Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lucaspa said:I've read the posts. The first one has no evidence of species jumps. Development may be but jump no.BT said:Since there is absolutely no example or evidence of any species jump (from a glob to an animal as example... or from an ape to a man), we develop other ideas, and postulate that the "missing link" will inevitably be found (meanwhile they risk their souls on a theory and ride a train straight to hell while waiting).[/qutoe]
How do you account for these observed speciations in real time -- http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 -- and these series of individuals linking what you call "speciation jumps" in the fossil record and the picture below -- http://www.christianforums.com/t43227 -- in God's Creation?
The second one deals more with deviations or devolutions i.e. feline disease mutating into a canine gene.
There is no "missing link" nor will you ever find one. There is no proof of a species jump (from one to another). Making hybrids in a lab with plants does not count as a species jump. Neither does mixing a labrador and a pit bull to create a new type of dog, qualify as a species jump. While I get the impression that you believe in this strongly, don't let me worry you. I'm a fundamentalist through and through and thus unswayable. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so if He says it was 6 days... I'll go with God thanks.
As for the fossil record.... ha. You can do better than that.. Creation Ex Nihilio has many pictures of fossils that formed over decades/decade. That's right decades not billions of years. Showing a change from plant or animal to fossil proves nothing more than some people have way too much time on their hands. And that calcification works. Yipee!
Anyway like Bleechers said this isn't the place for debate.. I just noticed that you asked me the question that's the only reason that I came back...
10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436. are not new species? Why not?BT said:I've read the posts. The first one has no evidence of species jumps. Development may be but jump no.
Why aren't these "missing links"? A "missing link" is between two species, right?There is no "missing link" nor will you ever find one.
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
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc
When the hybrid can't interbreed with either parent but can interbreed with other hybrids, why isn't that a new species?There is no proof of a species jump (from one to another). Making hybrids in a lab with plants does not count as a species jump.
I didn't ask about your beliefs or if you were swayable. I asked how you accounted for the specific evidence from God's Creation.I'm a fundamentalist through and through and thus unswayable. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so if He says it was 6 days... I'll go with God thanks.
I'm not debating your answers. I'm just asking questions.Anyway like Bleechers said this isn't the place for debate.. I just noticed that you asked me the question that's the only reason that I came back...
When the hybrid can't interbreed with either parent but can interbreed with other hybrids, why isn't that a new species?
Why are these not "easily observed" speciations? http://www.christianforums.com/t155626bleechers said:The creation of a new species is genetically impossible. If evolution were the law, it would not only be evident and continual it would be easily observed.
What about the Modern Synthesis that showed that Mendelian genetics fit evolution perfectly?Darwin's theories were produced with no understanding of genetics.
Do you mean Punctuated Equilibria? Have you seen this?The law of "slow change" has been replaced by "rapid change"...
How is the hybridization done by intelligent design? Did the investigators move the genes around?Without following the specific example, a hybrid plant is not a new species no matter its ability to reproduce for it is a combination, not a deviance. In any case, it is the product of intelligent design and could not happen by chance (random mutation).
I'm not allowed to debate here. Also, I didn't ask you your opinion of Methodists. I asked how you accounted for the data in God's Creation. Of all the instances of observed speciation, why do you only talk about one?I realize that most Methodists have little regard for the infallibility of scripture, so how do you answer the theological problems that I posed?
I didn't ask you who you thought my "god" was. Can you point me to anything in Darwin that says "strong kills weak" or "death is good"? If Christians go to meet God, why do you think death is not good?The bigger problem you have is not trying to fit evolution into Genesis, it is trying to get your god of "strong kills weak" and "death is good" into the gospel.
Why? Have I mentioned my academic position anywhere in this thread or attempted to use my position as "authority"? However, I will correct my Profile such that it tells you the discipline of my Ph.D. if you are interested.I also think it is only fair that you state in what discipline you are an "Associate Professor".
Do you mean Punctuated Equilibria? Have you seen this?
I didn't ask you who you thought my "god" was...
I'm not allowed to debate here. Also, I didn't ask you your opinion of Methodists. I asked how you accounted for the data in God's Creation. Of all the instances of observed speciation, why do you only talk about one?
