Challenging Evolution

[Aron-Ra]

Cats and dogs (well, we already know that one)?[/i]

Same family not same species

They're in the same order, Carnivora, but they're from different families. Canidae and Felidae are end nodes of two different infraorders, Canoidea and Feloidea.

Dogs are more closely-related to bears and seals than anything else. In fact, the fossil record has some walrus-bears and bear-dogs as transitional species. Dogs and wolves are more closely-related to weasels and raccoons than they are to anything on the "cat-side" of Carnivora.

Cats and civets are very close, at times nigh-indistinguishable, especially in the fossil record. They're more closely-related to meerkats and bearcats, and even hyenas than they are to anything on the "dog-side".

Now if my memory serves,dogs and wolves can and have bred and produced breedable offspring, that would mean yes, same species.

But in their natural environment, the tendency is that wolves ill not usually interbreed with dogs. And of course that also depends on what kind of dog it is. Some dogs can't even breed with other dogs.

Dogs and foxes?

Not sure on this one, never heard of them interbreeding, but it could be possible I would imagine.

Dogs are descended from wolves, who in turn are descended from a close common ancestor with jackals. All of them are more closely-related to African wild dogs and maned wolves than they are to foxes. Foxes are so distantly-related that no other canid species can breed with them anymore.

 

[gluadys]

Razzelflaben

Away back in your first post you asked

so I would appreciate if you could give me a short summary of how science has disproven creationism or intelligent design because as of yet I have not seen any such evidence.

I have seen much on what science calls proof of evolution, none of which is more than suggestions.

Also please not that in my first post, putting people perspective of the reason for this thread that I have already said that each is a theory.

So let's recap on that basis.


How has science disproven creationism?

To some extent this depends on how you define creationism. Most of us here are familiar with the descriptions of creationism used by major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG and even the more wacko versions promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.

Some versions of creationism explicitly include a global flood based on Gen. 6-8.

A version that includes a global flood is easily disproved by geology as nothing in geology supports a global flood. As early as 1831, Christians who understood the implications of geology agreed that Noah's flood must have been a local, not a global event.

All Young-earth and some Old-earth versions of creationism call for the near simultaneous creation of all species (or "kinds"). This is also falsified by the geological record which clearly shows that no species has existed throughout the whole history of the earth. For a considerable period of time (about 2 billion years as measured scientifically) the only living forms occurring in the fossil record are simple bacteria and archea. For nearly half as long again, the only additional life forms are simple unicellular eukaryotes (aka protista). Then we start to get some multi-cellular algae and (about 700 million years ago) the strange Ediacaran animals, most of whom have no relationship to any modern species whatsoever. Only then do we get to the so-called Cambrian explosion, with many new forms of marine fauna. Most of these, such as trilobites, have long since become extinct. It is not until after the Cambrian period that we find the first hint of life on land---some possible plant spores. Terrestrial plant life is not confirmed until the Silurian, which also shows the first animal life on land (spiders, centipedes). Meanwhile the only major vertebrates in existence are sharks and fish. Vertebrates capable of living on land do not appear until the Devonian period, and amphibians appear long before reptiles. No dinosaurs, birds or mammals and no flowering plants (only mosses, ferns and some very un-modern gymnosperms) are found in these periods.

Rather than continue through the whole geologic column--this is more than enough to show that species appear billions of years apart in the fossil record, and many species become extinct before newer species appear.

This fully falsifies any version of creationism which calls for all species to be created at the same time and to be contemporaneous with each other.

We can leave to another time the question of human relationship to other animals as I believe that requires more background. Suffice it to say that as far as I am aware, all versions of creationism, including day-age Old-Earth Creationism, which comes closest to matching the geology and fossil record of science, maintain that human beings are a separately created kind with no phylogenic relation to apes or any other form of life. The evidence strongly indicates the contrary.

Now you have not proposed any of the above (global flood, all species created at once, humanity a separately created kind). You have proposed only two theses in the "original theory" of TOC:
1. God made all things.
2. All living things reproduce after their kind.

