Define 'species'

[gluadys]

Researchers say that mutations are rare and hard to find and posters tell me they are not. Natural selection does not rewrite genetic code, it eliminates inferior individules in populations. This is the gospel according to Darwin and if evolutionary biology is to have any merit it has to be qualified geneticlly. Mutations simply do not account for the descent from a single common ancestor if most of them have no effect at all and the overwelming majority of the rest are harmfull.

Well, yes they do, when you take natural selection into account.

 

[gluadys]

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species. You do know that in a lab they can create mutations right? They just can't create the beneficial ones that are being manifest on a grand scale, even though no one seems to want to point them out.

Why do you think harmful mutations would kill off the species? How would they spread widely enough through the species to kill it off?

In short, you are forgetting again the role of natural selection.

You never worked out the effect of natural selection in our conversation on Mendelian genetics. I think you have no real understanding of the implications.

 

[Jet Black]

Mark,

I'm sorry but there is one thing that's really bugging me and it always throws my concentration when I'm trying to read. I'm not being deliberately petty, I just find it very distracting.

It's the confusion that exists between the words "your" and "you're".

You're is the abbreviated form of "you are"

Your is the possesive of "you".

So it would be (this is not a quote by the way, just an example) "your problem is you're overly reliant..." or "you're truly passionate about painting your father's face".

Sorry for the pedantic nature of the post it just really thorws me whenever I come across it.

h2

I agree. I really wish people would pay more attention to there English.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You missed the part where most of the mutations are either deletreous or harmfull. I am still waiting for these beneficial mutations to rewrite the genetic code without killing off the species.

Did you forget about these, Mark? You're not still waiting for them because I have already shown them to you weeks ago.

These are each examples of beneficial mutations in the human genome. I've specifically selected very profound, extreme mutations that were selected for, and passed on through subsequent generations, without killing the species, just to prove that evolution works as described.

1. The Vadoma tribe, AKA the "Ostrich People", a family in Zimbabwe who share a disctintive inherited mutation in their feet, (and sometimes in their hands also) which deprives them of all the bones for their three middle toes. These people claim the advantages of this include their ability to run faster and climb trees much better than normal-footed people.

2. A family in Connecticut with a specific mutation that parallel's the Bruce Willis character in Unbreakable. Members of this family have hyper-dense, "unbreakable" bones, easily the strongest bones of any humans on the planet. http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_au02/findings.html

Genetic samples from some members of this family are being tested to find a possible cure to osteoporosis.
http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Conditions/condition_template.cfm/5636/19/1

3. A family in in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attack dispite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php

4. Sixty years after Hitler, Germany is finally breeding supermen. The immediate ancestors of this example are all unusually strong, but one of their children was born with twice the muscle mass of a normal human, and only half the fat! This child's genes may yeild new treatment for muscular dystrophy.
http://wcco.com/health/health_story_175140250.html

5. And one that Madarab recently alerted me to; Tibetan Sherpas with an inherited gene which gives them better oxygenation in the blood, making them invulnerable to hypoxia, a serious disorder caused by insufficient oxygen at altitudes higher than 2.2 miles above sea level.

Sports physician, Hans Hoppeler and his colleagues now have determined that some individuals possess inherited beneficial enzymes, as well as specially equipped cells, that enable them to withstand the physical demands of high-altitude living. All of the Tibetans (in the study group) had significantly higher levels of a free radical-fighting enzyme, or antioxidant, called glutathione-S-transferase, and another enzyme, enoyl coenzyme A hydratase, that improves cellular energy production. http://www.snf.ch/en/com/prr/prr_arh_04feb18.asp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=14766936

"...a subset of the group seemed to have a blood-oxygen concentration that was 10% higher than normal. This trait was inherited in a way that suggested the difference was due to a single gene."
©2004 Nature Publishing Group

"Their inherited adaptability could lead to novel approaches for some cardiac surgery"
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/A/2002910.html

And this is to say nothing of the fact that incidence of sickle-cell gene in African-Americans is apparently decreasing over time, some Europeans descendants of Medieval Black Plague survivors are finding that they're also immune to AIDS, and there is now a growing number of people with tetrachromatic eyes, enabling them to see into the ultraviolet spectrum, invisible to normal humans!
http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2079371

Hey, if genetic engineers can now design our children in the womb, and incorporate all of these supposedly harmful mutations into one kid, that boy would need a secret identy and a shirt that hides his cape! How "deleterious and damaging" is that?

