Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, considering all the evidence you've presented, I'm convinced!JesusPosse said:okay,seeing as nobody is really making any progress...........at all.I have a question for all of you,Creationist and Evolutionist alike:
Is what you Beleive True all the Time?
Is it true in all times?
Is it always firm in its beleif and never changing?
My Father asked his sunday school class these things,and all of them had been arguing with him about this for quitea while.But we went through the relegions,buddhism,islam,judiasm,Evolution,reincarnation,satanic ones.and of course Christianity.The only one that stoop up to all these questions is Christianity.Oh sure you can come out with all this,"The Bible uses metophors"Junk.And its true,the Bible does use metophors,but everytime there is a metophor in the bible,Jesus explains the lesson to the people.And when it comes down to it,Evolution is just a silly idea.
And what evidence, apart form the fossil record with is inconclusive evidence, do you offer that horses and donkeys are indeed came from the same ancestor.lucaspa said:Walk me thru this, please. Gluadys is saying that the inability of horses and donkeys to produce fertile offspring is evidence that both horses and donkeys came from a common ancestor. Which is evolution.
Now, please go back to the lab studies that I have referred to where different populations of a single species are placed in separate environments and you get 2 new completely interfertile populations -- new species -- but they can't breed with each other -- different kinds. How is that mimicking the TOC?
We don't "assume", that. We conclude that. Very different things.
Huh? Evolution produced horses which can breed with other horses and donkeys that can breed with other donkeys. No problem. But horses and donkeys can't interbreed because, guess what? Horses and donkeys are separate species. They are not "evolving to" mules. I think that is the fallacy. Mules are not the new species. They are a side product of the speciation of donkeys and horses from a common ancestor.
Okay, you are right, I am wrong, all the questions I raised about the TOE were not asked, the definition I put forth for kind was addressed, you have accepted the original theory of C as put forth in the bible which is why you started a new thread discussing the teachings of people who interpreted the theory. You understand my point about "new" species that cannot reproduce becoming extinct, because I am too dense to understand that reproduction is not necessary for life to continue. Yeah, I got it all wrong, please accept this formal appology. I'm sorrygluadys said:You have asked many times for people not to make assumptions about you.
I ask you for the same courtesy. Do not make assumptions about what I will and will not accept.
Show me the answers you have for all these things. If I find them acceptable, I will say so. If I do not find them acceptable, I will state clearly why I do not.
That is a promise.
The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring. But you already addressed that definition, again I am sorry. I don't recall the post, but I am sure it was there.This is the second time you have spoken about proposals of yours being ignored.
I agree, you are not the type of poster to perposely ignore what is said, and neither am I, but I also am the type of poster who can grow frustrated at people refusing to listen and sometimes that comes accross in posts to those that do not diserve the harshness and for that I am truely sorry if I have done that with you. My only real issue with you is that you tend to get off topic by trying to prove that E is possible when I have no issue with that. My issue is that the "proof" we have is not sufficient to call E truth. I have stated many times why I believe this, for example, the fossil record is only a small bit of evidence in a world of possibilities. To counter this, I am usually shown more fossil evidence to prove that the TOE is more fact. This totally evades the issue. The fossil record does indicate E not a problem. But the fossil record is not enough evidence to claim overwhelming proof. It is enough to say that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the TOE, but these are two completely different things and is the source of much of the argueing between the two theories.I have not knowingly ignored anything you have said. (I can't speak for others.)
The only thing to date that I have not heard from you on, at least as my memory serves, is the definition of kind, and the above clarification on the fossil record.I ask you for the second time---point me to something I have ignored, and I will respond to it.
Forgot what this was in reference too.(Failure to give a specific example of me ignoring something you have said will be taken as admission that you have accused me falsely.)
How do you know that? Where does it say that in the "original theory"?
Your right again, the plants and animals can be cloning, but man cannot. The would then mean that the TOC would predict that some animals would reproduce via male and female and others would reproduce via cloning. Which is what we see in nature and is consistant with the observations, but the theory has been falsified, remember how many times I have been told that here on this thread. So how then can we have predictions that are observed in science and still have a falsified theory?All it says is that creatures reproduce "after their kind". It doesn't say they are not clones. They could be clones for all we know.
(As a matter of fact, many species do reproduce by cloning themselves.)