The basic problem with these propositions is that, as stated, they are not unique to creationism, so they do not define TOC as being in any way distinguishable from other theories. An evolutionist can support both of those statements. So does ID. Because these statements do not distinguish TOC from other theories, there is no basis on which to discuss TOC as a theory. It may as well not exist, if the only way in which it exists is in complete conformity with other theories.

However, there are two clarifications to be made that would distinguish TOC so that it can be discussed as a theory in its own right.

1. Define "kind". There is a sense in which the concept that all things reproduce after their kind is fully consistent with TOE. In fact, without this rule, we could not get the nested hierarchy which is a powerful piece of supporting evidence for TOE.

But there are other senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOE.

And there are senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOC.

An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOE would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic family." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for a dinosaur "kind" to evolve into a bird "kind" or a deer "kind" to evolve into a whale "kind". And TOE not only claims this could happen, but claims evidence that it did happen.

An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOC would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic species." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for ring species to exist or for an above-ground species of mosquito to become a different species of mosquito upon adapting to live in the London subway tunnels. But we know these things have happened, so either TOC is falsified or "kind" is not equivalent to "species".

2. Once, "kind" is defined, state unequivocally whether modern humans are a specially created kind with no relationship to any other "kind", or part of a "kind" which includes other species.

With these clarifications, TOC can now stand on its own as a theory instead of being just part of another theory. And it can be tested against the evidence to determine its validity.


How has science disproven ID?

Basically through lack of supporting evidence.

ID depends on producing evidence of "irreducible""/specified" complexities which cannot, in principle, be explained by evolution. If even a plausible way to get the complexity through evolution can be proposed (whether or not the complexity really evolved that way), then the complexity does not fit the criteria of ID.

For ID is not just saying that evolution has so far failed to explain complexity A; ID is saying that evolution is incapable of ever explaining complexity A. So any plausible explanation of how evolution could produce complexity A shows that ID is wrong to call it an irreducible/specified complexity.

To date, this is what has happened in every case proposed as an example of irreducible/specified complexity. A plausible means of producing the complexity has been described.

Is the evidence for evolution only a mass of suggestions?

The answer to that will depend a lot on what you understand the TOE to be. Many people do not understand the TOE. They believe it says things it does not say or does not say things it does say. They make assumptions about TOE which are not correct, and so claim the evidence is not convincing.

The answer to that will also depend a lot on understanding science in general. What counts as evidence? What is the relationship between theory and evidence? How is theory tested? How are we assured that the results of scientific method are accurate?

Now, what have we seen in your posts.

1. Although you try to include ID, it appears you are not very familiar with this idea. You do not base any of your arguments on ID theory or proposed ID evidence. This theory is not being examined in any way on this thread.

2. I am prepared to take your word that you do not believe in the TOC, but rather only lean in that direction. However, as long as you limit TOC to only the two principles you have stated, it is not possible to discuss TOC, since these two principles do not distinguish it from any other theory. All the theories are open to the possibility of creation by God (although this is not a scientific statement and not falsifiable by scientific method) and all theories agree that parent organisms produce organisms of the same kind/species/sub-species/etc. as themselves.

What is needed from you, if the discussion is to continue, is a description of how TOC differs from the other theories. I would note that you are eager to see what the various theories can offer each other, how they can enrich each other's insights. That is commendable. But if TOC does not differ in any way from the other theories, then it has nothing distinctive to offer.

3. Many of your posts indicate that you have very limited understanding of scientific method and many incorrect assumptions about TOE. I will make a separate post to deal with some of these misconceptions.

Could it be that in your desire to see others stop making assumptions about TOC and/or your own inclinations, you have overlooked the possibility that you are making assumptions about TOE and the outlook of those who consider it to be a fact as well as a theory?

Are you as open to having your assumptions about TOE corrected as you ask us to be about our assumptions in regard to TOC?

 

[gluadys]

Here I am looking at some of the assumptions you are making which are incorrect.