 

[Aron-Ra]

We are not apes because penguins are birds and have derrived characteristics. I think I know where the confusion comes in, Apes, chimpanzees and other monkeys differ greatly because they must adapt to their environment. Humans on the other hand adapt their environment to suite them,

I think I see where the confusion comes in. Here you've listed apes and chimpanzees, as if they were two different groups, both as subsets of whatever you mean by "monkeys". But listing apes and chimpanzees is rather like listing birds and penguins, fish and tuna, reptiles and snakes, motorcycles and Harleys, airplanes and jets, cars and Cadillacs.

I think this is an unavoidable distinction. We have the power to destroy the environment entirely if we ever unloaded our nuclear arsonels on one another. No chimpanzee ever wielded that kind of power, no ape ever had the capacity for even realizing that this kind of power even exists.

By this same logic, the new Cadillac V-16 is not a car.

No other production passenger vehicle in the world has the features of Cadillac's new million-dollar luxury sedan. Certainly no mere factory original car has an engine anything like the giant 16 cylinder monster under that side-lifting bonnet hood, unique in modern cars. Its got an 800+ cid engine that looks like two straight eights mounted side-by-side! And the power! No luxury car engine ever produced anything close to the 1,000 hp this thing can put out! Only the new Cadillac V16 has all this! It is the most powerful factory original production passenger vehicle on the planet. This is an unavoidable distinction between it and "cars"! There are differences between mere cars and this Satanic transport designed for corporate illuminati figures. So the new Cadillacs can't be cars if we are not apes.

 

[gluadys]

I agree. I really wish people would pay more attention to there English.

As in "over there"?

 

[h2whoa]

As in "over there"?

I'm guessing (hoping) buy the wink that it was a deliberate error. See if you can spot mine!

h2

 

[Jet Black]

I'm guessing (hoping) buy the wink that it was a deliberate error. See if you can spot mine!

h2

of coarse I did

 

[Rochir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Good link explianing the biologicaland evolutionary concept of species!

 

[mark kennedy]

That's just the answer I expected, Mark.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, we have a single unifying theory of biology that was compiled by the collective genius of the lion's share of the global scientific community, working independently, and competitively, -and is endorsed by every last one of Nobel laureates as well as by the Pope and by most of the rest of Christianity at large, -based on an overwhelming preponderance of all kinds of solid, demonstrable, testable evidence from a host of related and unrelated fields, leading to a wide variety of practical applications, cutting edge breakthroughs in biotechnology, and billion-dollar industries, who combine their research with all the other independent peer-reviewed discoveries to culminate a body of scientific study that is even better-supported than the Theory of gravity!

Wow! what a great statement, had you stopped there I could have had a substantive discussion of real issues. But you didn't, so I have to deal with your're rant first.

On the other hand, we have your notion, which is shared only by a fanatic fringe of mostly under-educated laity, is supported by literally nothing at all, and which is promoted solely by disreputable charlatans who can only pretend to employ any scientific method, and do not tolerate free inquiry. And you expect me to believe this wholly improbable and illogical fable for the same reason you do, which is for no reason whatsoever.
I believe one of our rules was that we were to honorably concede any points clearly lost. That doesn't mean snipping them from future replies without comment.

For one thing creation science is a movement started by scientists not laymen. The only fanatics I see arguing this issue a evolutionary extremists who want to exclude all theistic reasoning isolated, in politics, in professional science, in education and this exclusivly is nowhere more pronounced then in the concept of evolution.

Evolutionary rationalizations neglect the larger issues and are clearly more confrontational then substantive. Name calling has been at the heart of the emphasis at every turn and the same pedantic satire transends every post. I realize that these debates often get heated but the red and tooth mentality of the modern Darwinian is a reflection of the content of evolutionary thought.

I believe my mission was to prove that evolution was the truest, best explanation for the origin of our species. And this is all you can counter that challenge that with?! I can't help but win if you won't offer any alternative explanation.

I defined the difference between the creationist model and universal descent from the begining. Now, in biological evolution based on geologic isolation and universal common descent. This is nothing new, creationists do not argue that evolution happens, it's the naturalistic assumptions that are projected on the evidence that is the heart of the issue. What you have tried to do is to make this a debate between creation and evolution, which is bogus. This is about the single common ancestor model that is presumed throughout natural science and it is nothing more then rethoric. I never argued against evolution as it is properly defined only contested the presumption of universal descent.

