mrwilliams11 writes:
at that back 12-13 generations there was what we now would call a genera change, but the change did not occur in time for 12 generations. genera are a proposal back into time. those two guys that represent the heads of the clans lived together in this area, they may have been cousins, but their descendents now distinguish themselves as "i'm clan A because i am descended from J or i'm B from H". It is a convenient clumping mechanism.
go back 13 generations and there is nothing about J or B that would tell you that they would establish clans over the next 250 years.
This is no more a genera change than you walking into a Mcdonalds makes you a big mac!!! Genera have spoecific characteristics to them ! These clans might become sub-sub species but they remain the same species (sapien sapien) and definitley retain the homo genera.
Mallon wrote:
Actually, Archaeopteryx doesn't have any unique features. It has features shared by both reptiles and birds (symplesiomorphies and synapomorphies). The combination of features is unique, and this is just what evolution predicts.
But remember most evolutionist call them reptile "like" for they resemble features of rep[tiles-- no where does it say they are reptilian. There are birds todasy that have claws on their wings and have teeth in their bill. Are they transitions from the reptile to bird also???
I've got a paper on a transitional mosasaur being submitted shortly, and it fits the exact specification you're looking for. Keep your eyes peeled.
Well one outof thens of thousands--it had to happen sooner or later-- the science of addsmakiong would predict that!
That Punctuated Equilibrium and Anagensis are mutually exclusive is a myth. In fact, they are not. Both modes of evolution may very likely be at work and represented in the fossil record. (For examples of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, do some reseach on python fossils -- look specifically at their intramandibular jaw joints).
But to predivt punctuated equilibria you hacve to use dating methods that are highly unreliable and suppossedly punctuation is a short means to evolution (millenia instead of eons last I heard) So you have dating that can't be trusted to predict P. E.
Well... there is quite a bit of evidence that at least some theropods travelled in packs (trackways, bonebeds, etc.). You can deny the evidence all you want, but you would have to do it on scientific grounds.
And that evidence could also point to myriad other explanations other than packhunting-- like migratory patterns, fleeing hostile enviornments are just two that would account for multi tracks and bone beds. Even an instinct to have a mutual burial ground . To just simply declarte that with just the scant evidence is disingenious.
Kinda hard to do since "genus" is a subjective term.
Another impossible hurdle you seem to be setting up is the fact that in doing speciation experiments, we do not have the benefit of hindsight or 'the Big Picture' that we do in the fossil record. If we produced something that was not a fish, how would we know? For all intents and purposes, it would look just like a fish, with some minor changes that would allow it to span the "genus" barrier. Everyone knows fish have caudal fins, but let's suppose we created something without such a fin that swam along just fine. Scientists might claim to have produced macroevolution; evolution-deniers such as yourself would claim that it's 'still just a fish'! (This despite the fact that fish have caudal fins).
Well thanks to todays genetic research capabilities, we do not have to rely just on morphology tro declare genera changes. Fish genetics are different form canione genetics which are different from pongid genetics etc etc. etc. If through experimentation science was truly able to produce a genera change it still would not cvount for all that would show is that it took careful experimentation, with controlled conditions and high intelligence to make such a change. More like creation than evolution.
But how do you know? How do you know they aren't feather precursors?
Fact is no one can really know. Unless they find preserved organic "barbs" and are able to examine them to see if they fit the known range of feathers, (instead of just relying on fossil material which may have a little DNA left in it) the best we can say is that they look like spoines or they look like feather barbs, but unless feathers themselves get imprinteds and fossilized that is the best the best paleobiologists can hope to do.
So again, since they are genuine integumentary structures, why can't they be feather precursors?
Cause the creature itself would not thrive to reproduce the changes!! Scales and feathers are both thermal regulators for the host species and if these are protofeathers that have mutated from scales, then the theraml systems are in disarray and puts this poor creature at a serious disadvantage.
Exactly. God would have had to allow for death since the Beginning, since He ordered all Creation to not only eat, but fill the Earth and reproduce after its own kind. Eventually, the animals and plants would have reached carrying capacity and died off. There is no avoiding this.
Wow how could you miss your own qouting of scripture here!! You speak of animals having to die but yet ignore and reject that animals reproduce aftere their own kind!!
