Evolutions "transitional forms"

[Jet Black]

The skulls that you showed are not conclusive. The many of thoses skulls may well be different kinds of ape skulls, according to creation scientist. It is how you look at the data.

well our skulls are ape skulls, so no big suprise there. the question is, where does one species end, the next start, and why?

 

[Jet Black]

variation in species is not evolution. Changing for one species into another is evolution.

this has been observed numerous times, temporally in plants (the york groundsel) and spatially in animals (the israeli naked mole rat, black backed gulls, and some species of salamandar to name three...) not to mention hybridisation of horses and donkeys to occasionally produce fertile opffspring, hybridisation of lions and tigers, horses and zebra, and numerous primate species.

 

[Cantuar]

The Scripture. says God created everything according to its kind or species. Genetics backs this up.

Nope, it doesn't. For one thing, genetics shows that some species of mice are more different from each other than humans are from chimps. I'd call that a major embarrassment for the literal Genesis story, not any sort of backing.

In order to have conception that RNA messenger has to line up with the code of a particular DNA chain. You cannot cross other species because the DNA and RnA will not match. In other words a dog cannot have a cat, a bear cannot have alion.

Um, evolution isn't about dogs having cats. Evolution is about populations of a given species undergoing selection through environmental pressures. If a dog had a cat, it'd provide much more support for a miracle than for evolution.

That is why a mule cannot reproduce. It backs up creation according to its kind.

Please list the members of the mouse kind. Actually, while you're at it, please define "kind." We're sort of collecting definitions - and evasions, of which there are far more than definitions at the moment.

 

[Cantuar]

The skulls that you showed are not conclusive. The many of thoses skulls may well be different kinds of ape skulls, according to creation scientist. It is how you look at the data.

OK, then, why don't you tell us where the cutoff between the human "kind" and the ape "kind" is? You're the one claiming that it's supposed to be so obvious.

 

[Cantuar]

variation in species is not evolution.

Yes it is.

Changing for one species into another is evolution.

That's also evolution. Broad theory, you see. Now, it turns out that formation of species has in fact been detected. Do you want to rethink your definition and move the goalposts again?

 

[Vance]

"um, oh yeah, did I say species? I meant, um, something else, but not species. I mean, every one knows that speciation occurs. What I meant was, um, a BIGGER change. A REALLY big change. THAT is evolution. That real big change is evolution. And THAT never occurs. We have never seen THAT happen. No, not once."

 

[Jet Black]

heh, a google search for a phrase pulled up a post by vance back in august. so here it is:

as Bertie Wooster says: Every little bit, added to what you got, is just a little bit more.

 

[Vance]

You know, I just love Wodehouse. By the way, what search did you run to come up with that?!

 

[Jet Black]

"every little bit added got more wooster"

you come 3rd on the list

 

[Vance]

Well, that is good, since I like to "get more wooster".

Do you know the guy wrote something like 170 books over a period of 70 years! Every one with a similar basic plot, but all some of the funniest stuff before Python. In fact, it is odd that they took off right around the time that he died. I like to think there is some connection.

Are we off-topic yet?

 

[LadyShea]

John, what kind is this? It has 33 pairs of chromosomes

Is it the same kind as this with 31 pairs of chromosomes?

And this one has 32 pairs...same kind? Different kind?

This last one has 22 pairs...same as any of the above "kinds"?

How can you tell kind if not by basic physiology like chromosomes?

 

[Data]

I'm guessing he doesn't know what a chromosome is.

 

[LadyShea]

What kind is this? Hint, it is a Canine, not a Procyon

It is thought the common ancestor of both cats and dogs was much like this. What "kind" is it?

 

[lucaspa]

Creation according to species allows for varieties in species. there are many kinds of cats, but they are still cats,

The study hasn't been done in cats, but it has been done in dogs. And not all dogs are still the same species. Different DNA. Here's the paper:
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

Creation also allows for adaption to ones enviroment.

But not for new species. Also not for phylogenetic studies which show no barrier between genomes.

What about the fall of man evolution does away with that.

1. The "fall" is due to men disobeying God. Adam and Eve were simply archetypes for each of us. Each of us disobeys God at some point. After all, Jesus died for your sins, not for Adam's. The Fall is simply a man-made theory that is really not backed by Genesis 2-3.

2. Natural selection does indeed provide a reason why humans would inherently disobey God. Evolution by natural selection produces selfish genes, and isn't disobeying God being selfish and placing your interests above God's?

I believe the Bible teaches their is a gap between the animal kingdom and man.

Every species is unique in some way. The Biblical authors got seduced by man's technology. They mistook technology for basic difference.

God creating the earth by fiat creation is fabulous, why not let God be God.

Then let's let God tell us HOW He created by the evidence He left in His Creation instead of telling Him how He should have created by our human, flawed interpretation of the Bible.

The Hebrew Word "bara" means to create out of nothing.

I don't doubt that you are a Christian. I respect your viewpoint but cannot agree with theistic evolution.

Then you deny that God created. Genesis 1 took the fact that God created Israel "out of nothing" and retrodicted that back to the universe. However, if you notice, Genesis 1:2 has the earth and waters already existing. So it's not clear that Genesis 1 means ex nihilo. In fact, a long tradition in the Church from 400 AD to 1900 AD did argue that creation was not "from nothing".

 

[lucaspa]

Dear friend you stillhave not shown me any transitional forms in the fossil record.

http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

In human evolution, this is a partial list by me of transitional individuals in the fossil lineage. That is, fossils that have mixtures of features of the species on either side of it. Such individuals cannot exist if creationism is true. But since they do exist, creationism is false.

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.
Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.
Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html

 

[Nathan David]

The fossil record by far supports creation better than evolution.

Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness?

 

[Drotar]

No one laughed at my strawman joke.

I spent a lot of time fixing that up, you know. :o

 

[Drotar]

Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness?

Depends on your interpretation.

 

[greeker57married]

"These evolutionist believe that Ramapithecus was in man's lineage because the incisors and caanine teeth (the front teeth) of this animal were relatively small in relation to the cheek-teeth(as is in the case of man); they believe the shape of the jaw parabolic, as in humans, rather than u-shaped, as in most apes; and because of some other subtle anatomical distinctions found for the jaw fragments. The face is also believed to have been foreshortened, although no bones of the face or skull have been recovered.

Thus all of the evidence linking Ramapithecus to man is based solely upon extremely fragmentary dental and mandibular (jaw) evidence. Recent evidence apparently invalidates even this.

Recently Dr. Robert Eckhardt a paleoanthroplogists at Penn State, pulished an article headlined by the statment:

"Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variabiliity is considered, the answer appears to be no."

The range of varation in the chimpanzee populations was actually greater than those in the fossel samples for 14 of the 24 measurements, the same for one, and less for 9 ofthe measurements. Even in the minority of cases where the range of variation of the fossil samples exceeded those in the living chimpanzees, the differences were very small. Thus, in the tooth measurements made, there was greater variations among living champanzees or a sinngle group of apes, than there was between Dryopithecus, a fossil ape and Ramapithecus, which is suppose to be a hominid. . .(Evolution: The Fossils say No!, Duane T. Gish.

The reference for R. B. Eckhardt, Scientific American, Vol. 226, p. 94 (1972).
This was in Gish's footnotes at the end of the chapter of the Book.

 

[LadyShea]

No one laughed at my strawman joke.

I spent a lot of time fixing that up, you know. :o

I laughed, I just didn't post LOL