Our "world view" doesn't matter to this conversation. You would see that if you would just answer the questions like you said you would.
If you would answer the questions as asked, you wouldn't be able to deny the substance And I am not contradicting Gould, Mayr, or Darwin. Evolution as a philosophy is irrelevant to what I'm trying to show you. Unless you think the word "monkey" can only be defined philosophically.

This thread in particular and the formal debate in general is focused on evolution as a philosophy of science. This is inescapable and Mayr said explicitly that that the Darwin concept was an exclusivly secular worldview and yet you deny that this is over our 'world view'. Gould has been explicit about the theological implications of evolutionary thought yet you claim this is irrelevant. Darwin's Origin of Species can be considered nothing other then philisophical argument against the naturalistic implications of Genesis and this is at the heart of the emphasis. My primary contention is that the word 'monkey' is a nillistic, nebulas, semantical rationalization of the explicit differences between human beings and their most simular counter part in the natural world.

This is what happens when you're central term is considered 'undiscoverable'. This has been the primary focus and the line between micro and macro evolution have become indiscernable. This is simply wrong and has plunged the large body of work of Zoological classification into a state of flux where nothing is ever defined or determined.

But not at all similar to the nazis of today's Christian Identity, right? You ignored my question about the substantive similarities between them. Why? And why do you insist on repeating these playground-level emotional pleas and attempts to poison the well? They ain't ever gonna work, Mark. After having been proven wrong on this point so many times by so many people, you still want to pretend they're identical, meaning that there are differences at all between them?! We all know there are no significant similarities between the two, and that has been shown to you time and again. So this is a dishonest response.

This at the heart of the emphasis in Darwin's work, Mayr's, Dawkin's and Hitler's. In New Testament Christianity we at least have a standard and anyone contradicting the sacred content of the New Testament can be readily refuted. I was asking you to compare to very simple, general, and ubiquitious principles. My strong suite is not taxonomy, it's history and the influence of culture on civilization. Do you even realize that this world view came of the same political and philosophical environment as Hitler's? The war of nature in Darwinian thought is also a political theory, this I have qualified irrefutably.

Anyone who makes an honest attempt to study the actual history and teaching of evolutionary biology can see this clearly. To be honest, the only reason I didn't respond to you're answer is because you dismissed the racist elements and I was just trying to get you're thoughts in the first place. The only reason we are still discussing it is because you keep bringing it up without honestly admitting the racist element in both statements. When you kept bringing this up with so much ferver it became far more important.

When it suits you, you ignore the dominant perspective of Christianity at large, and refer to evolution as "antitheistic materialism". Then you try (feebly) to associate that with Hitler's fascists, even though all of them based their perspectives on metaphysics: They were Christians, Hindus, Odinists, and Helenists, (all theists) and many of them were occultists also. And while Hitler himself may or may not have remained Christian by your standards, he was still a theist, and definitely a creationist. That ain't exactly anti-theistic materialism, and he never knew any concept that was "identical" to anything Darwin ever proposed. What they displayed instead was the same kind of typical prejudice we see in members of every denomination whether they accept evolution or not.
But they are none of the above, and you never even provided any reason to defend your allegation.

Hitler was a pagan, pure and simple and this is no big secret. Other then that, I really like the effort you made here, I have brought this up a number of times and while there are problems with what you're saying, it is at least thoughtfull. You do realize that the racist elements of early evolutionary thought can be expunged from evolutionary thought right?

Exactly how does "What is a monkey?" count as unqualified philosophical rhetoric? Is that question too "convoluted" for you?

The Army thinks it's more important that I go to work right now then deal with this post. I really like this part and I want to give it more attention then I can right now. I also have an idea for a thread on taxonomy but I just keep getting sidetracked.

Aron-Ra, you have moments of real brilliance and it is never more apparent then in you're discussions on taxonomic relations. I have a couple of days off coming up and I will make every effort to get something half way comprehensive posted this weekend. You have to understand, I have had to study taxonomic relations from a creationist perspective virtually from scratch. Believe it or not I ran into the same thing when I developed an interest in Christian theology so I'm used to bootstraping.

