Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Papias]

gradyll wrote:

want to know why there is no non-clonal singular tree dated at more than 5000 years?

Why exclude clonal trees in your question?

Parasites and fire seriously could not destroy every living tree? I mean if certain trees are capable of living for 5,000 years, some should have lasted much longer.

I don't think that is clear. It seems that trees living over 1000 years require very specific types, regions, and circumstances. That already limits the pool to a very small number. That any of those made it past 2,000 or 3,000 years was very lucky. We should not be surprised if there are only a few older than that.

But I think my first question is more relevant. As is the fact that dozens of different dating techniques, based on very different methods, all confirm each other and the geologic time scale. If any of them were unreliable, then they wouldn't happen to all give the same answer.

That's been discussed many times on these fora - so it seems rather silly to pretend that the carefully excluded tree question is relevant.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

children should not be taught chemistry and should not be taught evolution either, they don't understand either of the topics until at least high school.

Pretty well all high school students are children by national and international standards of age of majority.

And there is no reason elementary students cannot learn some simple chemistry. How many nine-year olds are fascinated with a child's chemistry kit and love putting different materials together to see what happens?

Some facets of evolution are easily conveyed at elementary levels of schooling as well. There are some good examples of lesson plans on-line. You can check out the teacher's section at Understanding Evolution

 

[createdtoworship]

Why exclude clonal trees in your question?

clonal trees have one set of trees dating 80,000 years but it seems speculative because none others even come close to that number, only the one.

secondly
we can't speculate on the life expectancy of trees, if we really don't know how long they live. No moving parts, could have some longevity. If the other is right thats 80,000 years. I do however still question how one can determine the age of this network of trees. besides Every so often, claims are made about bristlecone pines having multiple rings per year (Matthews 2006).

 

[metherion]

Sorry about the delay in response, Zeena. Some of the questions posed by gradyll here were being posed at pretty much the same time in another thread, and I forgot to deal with your post before I went on answering his question of trees in both threads.

Ahem. (throat clearing noise).

It's only new to us, but it was there all along.

How was it there all along? It wasn’t there until an old strand was separated and duplicated? At most, being semantic, less than half was there all along. Since one strand was split into two, the other half is new, and any mutations are new.

Did not the DnA/RnA sequences cause it to be so, according to modern biochemistry?
If so, there is an underlying principal at work to cause it to be so, ergo it was there all along.

The proteins and enzymes make DNA replication work that way, but that doesn’t mean it was there all along.

Also, when one strand is duplicated twice, then there are four strands. But the original strand only has two backbones, but there are 8 backbones in 4 strands of DNA. Which means that two of them ARE completely new since they have no parts of the original in them.

If I have a factory that makes airplanes, then the machines in the factory cause the airplanes to be. But that doesn’t mean the airplanes have been there all along.

Can DnA be injured? It's just a part of our bodies. And we all know things go astray from their orginal makeup.

Yes, it can be, via radiation, certain mutations, overwriting by viruses, etc.

Changed is not new though, it is alterated.

But the altered copy is not the same as the old copy, so it is new.

We're seeing these things take place from the perspective of a man. We can only see things as they appear, no?

No, we can see things as they really are. It may APPEAR that all human growth in the womb is just biology, but we can see that God has given a soul, can we not? And then of course we have the mundane examples of optical illusions and whatnot, but we can tell what they really are with the right tools.

Isn't that what happened when God said 'let us make man in our Image, after our Likeness', however you chose to take that?
...
I beg to differ.

For each species is unique.

What is man in your philosophy?

I’ll address these together, and BACKWARDS.

In my view, man the species that God breathed a soul capable of understanding Him into. We still are animals, we fit all the biological definitions of animals, apes specifically, but the souls God gave us made us unique, in addition to everything else that differentiates us from the nearest other apes.

Each species IS unique, but it is the sum of all the accumulated differences that makes them unique. Are you at all familiar with the current biological classification systems?

And no, I believe God did not just poof humans into existence out of thin air. Or out of mud. I believe that it is an allegorical myth meant to specifically parallel and demolish the Babylonian and other Near East myths of the time while conveying the message about the uniqueness of humanity and God’s relationship to us.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

gradyll wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Why exclude clonal trees in your question?

clonal trees have one set of trees dating 80,000 years but it seems speculative because none others even come close to that number, only the one.

​

So you exclude them because we have only one example speices that has a very old member? How many different old trees are you basing your reliance on old individual tree on?

