Survival of the Fittest: An Interesting Side Effect of Death

SilenceInMotion said:

You don't have to observe macroevolution to know that it is a fact.

Click to expand...

Gotta love it. Science-lovers are always harping on theists that you can't *assume* God exists, can't *assume* the Bible is inspired.. but when it comes to evolution, suddenly, "oh, we just know," is an acceptable answer.

I see that there is no convincing YEC's.

Click to expand...

I'm quite willing to be convinced. However, you've brought nothing here but assumption. I see no reason to be convinced by such weak reasoning.

Arguing 'pics or didn't happen' is cheap and otherwise a gambit of denial.

Click to expand...

Lol, more nonsense. Asking a science-lover to scientifically prove their point is now a "gambit of denial"? Lol, priceless.

Papias said:

What? Macroevolution has been directly observed many times. One example is Culex pipiens, another is the evolution of a new species of apple maggot fly, nereid worm, and others. What usually happens in these discussions is when it is pointed out that macroevolution has been directly observed, and cases shown, the creationists usually just move the goalposts, asking for changes at higher taxonomic levels. It's like denying continental drift, and then when some motion is shown, moving the goalposts and demanding to see more than a 1 mile of movement.

Click to expand...

Lol, that's it? That's the proof?? Mosquitos becoming more mosquitos, worms becoming more worms, flies becoming more flies?? This is still microevolution. Moving the goalposts? No, that's just a weak excuse in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you're not even coming close to hitting the goalposts in the first place.

Thanks, Godel, for making my prediction come true, in record time.

Yep, that's moving the goalposts.

Macroevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Papias

P.S. Godel, was your grandfather born? Birth pics or it didn't happen.

SilenceInMotion said:

You all pretty much make God the author of confusion, because to blive everything was created in six days is complete lunacy.

Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it it true. No matter how much you point at Scripture, all you are really doing is pointing at your frustratingly dumbed down, literal, shallow view of it.

Should've known it was a mistake to even attempt to have an intelligible discussion, because there is nothing intelligible about young Earth creationism. People who labor under such delusions are impossible to speak to. I think that such claims of origins being literal is frankly an insult to Christianity.

Click to expand...

not that just i say this, but so it is written in the Bible, here is it:

Genesis 2:2-3 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested(ie and He has fallen into a state of somnolence) on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested(ie because that in it He has fallen into a state of somnolence) from all his work which God created and made."

if it was possible for you to build quite alone a whole skyscraper only for six days, then how much time would be needed for complete recovery of your expended/lost energy during the process of construction?!, maybe hundreds of days, or, hundred of years?!, but how many years would be needed for God to recover after the six-day period of universal creation?!, however the universe is quite large

Blessings

SilenceInMotion said:

It doesn't matter what I say, it will be responded with 'pics or it didn't happen'. I'm not running away from a question, I'm ignoring it because it's vain to respond.

Papias has stated the same thing I have, just in a much better analogy. You see the mechanism at work, see that it demands, and yet YEC's deny it.

If there is one thing YEC's shouldn't be doing, for the sake of their own standing, is acting as if they have some upper hand and approaching the debate like you have just done. If you can't show your interpretation of Scripture to be plausible, then you have already lost the argument.

Click to expand...

I see the same thing as you see: human mutates.
But I don't see human evolution. You do.
Where is the evolution of human? (don't show me those skulls. You know(?) it does not work).

Don't run away. This is an argument directly related to your OP. Face it like a man.

SilenceInMotion said:

For one, you sitting there telling me to 'face it like a man' is childish. There is nothing to face except you blinding yourself with your own blindfold.

I have given the mechanism, deduced the virtual certainty of evolution from it, and you are just sitting here saying 'pics or didn't happen'.

I have pretty much stated this like five times now and you keep doing it. How about just be a man and accept the fact that you haven't done much of anything on here except be vastly unreasonable and purposefully ignorant. Don't go trying to backlash me because of your shortcomings.

Click to expand...

Your last chance:

Human mutates, but human does not evolve.
So, the so-called "microevolution" does not necessary lead to "macroevolution".

Clear enough? If so, what is your argument?