 

[yossarian]

I defined the difference between the creationist model and universal descent from the begining. Now, in biological evolution based on geologic isolation and universal common descent. This is nothing new, creationists do not argue that evolution happens, it's the naturalistic assumptions that are projected on the evidence that is the heart of the issue. What you have tried to do is to make this a debate between creation and evolution, which is bogus. This is about the single common ancestor model that is presumed throughout natural science and it is nothing more then rethoric. I never argued against evolution as it is properly defined only contested the presumption of universal descent.

no, it isn't simply rhetoric
its the result of every organism sequenced fitting into a molecular phylogeny

Hitler was a pagan, pure and simple and this is no big secret. Other then that, I really like the effort you made here, I have brought this up a number of times and while there are problems with what you're saying, it is at least thoughtfull. You do realize that the racist elements of early evolutionary thought can be expunged from evolutionary thought right?

you do realize that the racist elements of evolutionary thought are exactly the ones that creationists agree with and call upon to explain "microevolution"

racism is based on natural selection WITHIN a species - EXACTLY the thing you're claiming creationists have no problem with

this is the giant gaping hole in your attempt to poison the well

 

[Aron-Ra]

For one thing creation science is a movement started by scientists not laymen.

Name them. Because I know the names of most of the founders of the creationist movement, and they were all laymen.

The only fanatics I see arguing this issue a evolutionary extremists who want to exclude all theistic reasoning isolated, in politics, in professional science, in education and this exclusivly is nowhere more pronounced then in the concept of evolution.

I think you're going to have to define "theistic reasoning", because as I understand it, theistic reasoning is nothing more than using the baseless excuse "goddidit" instead of seeking to understand the real processes involved. That and your brand of theistic reasoning appears to be nothing more than obligately following whatever the Bible says, which isn't reasoning as I could recognize it.

Evolutionary rationalizations neglect the larger issues and are clearly more confrontational then substantive.

I refuse to neglect any of the issues. So why don't you point out what you think I am neglecting now?

Name calling has been at the heart of the emphasis at every turn and the same pedantic satire transends every post. I realize that these debates often get heated but the red and tooth mentality of the modern Darwinian is a reflection of the content of evolutionary thought.

What I see are creationists determined to prove evolution wrong, without presenting anything to promote any alternative, and without bothering to research anything they claim, -snipping questions they know they can't deal with, and refusing to concede any errors that are exposed. That's not an honest practice. And this post is an example of that, since you still didn't concede your erroneous claim that the PubMed site didn't state their support of common ancestry.

I defined the difference between the creationist model and universal descent from the begining.

No, you didn't. We've agreed on some of the known mechanisms of evolution, (while you claimed there were none) and you've failed to provide any mechanism whatsoever for creation. You've also admitted there was no reason to believe in creation, or even God, in the first place. Therefore, you haven't provided any alternative explanation. Remember the explanation was key to the point of this discussion.

Now, in biological evolution based on geologic isolation and universal common descent. This is nothing new, creationists do not argue that evolution happens,

Be careful of all-inclusive statements like this one, because many of them do. JohnR7 for example denies even microevolution, remember? I've known many other creationists in my life who still adhere to the immutability of species, some of whom have even believed in Lamarkism while refusing anything Darwin ever proposed simply because he proposed it. I've even encountered some creationists, both in the web, and in my own family, who deny that dinosaurs ever existed. One of them posted a website saying that all the dinosaur fossils were forgeries made of dental plaster, and another denied the museum fossils even existed, saying that all our "evidence" were a matter of trick photography and chicken bones. My own mother continued to deny evolution at any level until about five years ago, when her church told her it was OK to believe it. Very few creationists believe as you do, so don't claim they all do.

it's the naturalistic assumptions that are projected on the evidence that is the heart of the issue.

That wasn't the case during our debate, but it can be now if you like. However, I suggest we move to the flood next, because nothing will better demonstrate the universal common ancestor model than that topic will.

What you have tried to do is to make this a debate between creation and evolution, which is bogus. This is about the single common ancestor model that is presumed throughout natural science and it is nothing more then rethoric.

It isn't rhetoric, Mark, and I will prove that once you start answering questions as you agreed you would. But our debate was never about that. Though you tried to turn it into that, I expressed what it really was very clearly in the wording of my challenge before you ever accepted the terms.

I never argued against evolution as it is properly defined only contested the presumption of universal descent.

Then you never should have accepted the terms of the debate. If you wanted to argue something else, you should have said so before accepting my terms.