I would remind you that, by the rules of this Forum, I'm not allowed to post any theological arguments. I am only allowed to ask questions to see what your theological position is. If you want to hear my theological position, you will have to come to either the Creation vs Evolution Forum or the CO Creation Science and Evolution forum. This is not the appropriate forum.bleechers said:You have carefully avoided the vast chasms in your theological arguments. You would rather take a theological board and center on your area of expertise.
Why would evolution lead anyone to think God is a part of Creation?The greater concern you should have is not whether hybrids equal speciation, rather it should be whether your god is a lower genetic form of an inferior genetic mix.
I have entered a Baptis board and asked for the Baptist response to questions. Sometimes the answers led me to new questions. One of the answers I have is that you, and perhaps all Baptists, think there are grave theological problems with evolution.You have aggressively entered a Baptist board and have carefully and callously avoided the grave theolological implications of your man-made belief system.
I have no questions about your personal, and perhaps the Baptist, position on the Bible. Posters have made that position abundantly clear. What was unclear to me was the Baptist position on the evidence in God's Creation. Thus the questions.You speak of "God's creation" yet your posts are devoid of God's gospel.
Why would evolution lead anyone to think God is a part of Creation?
If you read it in context I was refering to evolutionists outside of Christianity, at least that's what I thought I was refering to. I won't judge your soul on anything, it's not my job. But if you said that you were an evolutionist non-Christian then I think the statement is quite fine (especially if you were atheistic because of your evolution belief).herev said:you didn't really go there, did you? Are you prepared to judge my soul based on an interpretatin of the first two chapters of the Bible?
jcright said:To be honest, I'm not sure 100% sure what to believe. I have yet to launch a full research into this. My first thought is that the six days is literal mainly because I think that information is passed down in ways that can be understood by the reader and if it's figurative (without telling the reading or making it obvious that it's figurative) then there should be some kind of key to decipher what is really being said.
BT said:There is enough "evidence" of a young earth to show the point.
There is actually enough "evidence" of creation to refute any evolutionary theory (big bang).
bleechers said:Might I suggest you check out icr.org. They have articles and tons of materials. They also run a fully accreditted creationist graduate school in CA.
Evolution not only presents some fantastic scientific and logical problems... the theological implications are intrinsically anti-gospel.
BT said:Sure.
The evolutionist will tell you that we started off as some "glob" of certain chemicals
But what does science say?
One (of many) example of science pointing away from evolution and to creation....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which you will learn in any and every school)
bleechers said:If you've discovered some change from one species to another (despite what we know about genetics) you might want to call somebody. There exists absolutely no evidence of such a thing.
If you accept evolution is any way, you accept the following:
1. God prefers the "survival of the fittest" over the weak, blind and lame.
2. Death is a good thing.
3. Jesus was not the perfect man, He was only an inferior version of an ever-changing gene pool.
4. God used mutations in the genetic code, leading to deformities and inferior species to somehow effect a change in evolutionary advancement (although no such "positive mutations" have ever been documented or observed).
5. "The first Adam" is a misnomer which casts aspersions of the concept of "the last Adam".
6. Cain didn't murder his brother, he merely decreased the surplus population during a time of competetive consumption. The fittest survived.
7. Evolution is extremely inefficient (if possible at all). Taking the curse of sin out of the equation (which is necessary before Adam), you have God creating a sloppy world full of death and horrible mutations.
8. Death before sin? That destroys the entire reasoning of the Book of Romans and touches directly on the death burial and resurrection of Christ!
9. Jesus "conquered death"? But why? In evolution, death is not onlt necessary for the "strong" to survive, it is a "good" thing because it eliminates the "weak"!
It's funny (odd) how those who are supposedly the most compassionate among us, believe in a theory whose primary tenet is based on the idea that the strong must eliminate the weak; the superior must eliminate the inferior.
bleechers said:The creation of a new species is genetically impossible.
If evolution were the law, it would not only be evident and continual it would be easily observed.
Without following the specific example, a hybrid plant is not a new species no matter its ability to reproduce for it is a combination, not a deviance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?