How many animals did God create on the fifth and sixth days of creation?? 10 of each? Millions of each "kind". How do we not know He set out with say a dozen pair that did not need to die and that in the 1400 years from creation to the flood the earth finally was reaching carrying capacity and the flood also took care of that problem as well!! See I can make base assumptions but at least mine are in harmony with the scripture dictate that until man sinned there was no death in the world!
willtor writes:
Stephen Hawking is not an evolutionary scientist. He's an astrophysicist. His meeting with Pope John Paul II dealt with the Big Bang, and the Pope told him (along with the others) that the precise moment of the Big Bang should be off limits. He didn't know that Stephen Hawking had been working on the moments leading up to it. Prof. Hawking doesn't deal with evolution. He also doesn't deal with abiogenesis. If he speaks to either of these things, it is as a non-expert.
Well experet or not he met with the pope and was told to leave creation of life alone and the church would leave evolution alone (my paraphrase) and it was after this meeting that all the theorizing on abiogenesis died quickly!
So when you say that we will only get different species of dogs and cats, this is only correct insofar as reptiles are really just kinds of fish, just as mammals are.
Well if you want to be related to a mackerel you can--but I am made inthe image of God and not a clade of fish!
Assyrian writes:
Paul doesn't actually say there was no death in the world before sin. He says sin entered the world and he says that death spread to all men. In fact he limits the death, depending on you translation, death spread to all men because all sinnedor death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned. As far as I know the phrase has two different meanings in classical and koine Greek. But both have the same effect on how this death spread from the sin. It limits it to the human race. Either death spread to all men because all sinned and therefore could not spread to animals that don't sin, or it only spread inasmuch as all sinned and was limited to sinners.
Well if you are editing to restate then you are correct, but here is the verse again:
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Here is the progression:
1. Adam sinned
2. Sinned entered the kosmos
3. death enteres into the kosmos
4. Because of 1-3 death passed to all men.
Before Adam sinned there was no death ion the kosmos.
There was no human governmetn
There was no societal organizatrion
There was jsut adam, eve, AndGod! Thj ekosmos here means the planet. So before Adam sinned therer was no death on the planet or kosmos! It was becauswe Adam sinned thatr God subjected all of creation to futility (phthera) which is deacy, corruption and death.
Does Romans 8 say the bondage to decay was the result of the fall? He just says it was God's will but does not say when it happened. Is there anywhere in scripture that tells us no animals died before the fall?
Well would God have declared His creation very good in Genesis if ti was filled with phthtera?? Would you declare your yard very good if it was full fo dead patches, weeds, and noxious plants??
Is there anywhere in scripture that saus death was on the planet or kosmos before sinned entereds the kosmos?
shernren challenges:
So let Scripture interpret Scripture. Show me an independent passage which speaks of death coming to animals, or to the universe in general, through man's sin. Genesis 3 is out (since it doesn't mention animal death) and that in my book is a severe strike against your position. So can you show me Scriptural evidence to counter-weight Genesis 3's big "no"?
Well your book is not the bible so I cannot speak to your book. But having been a student of the word for over 30 years now, I hope that God has given me at least a tad of insight into HIs word. I do let Scripture interpret scripture--that is why I am what is dubbed a literalist, dispensationalist, and fundamental in my beleifs ( not a legaslist fundamentalist). Genesis three does make no mention, but it makes no mention of animals dying ewither so that is a big strike against animals dying as well ( I use your logic against your position just as comfortably as you do to mine). Genesis' big "no" (your osrd) is just simply dead silence on the matter. Now just simply show me where death entered in to the kosmos as is declared in Romans 5 BEFORE sin entered the world and you win! Until then I will let Gods word speak fopr itself. seeing as there was no human heirarchy, no civil govt., no clans and tribes, no system of laws, no human development at all with Adam ksomos cannot refer to these secondary and tertiary definitions of this word. So kosmos inthis case means the planet or globe! so until sinned entered onto the globe-there was no death on the globe!!
Btw, I would disagree with you on this as well. Why are we taking Satan at his word?
It is not me youa re diagreeing with but God! Hos word declares absolutely that right now Satan is the following:
Corinthians 4:4
In whom the
god of this
world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of
God, should shine unto them.
Ephesians 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the
prince of the
power of the
air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Luke 5:
5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
So you see man dominion over the planet was lost at the fall and now Satan is the temporary ruler until Jesus comes back!!