This thread in particular and the formal debate in general is focused on evolution as a philosophy of science. This is inescapable and Mayr said explicitly that that the Darwin concept was an exclusivly secular worldview and yet you deny that this is over our 'world view'. Gould has been explicit about the theological implications of evolutionary thought yet you claim this is irrelevant.

That's true.Even if Mayr and Darwin were "exclusively secular", the hundreds of millions of theistic evolutionists aren't. If you want me to argue against the existence of God, I'm sure I can accomidate you there. But I can't do it in this debate because evolution doesn't require the exclusion of God, much as you seem to want it to.

Darwin's Origin of Species can be considered nothing other then philisophical argument against the naturalistic implications of Genesis and this is at the heart of the emphasis.

Naturalistic implications of Genesis? This is a new concept. Explain.

My primary contention is that the word 'monkey' is a nillistic, nebulas, semantical rationalization of the explicit differences between human beings and their most simular counter part in the natural world.

It is none of the above, Mark. This is just a feeble excuse to get out answering a question you know you can't answer. Tell me, is the word, "dog" nihilistic? Nebulous? A semantical rationalization, etc.? Why didn't Linneaus think so? He was able to define both words as a God-fearing creationist, without either of them being any kind of nebulous rationalization. So why can't you?

This is what happens when you're central term is considered 'undiscoverable'.

Even if it were, (which in this case, it is not) the word "species" is irrelevant here, as there are many species of monkeys in several different genera, within a few different families within a couple different infraorders. You can be very vague about the species distinction and still come up with good, working definition of what a monkey is.

This has been the primary focus and the line between micro and macro evolution have become indiscernable. This is simply wrong and has plunged the large body of work of Zoological classification into a state of flux where nothing is ever defined or determined.

Whatever you need defined or determined, just ask, and I'll accomidate you as best I can. But as you say you accept speciation, and several levels of common ancestry beyond that, then you accept macroevolution by every definition I know of. So it doesn't matter how species is defined, and I don't see what your contention is here.

This at the heart of the emphasis in Darwin's work, Mayr's, Dawkin's and Hitler's.

Hitler's "work" wasn't remotely related to this topic in any fashion. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading this knows it. Get over it, and get back on-topic.

And you still ignored my challenge to explain why modern, exclusively creationist Christian terrorists and nazis adhere to Hitler's racism while refusing evolution entirely.

In New Testament Christianity we at least have a standard and anyone contradicting the sacred content of the New Testament can be readily refuted.

Not me. But you're welcome to try....in another, more relevant forum of course.

I was asking you to compare to very simple, general, and ubiquitious principles.

And I was debating evolution vs creationism, another topic entirely.

My strong suite is not taxonomy, it's history and the influence of culture on civilization. Do you even realize that this world view came of the same political and philosophical environment as Hitler's?

Its hard to understand what you're talking about, since you seldom clarify when you change the subject, but I do realize that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a profound period of revolutionary idealism in Europe, not that any of that is remotely related to what we're talking about now. We're talking about what has been discovered by mostly-Christian evolutionists in the decades since then.

The war of nature in Darwinian thought is also a political theory, this I have qualified irrefutably.

I already refuted that when I pointed out that "social Darwinism" wasn't even based on Darwin, or anything he actually said, but on distortions of that proposed by Herbert Spencer, and others of a socio-political, rather than biological persuasion.

Anyone who makes an honest attempt to study the actual history and teaching of evolutionary biology can see this clearly.

Social Darwinism would be a real issue if we were discussing history and the cultural influences on civilization. But we're not talking about sociology. We're discussing biology, and not the history of the science, but the science itself, modern genetics, evolutionary mechanisms, and the latest concepts in paleontology, anthropology, and taxonomy. We're not arguing any archaic, historic perspective, but the modern, updated perspective.

To be honest, the only reason I didn't respond to you're answer is because you dismissed the racist elements and I was just trying to get you're thoughts in the first place.

You got them, in the beginning, (post #14) and several times since. Your question wasn't relevant then or now, and still won't be as we proceed. And whether it was or not, that still didn't give you any excuse to ignore my question even once, much less a dozen times.

The only reason we are still discussing it is because you keep bringing it up without honestly admitting the racist element in both statements. When you kept bringing this up with so much ferver it became far more important.

I didn't bring it up, ever. You did every time. But I did "admit" the only racist elements in post # 296 of this thread, which I pointed out to you before. However, it still isn't relevant or remotely on-topic.