Also, are we working from the same information? I thought there were plenty of other old clonal plants.

For instance:

• Palmer's Oak, at over 13,000 years http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008346
• King Clone, at 11,700 yrs. Creosote Rings Preserve, Lucerne Valley / Johnson Valley
• Lomatia colony in Tasmania at about 40,000 years
• That Pennsylvania boxberry bush at over 13,000 years
• the Italian seaweed colony that is 100,000 years old

and so on.

secondly
we can't speculate on the life expectancy of trees, if we really don't know how long they live. No moving parts, could have some longevity. If the other is right thats 80,000 years.

Um, what are you saying here? Sorry, I don't understand what you wrote.


You didn't respond to this:

As is the fact that dozens of different dating techniques, based on very different methods, all confirm each other and the geologic time scale. If any of them were unreliable, then they wouldn't happen to all give the same answer.

​

Lastly - would it be significant to you if there were a tree that were older than 5,000 years old? Or would you start to dismiss the very topic you brought up here?

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

I want to know why there is no non-clonal singular tree dated at more than 5000 years? Parasites and fire seriously could not destroy every living tree? I mean if certain trees are capable of living for 5,000 years, some should have lasted much longer.

Looking at the indivdual (non clonal) tree with verified ages in
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We have
14 trees aged between 1000-1999 year old. This figure should probably be higher as they only list the ones older than 1500.
6 trees aged between 2000 and 2999,
5 trees aged between 3000 and 3999, and only
2 trees aged between 4000 and 4999 both bristle cones pines and one of them was actually chopped down in 1964.

Looks to me like most trees are simply not capable of surviving that long and only a couple of exceptional trees in an exceptional environment were able to get past 4000. If even the hardiest trees die off over the millennia and only two made it past 4800 you are unlikely to find anything older. On the other hand if the flood was responsible for wiping out otherwise immortal tees, you would expect a sudden cut off at the flood not the decline over thousands of years we see. In fact there should be more of the very old trees established in the few hundred years after the flood, because one you have the first growth of a forest established, new trees would find it very hard to take their place.

 

[Greg1234]

micro evolution features yes, macro ....no

You have to be careful with micro and macro. They define macro merely as the accumulation of stochastic variations. So in a sense, it's not the macro but the type of macro. On the note of accumulation, Creationists would acknowledge macro-evolution,

The condition of the above would represent the starting condition of a model.

The condition of the above would represent the many years of random variation (macro evolution) of a model.

Darwinian evolution however holds that

can become

by random variation. Random Mutation Generator

It should be noted that reproduction is something biological systems have the ability to do, similar to the way a car is able to drive. But both are still subject to random variation over time and as ID research will show you, the macro evolutionary changes you can expect are no different from a new car going to an old car, lights on/off.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll wrote:


So you exclude them because we have only one example speices that has a very old member? How many different old trees are you basing your reliance on old individual tree on?

Also, are we working from the same information? I thought there were plenty of other old clonal plants.

For instance:

• Palmer's Oak, at over 13,000 years http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008346
• King Clone, at 11,700 yrs. Creosote Rings Preserve, Lucerne Valley / Johnson Valley
• Lomatia colony in Tasmania at about 40,000 years
• That Pennsylvania boxberry bush at over 13,000 years
• the Italian seaweed colony that is 100,000 years old

and so on.





Um, what are you saying here? Sorry, I don't understand what you wrote.


You didn't respond to this:

As is the fact that dozens of different dating techniques, based on very different methods, all confirm each other and the geologic time scale. If any of them were unreliable, then they wouldn't happen to all give the same answer.

​

Lastly - would it be significant to you if there were a tree that were older than 5,000 years old? Or would you start to dismiss the very topic you brought up here?

Papias

clonial trees are hard to date by group. If they were old like it is stated, your previous assumption would be false, namely that trees don't grow past a few thousand years.

 

[createdtoworship]

Looking at the indivdual (non clonal) tree with verified ages in
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We have
14 trees aged between 1000-1999 year old. This figure should probably be higher as they only list the ones older than 1500.
6 trees aged between 2000 and 2999,
5 trees aged between 3000 and 3999, and only
2 trees aged between 4000 and 4999 both bristle cones pines and one of them was actually chopped down in 1964.