And it is consistant with the TOC. Even to the extent that man is desendent from one pair of original creation. Hummm, more scientific evidence to disprove the TOC. Oh that's right, if the theory of C changes it's predictions to fit the evidence, then it is a flawed theory, but if the TOE does this, it is sound scientific methodology, I keep forgetting this bit of information. Short term memory lose I guess.Darwin personally didn't. He knew nothing about genetics or the genetic code. And when genes and the mode of inheritance was first discovered, it was not immediately apparent this new knowledge would be compatible with evolution.
But it is so compatible that it is now part of TOE.
The biblical TOC says that God created man male and female. This indicated no cloning on the part of mankind. Again, we see consistancy with the scientific evidence. Hummm.Darwin did know two things: species produce after their kind and children are not clones of their parents (Darwin was not conversant with micro-organisms which are clones of their parents.)
Have you read the theory carefully? Animals may or may not be clones. They were created after their kind. Man cannot be cloned. God created male and female. What is disproven from a scientific standpoint? I am really confused by your claims here.Note that the two things Darwin knew (even without knowing genetics) is one more thing than is presented in the TOC orginal theory, which only knows that species reproduce after their kind. Says nothing about not reproducing exact likenesses of the parent.
Already done, if you miss it let me know and I will try to repeat it.Jet Black gave you the link, but just in case you can't find his post here it is again.
http://christianforums.com/t736563
I would be very interested in your comments.
I would like to know which of these 29 is not 1. related to the fossil record, and 2. is unique to the TOC. That will clear up a lot of things. I have asked several times now but it has gone unanswered unless I haven't gotten to it yet. I'll work at it another 20 min. then must be off.Yes, why don't we. Do you want to stick with fossil evidence? or would you like to discuss endogenous retroviral insertions? Or perhaps biogeographical evidence? or the twin-nested hierarchy? or one of the other evidences in that list of 29 you were referred to early on.
Or something else altogether?
I am happy to go with whatever you choose.
But, they are still reproducing!lucaspa said:1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
This one. A new species of salmon has evolved in the last 70 years from the existing species. Both species are doing well; neither becoming extinct. The two species do reproduce within their species but not between the species.
In this case, species A -- the original-- mates and lays eggs midstream in the creeks where breeding occurs. Species B mates and lays eggs at the edges of the stream. So individuals of both species are present in the same streams at the same time, but don't mate with individuals of the other species.
Yeah, that's right, I ask for evidence that is not related to the fossil record and you give me biogeographical evidence (translation-fossil record) I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.) I explain my view of population vs. individual and you give me a lecture about how I am not listening to your posts. Good argueing, I'm impressed. I can see why proving the TOE is so important to you because we are seeing that emotional argueing I have been accused of all over this post.Jet Black said:Razzelflabben, thanks for reassuring me and letting me know that you were paying attention when I pointed out all those other evidences besides the fossil record, you know, the ones that I even posted in large bold italic underlined text for you. I would have included a siren flashing lights and a loudspeaker if I knew how, just to make sure that you heard them in the event of a loud lorry going by or something. It's really good to know that you aren't just ignoring all those piles of independent but corroborating evidence and don't continually pretend that the whole of evolution is based on just the fossil record and keep saying it over and over again regardless of the numbers of times that people point it out to you. I mean it only took how many attempts to tell you that evolution happens to populations for example. you know if you are going to continue this conversation you really do need to pay more attention to what people are telling you, and stop isolating and ignoring things as you find them inconvenient to your argument.
Can you please list your "some"? If it is not 'all', then there is no problem for TOE, is there?razzelflabben said:I did not say that the observations alway suggest infertility, but rather that some did suggest reproductive problems.
I am following what you told me about TOC -- reading Genesis 1. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."I noticed you said "breed after its kind" as everyone on this forum will tell you, we have no definition for kind, so you need to explain what you mean by that. Do you know a definition that no one else here knows or are you reading into the theory so as to make a point?
Not the evidence I present. I have looked at the papers I present to you and I assure you that they have done the breeding experiments and the new species can make fertile offspring within the species. Or you can check me and look it up for yourself. That's why I give you the references.we have this information being inconclusive. level one, many of the evidences of speciation presented on this thread, allow for doubts as to the viability of the breeding of the "new" species. Inconclusive evidence for or against.
How is this permitted in the original TOC? I've looked where you told me to look: Genesis 1 and other cross-references to "kinds" in the Bible, and they all say a kind can only breed with its own kind. Where do you get the idea that making new species/kinds is permitted in TOC?and level two, this information is not unique to the TOE, and at least in part is permitted in the original theory of C.