SilenceInMotion said:

No, it is macroevolution. 'Species' is a different organism, it just doesn't resemble something too different at the first macro evolutionary jump. Eventually, these separate organisms brach out further, becoming less and less alike untl they exit their 'genus'. The easiest way to explain genus is that organisms of the same genus are alike enough to still mate.
After going passed that, they become completely distinct altogether, and only resemble each other as their general kind (insect, arachnid, etc.)

It just keeps going and going. This is the mechanism of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence of this, but you deny it because, well,
'pics or it didn't happen'.
That is why these debates get nowhere. YEC's are simply in a state of incurable denial.

Click to expand...

Evolutionary Theory: one cell critters > multi cell critters > small aquatic critters > amphibians > reptiles > birds > mammals .. etc (I know it's not exactly correct, just a broad generalization for demonstration purposes)

Your example: Mosquitos > more mosquitos; worms > more worms; flies > more flies …

You don't see the *huge* disparity between the two??

It's like the popular joke:
1. specified step 1
2. specified step 2
3. ????
4. Profit!!

Except now, with the "proof" of macroevolution you offer, we have:
1. Fully developed critter 1, produces more critter 1's
2. Fully developed critter 2 (no relation shown to critter 1), produces more critter 2's
3. ????
4. ????
5. - 100. ????
101. Macroevolution!!

.. and you act like presenting us with nothing more than the phrase "we know" is somehow a viable explanation of that huge gap.

You claim "overwhelming evidence" - great, that's exactly what I've been asking for you to provide, so it can't be that hard then for you to actually provide some of it.

SilenceInMotion said:

Genesis ... is poetic Jewish literature.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The Hebrew grammar used is that of narratives, not poetry. Hebrew poetry seldom if ever uses the Hebrew indicator for the direct object, whereas Genesis 1 & 2 do. There are other grammatical & syntactical forms there that are only found in Hebrew prose, not poetry.

You can try and claim the creation account is not literal if you wish, but it sure as heck is not "poetry".

Papias said:

Thanks, Godel, for making my prediction come true, in record time.

Yep, that's moving the goalposts.

Macroevolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt you can find a "scientific" definition that supports its own flaws. I think that's called circular reasoning.

P.S. Godel, was your grandfather born? Birth pics or it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

I have made no claims here whatsoever about my grandparents, so, this is irrelevant. Nor have I ever requested "pics" of macroevolution, so, good straw man you got yourself there. But I'd love to hear your logic and reasoning to support your claim that I didn't have grandparents.

Godel wrote:

Oh, I don't doubt you can find a "scientific" definition that supports its own flaws.

Click to expand...

When you discuss science, you use the definition of the word (heck, even in regular conversation, for that matter). That's why there are definitions. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to make up your own definitions.

You can try and claim the creation account is not literal if you wish, but it sure as heck is not "poetry".

Click to expand...

It is clear that Genesis is poetic text. Both Jewish scholars and Christian scholars (both protestant and Catholic, such as Bruce Waltke and Robert Alter, etc.) point out that it is poetic. Jewish literature, including the books found in most Bibles, include poetic structures like the parallelism found in Genesis and others. Jewish Poetic text isn't "100%" poetry vs "100%" prose, but mixes the two.

Here is a Jewish source that says that "It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. "

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I can supply other references too.

Nor have I ever requested "pics" of macroevolution, so, good straw man you got yourself there.

Click to expand...

Right, it wasn't you, it was some other creationist on this thread. You are right, it's a strawman. That's why SilenceinMotion objected to it.

You claim "overwhelming evidence" - great, that's exactly what I've been asking for you to provide, so it can't be that hard then for you to actually provide some of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do have overwhelming evidence for evolution. In fact, we have more and better evidence that we evolved than we have evidence that the American Civil War actually happened. It's not just fossils - that's what we often hear about, because it is simpler, but even if no fossil had ever been found, just one or another of the 29+ independent lines of evidnece, all of which don't just confirm evolution, but confirm the same family tree of life, would prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. heck, the 911 truthers have a stronger case than creationists, and most people recognize the 911 truthers as crackpots.