Looks to me like most trees are simply not capable of surviving that long and only a couple of exceptional trees in an exceptional environment were able to get past 4000. If even the hardiest trees die off over the millennia and only two made it past 4800 you are unlikely to find anything older. On the other hand if the flood was responsible for wiping out otherwise immortal tees, you would expect a sudden cut off at the flood not the decline over thousands of years we see. In fact there should be more of the very old trees established in the few hundred years after the flood, because one you have the first growth of a forest established, new trees would find it very hard to take their place.

what factors are there at 3000 that are not there at 6000 years of age, if it lasts a thousand years it could last ten thousand we simply don't know.

 

[KerrMetric]

ID research

Oxymoron alert.

 

[Assyrian]

what factors are there at 3000 that are not there at 6000 years of age, if it lasts a thousand years it could last ten thousand we simply don't know.

So you argument for the flood is not based on evidence but on 'simply don't know'? Those figures I gave you tell you more than enough about mortality rates and demographics to know the flood argument simply doesn't work. At 6000 they have had twice as long to die as at 3000. To get to 3000 you started off with 5 trillion trees (one estimate of current population), by the time you get to the 3000s you have 5 trees left, only 1 tree in a trillion lasted 3000 years. To get from 3000 to 6000 you are starting off with 5 trees each with a 1 in a trillion chance of survival. Do you do the lottery?

 

[createdtoworship]

So you argument for the flood is not based on evidence but on 'simply don't know'? Those figures I gave you tell you more than enough about mortality rates and demographics to know the flood argument simply doesn't work. At 6000 they have had twice as long to die as at 3000. To get to 3000 you started off with 5 trillion trees (one estimate of current population), by the time you get to the 3000s you have 5 trees left, only 1 tree in a trillion lasted 3000 years. To get from 3000 to 6000 you are starting off with 5 trees each with a 1 in a trillion chance of survival. Do you do the lottery?

they have had twice the chance of dying but you don't know the original mortality rate. After all we use wood for all our building so the mortality rate of the wood is pretty good. Besides there is a tree older than 6000 years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm

 

[Papias]

clonial trees are hard to date by group.

Your original question was "why are there no non-clonal trees data to over 5,00 years?".

I asked "why exclude clonals?", and you said it was because there was only one as seen here:

gradyll wrote:

clonal trees have one set of trees dating 80,000 years but it seems speculative because none others even come close to that number, only the one.

When I pointed out that there were many, you said they were hard to date. That seems odd. Why the switch in your reason to ignore the information from clonals?

Some are, some aren't so hard to date. For many of them they have a pretty good idea of their ages, based again on multiple methods.

If they were old like it is stated, your previous assumption would be false, namely that trees don't grow past a few thousand years.

That wasn't what I said, (sinceI'm fully aware there are examples of trees older than 1000 years). I observed that only a few make it past 1000 years, with few and fewer making it past 2,000, 3,000, and so on, and it wasn't an assumption, but rather a conclusion based on the data. You really don't disagree with that conclusion, do you?

So in summary, I go back to your original question "why are there no non-clonal trees older than 5,000 years?", and conclude that it seems that both clonals and nonclonals show a decreasing number to have made it to any given higher age, with both groups showing maximum ages well past 5,000 years.

It seems that the data is fully consistent with an age of the earth of more than 5,000 years, and that the data doesn't fit a literal view of genesis, which would require no trees, clonal or not, older than about 4,300 years (the approximate year of the flood).

Do you agree with that assessment?

PS. You still haven't responded to:

....the fact that dozens of different dating techniques, based on very different methods, all confirm each other and the geologic time scale. If any of them were unreliable, then they wouldn't happen to all give the same answer.

 

[Assyrian]

they have had twice the chance of dying but you don't know the original mortality rate.

The rapidly decreasing number of trees as their age increases tells you all you need to know about the mortality rate to understand how few survive the passing millennia,

After all we use wood for all our building so the mortality rate of the wood is pretty good. Besides there is a tree older than 6000 years

World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

Thought you didn't want to include clonal trees?

 

[Zeena]

Sorry about the delay in response, Zeena. Some of the questions posed by gradyll here were being posed at pretty much the same time in another thread, and I forgot to deal with your post before I went on answering his question of trees in both threads.

Not to worry, I took no offense at you.

Ahem. (throat clearing noise).

How was it there all along? It wasn’t there until an old strand was separated and duplicated?

As an idea, in the Mind of God.

For it is by His good pleasure we are. This is why I can say that; what is, was: even as the Preacher;

Ecc 1:10
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

[note the Preacher did not say any new 'work', bur rather, 'thing' and 'it']

At most, being semantic, less than half was there all along.

