Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

Of course they do. Who says they should become anything else? If they did become anything else, then evolution would be disproven. My point, which you seems to have flown over your head, is that common ancestry and nested hierarchies are indeed supported by the evidence (contrary to Astridhere's post). No one said anything about finches becoming non-finches - something that evolution prohibits.

You have lost me. We are talking about macroevolution. I know that the term in science is ambiguous but for our discussion here at least, let us define macro as above species level of evolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

You have lost me. We are talking about macroevolution. I know that the term in science is ambiguous but for our discussion here at least, let us define macro as above species level of evolution.

Yes, they have become different species of finches. Their ancestors were finches, and they are still finches, but now they are different species of finches. Just as our ancestors were apes and we are still apes, just a different species from the other living apes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm still waiting for a lot of answers.


I didn't see any peer-reviewed articles.

Stephen Gould is a peer-reviewed scientist that has his work in many peer reviewed journals.

In many ways, Gould’s brilliance and success made him a target for fools and creationists, and turned him from merely a paleontologist into a media celebrity on par with Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking. Like Hollywood celebrities and other high-profile figures, Gould did not have as much privacy as he would have liked, dealt with the constant distraction of people demanding his time and attention, and everything he said or did was scrutinized. Shermer (2002) analyzes some of the criticisms of Gould, and dissects his prodigious volume of writing about his favorite topics, and even the elements of his writing style. Much of the criticism stems from scientific jealousy and the complaint that Gould’s writing was too popular (the so-called “Sagan Effect”). As Raup (1986) noted, Carl Sagan was denied many honors (such as election to the National Academy of Sciences) in his field and dismissed as more a popularizer of science than a research scientist. However, Shermer debunks this myth by showing that Sagan continued to publish peer-reviewed articles at the same pace, even as he worked on “Cosmos” and wrote trade books. Gould actually published more peer-reviewed science than he did books or essays for the general public. Indeed, Gould’s productivity in every category (peer-reviewed articles, books, popular essays, book reviews, and the like) outstrips all the prominent scientists of his era, including Carl Sagan, Ernst Mayr, E.O. Wilson, Stephen Hawking, and Jared Diamond. Gould was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and became one of the most respected scientists in America. He served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Paleontological Society, and the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE). Gould received dozens of honorary degrees, and won nearly every award he was eligible for, including the MacArthur Fellowship, the so-called “genius award.” As a true measure of his fame across the culture, Gould was portrayed by a cartoon of himself (providing his own voice) on The Simpsons. Another episode of the same show that aired the week he died was dedicated to his memory.

Source

The other is an educational site. This is not some creationist site that you dismiss out of hand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have a small question in regards to this.

Do you believe no birds were created after that current time period then?

Sorry I don't know what you are asking.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have lost me. We are talking about macroevolution. I know that the term in science is ambiguous but for our discussion here at least, let us define macro as above species level of evolution.

OK, but that doesn't change anything. According to evolution, the descendents of a finch will always be finches. Evolution prohibits the descendents of an organism in a particular one taxon from leaving that grouping.

Evolution says that one species will split into several distinct species, which will in turn split further into more species. But, they are all descended from that original species, and so retain that name. They're all species of finch because they all descend from the original, single species of finch. The word 'finch' therefore has moved from a label of a single species, to the label of a genus, to the label of the family Fringillidae.

Pointing out that these birds are still finches (or that speciated fruit flies are still flies, or that nylon-eating bacteria are still bacteria) is baffling: of course they're are, that's the whole point! If the descendant of a finch was anything but a finch, then evolution would be disproven.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, they have become different species of finches. Their ancestors were finches, and they are still finches, but now they are different species of finches. Just as our ancestors were apes and we are still apes, just a different species from the other living apes.

I am talking like reptile to mammal sort of macro.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Sorry I don't know what you are asking.

well its like..
day 4:
God makes all swiming, creeping and flying things.
You say this means everything between start of life and birds.
Day 5:
god makes land animals and humans.
you say this means all modern life that came after birds.

So im wondering, if a new species of bird shows up in modern times how does that work since all birds were created before hand?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

well its like..
day 4:
God makes all swiming, creeping and flying things.
You say this means everything between start of life and birds.
Day 5:
god makes land animals and humans.
you say this means all modern life that came after birds.

So im wondering, if a new species of bird shows up in modern times how does that work since all birds were created before hand?

I tried asking him how the Earth coped for 140 million years without a Sun*, but I got no answer...

*Third Day: fruit bearing trees were made. Science says this occurred 140 million years ago. Fourth Day: the Sun is made. Thus, the Sun is only 140 million years old, tops.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, they have become different species of finches. Their ancestors were finches, and they are still finches, but now they are different species of finches. Just as our ancestors were apes and we are still apes, just a different species from the other living apes.

We were not always apes according to ToE. We went through fish, reptile,dino, before even getting to a warm blooded ancestor.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

We were not always apes according to ToE. We went through fish, reptile,dino, before even getting to a warm blooded ancestor.

Uhm..Ignoring for a moment the names are not correct.

We still are all of those, we never stopped being them.
we're still 'fish' we're also 'reptile' and 'dino' then finally we added 'ape' to it.

(Keep in mind the names are wrong, but I am too lazy to go look up the proper names right now so I'll use them as placeholders to explain the concept. we sure as heck were never dino's for example xD)

 

[Chalnoth]

Stephen Gould is a peer-reviewed scientist that has his work in many peer reviewed journals.

That doesn't make him automatically right, or make every word that comes out of his mouth gospel.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am talking like reptile to mammal sort of macro.

That's not species-level evolution. That's evolution of an entire class. Way to move your goalposts.

