Evolution details

[Nithavela]

Is that a tacit acknowledgment that somebody did do it?

No.

 

[Tom 1]

No.

Just kidding

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is the process of evolution from the common ancestor according to the theory, as you understand it? Are all Homo species thought to share the same ancestor?

As the theory goes, all species share a common ancestor species; that obviously includes Homo species (who share a more recent 'Most Recent Common Ancestor' species among themselves than they do with more distantly related species). It's an inheritance tree.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

As the theory goes, all species share a common ancestor species; that obviously includes Homo species (who share a more recent 'Most Recent Common Anc estor' species among themselves than they do with more distantly related species). It's an inheritance tree.

Not really a tree though, is it? More a collection of leaves from a variety of trees. You want it to be a tree, but its not.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really a tree though, is it? More a collection of leaves from a variety of trees. You want it to be a tree, but its not.

The evidence is overwhelming that it is a tree.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The evidence is overwhelming that it is a tree.

The faith is overwhelming. Not so the evidence, with not a single missing link. That's like a tree without any branches. Lol.

 

[Speedwell]

The faith is overwhelming. Not so the evidence, with not a single missing link. That's like a tree without any branches. Lol.

What makes you think there are no "missing links?"

 

[Nithavela]

What makes you think there are no "missing links?"

This just in, scientists discovered the fossil of a species that fills a missing link.

Bad news is, now there are two missing links.

Big win for creationism. Sad.

 

[Speedwell]

This just in, scientists discovered the fossil of a species that fills a missing link.

Bad news is, now there are two missing links.

Big win for creationism. Sad.

What's sad is that here is a fellow who thinks he can debunk evolution even though he knows no more about it than the misinformation he picked up on some crypto- Christian creationist website.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The beauty of creation(ism if you will) is that it doesn't have to reinvent itself all the time or explained itself scientifically. Evolution has to juggle more and more balls in the air. Some day they will all come crashing down.

 

[Speedwell]

The beauty of creation(ism if you will) is that it doesn't have to reinvent itself all the time or explained itself scientifically. Evolution has to juggle more and more balls in the air. Some day they will all come crashing down.

Yeah, reality is like that. Imaginary stories never have to change or accomodate themselves to new evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, reality is like that. Imaginary stories never have to change or accomodate themselves to new evidence.

Whenever science discovers yet more complex aspects of the creation the less likely it is to have come about by the mystical process of evolution. Special creation is still the best explanation for things created.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really a tree though, is it? More a collection of leaves from a variety of trees. You want it to be a tree, but its not.

Lol! I want to know what the evidence says it is, and the genetic evidence is unequivocal.

 

[pitabread]

The beauty of creation(ism if you will) is that it doesn't have to reinvent itself all the time

What creationists post suggests otherwise, given how wildly divergent and often contradictory creationist beliefs are.

Special creation is still the best explanation for things created.

Except it's not an explanation. It's just a theological stopgap.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What creationists post suggests otherwise, given how wildly divergent and often contradictory creationist beliefs are.

I never noticed this.

Except it's not an explanation. It's just a theological stopgap.

It's all the explanation I need.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The beauty of creation(ism if you will) is that it doesn't have to reinvent itself all the time or explained itself scientifically. Evolution has to juggle more and more balls in the air. Some day they will all come crashing down.

The theory of evolution will no doubt be tweaked for years to come, but the core principle is basically algorithmic and won't change. While you have reproducing populations with variations in their traits and some of that variation is heritable, those populations will evolve (i.e. the incidence of variations of those heritable traits in the population will change over time).

We know the primary means by which heritable traits are passed to the offspring (genetic code), so the tweaking has to do with the fine detail of that process and the influences on it.

 

[pitabread]

I never noticed this.

Happens all the time here. Case in point, modern Young-Earth creationism includes rapid speciation as part of their explanation for diversity of biological forms on Earth. In fact, they effectively require evolutionary diversification to happen at rates far beyond what we observe in nature. YECs are basically hyper-evolutionists.

Yet, on this forum it is not uncommon to find creationists blatantly arguing against the concept of speciation even in light of observable instances of it.

There are also wild differences of view on the age of the Earth. YECists believe that the Earth is only ~6000 years old and has a physical appearance to match. But again, you'll find creationists here with diverging views including arguing in favor of appearance of age or outright accepting the Earth is billions of years old.

These are not small differences in belief; they effect and shape the different explanations creationists offer for observable reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Happens all the time here. Case in point, modern Young-Earth creationism includes rapid speciation as part of their explanation for diversity of biological forms on Earth. In fact, they effectively require evolutionary diversification to happen at rates far beyond what we observe in nature. YECs are basically hyper-evolutionists.

Yet, on this forum it is not uncommon to find creationists blatantly arguing against the concept of speciation even in light of observable instances of it.

There are also wild differences of view on the age of the Earth. YECists believe that the Earth is only ~6000 years old and has a physical appearance to match. But again, you'll find creationists here with diverging views including arguing in favor of appearance of age or outright accepting the Earth is billions of years old.

These are not small differences in belief; they effect and shape the different explanations creationists offer for observable reality.

I'm a Gap theory, 'ruin/restoration' believer myself.

 

[pitabread]

I'm a Gap theory, 'ruin/restoration' believer myself.

Know then that your beliefs are in contradiction to what other creationists believe.

For example, from Answer in Genesis's statement of faith:

"The gap theory has no basis in Scripture."

And they argue against it in various articles on their site. For example, What About the Gap & Ruin-Reconstruction Theories?

 

[Tom 1]

Thanks all for your comments, I was just after some comments on the article quoted in the OP so thanks for the info, might as well wrap this thread up now.

Tom