Hitler was a pagan, pure and simple and this is no big secret.

Apparently it is, as most of the world, and even most Germans believe he was Catholic, as per his many comments to that effect, both public and private. Now some of his henchmen were Odinists and Helenists, but he himself was not, unless you have some citation to indicate otherwise.

Other then that, I really like the effort you made here, I have brought this up a number of times and while there are problems with what you're saying, it is at least thoughtfull. You do realize that the racist elements of early evolutionary thought can be expunged from evolutionary thought right?

I realize that no racist elements of evolutionary thought were present in the beginning. Some were interjected by sociologists, (and socialists) but not by biologists. And I have already stated that even these were "expunged" many decades ago, and were never relevant to anything we're supposed to be discussing now.

The Army thinks it's more important that I go to work right now then deal with this post. I really like this part and I want to give it more attention then I can right now. I also have an idea for a thread on taxonomy but I just keep getting sidetracked.

Then I'll look forward to a more substantive reply in the future.

 

[mark kennedy]

Name them. Because I know the names of most of the founders of the creationist movement, and they were all laymen.
I think you're going to have to define "theistic reasoning", because as I understand it, theistic reasoning is nothing more than using the baseless excuse "goddidit" instead of seeking to understand the real processes involved. That and your brand of theistic reasoning appears to be nothing more than obligately following whatever the Bible says, which isn't reasoning as I could recognize it.

Henry Morris comes to mind but you brought up something more important. Theistic reasoning-Reasoning with God in mind. We have allready discussed at length what happens when God is rejected and I know you are no fan of Hitler. The divine attributes and eternal nature of God are primary considerations, and oh yea...the fact that you will ansewer for every word spoken. Why would you ever need a definition for Theistic or reasoning? I was wondering if you where actually being objective but I think this puts things in perspective.

I refuse to neglect any of the issues. So why don't you point out what you think I am neglecting now?

For one thing, you never bothered to define the various species that you brought up. You just keep asking how I would define them and this is bogus. You have neglected to define any of the various species that you go on and on about. It's obviously a call for the positive statement so you can rationalize it away.

What I see are creationists determined to prove evolution wrong, without presenting anything to promote any alternative, and without bothering to research anything they claim, -snipping questions they know they can't deal with, and refusing to concede any errors that are exposed. That's not an honest practice. And this post is an example of that, since you still didn't concede your erroneous claim that the PubMed site didn't state their support of common ancestry.

What you have failed to understand is that the actual science does not have to be rewritten. PubMed is not about what you're conception is before you look at the evidence, it's about the actual evidence. I posted a link in the formal debate where the human and the ape genome are demonstrated to be different. You made an elaborate rationalization about what might have happened for the retro virus to be apparent for the ape while it was absent in humans. Honest? You could be talking to other scientists about what our origins where, but you choose to debate a creationist. Why is that Aron-Ra, why do you waste so much time with a world view that you believe is wrong every time? Could it be that you secretly think they might be right?

No, you didn't. We've agreed on some of the known mechanisms of evolution, (while you claimed there were none) and you've failed to provide any mechanism whatsoever for creation. You've also admitted there was no reason to believe in creation, or even God, in the first place. Therefore, you haven't provided any alternative explanation. Remember the explanation was key to the point of this discussion.

No one is questioning the mechanisms, just the implications. The single common ancestor model is not providing the burden of proof and the explicit proof is screaming for design. Darwin was voiceing a world view who's time is running out. You are the last of you're breed, the red in tooth and claw thinkers that preceded you all fell and you're world view will as well.

Be careful of all-inclusive statements like this one, because many of them do. JohnR7 for example denies even microevolution, remember? I've known many other creationists in my life who still adhere to the immutability of species, some of whom have even believed in Lamarkism while refusing anything Darwin ever proposed simply because he proposed it. I've even encountered some creationists, both in the web, and in my own family, who deny that dinosaurs ever existed. One of them posted a website saying that all the dinosaur fossils were forgeries made of dental plaster, and another denied the museum fossils even existed, saying that all our "evidence" were a matter of trick photography and chicken bones. My own mother continued to deny evolution at any level until about five years ago, when her church told her it was OK to believe it. Very few creationists believe as you do, so don't claim they all do.

