For the christians who believe in evolution.

[LouisBooth]

"Or say "Genesis looks like a creation myth, and I will read it as such." That works too."

No, it doesn't. You're putting your thoughs on the "data" not letting thoughts come from it. Not 1. scholarly honest 2. sciencitically honest and 3. Not biblically honest. the only way you can congel (sp) evolution with the bible is interpret the word YOM different. (if you're a christian) or you can be a nonchristian and you can do it chickenman's way.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Or say "Genesis looks like a creation myth, and I will read it as such." That works too."

No, it doesn't. You're putting your thoughs on the "data" not letting thoughts come from it. Not 1. scholarly honest 2. sciencitically honest and 3. Not biblically honest. the only way you can congel (sp) evolution with the bible is interpret the word YOM different. (if you're a christian) or you can be a nonchristian and you can do it chickenman's way.

This is ridiculous, though! By this interpretation, it should be forbidden to believe that any word or phrase in the Bible is not literal truth, unless it clearly states that it's not. In practice, we *constantly* judge text as being of one form or another; some questions are rhetorical, some phrases are metaphorical.

 

[sunshine]

Originally posted by elephanticity
Every culture has a 'where from' myth.
If it weren't for the names and certain specific details, you'd have a difficult time picking yours out of a lineup.

I just came in here to say that I totally agree with elephanticity and seebs. I believe that creation is a cultural myth, similar to any other cultural myth you'll find. It's practically a universal that all cultures have an origins myth. I don't think it's blasphemous at all to read the story of creation as a myth, it's meant symbolically not literally.

 

[LouisBooth]

"By this interpretation, it should be forbidden to believe that any word or phrase in the Bible is not literal truth, unless it clearly states that it's not"

Exactly, its call context seebs. You're finally getting it.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"By this interpretation, it should be forbidden to believe that any word or phrase in the Bible is not literal truth, unless it clearly states that it's not"

Exactly, its call context seebs. You're finally getting it.

Unfortunately, only about five things are ever described *explicitly* as non-literal, and you end up having to look for the four literal corners of the earth.

The belief that the Bible is mostly literal is a recent invention mostly unique to the U.S.; it does not reflect the bulk of Christian theology of the last two thousand years, and it appears to exist mostly as a tool for excluding people from the "in" group.

 

[randman]

"I believe that creation is a cultural myth, similar to any other cultural myth you'll find."

And I believe evolution is a modern cultural myth.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by randman
"I believe that creation is a cultural myth, similar to any other cultural myth you'll find."

And I believe evolution is a modern cultural myth.

Myths are sacred narratives. Evolution is a scientific theory.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by mac_philo
Here's a good example of observed evolution in salamanders:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

It's clear case of observed evolution. It also explains how speciation occurs, as these salamanders are a 'ring species.' Plus, salamanders are just cool.

Have fun.

Funny thing about this article - the salamanders are still salamanders....not birds or anything else. Still the same species family. Where is the evolution again?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tericl2


Funny thing about this article - the salamanders are still salamanders....not birds or anything else. Still the same species family. Where is the evolution again?

Read biology textbook for definition of evolution. Read article for example. You will find it.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by tericl2


Funny thing about this article - the salamanders are still salamanders....not birds or anything else. Still the same species family. Where is the evolution again?

See my sig for a breif description of evolution.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Read biology textbook for definition of evolution. Read article for example. You will find it.

Oh, I agree it is evolution by the definition evolution equals change. Evolutionary example of the magnitudinal changes required to explain the current evolutionary theories? I think not.

See my sig for a breif description of evolution.

Fine. The article is still only relevant as it applies to gene selection. Much the same way that my mother has green eyes, my father brown, but I have blue eyes. Simple gene selection, unless of course I am at a higher evolutionary stage than my parents based on this one identifiable characteristic. I am still human...the salamander is still a salamander, regardless of color or location.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tericl2


Oh, I agree it is evolution by the definition evolution equals change. Evolutionary example of the magnitudinal changes required to explain the current evolutionary theories? I think not.

Do you mean common descent of all life? No, that is just the beginning of common descent... Yes, it is important, because if things like this didn't happen common descent couldn't have, but no the evidence proper for common descent is elsewhere.

Fine. The article is still only relevant as it applies to gene selection. Much the same way that my mother has green eyes, my father brown, but I have blue eyes. Simple gene selection, unless of course I am at a higher evolutionary stage than my parents based on this one identifiable characteristic. I am still human...the salamander is still a salamander, regardless of color or location.

No, Mendel's studies provide what you are talking about. The salamander article describes the documentation of process of speciation (one of the processes, anyway)... speciation is important, because it represents the irrevocable branching off of a new line with features distinct from the parent line. That is a very important step in evolution, and one that many creationists have asserted is impossible.

 

[tericl2]

No, Mendel's studies provide what you are talking about. The salamander article describes the documentation of process of speciation (one of the processes, anyway)... speciation is important, because it represents the irrevocable branching off of a new line with features distinct from the parent line. That is a very important step in evolution, and one that many creationists have asserted is impossible.

The problem is, their parent line in the article is simply speculation and conjecture. They think it started up north. They don't know and have no way of verifying a postulation derived from previously held bias.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tericl2

The problem is, their parent line in the article is simply speculation and conjecture. They think it started up north. They don't know and have no way of verifying a postulation derived from previously held bias.

Not too big a problem, since the parent line is still around and being observed. Not too big a problem, since the parent line still interbreeds freely with the intermediates nearest them geographically. Not too big a problem since the intermediates still interbreed with the intermediates nearest THEM geographically. Not too big a problem since THOSE intermediates still interbreed with the tail end of the ring, that is with the ones that cannot interbreed with the parent line and produce successful offspring.