We don't know that, for we know not the function of non-encoding DnA (which is now considered a faulty term by the scientific community).

Since one strand was split into two, the other half is new, and any mutations are new.

And what are the functions of this 'new' strand? Is they not for mitigating damage to the original? Therefore it is a hard copy, so that the orignal can read from it what is true.

The proteins and enzymes make DNA replication work that way, but that doesn’t mean it was there all along.

But we don't know, we can only surmise based on what is visable with the eyes. Take for example the non-encoding DnA example above;

Much of this DNA has no known biological function and at one time was sometimes referred to as "junk DNA". However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences

So, there is obviously more than 'meets the eye' going on here.

Also, when one strand is duplicated twice, then there are four strands. But the original strand only has two backbones, but there are 8 backbones in 4 strands of DNA. Which means that two of them ARE completely new since they have no parts of the original in them.

When a baby is conceived, he goes through meiosis, his cells split and he begins to grow. Same scenario, no? Well, that baby has the same DnA he had since the moment he was concieved. In fact, he will have the same DnA his entire lifetime, though it will be altered by both how he treats the body and whatever this world throws at it, not to even mention apoptosis (the self destruction of cells) in longevity of his life.

Ergo, there are many factors which can alter the life form, but never change it into something other than what it already is.

The example given earlier, of rabishes, for instance, never actually changed the species, but rather, altered it. It is still of the mustard family, and nothing can ever change that. Do you know of something that can change that, empirically?

If I have a factory that makes airplanes, then the machines in the factory cause the airplanes to be. But that doesn’t mean the airplanes have been there all along.

And I have a computer which stores information. When it is turned on, the information is readily available to me, providing I know where to look. When it is turned off, however, no information at all is forthcoming, no matter if I know where to look, or not.

Same difference, for we can only utilize what is readily available to us at any given moment. Point being, the idea is there, though the material for the formation of the idea be asbsent.

1 Cor 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Yes, it can be, via radiation, certain mutations, overwriting by viruses, etc.

And this only alters the body. That's my point.

Just because I am missing an arm or have a cold does not make me any less or more of a person. The alteration of the body is nothing new, but it's always backwards, hence our bodies grow old and die. Our bodies do not mutate into something Eternal, but by the Spirit, EG; something FROM Someone, even God. There is never an instance where God is not actively working on/in all things. So also there is never an instance when something pops out of nothing. Even if the only possible boiling point would be God by the Spirit, it is still something, err Somone.

But the altered copy is not the same as the old copy, so it is new.

To us, yes. From our perspective, yes.

But not to God, Who see's things as they really are.

When the Apostles, for instance, saw Jesus transfigured before them;

Matt 17:12
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Were they seeing Him as He really was, or what He was to become?

No, we can see things as they really are.

We can only 'see', by the Spirit, what it is He is revealing to us at any given time. We are to walk by faith, not sight.

It may APPEAR that all human growth in the womb is just biology, but we can see that God has given a soul, can we not?

Yes, we can!!!

SEE, a beginning, in the very Heart of our Heavenly Father!
And, we already know the end, as we remain firm in the faith.

So what more is there to know?

And then of course we have the mundane examples of optical illusions and whatnot, but we can tell what they really are with the right tools.

Sometimes the only 'right tool' is no tool.

I’ll address these together, and BACKWARDS.

In my view, man the species that God breathed a soul capable of understanding Him into. We still are animals, we fit all the biological definitions of animals, apes specifically, but the souls God gave us made us unique, in addition to everything else that differentiates us from the nearest other apes.

I do not agree with your definition of man. For you leave out both soul and spirit, with which every living thing that has breath is created with;

Ecc 3:20-21
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

BIOS is life, the flesh. Jesus had (and has) BIOS (though it be Glorified), and His Person is (and was) God., Who is Spirit.

Man is created like every animal, in that he has a soul (SARX) [the joining of both body and breath, both of God]. But, unlike any other living thing, man is also blessed with the Image of God in Christ [Gen 1:27;John 1:9]. THIS is what makes us unique. Even the Moral Image of our Creator.

Each species IS unique, but it is the sum of all the accumulated differences that makes them unique.

I wouldn't even say the difference must be that astounding, but even a different soul, one from another would suffice, as pertains to uniqueness, yet as pertains to species is another matter entirely, as I expres, below.

Are you at all familiar with the current biological classification systems?