Oh brother, this was rich. The New Testament is not a popularity contest, it's about what God has said and done. Don't you get it yet, if God was busy in the creation then he is still concerned about you. I know that creationism isn't mainstream but it got you're attention. Why not argue against the genetics that are unraveling much of Darwinian paleontology instead of wasting you're time with a world view that is wrong everytime (as you tell it) unless there is a chance that they are right?

That wasn't the case during our debate, but it can be now if you like. However, I suggest we move to the flood next, because nothing will better demonstrate the universal common ancestor model than that topic will.
It isn't rhetoric, Mark, and I will prove that once you start answering questions as you agreed you would. But our debate was never about that. Though you tried to turn it into that, I expressed what it really was very clearly in the wording of my challenge before you ever accepted the terms.
Then you never should have accepted the terms of the debate. If you wanted to argue something else, you should have said so before accepting my terms.

To be honest I had no idea what you intended in the debate. I just knew that you belived in the universal common ancestor model and I am convinced that this is absurd. You ask some really convoluted questions that lead me through a labyrinth of semanitcs that are never defined. I know where this comes from, in a word, it's Darwin. Has it ever occured to you that there is a chance that we are both wrong? What if we had this debate 500 years ago, what would you have been arguing then?

That's true.Even if Mayr and Darwin were "exclusively secular", the hundreds of millions of theistic evolutionists aren't. If you want me to argue against the existence of God, I'm sure I can accomidate you there. But I can't do it in this debate because evolution doesn't require the exclusion of God, much as you seem to want it to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're an atheist right? I know that evolution is perfectly compatable with theistic reasoning but the universal common ancestor model is not. Christians accept many of the things that the natural science implies about our origins and, of course, they compromise a little. The truth is that God is not going anywhere and there are people that realize that.

Naturalistic implications of Genesis? This is a new concept. Explain.

Are you putting me on? There are only two explanations for our origns, an omnipotent God created life fully formed or we are the result of purely naturalistic mechanisms. For real, this question has to be the most bogus.

It is none of the above, Mark. This is just a feeble excuse to get out answering a question you know you can't answer. Tell me, is the word, "dog" nihilistic? Nebulous? A semantical rationalization, etc.? Why didn't Linneaus think so? He was able to define both words as a God-fearing creationist, without either of them being any kind of nebulous rationalization. So why can't you?

Aristotle's classification system was the standard for a thousand years and no one argued it. Linneaus came along and said that this classification system isn't working and took it to the next level. Sure he had some questions about the difference between man and ape but there were no apes asking the questions, much less answering them. I think the difference between apes and men are obvious, there is no behavior that distinquishes divergent species as much as the one between men and apes. I have no idea why there is even a question.

Even if it were, (which in this case, it is not) the word "species" is irrelevant here, as there are many species of monkeys in several different genera, within a few different families within a couple different infraorders. You can be very vague about the species distinction and still come up with good, working definition of what a monkey is.

You do realize that monkey is not a taxonomic term right? When I speak of monkeys I am talking about all the primates that are apelike with the excepting of humans. We don't need a good working defintion of monkey, we need a good working definition of human. What's you're's

Whatever you need defined or determined, just ask, and I'll accomidate you as best I can. But as you say you accept speciation, and several levels of common ancestry beyond that, then you accept macroevolution by every definition I know of. So it doesn't matter how species is defined, and I don't see what your contention is here.

What I need is a definition of any particular species that you make a major point of contention. There are at least 20 that you never bothered to define and I went to some lengths to point that out.

Hitler's "work" wasn't remotely related to this topic in any fashion. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading this knows it. Get over it, and get back on-topic.

Hitler's emphasis was identical to Darwin's and I wanted you to realize that. I know that we have finally come to the conclusion that their is no such thing as lessor of greater humans, or have we?

I apologize that I can't answer each and every objection but I think I made my point by starting this thread.

 

[Jet Black]

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're an atheist right? I know that evolution is perfectly compatable with theistic reasoning but the universal common ancestor model is not.

yes it is.

 

[gluadys]

Are you putting me on? There are only two explanations for our origns, an omnipotent God created life fully formed or we are the result of purely naturalistic mechanisms. For real, this question has to be the most bogus.

I don't get this, mark. Why do you think a theist must accept a concept of creation in which an omnipotent God created life fully formed? Why can God not create an universe which unfolds, and within it a biological process which unfolds into a multiplicity of species over time?

I also do not understand what you mean by purely naturalistic mechanisms? Do you mean natural mechanisms from which divine action is excluded? I fail to see how any such mechanism is possible in a theistic worldview.