Where did you get this idea? Populations nearly always have hundreds or thousands. Only in what is called "founder events" do you have two. That's when two individuals -- such as a pair of flies -- gets blown across the intervening ocean to Hawaii.Populations always start with two individuals, not hundreds or thousands,
Plants and animals are designed. Designed by natural selection. That is what creationism simply refuses to accept: natural selection is an unintelligent proces to get design.(not because of design mind you).
What you should have been taught is that all plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor. And that ancestor was a single-celled organism. You seem to have combined that into the misrepresentation you have now.As I was taught the TOE everything evolved from a single cell.
Chemistry caused it to divide into 2 cells. We have seen this with protocells. It involves the unique chemical properties of water. When the protocell reaches a certain size, the interaction between water and the cell membrane is such that the lowest energy is achieved if there are 2 slightly smaller cells. So van der Waal's forces and hydrophobic (water hating) interactions cause the cell to divide and "reproduce". You can see something similar with oil droplets. Big ones tend to break up to make 2 smaller droplets.What caused that first living cell to "breed" when it became a viable living organism,
Single cells reproduce asexually, so there is no mating. But evolution still happens because there are still copying error in the DNA to make variation between single-celled organisms.where was the population that allowed it to mate,
Go ahead and ask questions.Oh I forgot, we can't ask such questions because there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, therefore there are no unanswered questions remaining.
Sorry, but TOE is based on the idea of common ancestors. Not a single organism. If life arose from non-life via protocells, as I think is likely, there were billions of organisms. If life arose by the RNA world, there were billions of RNA molecules. At least! Probably trillions or even higher.The TOE is based on the idea of a single organism, not a population of organisms.
Right, and burial being one of the possible reasons for the observations. But of course you are right again. I am so incredably stupid I don't even know what I am saying in my own posts. A post in which I am putting forth possible theories, is in reallity a post offering red herring. Maybe I am too stupid to know what red herring is too. Do we have a fossil record to prove what red herring is?gluadys said:No, you introduced burial as a red herring, a diversionary tactic.
Burial is irrelevant to the time differential.
(If it is absolutely necessary I can reference the posts so that you can see for yourself who said what when. But I do think you are capable of doing this yourself.)
The distance in time between the most recent known dinosaur fossil and the oldest known hominid fossil was the original point.
What other logical way is there to interpret that gap that to say dinosaurs became extinct some 60 million years before humans existed-----other than by a wishful reliance on evidence not yet observed?
Razzel, biogeography is done with living organisms, not fossils.razzelflabben said:Yeah, that's right, I ask for evidence that is not related to the fossil record and you give me biogeographical evidence (translation-fossil record)
The original theory of C that you pointed me to was Genesis 1. Kinds in Genesis 1 is equivalent to species. But since kinds can only be within their own kind, then by the original theory of C speciation has to equal the formation of new kinds. And that isn't possible.I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.)
But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.Jet Black said:not only that, but assuming geologists could not tell that a person was buried, their burial would interfere by making them look older than they really were (deeper down). this doesn't really help razzelflabben's case very much, as it doesn't account for the several tens of millions of years between humans and dinos.
Open to possibility does not equal proof of. Would you be happier if I said, The dinosaurs became extinct before the possible existance of man but this is not a known fact so therefore is only speculation. Sounds like a lot of words simply to say that what we know is that dino's became extinct before man.gluadys said:No problem with that. TOE is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
But we should not ignore the fossil record either.
I do so assert. I am glad you do not disagree.
No problem. All lines of evidence are overwhelmingly in favour of TOE.
Because you said earlier that you were open to the possibility of humans and dinosaurs existing simultaneously, and you have resisted the addition of the word "existed" to the observation that dinosaurs became extinct before man.
Not between the species, Razzel! Within the separate species, of course they are reproducing! That's what we are trying to tell you.razzelflabben said:But, they are still reproducing!
being buried in caves has the same problem, remember you are trying to close tha gap between humans and dinosaurs, but not managing it yet. they still appear some 60 million years apart. oh, I did apologise for being a bit short with you. I think the problem is that you seem to be about 5 pages behind the rest of the conversation alot of the time, so you are still replying to things that have been dealt with a couple of pages later. I should be a bit calmer really, you are replying to alot of people so it is fair enough. I'll let you catch up a bit.razzelflabben said:But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.
Comparative morphology and physiology that has them placed in the same genus (by the creationist Linneaus). Genetic analysis (independent of the above) which does the same thing.razzelflabben said:And what evidence, apart form the fossil record with is inconclusive evidence, do you offer that horses and donkeys are indeed came from the same ancestor.
I don't remember what this is refering too so I can't answer.gluadys said:Where does TOC predict this scenario? And where and how does it explain this scenario.
