Creation & Evolution ‘Free-for-all’

[Tinker Grey]

A change of species not a finch into another finch with a different beak like darwen described I mean like a fish into a frog

Or a mammal into a reptile

He asked you to define "kind". Neither of these statements are a definition.

 

[inquiring mind]

I dropped the OP rule for comments... maybe more will join in.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Or a mammal into a reptile

A mammal will never "[turn] into" a reptile. The rules of cladistics forbid it. So, in essence, Evolution does not say this does or can happen either. There could only ever be a "reptile-like mammal", which, interestingly, has already come to pass. See synapsids.

 

[pitabread]

Can anybody give me an observable example of darwens theory where there was a change of kinds

Strictly speaking there is no biological definition of "kind". It has no biological meaning.

Likewise, human taxonomic classifications (e.g. species, genus, family, order, etc.) are all artificial categories.

When looking at transitions, from a conceptual perspective I find it's best to look at the actual changes to biological forms rather than trying to assign artificial categories. I feel that by compartmentalizing biological organisms, people lose sight of what is actually happening in the evolutionary process over time.

A change of species not a finch into another finch with a different beak like darwen described I mean like a fish into a frog

Or a mammal into a reptile

If you're referring to modern species of fish, frogs, mammals, etc., strictly speaking you won't see that. That is because modern extant species don't evolve into other modern extant species. Rather, modern species share common ancestors of (typically extinct) past species.

If you want to understand how species evolved over time and transitioning into the various modern outgroups we have today, I'd suggest the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

It contains a long list of fossil species and general chronology of the transitions over time. I should caution it is out-of-date by today's standards (it was last updated in 1997). But it's probably one of the better comprehensive overviews on the internet that I'm aware of.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you not believe there is a reality outside of a Spock-like and Sherlock Holmes-like perception… things beyond the physical world and our immediate senses? Call it heart-felt, Holy Spirit led, whatever. Do you not believe these involve ‘seeing?’

For me, 'seeing' involves vision, sight, the perception of light; but there are plenty of things beyond our immediate senses that can be demonstrated indirectly (e.g. electricity, radio, viruses). What you're talking about sounds more like imagination (or 'feelings', if you discount their physical basis).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the universe to have created itself it would have had to have pre existed before the big bang in order to have created itself..

Many, if not most, cosmologists would say that the big bang was likely an event in some pre-existing universe or metaverse. There are many hypotheses for the ways this could occur.

Plus the conservation of angular momentum means that if a spinning object or a swirling dot breaks apart all the debris will spin in the same direction but there are moons that spin backwards and planets

Collisions between spinning objects can produce a variety of spin directions, and we know that such collisions occur from galaxy level down to individual planets ('collisions' includes close passes where gravitational fields interact significantly).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A change of species not a finch into another finch with a different beak like darwen described I mean like a fish into a frog

A fish won't turn into a frog - that branch has already occurred; but plenty of fish species have evolved into amphibious forms that could, given suitable circumstances and enough time, evolve into something similar to frogs.

You could think of the existing examples of such fish (e.g. mudskippers) as what the 'transitional' forms between fish and frogs might have looked like, but there's no guarantee that today's mudskippers will become more like frogs.

 

[Astrid]

A fish won't turn into a frog - that branch has already occurred; but plenty of fish species have evolved into amphibious forms that could, given suitable circumstances and enough time, evolve into something similar to frogs.

You could think of the existing examples of such fish (e.g. mudskippers) as what the 'transitional' forms between fish and frogs might have looked like, but there's no guarantee that today's mudskippers will become more like frogs.

Especially as they seem deficient in the back leg dept

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Especially as they seem deficient in the back leg dept

Yes, well spotted! My bad - I suggested them because they're the most obviously amphibian-like, but I neglected the back legs (thinking more of tadpoles).

For four-limbed examples, I'd have done better with lungfish, e.g. Protopterus annectens.

See Do mudskippers and lungfishes elucidate the early evolution of four-limbed vertebrates?

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm usually at a loss as to how to proceed beyond that, since I find people get awfully defensive when told they don't understand a subject. :/

Have you been in any learning situations where you were told that? How did you react?

 

[pitabread]

Have you been in any learning situations where you were told that? How did you react?

Oh absolutely I have. Generally if I am told I don't understand something, I see it as a personal challenge. I challenge myself to make myself understand. This even includes trying to understand someone else's POV in a debate.

This might explain why I've also read more creationist literature than most creationists. :/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I’m a Creationist and I believe in the Bible, even though I often misinterpret it, and I try to avoid getting into ‘literal or not’ discussions. Having said that, ‘time’ seems to be the most perplexing thing for me in most arguments. I don’t question the Bible, but I question our understanding of time, whether it be a little or a lot, in regard to interpreting it.

On being stumped: trying to convey the substance of a point while avoiding semantic debates -
This is much more difficult online than face to face, but many of us are unfortunately constrained to the former these days!

On your question of time; I agree with Ben Carson - if God wanted to create a 14 billion yr old universe 40k years ago, that's what he did, reality is ultimately up to the will of it's creator.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh absolutely I have. Generally if I am told I don't understand something, I see it as a personal challenge. I challenge myself to make myself understand. This even includes trying to understand someone else's POV in a debate.

