be a "theory" that the butler did it. However, that does not necessarily make it a scientific theory. Loosely speaking, a "theory" is a hypothesis, a possibility. However, to make it a scientific theory, it needs to be rather more.

Here are some of the definitions of the word "theory" (from dictionary.com):

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

(3) above would include the "loose" meaning of the word. By this meaning, creationism is certainly a theory. So is evolution, and so is the idea that our universe was sneezed out by a mutant star goat. However, as far as a scientific theory goes, (1) above is closer to the mark. By (1), evolutionary theory qualifies as a scientific theory, while both (2) and (3) do not. So we can see that while something can be a theory, that does not necessarily make it a scientific theory.

Now, as regards falsifiability, theories of all kinds can be falsified - that does not make them scientific. My theory that the butler did it could be falsified by his alibi...that does not make my theory scientific. Whether or not a theory is scientific does not hinge on whether or not it is falsifiable alone.

So, to answer your question above, creationism has been tested and falsified; it is thus a theory (loose sense of the word) that has been proven false. None of this makes it a scientific theory. Evolutionary theory, however, has been tested and NOT falsified (note that this does not make it proven). It, however, is a scientific theory, as can be seen from definition (1) above.