It never ceases to amaze me that creationists can continue to quibble over finer and finer points and never just deal with the evidence.

 

[tericl2]

Mendel's Law of Genetics, which basically states that different "combinations" of genes are formed (not altogether different genes). Genes are merely moved about from one generation of species to another. These combinations form many different "looking" varieties of animals but in every case they are still members of the original family. See dog breeding for an excellent example of this.

In all of this, and in the salamanders, there is seen to be genetic variance and change. However, there has been NO cellular change or species differentation in the least degree.

Genetic variance (or micro-evolution) = horizontal change, scientifically verifiable

Macro-evolution = vertical change, no scientific evidence

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tericl2
Mendel's Law of Genetics, which basically states that different "combinations" of genes are formed (not altogether different genes). Genes are merely moved about from one generation of species to another. These combinations form many different "looking" varieties of animals but in every case they are still members of the original family. See dog breeding for an excellent example of this.

In all of this, and in the salamanders, there is seen to be genetic variance and change. However, there has been NO cellular change or species differentation in the least degree.

Genetic variance (or micro-evolution) = horizontal change, scientifically verifiable

Macro-evolution = vertical change, no scientific evidence

Ask my enemies. I do not lie. If I don't know, I don't say that I know. I don't know if there are any novel gene sequences in the new end of the ring of Ensatina eschscholtzi. But I have it on good authority that the new "end" is a distinct species, with different anatomical features. I don't know what "horizontal" and "vertical" change mean in biological terms. I have to assume that they are tangential to the subject. If you have a meaningful definition for them, run it by me... you may be right in saying the changes are "horizontal" instead of "vertical."

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Not too big a problem, since the parent line is still around and being observed. Not too big a problem, since the parent line still interbreeds freely with the intermediates nearest them geographically. Not too big a problem since the intermediates still interbreed with the intermediates nearest THEM geographically. Not too big a problem since THOSE intermediates still interbreed with the tail end of the ring, that is with the ones that cannot interbreed with the parent line and produce successful offspring.

It never ceases to amaze me that creationists can continue to quibble over finer and finer points and never just deal with the evidence.

It amazes me that evolutionists so consistently ignore logical arguments that don't fit in their "thinking box".

It is really a simple case of adaptation. And the "not interbreeding" issue is a moot point. You can find this every where. Two unlike (by looks, geography, etc.) animals or people are much less likely to breed. Why would a dark salamander wish to breed with a light salamander? It would endanger itself and its off-spring, which would no longer be suited for the environment of one of the parents. Why do you think wild animals shun albinos? Simply a matter of survival.


You obviously missed the whole point. How did they determine the parent line?

And since they still intermingle, based on geographic location no less, they are still genetically compatible and cellularly compatible. All this compatibility says they are still the SAME animal with minor genetic "variations", not "mutations"!

BTW, the article does NOT say they CAN"T interbreed. Only that they do not. I would venture that if you were to conduct a study of reproductive organs and genetic compatibility of the two salamanders, you would find that they are very CAPABLE of inter-breeding.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Ask my enemies. I do not lie. If I don't know, I don't say that I know. I don't know if there are any novel gene sequences in the new end of the ring of Ensatina eschscholtzi. But I have it on good authority that the new "end" is a distinct species, with different anatomical features. I don't know what "horizontal" and "vertical" change mean in biological terms. I have to assume that they are tangential to the subject. If you have a meaningful definition for them, run it by me... you may be right in saying the changes are "horizontal" instead of "vertical."

Horizontal to the subject goes to left and right. Differences in size, coloration, etc.

Vertical goes up. This would be a major change in the animal itself, such as lizard to bird. With all the transitional stages in between of course.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tericl2

It amazes me that evolutionists so consistently ignore logical arguments that don't fit in their "thinking box".

The working scientists don't have time for creationists 'logical' arguments. If you have evidence, bring it - otherwise, they are busy.

I, on the other hand, have plenty of time. I don't ignore 'logical' arguments, I address them. That is what I am doing here. Most of the creationist arguments have a kind of logic to them, but one that almost always misses the point. Salamander speciation does not equal common descent, for instance.

It is really a simple case of adaptation. And the "not interbreeding" issue is a moot point. You can find this every where. Two unlike (by looks, geography, etc.) animals or people are much less likely to breed. Why would a dark salamander wish to breed with a light salamander? It would endanger itself and its off-spring, which would no longer be suited for the environment of one of the parents. Why do you think wild animals shun albinos? Simply a matter of survival.

You are getting it now. Speciation is often the result of natural selection (a matter of survival). Speciation is the name of the event where two previously interbreeding populations stop interbreeding and begin diverging.

BTW, the article does NOT say they CAN"T interbreed. Only that they do not. I would venture that if you were to conduct a study of reproductive organs and genetic compatibility of the two salamanders, you would find that they are very CAPABLE of inter-breeding.

They are considered speciated because there is a heretitable mechanism that isolates the two gene pools.

You obviously missed the whole point. How did they determine the parent line?

I honestly don't know. Would the results be any different if the parent line and the new line were reversed?

And since they still intermingle, based on geographic location no less, they are still genetically compatible and cellularly compatible. All this compatibility says they are still the SAME animal! [/B]

And their reproductive isolation says they are DIFFERENT SPECIES of that animal.

 

[tericl2]

Jerry,

I don't even know where to start. You ignored most of the "meat" of my post. I have stated my case and refuted each of your points. I will leave it at that, and catch you later. On another discussion perhaps.


God Bless