What I understand and do not understand about evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the posts made to you. I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation.

This was a comment to merle near the beginning of the thread. Note the bolded section. Here you are assuming that someone who understands TOE will agree that there is no overwhelming evidence to support it. However, many people who have taken the time to learn what the TOE says and to examine the evidence cited to support it take the opposite position---that there IS overwhelming evidence in favour of TOE.

But you take that conclusion, based on actual study, to indicate that the person does NOT understand TOE, simply because their conclusion does not agree with your conclusion. Because you assume that anyone who truly understands TOE will agree there is no overwhelming evidence for it, you are not prepared to learn about their understanding of TOE. You have already assumed they do not understand it.

But who is better placed to understand TOE: the one who has studied it or the one who has not?

I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

This would be a defensible position if there were no overwhelming evidence, But to use it as a principle of discussion means you must refuse to face evidence even when it is overwhelming because you have already decided in advance that overwhelming evidence cannot exist.

But it can.

On one occasion when asked for an explanation of transitional fossils you replied:

Try God created every living things. And that they reproduce according to their kind.

Here you are assuming that you can use a broad general explanation to explain something very particular. You can't do that. A very broad explanation that applies to a whole range of questions does not provide specific answers to limited questions. It is rather like answering the question "Why did it rain last night?" with "God sends the weather." Even granting that God does send the weather, it does not explain why God sent rain last night instead of the night before last, or why God sent rain instead of clear skies. What is needed is a more specific answer along the lines a meterologist would give. e.g. "the cold front moving down from the north will meet the warm air mass over the metropolis about midnight causing heavy showers for the rest of the night and clearing the following day."

In regards to the fossil record the reason "God made every living thing" is an unsatisfactory explanation is that it could also explain a very different fossil record than we actually have. If we really did have fossils in any sort of order, with mammalian bones in the Cambrian and dinosaur and trilobite and mammoth bones all in the same dig and Arcehopteryx in the same strata as Acanthostega, we could still explain that by saying "God made everything and they reproduce according to their kind."

Because "God made every living thing" could be an explanation both for the fossil record we have and for a hypothetical fossil record we do not have, it does not tell us why we have the fossil record we do instead of a different fossil record. So it is not an explanation of what we have.

The very nature of the theory of evolution proves that evolution cannot be proven because of the length of time involved to reproduces a sugnificant change.

Here is another incorrect assumption. The assumption here is that if one cannot personally observe an event one cannot establish that it happened. That is silly nonsense. Police investigators, among others, do this all the time.

Suppose a fire destroys a building. The police and the insurance company want to know whether or not the fire was deliberately set or whether it was an accident. According to you, if the arsonist was not literally seen setting the fire, no case of arson could be established. As you know this is not the case. It can be established that a fire was set deliberately even though no eye-witness was available. (Not in every case, but even one successful case proves the point.)

 

[Tomk80]

Razzelflabben, thank you for your answers. I still don't get your position, but if you don't mind I'll keep on asking questions untill I get it.

As I understand things, this is the old definiton of species, the one presented earlier was slightly different but I can work with either. It is the fuzzy areas that are open to interpretation by any group or individual.

Indeed, I saw the correction made later on. If you agree, I'd like to use the corrected definition:

This isn't how species are defined in science. A species is a breeding population, period. This definition does not say that interbreeding between two different species will not result in fertile offspring, but rather that interbreeding does not occur in nature. The definition of species is derived by the breeding patterns of organisms in the wild, not as a preset definition that is then forced upon breeding groups. Hope this helps.

are you asking me if I would consider them the same species or if the definition would consider them the same species?

Since I asked you whether you agreed with the definition and you wrote you can work with it, I don't see the difference. If there are differences, where are these and why?

As I have understood the neonate salamander, it is an immature form of the adult salamander. If other immature animals look different from their parents, but are not considered different species why would a neonate salamander. This goes back to the fuzzy areas of the definitions for species.

Because other animals don't stay in their immature forms and reproduce in these forms. That's what makes them different species, not just them being immature forms of the same species.

