Observed Speciation

[lucaspa]

Not me, your the one that is trying to twist the word of God and claim that it is saying something that it does not say at all.

John, most of the Church Fathers were flat earthers. They thought the Bible said the earth was flat.

The OT says in plain Hebrew that the earth does not move: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5.

There are people today that argue geocentrism based on those verses. Are you one of them? No, you reinterpreted those verses based on extrabiblical knowledge. You are one of the "twisters" you refer to.

 

[JSynon]

If you are a Christian, why bother so much with evolution? Why does it matter to you? Why do you not focus on the teachings of God?

Edit: Wow, sorry for bringing this thread back up from so long ago. Didn't realize how old it was.

 

[JohnR7]

John, most of the Church Fathers were flat earthers.

That is just another myth with no foundation in facts or the real world.

 

[ForeRunner]

If you are a Christian, why bother so much with evolution? Why does it matter to you?:

Dr. Lucas, who authored the OP is a biologist and all of his work has its basis in evolution. I'd say something that is the basis for your lifes work would be rather important.

 

[JohnR7]

no john, politics and greed will bring about the destruction of mankind. science will merely make it ruthlessly efficient.

I think that the end of this age will be just like it was in that tidel wave in Asia. It will come very rapidly with little or no warning. People will just disappear and their family will not know what happened to them.

 

[JSynon]

Dr. Lucas, who authored the OP is a biologist and all of his work has its basis in evolution. I'd say something that is the basis for your lifes work would be rather important.

Of course your lifes work is important to you. However, as a Christian I just don't see the point of another Christian trying to prove macro evolution. That time and effort could be spent spreading the Gospel or doing something else edifying to the glory of God, ya know? That's all I'm saying. For the Christian, when all is said and done, does evolution really matter?

 

[gluadys]

Of course your lifes work is important to you. However, as a Christian I just don't see the point of another Christian trying to prove macro evolution. That time and effort could be spent spreading the Gospel or doing something else edifying to the glory of God, ya know? That's all I'm saying. For the Christian, when all is said and done, does evolution really matter?

I take it you are not a Calvinist.

Calvin would recognize that a Christian biologist studying evolution is fulfilling the vocation he was called to and therefore is doing something edifying to the glory of God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course your lifes work is important to you. However, as a Christian I just don't see the point of another Christian trying to prove macro evolution. That time and effort could be spent spreading the Gospel or doing something else edifying to the glory of God, ya know? That's all I'm saying. For the Christian, when all is said and done, does evolution really matter?

It shouldn't.

But fundamentalists have tied Christianity and Jesus' message of salvation to their own poor interpretation of science: YEC. In so doing, they have not only pressed bad science as a salvation issue, which it isn't, but they've demonized good science (evolution) as the "enemy," which it also isn't.

Clearing up mistakes and misrepresentations which bring shame and ridicule onto their faith should be a concern of every Christian, should it not?

 

[JSynon]

Clearing up mistakes and misrepresentations which bring shame and ridicule onto their faith should be a concern of every Christian, should it not?

I can accept that answer, if that is the motive.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I can accept that answer, if that is the motive.

I haven't seen lucaspa around in a while, but there's no doubt he is a devoted Christian.

 

[ForeRunner]

Of course your lifes work is important to you. However, as a Christian I just don't see the point of another Christian trying to prove macro evolution. That time and effort could be spent spreading the Gospel or doing something else edifying to the glory of God, ya know? That's all I'm saying. For the Christian, when all is said and done, does evolution really matter?

If I recall correctly Dr. Lucas works in adult stem cell research, so basically his life's work is trying to find the cure for a number of horrible, painful, and very deadly diseases.

A man with Dr. Lucas' intelligence and work ethic (like many researchers) could certainly have gone into a field where he likely become rich and powerful. Insead he chooses to devote his life to trying to cure the sick.

Sounds like God's work to me.

 

[Alchemist]

That is just another myth with no foundation in facts or the real world.

Have you read the verses lucaspa referenced? If one can honestly say that they would not indicate a flat earth, and a non-moving flat earth at that, based on an unadulterated literal reading, then I'm missing something...

1 Chronicles 16:30
'Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved'.

Job 26:7
'He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Psalm 93:1
'... the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.'