Unfortunately, yes. And I would beg to differ as to your classification of species here. For, as species stands at the top (or bottom, depending on your view) of taxonomic rank it must needs be more definative than genre and family. Ergo, there must be too many differences from the genre and family with which to classify a given species, in order for it to be classified as a new one.

And no, I believe God did not just poof humans into existence out of thin air. Or out of mud. I believe that it is an allegorical myth meant to specifically parallel and demolish the Babylonian and other Near East myths of the time while conveying the message about the uniqueness of humanity and God’s relationship to us.

Metherion

Yet, Metherion, surely we can agree that God has had us in mind?

 

[createdtoworship]

The rapidly decreasing number of trees as their age increases tells you all you need to know about the mortality rate to understand how few survive the passing millennia,


Thought you didn't want to include clonal trees?

not a clonal tree, it's another one.

besides, given mortality rates and all, whats the mortality of single cell evolution?

that would be another topic however.

 

[Assyrian]

not a clonal tree, it's another one.

Have a look at the wiki article I linked to, your 9950 year old spruce from Sweden is listed as clonal

Clonal trees
...
Old Tjikko.9,550 Norway spruce Picea abies Fulufjället National Park, Dalarna, Sweden
The tree's stems live no more than 600 years, but its root system's age[13][14] was established using carbon dating and genetic matching.[15] Elsewhere in the Fulu mountains, 20 spruces have been found older than 8,000 years.[16]
​

Or you could read the article you linked to:

Scientists found four "generations" of spruce remains in the form of cones and wood produced from the highest grounds. The discovery showed trees of 375, 5,660, 9,000 and 9,550 years old and everything displayed clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup as the trees above them. Since spruce trees can multiply with root penetrating braches, they can produce exact copies, or clones.
​

The older trees including the 9,550 year old one, were weren't living trees but 'remains' in the form of wood and cones.

besides, given mortality rates and all, whats the mortality of single cell evolution?

that would be another topic however.

Not sure what "mortality of single cell evolution" means. However given how rapidly bacteria multiple and how difficult it is to keep an area sterile, as long as there is a food supply their rate of reproduction is a lot faster than their mortality rate.

But as you say it is a different topic.

 

[lucaspa]

how did the first asexual organism become heterosexual btw? besides asexual reproduction is much simpler than the others. It is not the same as heterosexual cloning because two parent products are needed.

IOW, how did sexual reproduction evolve? Altho creationists often assume that the first sexually reproducing organism had to have 2 distinct sexes. This is not the case. The living Volvox has 2 types of cells: somatic (tissue) and sex cells. Basically Volvox are hollow balls whose cells snag nutrients from the water. The sex cells produce gametes (cells that are haploid (one set of chromosomes) instead of diploid (2 sets of chromosomes). These gametes are neither male nor female. The gametes are simply left to float in the water until they meet up with another gamete. Fertilization occurs and a new Volvox starts.


Here are some articles you can read about the change from asexual to sexual reproduction:
1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system. The Constitution of a New Model Army - Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
Dictyostelium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.
3. Slime molds Introduction to the "Slime Molds"
4. Evolution of Sex. Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of 8 review articles discussing the topic.
5. Nature Reviews Genetics - Focus on Focus on Evolution of Sex
10. Hines P, Culatta E, The evolution of sex. Science 281: 1979,Sept. 25, 1998.
13. Sign in to read: Has the mystery of sex been explained at last? - life - 15 June 2009 - New Scientist model of how sexual reproduction is beneficial
14. Unorthodox - NYTimes.com Ciliate recombination between 2 individuals without reproduction.

 

[lucaspa]

As an idea, in the Mind of God.

That's Platonism and Plato's Ideals. You are way off the Christian reservation here.

What is more, this doesn't apply to the situation of a clonal tree.

Ecc 1:10
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

Unfortunately, Ecclesiastes is talking about human history, not biology. We have seen new species arise in our time. Species that have never existed before.

We don't know that, for we know not the function of non-encoding DnA (which is now considered a faulty term by the scientific community).

Some of the non-coding DNA are pseudogenes. These are genes that have mutated and lost their start sequence. They are no longer expressed. They are, at present, junk. And yes, "junk DNA" was a fun term when proposed. Most molecular biologists regret the choice because it did leave the wrong impression.

And what are the functions of this 'new' strand? Is they not for mitigating damage to the original? Therefore it is a hard copy, so that the orignal can read from it what is true.