I don't recall saying that it is not an arguent for speciation, but rather that what can happen in nature is not always what does happen in nature. Therefore, it is not proof of evolution, not proof of speciation, but evidence that would suggest the possibility of speciation. You people are getting so hung up on proving E fact, that you fail to see all the wonderful possibiliities in our world. It is the possibilities that I want to explore. It is the explorations of these possibilities that lead one to truth.

So, if you were presented with the same example, but then present in nature, you'd except that speciation had happened in nature? I'm getting a little confused here. We know speciation can happen in the laboratory, agree or not? Therefore, it is proof speciation can happen. That was all this example was meant to show, IIRC. Thus, evolution can happen, true of false? Your objection would then be not that evolution cannot happen, it is observed in the laboratory, but that evolution might not have happened in nature. Is that your postion?

For me, I have considered some of the options you pointed out. Maybe we'll get to that later on.

Did my answers help?

They are starting to, but I'll keep asking you questions to at least get your position clear.

 

[gluadys]

Because other animals don't stay in their immature forms and reproduce in these forms. That's what makes them different species, not just them being immature forms of the same species.

If I may intervene here. I think we need to clarify that a salamander that is capable of reproduction is not an immature salamander, whatever its form. It is a fully adult salamander.

What is unique about the neotenous salamander is that it maintains the juvenile form into adult maturity. That doesn't mean that it remains immature. Only that its adult form looks the same as the juvenile form, while in other salamanders the adult and juvenile forms are quite distinct.

I think razzelflaben needs this clarification more than you, tom, but your post was handy.

 

[USincognito]

I can see your point if we are talking about crocodiles and dinosaurs, but since there are no dinosaurs known today, and the discussion is about dinosaurs and humans, and thus the dinosaurs are classifies as extinct, and man is still here, and very much so not extinct, I would think the logical statement would be that dinosaurs became extinct before man. How is that illogical?

Because this is where your logic train derailed.

in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp?

Can't you even follow your own ad hoc rationalizing? You suggested that the reasons dinosaurs became extinct before humans is because humans are still here --- in relation to the fact that we don't find human and dinosaur bones in the same strata --- while suggesting that humans an dinosaurs "might" have lived contemporaneously. Yet, crocodiles, who still exist today --- and do live contemporaneously with humans today --- are found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

How do you explain that inconsistency other than ad hoc handwaving? Don't forget, this is about you trying to excuse the fact that we don't find dinosaur and human bones in the same strata. We are looking for facts about evolution aren't we?

 

[USincognito]

This is exactly why I do not come to this discussion group. Because you miss the whole point so that you can prove that the TOE is fact and fact based on what, on your assertions that the fossil record is all that is needed to determine whether or not the TOE is true. Come now, we can all be more fair than that. I have said many times that this evidence can suggest the TOE, but that it is not enough for the TOE to predict a minute amount of evidence to be declared sound and all other theories invalid. I would think that this is an easy thing for those who do not use E as a belief system, apparently I am wrong, either that or it is a belief system to more of you than want to admit it is.

You're wrong. And your dismissing the tons and tons of evidence that I cited in my post does not turn it into "a minute amount." Didn't you notice that I bolded the word never every time I used it? In all our tons of dinosaur fossil finds, we never find any evidence of interaction with humans or human fossils in the same starta. Never.

Again, I go back to the forensics analogy. If you place the same level of evidence as a jury member at a murder trial no one would ever get convicted. If you want to wait until ever single square inch of soil in the Western Hemisphere is dug up and found free of Hominid fossils, that's your issue, not sciences.

Humm, western hemispere fossils of man never found. What of the native american burial sights?

Hon, I'm gonna need you to keep up with the discussion if it's going to be productive. We have found human remains in strata dating back 10-12,000 years. We have never found dinosaur remains dating back to less than 65 million years ago. We have found Australid and Hominid (did you notice I kept using those words) remaind back to around 3 million years ago. We have never found dinosaur remains younger than 65 million years ago. We have found dinosaur remains in the Western Hemisphere. We have never found Australid or Hominid fossils in the Western Hemisphere.