This might explain why I've also read more creationist literature than most creationists. :/

Do you ever read creationist literature with the take-away that some aspect of it is a possibility?

 

[Speedwell]

Do you ever read creationist literature with the take-away that some aspect of it is a possibility?

No. Most of it has to do anyway with bootless arguments against evolution, not creationism itself.

 

[pitabread]

Do you ever read creationist literature with the take-away that some aspect of it is a possibility?

Believe it or not, I try to put myself in that position when I read creationist and ID literature.

I find the way most creationist literature is written doesn't seem about convincing non-creationists; rather it seems to be about reassuring the already converted.

For instance, during my early exposure to organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, I noticed a lot of their articles would follow the same format: argue against some aspect of mainstream science, and conclude with "since science is wrong, therefore our beliefs are correct".

But they would never explicitly argue why their version was actually correct; they just accept it as a default position. It's the same with a lot of contemporary ID literature; it's not about demonstrating a case for ID, so much as arguing against evolution.

What I really would like to see is more of a positive case for creationism and/or ID. This is one reason I've previously asked creationists to describe potential mechanisms for how a being would effect design in living things. But I'd discovered such questions are of little consideration by the general creationist and ID crowd, much less something to be explored.

Which I why I think my biggest takeaway from creationist and ID literature is one of general disappointment.

 

[Astrid]

Believe it or not, I try to put myself in that position when I read creationist and ID literature.

I find the way most creationist literature is written doesn't seem about convincing non-creationists; rather it seems to be about reassuring the already converted.

For instance, during my early exposure to organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, I noticed a lot of their articles would follow the same format: argue against some aspect of mainstream science, and conclude with "since science is wrong, therefore our beliefs are correct".

But they would never explicitly argue why their version was actually correct; they just accept it as a default position. It's the same with a lot of contemporary ID literature; it's not about demonstrating a case for ID, so much as arguing against evolution.

What I really would like to see is more of a positive case for creationism and/or ID. This is one reason I've previously asked creationists to describe potential mechanisms for how a being would effect design in living things. But I'd discovered such questions are of little consideration by the general creationist and ID crowd, much less something to be explored.

Which I why I think my biggest takeaway from creationist and ID literature is one of general disappointment.

A real challenge to any aspect of science
is very desirable.
Nobody to date has ever offered any data
contrary to ToE.
Creationist sites that only offer up
misrepresentations, half truths, strawman
etc are ok at preaching to the (uneducated)
choir but from the science side it is no better
than tiresome, and certainly of no value as
legitimate criticism.

 

[inquiring mind]

Believe it or not, I try to put myself in that position when I read creationist and ID literature.

I find the way most creationist literature is written doesn't seem about convincing non-creationists; rather it seems to be about reassuring the already converted.

For instance, during my early exposure to organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, I noticed a lot of their articles would follow the same format: argue against some aspect of mainstream science, and conclude with "since science is wrong, therefore our beliefs are correct".

But they would never explicitly argue why their version was actually correct; they just accept it as a default position. It's the same with a lot of contemporary ID literature; it's not about demonstrating a case for ID, so much as arguing against evolution.

What I really would like to see is more of a positive case for creationism and/or ID. This is one reason I've previously asked creationists to describe potential mechanisms for how a being would effect design in living things. But I'd discovered such questions are of little consideration by the general creationist and ID crowd, much less something to be explored.

Which I why I think my biggest takeaway from creationist and ID literature is one of general disappointment.

A real challenge to any aspect of science
is very desirable.
Nobody to date has ever offered any data
contrary to ToE.
Creationist sites that only offer up
misrepresentations, half truths, strawman
etc are ok at preaching to the (uneducated)
choir but from the science side it is no better
than tiresome, and certainly of no value as
legitimate criticism.

Why should Creationists try to argue creation in terms of science? Evolutionists never argue conversely and limit all discussion to scientific parameters.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why should Creationists try to argue creation in terms of science? Evolutionists never argue conversely and limit all discussion to scientific parameters.

Because Creationists make claims about science and evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Why should Creationists try to argue creation in terms of science? Evolutionists never argue conversely and limit all discussion to scientific parameters.

" Evolutionists never "?

But to your q, if someone wishes to disprove
a scientific theory, then it has to be done in
terms of science, not something else, like
philosophy or massage therapy.
You can't defeat chess with a deck of cards, either.

If nobody pretended ID or other creationist ideas
were science, or tried to push it into public schools
as science, there'd be less incentive to point out all
the ways that those are pseudoscience at best.[/QUOTE]

 

[inquiring mind]

" Evolutionists never "?

How often have you seen evolutionists arguing for evolution in faith-based terms?

But to your q, if someone wishes to disprove
a scientific theory, then it has to be done in
terms of science, not something else,

Not disprove... my point was most choose a faith-based explanation over a science-based theory, so why should they be expected to explain their position in scientific protocol only? That is basically arguing a basketball and baseball game with only basketball rules allowed.

If nobody pretended ID or other creationist ideas
were science, or tried to push it into public schools
as science, there'd be less incentive to point out all
the ways that those are pseudoscience at best.

Well, faith-based ideas shouldn't be considered science, but if science can be shown to support such ideas then...