As far as I know it IS unique to TOE, and is contradictory to all I have ever heard about TOC.
First, this is to assume that population b is breedable within itself. If not, then popluation b becomes extinct, I can't fathom how we don't understand that offspring that cannot reproduce, can survive. I understand what you are saying about a, b ,c,and x and any other letter we want to use, but what I am talking about is the inability to be viable breeders. If the subspecies cannot reproduce, it dies, dead subspecies, cannot evolve.I know this is your position, but it is a misrepresentation of TOE. Look at the scenario again:
Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X
We would expect that B will not breed successfully with any of A, C or X.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with A shows that speciation has occurred and B is a new species. If it continued to breed successfully with A it would be at best a variant or sub-species of A. It would not be a new species.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with C shows that although both are derived from A, they are different species. If they did interbreed successfully, B and C would be variants of the same species, not two different species.
The fact that B does not breed successfully with X shows that X is a genuine new species, not simply a variant or sub-species of B.
In short, the inter-breeding problems you are pointing to are not a problem for TOE. They are expected evidence that evolution has in fact happened.
And we have seen this scenario, both in nature and in controlled experiments. That is why we can state with confidence that evolution is a fact.
First, note that we looking at four populations, not four individuals. I grant that if we had only one A, one B, one C and one X, B would be in a real pickle, because it cannot reproduce with any of the others.
But that is not the case. Each of these is a population of many organisms.
Each B has plenty of other Bs to choose mates from. And each reproducing pair of Bs will easily produce a crop of baby Bs. And when that generation matures they will produce another generation of Bs.
The same is true of A, C and X.
Breeding across species lines is not necessary to keep the reproduction line running.
There is nothing to prevent As producing more As, Bs producing more Bs, Cs producing more Cs and Xs producing more Xs.
There is also nothing to prevent part of population C separating and diverging into population Q which is no longer able to mate with population C. It will however, keep on reproducing more Qs, just at the remaining Cs will keep on reproducing more Cs.
Now as to the one living cell organism. No we cannot state that all life rose from a single living cell. But we can say that there is good evidence that all forms of life are derived from a population of single-celled organisms.
Do you want to assert that TOC claims that as part of its theory too?
And these observations are not inconsistant with the original TOC. It may not predict such, but is not inconsistant. But what you are talking about is interbreeding, I am talking about breeding. And of the sites I have been pointed to, there are questions to the "new" species being able to be viable breeders. But again, I must be too stupid to understand that species do not have the ability to breed can survive and even better, evolve.gluadys said:Please note what I have bolded in your statement and in mine. Note that I was not the one who said the species could not reproduce. I said we know by observation that some species are not separate creations. We know by observation that they are derived from other species.
They are no longer inter-fertile with the species they are derived from. But both the original species and the new species are still very capable of reproducing within their own population group. So they are not going extinct either.
Lucaspa gave you a very appropriate example in the two recently speciated salmon species. Both the parent species and the daughter species are continuing to reproduce with no problems. They just don't do it with each other.
The Drosophila experiment I cited earlier shows the same pattern with fruit flies. So do both the other examples I included in the same post. Nothing has blocked reproduction in either the parent species or the new species.
OK, stop and think about this a moment. A grave is dug. That means that the fill of the grave is different in composition from the layers of sediment around it. Right? As you dig the grave, you break up the layers with your shovel or whatever tool you are using. Then you just dump what you scooped out back in, with it all mixed up. So, as a paleontologist later looking at the site, as you carefully excavate, you see that the dirt/rock around the body is all broken up bits and pieces. Then you come to the edge of the grave and have a transition from all jumbled up to regular layers.razzelflabben said:But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities.
Razzel, you don't need to play the martyr. And that isn't going to make your ideas valid or invalid. What you need to do is think about the ideas you are posting in an attempt to show them wrong. Before you post them. If you can't show them wrong after a real honest, hard try, then put them out there to see if we can.But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.
You mean this post, Herein was your first mistake dear one, you assumed that E was not possible. Of course it is possible. If you had begun your quest by assuming what was possible, you would not have had such a life changing experience.doubtingmerle said:The troublesome post is post #611. I had just written a lengthy post describing some missing links. You rsponded to that post, but excluded all of the references to missing links with an ellipsis. Then you asked, "Where are the missing links?" This is either a big blunder, or it is a deliberate attempt to ignore evidence. You have been told about it several times by several people, and you have not retracted. That is the problem. It is unethical to ignore somebody's evidence and then pretend he presented no evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?