BTW, we've never found a fossilized human remain in the Western Hemisphere. 10,000 years is insufficient time for fossilization to occur. We have found bones and artifacts.

And can have other explainations, it is the possibility that you are missing. There are other possibilities.

How about instead of just alluding to "possibilities" you present some? Again, I think the burden is on those who claim O.J. didn't kill Nichole to tell us why we have never found anything to contradict current evolutionary thinking (other than ad hoc rationalizations).

Don't be sorry, I have never said that this fossil evidence did not support the TOE, only that it did not offer conclusive evidence to support the TOE. It totally amazes me how many people who claim that E is not a belief system, get all excited, bent out of shape, and read into posts what is not there, to prove that the fossils we have uncovered are overwhelming proof for E. If this is the standard by which we determine truth, I will avoid scientific method in the future, for apparently, if cannot be relied upon to provide truth, only speculation.

I'm even sorrier because after nearly 60 pages of having it explained to you in excruciatingly time consuming detail - you apparently wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you wearing a "Hi I'm a fact" t-shirt and shook hands with you. You're not interested in what is true, you're interested in "TRVTH" which you seem to think you have a monopoly on. I can't help you see the trees until you've realized you're in a forrest, not a field of dreams.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

Let me answer with a story:

I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet, and so I pressed on. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

One evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies. I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find it. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How did he know it was true? It looked to me like he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a big impact on me. What was so special about this footnote? I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some pretty serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of animals known as mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle. They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose higher than most reptiles in the place where later animals would form a new jaw joint--the mammalian joint. 270 Ma advanced pelycosaurs like the Dimetrodon--those familiar sail-winged animals from your childhood dinosaur set--had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) have jaw bones more similar to mammals, but they still have the reptile's jaw hinge. The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile's jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones. By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small. The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile's jaw. It's malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw. By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile's jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular are no longer part of the jaw. Instead they have become the malleus and incus, and are functioning as parts of the mammal's ear.

This is only the briefest of overviews of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

Now what on earth was God doing? Why is he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why does he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders and say that God moves in mysterious ways? No, I shall ask why. Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion. God allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years. As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also. In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know--elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another dinosaur that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within weeks, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.

(From an essay on my website, Did We Evolve?)​

And that questioning has led to answers, including that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science, and is the obvious answer as to how we got here.

Your life too could be changed if you would stop typing for one afternoon and take a trip to a library.

 

[Matt04]

And creationism has been disproven

I know I'm a few pages behind, but WOW, please tell me how! I was not aware of this.


Oh... nevermind. I just realized there's 59 pages and not 10...

 

[artybloke]

Matt04

Your life too could be changed if you would stop typing for one afternoon and take a trip to a library.

Read a few books on evolution. Look at the evidence for yourself. www.talkorigins.org will help.

 

[Matt04]

I haven't read many books yet, but I read many websites concerning Evolution from an evolutionist's view and creation from a creationist's view.

To be honest, I haven't come to a conclusion. So far I've found it harder to believe in Evolution, but also hard to believe in a Young World Creation. I'm kind of leaning towards Old Earth Creation right now, but that's not definite and I still haven't really found enough 'proof' to back it up.

Merle's little essay has actually inspired me to start reading up on both more. In fact, I think I might take a trip to the library tomorrow.

I used to be a debater on the Creationist side, but I just lost interest... too much **** flinging and too little fact telling.

Your life too could be changed if you would stop typing for one afternoon and take a trip to a library.

I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.

The most important fact to me about life is Jesus and what He did for everyone. Although there are many questions in life, none of them or their answers could mean to me what Jesus did means to me.