 

[Vance]

Mark still refuses to provide his model. He says that evolution is consistent with Scripture, but not a single common ancestor. It is a very simple question, then, and one which Mark should have an answer to:

How far does evolution go back? If not to a single common ancestor, then WHICH set of ancestors?

If Mark can't answer that, he should at least explain why he can not.

"There are only two explanations for our origns, an omnipotent God created life fully formed or we are the result of purely naturalistic mechanisms."

Wrong. We could be created by naturalistic processes developed and put in place by God according to His Divine creation plan.

 

[Ondoher]

What you have failed to understand is that the actual science does not have to be rewritten. PubMed is not about what you're conception is before you look at the evidence, it's about the actual evidence. I posted a link in the formal debate where the human and the ape genome are demonstrated to be different. You made an elaborate rationalization about what might have happened for the retro virus to be apparent for the ape while it was absent in humans.

I'm not sure which paper this was, but maybe it was this one http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254? DNA copying isn't perfect, and we would expect noncoding genetic features to sometimes be entirely removed. It is usually quite apparent this has happened, because of the absense of other DNA in the same region, or an incomplete removal. The creationist is still left trying to explain the general conclusion that phylogenies drawn from endogenous retroviruses match those drawn from anatomy:

What mechanisms other than pure chance or intentional deception can the creationist employ?

Why not argue against the genetics that are unraveling much of Darwinian paleontology instead of wasting you're time with a world view that is wrong everytime (as you tell it) unless there is a chance that they are right?

I wasn't aware Darwin was a paleontologist. But that aside, your claim that genetics is unravelling common ancestry is absurd. Point to one peer-reviewed paper that in any way casts doubt on common ancestry. No, it is quite the contrary, genetics makes it impossible to doubt common ancestry,

I think the difference between apes and men are obvious, there is no behavior that distinquishes divergent species as much as the one between men and apes. I have no idea why there is even a question.

The differences between penguins and most birds are quite obvious as well. That doesn't keep penguins from being birds, however.

 

[SLP]

they are not capable of abstract thought.

Evidence for this?

 

[mark kennedy]

While I do appreciate all the attention the thread is getting, I, like Aron-Ra have been left with the question of how you define species. I started this thread for one reason, and one reason only. I was pointing out that the leave 'species' undefined', even in paleontology leaves an awfull lot of room for speculation.

Hey! I'll be honest, when asked to define what a human, as opposed to a monkey is, I am left a little baffled. One thing I have no confusion about, each and every one of you knows the difference when you see it.

I went through the labyrinth of taxonomy and came away totally unconvinced. I'm still interested but I have yet to find a standard that applies to, now defunct, species. Now you can lead one another a merry chase speculating about what might have occured, but there is only one question.

Do you really believe the nonesense that we are evolved from apes because of the evidence, or because of the consequences of believing otherwise?

Real life is calling and I have things to do so I won't have as much time for this as I have had up till now. I can't wait for the next post in the formal debate forum because I am itching to sum up what I have been trying to say throughout the entire thing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jet Black]

While I do appreciate all the attention the thread is getting, I, like Aron-Ra have been left with the question of how you define species. I started this thread for one reason, and one reason only. I was pointing out that the leave 'species' undefined', even in paleontology leaves an awfull lot of room for speculation.

but then we have repeatedly told you that of course the definition os slightly vague, because the real world does not consist of blacks and whites. asking to define species so tightly is like asking to define red.

Hey! I'll be honest, when asked to define what a human, as opposed to a monkey is, I am left a little baffled. One thing I have no confusion about, each and every one of you knows the difference when you see it.

primarily breeding differences.

I went through the labyrinth of taxonomy and came away totally unconvinced. I'm still interested but I have yet to find a standard that applies to, now defunct, species.

but you know it is grey, stop being so disingenuous, you won't get anywhere if you don't stop trying to force artifical barriers onto something where the barriers are not so clear. species are defined more for human conventience in order to group animals together to demonstrate their ancestral characteristics. take for example this question: are humans mammals? do you have a problem with saying yes to that?

Do you really believe the nonesense that we are evolved from apes because of the evidence, or because of the consequences of believing otherwise?

oh I see, poison the sentence by dismissing it as nonsense. the evidence for our common ancestry with the other apes is rather compelling if that's what you are asking. the concept that we are all originally created beings is nonsense.