And by the way, yes, even mammals still carry the properties of the reptiles they are descended from.

 

[Chalnoth]

We were not always apes according to ToE. We went through fish, reptile,dino, before even getting to a warm blooded ancestor.

I didn't say always. Also, our ancestors were never dinosaurs. That's an entirely different branch.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Uhm..Ignoring for a moment the names are not correct.

We still are all of those, we never stopped being them.
we're still 'fish' we're also 'reptile' and 'dino' then finally we added 'ape' to it.

(Keep in mind the names are wrong, but I am too lazy to go look up the proper names right now so I'll use them as placeholders to explain the concept. we sure as heck were never dino's for example xD)

'Reptile' is any organism descended from the Saurids (excluding birds) and 'Mammal' is any organism descended from the Synapsids. Dinos are in the the former, humans are in the latter.

Humans are descended from a species of Synapsid, so we are Synapsids.
Humans are descended from the original mammalian species, so we are mammals.
Humans are descended from the original primate species, so we are primates.
Humans are descended from the original Homo species, so we are Homo.
We are Synapsids, mammals, primates, Homos, and Homo sapiens. We never, ever stopped being any of these. We did not evolve from modern fish, rather, our ancestors were a fish-like group of species (the Chordates) from which both modern fish and modern humans have descended.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am talking like reptile to mammal sort of macro.

That would be vertebrate tetrapods turning into vertebrate tetrapods. That's microevolution, isn't it?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

'Reptile' is any organism descended from the Saurids (excluding birds) and 'Mammal' is any organism descended from the Synapsids. Dinos are in the the former, humans are in the latter.

Humans are descended from a species of Synapsid, so we are Synapsids.
Humans are descended from the original mammalian species, so we are mammals.
Humans are descended from the original primate species, so we are primates.
Humans are descended from the original Homo species, so we are Homo.
We are Synapsids, mammals, primates, Homos, and Homo sapiens. We never, ever stopped being any of these. We did not evolve from modern fish, rather, our ancestors were a fish-like group of species (the Chordates) from which both modern fish and modern humans have descended.

Thank you, so much clearer then I could ever have put it

 

[Loudmouth]

We were not always apes according to ToE. We went through fish, reptile,dino, before even getting to a warm blooded ancestor.

The ancestors of chihuahuas were not always chihuahuas. Your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwinian mechanisms could do whatever it wanted.

False. Among species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer, evolution can not produce violations of a nested hierarchy. Therefore, genetic adaptations that occur in one lineage can not be shuttled over to another lineage. However, a designer could easily do this. In fact, humans do it all of the time through genetic engineering. A perfect example is the Glofish. This fish carries an exact copy of a fluorescent protein from jellyfish allowing it to fluoresce under UV light. If humans can violate the nested hierarchy with ease, why couldn't God?

Darwinism does not predict a nested hierarchy and has no parameters.

I can't help but be stunned by this claim. The nested hierarchy pattern made up the foundation of Darwin's theory. It was the light bulb moment for Darwin. In his notebooks you can actually see the moment at which Darwin started forming his idea. It started with this diagram:

See that diagram? It is a nested hierarchy. It formed the foundation for Darwinism, and it still forms the foundation of the modern theory.

a. For one, anything can can evolve anything. There is no predictable outcome in a random mutation in Darwinism.

But the pattern of shared and derived characteristics IS PREDICTABLE. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

b. Any ancestor is applicable to any line. If fish came from a parrot it will be classified not, with a parrot as an ancestor but with the organism it shares the most characteristics with (fish). Then an ancestor will be chosen accordingly.

If a species comes from a parrot then that species will have derived parrot characteristics not found in other lineages that were not descended from that parrot. That is the prediction. What is so hard to understand?

c. Any constraint that supposedly developed is abolished due to the uncontainable Darwinian ability to group organisms anywhere.

Then show me a bat that can be classified as a bird. Show me a bat that has derived features found in any feathered organism that is not found in other mammals.

 

[USincognito]

Stephen Gould is a peer-reviewed scientist that has his work in many peer reviewed journals.

Indeed he was. He also accepted an ancient earth, ancient life, evolution according to Darwin generally, humans as apes - taxonomically - and decried Creationism. Everything he said supports evolution, not Creationism, so why would you cite him at all?

We were not always apes according to ToE. We went through fish, reptile,dino, before even getting to a warm blooded ancestor.

Uhm..Ignoring for a moment the names are not correct.

We still are all of those, we never stopped being them.
we're still 'fish' we're also 'reptile' and 'dino' then finally we added 'ape' to it.

(Keep in mind the names are wrong, but I am too lazy to go look up the proper names right now so I'll use them as placeholders to explain the concept. we sure as heck were never dino's for example xD)

Od, Eds, here's the Reader's Digest evolutionary progression.
Vertebrta (beings with backbones including fish)
Sarcopterygii (lobe finned fishes)
Reptile is an anachronistic clade so Amniota (terrestrial vertetrates with amniotic eggs)
Sinapsidia (the amniote lineage that separates "reptiles" {turtles, crocs, dinosaurs and birds} from our mammal progenators
Mammalia (devided into Protheria - Monotremes and Theria subdivided into Metatheria - Marsupials and Eutheria - placental mammals)
Euarchontoglires (rodents, rabbits and primates)
Primata, Catarrhinies, Hominidae, Hominines, Homo

Od, this isn't some fantasy created by "evolutionists". It's based on evidence - 150 years worth at this point.

 

[Loudmouth]

So do families of consciousness in Creationism.

Please explain why these families of consciousness could not create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones. Explain why humans can use genetic engineering to violate the nested hierarchies, but God could not.