 

[mrversatile48]

I am always surprised by what people object too or applaud, All I am trying to say is that until or unless the evidence provided is proven to not be fraudulant, we cannot assume it to be fact, we know this based on the evidence that some scientific "evidence" has been proven to be fraud. What I don't understand about my comment, is that when I mention scientific studies that support C, the E here are more than quick to point out that they are fraudulant. When the E are told that we cannot assume evidence to be fact for the same reason, the E here are quick to point out that fraud is not a part of scientific method. It is these double standards that I find most disturbing about the TOE and does more to push me to the C mindset than anything else, because it would seem that if the E are so afraid to face the facts that the evidence is not conclusive, then the evidence must be weak indeed. Much weaker than we are lead to believe.

-I can see God created all kinds separately, though this requires a definiton for kinds that is not offered. In order to close this gap we must define kind and I have accept the definition of species here in order to proceed with this discussion.
-God created man separately, again, that is built within the theory of creation as put forth in the Gen account of creation. In fact, it is not limited to man, but species were created seperately. Now this is not stated directly, as in the case of mankind, but is implied.
- the TOE is false, I have yet to hear this one from a C. I have heard them say that E is improbable, that it is not proven, that it is not fact, etc. Vs. the E claims that E is fact, that C is disproven, that C is only a belief system and cannot be proven scientifically, that all C are ignorant of the scientific evidence, etc. Seems to me that I must talk to all the right people in the C mindset, and all the wrong people in the E mindset, either that. What ever happened to communication? To listening, I knew listening skills were lacking in the world today, I just never really understood how lacking they really were.


I understand what is written in Gen. that is the root theory of C. I think you may not understand the root of the theory.

Well, I have a AIM I needed to address, so I got one in tonight, have a nice evening and try not to get to far ahead if you want me to keep up.

I have 4 pages more to catch up on, but wouldn't have time to post if I did, so do excuse any duplication of any in those pages

In fact, I did a 40-min post on just part of what I think needs to be shared - then hit a wrong button & lost it

As some may have missed what I put on a smaller thread, linked to a few days ago, I'll 1st repeat an important principle there, as I know that many more folk read these threads than post on them, & that part of the reason is that they feel inadequate if they haven't got 2/3 degrees, yes?

I'll have to do this from memory now, & may well have to hit send before I finish, & leave the rest till Monday

Anyway, in a nutshell, as I put to Aron Ra, in humourous style, last week, God is not only concerned to communicate to academics, but seeks to get His Word over to each & everyone

As 1 Corinthians 1:20-on puts it:-

"Where is the wise man?

"Where is the scholar?

"Where is the philosopher of this age?

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Do read on - www.BibleGateway.org

The climax of that section is that, just as no-one knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, so no-one understands the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God - they are spiritually discerned

We need to trust our lives to Christ: repent of wrong thoughts, words & deeds, ask Him to forgive all our sins & invite Him into our hearts, by His Spirit taking up residence in the heart of our being

Another 1:20 -on explains further - this time Romans...

"What can be known about God - His invisible qualities (etc) - are clearly seen in creation, in the things He has made, so that men are without excuse"

Again, for lack of time, you need really to read from verses 18 to 32

It starts by saying that the wrath of God is revealed against wicked men (& women) who suppress the truth by their wickedness

It goes on to say that human hearts are darkened & human thinking rendered futile by the effects of sin - of rebelling against God

Relevance to evolution/change/development etc?

It charts the process so clearly seen, throughout history, in the lives of individuals..communities..cities..continents..the world

It starts with refusing to acknowlege God as God - as Lord of life - refusing to thank & praise Him for His many blessings

It ends in the worst of perversions & in God's judgment

Remembering Jet's joke, it fits in to say that 3 chapter 1's are the clearest statements in the Bible that Jesus is no less than the Almighty Creator in human form: John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1

(You see why I have no time to type 'em all out as I'd love to for you: I have @ 8 mins left before autologout!)

Yes, 1 of those says that God holds all things together by the power of His Word

He is the Sustainer of the world, as well as the Creator

& Jesus is God - that's why He is called "the Lord"

I nearly forgot to paste a timely word from www.arcamax.com

Today's Scripture
Read Through the Bible in a Year
Weekly Meditation


Today's Scripture


Be Sure of His Calling

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

2 Peter 1:10,11 NASB

-------------

"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' "

Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV

-------------

Every person who believes that Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah, is God-begotten. If we love the One who conceives the child, we'll surely love the child who was conceived.