John, one is a literalist or they are not. If you do not think that the earth is a flat, non-spherical piece of rock which cannot be moved, around which the sun and the stars rotate, then you are not a literalist, and you are doing exactly the same thing which you accuse us of doing: apparently 'twisting' Scripture based on extra-Biblical knowledge. Can you truthfully tell me that you do not do this?

 

[Imblessed]

At what point does speciation prove evolution theory. all the examples show a organism change into a different type of the same thing. it never shows structures forming that would be used later in a completly different organism. reptile to mammal. There is not structual changes in speciation. Is there changes in the blood type, breathing struture, bone structure, muscle structure ect. If evolution takes millions of years we should see a lot more axtra structures or such in animals because evolution should never stop or happen in all animals at the same rate or time. So there should be many animals that have useless structures or ones out of place with the rest of there structures. But we find all animals are fine tuned and all structures are used.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Is there changes in the blood type, breathing struture, bone structure, muscle structure ect.

Yes. Here is a series of reptile-to-mammal fossils that show the migration of reptilian jaw components into the inner ear of mammals. Go here for more detail on this.

So there should be many animals that have useless structures or ones out of place with the rest of there structures.

And there are. Such useless structures that are remnants of distant ancestors are called vestigial structures. Snakes and whales have vestigial legs, humans have a vestigal tail and stomach, and blind cave salamanders have vestigial eyes. Humans also extra molars called wisdom teeth. They are too far back in the jaw to be useful in chewing, so their only function today seems to be to get in the way of other teeth and to cause infection (and to help dentists pay for a boat), however in our earlier hominid ancestors who had larger jaw those extra molars may have been quite useful. Go here for more on vestigial structures.

 

[Imblessed]

Yes. Here is a series of reptile-to-mammal fossils that show the migration of reptilian jaw components into the inner ear of mammals. Go here for more detail on this.

And there are. Such useless structures that are remnants of distant ancestors are called vestigial structures. Snakes and whales have vestigial legs, humans have a vestigal tail and stomach, and blind cave salamanders have vestigial eyes. Humans also extra molars called wisdom teeth. They are too far back in the jaw to be useful in chewing, so their only function today seems to be to get in the way of other teeth and to cause infection (and to help dentists pay for a boat), however in our earlier hominid ancestors who had larger jaw those extra molars may have been quite useful. Go here for more on vestigial structures.

Vestigials are not that they are used still and if you seriously studied that you would see that they are used. as for molars, i guess that when people get sick with desieses that that is also a trait from way back when, or when people grow exta fingers or toes. or when some men have a ton of hair all over them this is because apes have hair on them or at least the huminods or what ever. keep dreaming. your ear bone structure is getting old. Its not that good of a example and filled in were parts decomposed and you go from one fully function to another fully function. Of course to your liking thats the only way for it to work. It has to go from one structure to the next in one swell swoop to work and not hender its function thus hindering its ability to get a mate and reproduce and pass it on.Your find what fits and if it doesnt fit your make it look like it will. Just because you can throw out silly things as this you think we will be convinced. You can interpert the fossils how you want. its all ideological interpretation. as in your interpreate it in the way your preconseved ideaology allow you to. If your convinced that evolution is true and your looking for evidence your look untill you think you have found a source and use it. you will not use stuff found that does not conform to your thinking because it does not fit and is therefore useless to interperet your idea.

 

[caravelair]

Vestigials are not that they are used still and if you seriously studied that you would see that they are used.

if you had seriously studied you would know that vestigial does not mean "useless", it means "reduced or rudimentary structure compared to the same structure found in other organisms", or something along those lines. the fact that something has a use does not mean it's not vestigial. otriches use their wings in mating rituals, but they don't use them to fly. hence, they are vestigial.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Vestigials are not that they are used still...

I did not say that. The diagram is to answer your request for evidence of changes in bone structure.

as for molars, i guess that when people get sick with desieses that that is also a trait from way back when, or when people grow exta fingers or toes. or when some men have a ton of hair all over them this is because apes have hair on them or at least the huminods or what ever.

What do molars have to do with disease or body hair?

You asked for examples of vestigial structures and I gave some. I also gave a link based on published scientific research documenting many, many other vestigial structures. If you have no intention of accepting such evidence no matter how good it is, then just say so and be done with it. Don't continue with this charade of asking questions you don't really want an answer to. It is dishonest.

keep dreaming. your ear bone structure is getting old. Its not that good of a example and filled in were parts decomposed and you go from one fully function to another fully function.