There is no function of the new chromosome in chromosome duplication. As the name implies, it is a duplicate of the old chromosome, constaining everything it did. Including any "damage" it had. Gene and chromosome duplication are 2 different types of mistakes in DNA copying. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] happens.

What it does is provide more DNA. What's more, since the original gene or chromosome is already there, the functions in the duplicate are not needed. Therefore mutations in the duplicate can add new functions and traits by making new proteins. There are at least 13 different collagen proteins in humans, each with its own gene. Those collagens arose during the last 600 million years or so by gene duplication.

When a baby is conceived, he goes through meiosis, his cells split and he begins to grow.

That's actually "mitosis". "Meiosis" happens in the generation of sperm and ova.

Same scenario, no?

While individual cells are cloning, the baby itself is not a clone. The baby gets half the DNA from dad and half from mom. When an individual clones, there is only one parent and all the DNA is the same as the parent.

Ergo, there are many factors which can alter the life form, but never change it into something other than what it already is.

That is true of individuals. But evolution happens to populations over many generations. And yes, the genetics of the population changes so that there are alleles that were not there before and other alleles that were there but are there no longer.

The example given earlier, of rabishes, for instance, never actually changed the species, but rather, altered it. It is still of the mustard family, and nothing can ever change that.

No, the species did change. "Family" is a large group of species. But yes, as speciation events happen over time, eventually you do get a new Family at the classification level. In the case of bird evolution from dinos, for instance, we ended up with a new Class. We have fossil records fine enough that we do see the evolution of new Families by tracking transitional individuals from species to species to species and eventually the formation of a new Family. Here are some examples:
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. Introduction to the Foraminifera
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Do you know of something that can change that, empirically?

Yes. Evolution by natural selection.

Just because I am missing an arm or have a cold does not make me any less or more of a person. The alteration of the body is nothing new, but it's always backwards, hence our bodies grow old and die.

Again, Zeena, the basic misunderstanding about evolution. Listen carefully: evolution does NOT happen to individuals. We die with the same set of alleles we are born with. Evolution happens to populations over generations.

Jesus is an example, as you noted, of transformation. As an individual, he was transformed by the Resurrection. Jesus is not an example of evolution.

Man is created like every animal, in that he has a soul (SARX) [the joining of both body and breath, both of God]. But, unlike any other living thing, man is also blessed with the Image of God in Christ [Gen 1:27;John 1:9]. THIS is what makes us unique. Even the Moral Image of our Creator.

Where did you get "moral image" from "in our image"? C'mon, as immoral as humans are, do you really think God is like that? "in our image" doesn't mean anything about "likeness". It's about power and independence.

And I would beg to differ as to your classification of species here. For, as species stands at the top (or bottom, depending on your view) of taxonomic rank it must needs be more definative than genre and family. Ergo, there must be too many differences from the genre and family with which to classify a given species, in order for it to be classified as a new one.

Species are within a genus and family. Genera and families are groups of species. They are groups of species that share some traits, but not all traits. You are trying to make genus and family within species. That's not the way the system works.

Biologically, the only reality is species. All the higher taxa -- such as genera and family -- are simply groupings of species.

 

[lucaspa]

clonal trees have one set of trees dating 80,000 years but it seems speculative because none others even come close to that number, only the one.

The reason is that individual "trees" die after 100-200 years, but the colony is continually renewed. Now, I find on Wikipedia that ages have been determined on 5 different clonal tree colonies: List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are references on how the age estimates were done. For the Huon pine individual trees are 4-5,000 years old, but several genetically identical males have reproduced vegetatively and the colony is estimated at 3 - 10,000 years old. The quaking aspen colony in Utah is estimated at 80,000 - 100,000 years old. References are given that will tell you exactly how the ages are estimated.

Every so often, claims are made about bristlecone pines having multiple rings per year (Matthews 2006).

FYI, that is not a complete citation. You need to include the full authors, the publication, volume of the publication, and page numbers in addition to the year.

A quick Google search reveals that (Matthews 2006) is cited in an Answers in Genesis article: Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology - Answers in Genesis

The complete citation is:
M. Matthews (2006), “Evidence for Multiple Ring Growth per Year in Bristlecone Pines,” Journal of Creation 20 no. 3 (2006):95–103.

So, the "every so often claims are made" is a creationist journal that is not peer-reviewed by the scientific community. You can see, I'm sure, why I am very skeptical of the claim.