The reality test on whether or not we love God's children is this: Do we love God? Do we keep his commands? The proof that we love God comes when we keep his commandments and they are not at all troublesome.

1 John 5:1-3 MSG

-------------

"If you love me, you will obey what I command.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:15-17 NIV

-------------

We need a Savior because we are sinners,
and the wages of sin is death...

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God is the object of
our faith; the only faith that saves is faith in Him.


Back to Top


Read Through the Bible in a Year


August 13, John 1:1-18, 1 Chronicles 5-6, Zephaniah 2
Click Here for the complete schedule

Or Cut and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.arcamax.com/ttb-yr.html
Back to Top


Weekly Meditation


Grace and Salvation

May grace and peace be yours from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. He died for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live. That is why all glory belongs to God through all the ages of eternity. Amen.

Galatians 1:3-5 NLT

I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one of those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.

Galatians 2:20,21 NLT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvel not that I tell you you must be born again" - John 3

 

[Arikay]

The full amount of evidence that falsifies Young earth creationism (and creationism in general) could fill these 54 pages.
Its important to distinquish between creation and creationism. Creation is the theological belief that God created, Creationism is the scientific theory that tries to explain How he created.

The first falsifacation of Young Earth Creationism actually came before darwin. William Smith an amateur scientist and geologist discovered the fossil record and that certain fossils were always in certain strata, this knowledge was used to better predict where oil could be found. This organization can't be explained by a global flood and spelled the beginning of the end for YEC belief in geology.

I know I'm a few pages behind, but WOW, please tell me how! I was not aware of this.


Oh... nevermind. I just realized there's 59 pages and not 10...

 

[mrversatile48]

"In every flower that opens..

In every grain of sand!"

Joe Public readers out there, your God-given eyes, ears, minds etc can see the clear proof of God's stupendous design - especially thru telescopes & microscopes too - sites online show 'em, yes?

Don't be intimidated by evo-loopies

God bless!

Ian

 

[The Bellman]

"In every flower that opens..

In every grain of sand!"

Joe Public readers out there, your God-given eyes, ears, minds etc can see the clear proof of God's stupendous design - especially thru telescopes & microscopes too - sites online show 'em, yes?

Don't be intimidated by evo-loopies

God bless!

Ian

As an atheist, I love posts like the above. Announcing things that are not in evidence to huge numbers of people and calling the world's scientists "evo-loopies" do nothing but make christianity (and hence christians) look like ignorant hicks.

 

[Arikay]

Well, evolution does not equal atheism, so your point is meaningless.

Should I point out that God creating a mechanism that actually works a better designer than one that would design a mechanism that works partially but is broken. Would you consider a programmer that wrote a broken program, a good programmer? If not, then how can you consider a designer that creates a broken version of evolution a good designer?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

"In every flower that opens..

In every grain of sand!"

Joe Public readers out there, your God-given eyes, ears, minds etc can see the clear proof of God's stupendous design - especially thru telescopes & microscopes too - sites online show 'em, yes?

Don't be intimidated by evo-loopies

God bless!

Ian

When are you ever going to learn that Evolution does not deny the existence of God?

You have been told this so often that the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is making it impossible to trust anything you say, as you are demonstrating a deliberate refusal to hear what you don’t wish to hear.

Evolution does not mean God did not create, it simply does not. Saying it did is wrong. As for your “Gods stupendous design” comment, if God used the subtlety of evolution rather than the crude “poof, there it is done” method you claim, his creation becomes even more amazing, even more wondrous.

Evolution does not deny Gods existence, claiming it does is dishonest, it is in fact, suppressing the truth (the truth in this case being that one can believe in God and evolution). Remind me what 1;20 Romans said about suppressing the truth? Remember I am only saying that it is possible to believe God created using evolution is the truth at this point, because you have had it explained to you many times how this is possible, and that's very different to accepting evolution yourself, so I will not ask that of you.