It's good enough to be published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals. Got any creationist evidence that can claim the same?

It has to go from one structure to the next in one swell swoop to work and not hender its function thus hindering its ability to get a mate and reproduce and pass it on.

No, it does not. This is the irreducible complexity canard that has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature.

Your find what fits and if it doesnt fit your make it look like it will. Just because you can throw out silly things as this you think we will be convinced.

Yes, it was probably naive of me to think that documented scientific evidence would carry any weight with the likes of you. My bad.

You can interpert the fossils how you want. its all ideological interpretation. as in your interpreate it in the way your preconseved ideaology allow you to.

It's also a way of interpreting the evidence that allows us to make accurate predictions. Tell me, how can evolutionary theory make accurate predictions if it's just ideological bunk?

If your convinced that evolution is true and your looking for evidence your look untill you think you have found a source and use it. you will not use stuff found that does not conform to your thinking because it does not fit and is therefore useless to interperet your idea.

This is hysterically funny given the fact that you just rejected published scientific evidence out of hand because it provided support for evolution and against creation.

Show me one piece of evidence against evolution (and which therefore does not conform to my way of thinking) that has been documented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[michabo]

Vestigials are not that they are used still and if you seriously studied that you would see that they are used.

A vestigial structure is one that is necessary in ancestors, but not in us. Molars are a good example, but there are many, many others. Just sticking with humans, we have muscles which move our ears (very useful for animals which can rotate their ears to detect predators or prey, useless in us except as a party trick); goosebumps (which would serve to increase insulation in animals which still have a pelt, but is no longer functional in humans); molars (useful for animals with larger jaws, but useless for us); tails (some children are born with tails, and everyone still has the bone structures).

When we look into the animal kingdom, we can see many, many others. Whales with legs and finger bones; flightless beetles with wings sealed in their carapace; blind animals which grow non-functional eyes beneath a layer of skin, or no longer have eyes but still have an optic nerve; and on and on.

your ear bone structure is getting old. Its not that good of a example and filled in were parts decomposed and you go from one fully function to another fully function.

The ear bone example is old, yes, but very important. As you know, one of the traits which distinguish reptiles from mammals is our ears and jaws. When we present the movement of some jaw bones to our inner ear, we are not presenting the development of some tiny bones, we are presenting the development of the first mammal!

It has to go from one structure to the next in one swell swoop to work and not hender its function

And yes, at all stages these bones must be functional. What has happened is that some structures served multiple purposes, and over time one purpose was used less, and the other used more. Evolution does not say that change is abrupt and dramatic. If that should happen, that would actually disprove evolution.

you will not use stuff found that does not conform to your thinking because it does not fit and is therefore useless to interperet your idea.

There are no bad examples, only examples which I am not as familliar with. As someone said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

your ear bone structure is getting old. Its not that good of a example and filled in were parts decomposed and you go from one fully function to another fully function. Of course to your liking thats the only way for it to work. It has to go from one structure to the next in one swell swoop to work and not hender its function thus hindering its ability to get a mate and reproduce and pass it on.Your find what fits and if it doesnt fit your make it look like it will.

What these skulls show is the transition from a reptilian jaw joint to a mammalian jaw joint .. in fact, the middle skull has BOTH types of jaw joints.. if that is not a transitional, then please tell us what one would look like.

Just because you can throw out silly things as this you think we will be convinced. You can interpert the fossils how you want. its all ideological interpretation. as in your interpreate it in the way your preconseved ideaology allow you to. If your convinced that evolution is true and your looking for evidence your look untill you think you have found a source and use it. you will not use stuff found that does not conform to your thinking because it does not fit and is therefore useless to interperet your idea.

You are assuming that because creationist "scientists" operate this way, that mainstream scientists do the same things. Sorry, but this is incorrect. I know you want every opinion based on the evidence (or some of the evidence in the case of Creationists) to be equal in weight, but they are not. In science some theories are really better than others. The parity you desire is neither earned nor deserved.

 

[Imblessed]

if you had seriously studied you would know that vestigial does not mean "useless", it means "reduced or rudimentary structure compared to the same structure found in other organisms", or something along those lines. the fact that something has a use does not mean it's not vestigial. otriches use their wings in mating rituals, but they don't use them to fly. hence, they are vestigial.

They are used in mating so they are not vestigials. period why do they have to be used for flying. what about pengiuns. are they vestigials.