Ghost

 

[Aron-Ra]

Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think.
And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.

This was the best written, and most powerful commentary I've ever found on this board to be sure.

 

[razzelflabben]

I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions? Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.
2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible. Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?

What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system. I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas? None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.]

Well, there is the twin-nested heirarchy of taxonomy.

Remember that if you accept micro-evolution, but reject evolution at some (as-yet undetermined) higher level, believing instead that everything was independantly created, then there must be some point in our systematic classifications of life where taxomonomy falls apart, where things that appear to be related to everything are really unrelated to anything else. So according to whatever you accept about the variability of evolving species, answer the following as best you can:

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?​

Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?​

Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?​

Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?​

Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?​

Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?​

Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?​

Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?​

Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? ​

Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? ​

Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?​

Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?​

Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?​

Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?​

........and so on.​

What definition of species are we going by in this discussion? Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.​

Which of these are related? Which of these are created?

​

If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the overall concept of macroevolution, or if creationism is true of anything more than the first bacterial organisms, then the fatal flaw of evolutionary Theory must be found here, or it simply can't be anywhere else.​

Here are some references to help you. The Arizona Tree Of Life Project ​

Click the "containing group" link to go back through projected ancestry. This cladogram isn't really detailed, but it is easy to navigate, and since it is peer-reviewed, it will be the most accurate available on the web. ​

This cladogram below is not peer-reviewed, but it is much more detailed. ​

Click the <==o to go back. ​

For these next couple series, you may want to compare the TOLweb site with the Finnish cladogram as it is also more illustrative. However, bear in mind that not being peer-reviewed means that errors in it are not corrected unless you email the systematist directly to advise him of them. I have found some errors in other lineages, but these groups appear accurate.​

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
Are all panthers related to housecats, scimitar cats and all other felids?
Are all felids related to civets and other viverrids?
Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other Carnivora?

Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?

Which of these groups evolved from common ancestors, and which ones were spoken into existence by God's magic incantation? If you can answer that, then we'll know how many pairs of cats Ubar-Tutu took onto the ark with him, right?

And a bonus question

Are all species of ducks related to each other?​

Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

And finally (referring to the TOLweb site)

Are modern terrestrial scorpions related to extinct aquatic scorpions?
Are all scorpions related to Cambrian Eurypterids?
Are Eurypterids related to horseshoe crabs?
Are horseshoe crabs related to trilobites?


Again, if the overall Theory of evolution is NOT true, and/or if creationism IS true, then at some point in each of these, your answer should be a simple "no", and wherever you answer "yes" is equally important.

There's that which is truth idea again. Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either! Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?

And of course the same applies to the human version of this same inquiry.

Are Caucasians, (modern versions of Cro-magnon) related to all other extant human demes?
Are Homo sapiens related to any or all other species of Homo?
Are any Homo species related to any other Hominines?
Are any of the Hominines related to any other Hominids?
Are any of the Hominids related to any other Hominoids?
Are any Hominoids related to other Catarrhine primates?
Are any Catarrhines related to any Platyrrhines?

How does you alleged theory of creation help you explain the derived synapomorphies, (inherited similarities) evident in these apparent relationships?

Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories. Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?

 

[Aron-Ra]

As an atheist, I love posts like the above. Announcing things that are not in evidence to huge numbers of people and calling the world's scientists "evo-loopies" do nothing but make christianity (and hence christians) look like ignorant hicks.

Young Earth Creationists can be the greatest tools against Christianity any imbittered atheist could ever ask for. I was talking to an Old Earth Creationist the other day, who pointed out something about them that I had noticed as well. YECs are far more hateful than regular Christians, and this, (combined with their insane ravings and wanton paranoia) does even more to drive others away from Christ. Were I the anti-christ that so many people think I am, I would yoke these holy warriers with their "armor of god" as my unwitting minions against normal, decent people.

Hmmm. (strokes goatee thoughtfully plotting menacing schemes)