Because there is more evidence supporting evolution than a person could learn in a whole lifetime (and certainly more than I could type here), it might be useful to look at an overview. Maybe pick one of the areas and we can discuss it, since very few of us understand more than one or two areas, and no one - not even any single biologist, understands them all. Or even tell us which main area, Part 1, Part 5, etc, holds the most interest to you?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Papias

SilenceInMotion said:

No, it is macroevolution. 'Species' is a different organism, it just doesn't resemble something too different at the first macro evolutionary jump. Eventually, these separate organisms brach out further, becoming less and less alike untl they exit their 'genus'. The easiest way to explain genus is that organisms of the same genus are alike enough to still mate.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that isn't complete or always accurate. Sometimes members of a genus cannot mate.

The biological species concept states that a species is completely interfertile. That is, members of a sexually reproducing species do mate and produce completely fertile offspring.

Reproductive isolation -- not mating -- consists of several steps and types:
"Classification of Isolating Mechanisms
1. Premating or prezygotic mechanisms: Mechanisms that prevent interspecific matings.
(a) Potential mates are prevented from meeting (seasonal and habitat isolation)
(b) Behavioral incompatibilities prevent mating (ethological isolation)<BR>
(c) Copulation attempted but no transfer of sperm takes place (mechanical isolation)

2. Postmating or postzygotic mechanisms:
Mechanisms that reduce full success of interspecific crosses
(a) Sperm transfer takes place but egg not fertilized (gametic incompatibility)
(b) Egg fertilized but zygote dies (zygotic mortality)
(c) Zygote develops into an F1 hybrid of reduced viability (hybrid viability)
(d) F1 hybrid is fully viable but partially or completely sterile, or produces deficient F2 (hybrid sterility)
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is pg 171

Usually the first step is behavioral and the populations simply do not mate. When that happens, they are already separate species. Now, if you artificially inseminated them at this point, they might produce viable offspring. That is, offspring that can live. Perhaps even artificial insemmination of those offspring back to the parent populations would produce living offspring. Maybe not.

As time goes by, there are genes that code for hybrid fertility and mutations in these genes mean that even artificial insemination is going to produce a sterile offspring.

That correction aside, what you are trying to say is correct: our classification scheme is simply groups of species. So, once you have speciation, you have all of evolution. Getting to a new genus, then a new family, then a new order, a new phylum, even a new kingdom is simply lots of speciation events spread out thru time. No mystery, but just the same processes that produce a new species from an existing one.

Godel said:

No, it's not.

The Hebrew grammar used is that of narratives, not poetry.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the entire Torah is poetry, with rhythm. The proof of this is that it is still sung today in synagogue every Sabbath. Also, Genesis 3:14-18 is an even tighter poem. And does it also not use "the Hebrew indicator for the direct object"

It's more free verse than a specific rhyme scheme, but it is poetry.

The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are indeed figurative, not narrative history. Genesis 2-3 is clearly at least partly allegory. However, both creation stories are theological documents. Genesis 1 is directed at debunking the Babylonian pantheon. Genesis 2-3 debunks critical parts of the contemporary Egyptian religion.

Godel said:

Evolutionary Theory: one cell critters > multi cell critters > small aquatic critters > amphibians > reptiles > birds > mammals .. etc (I know it's not exactly correct, just a broad generalization for demonstration purposes)

Your example: Mosquitos > more mosquitos; worms > more worms; flies > more flies &#8230;

You don't see the *huge* disparity between the two??

Click to expand...

I see the discrepancy you would like to make. Look at the categories you post: aMosquitoes are a Family, reptilesw, birds, mammals are Classes. Worms are a Phylum. You need many, many speciation events to produce differences large enough to be those levels of taxonomy. BUT, it is inevitable once you have speciation, since those groups (worms, mosquitoes, flies) you use are simply large groups of species. When you get examples of speciation, of course you are going to get short term examples where the time is too short to produce anything but a new genus at most, and usually new species.

However, there are parts of the fossil record that are fine enough to show lots of individuals and the transition, by individuals, to new species but also to new higher taxa, even up to new Classes. So here is a list of references that document series of transitional individuals from species to species to species to the higher taxa level you are looking for:
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years.&nbsp; Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Now, this is going to require some effort on your part. Notice the dates. That's how long the evidence has been known. Most of these are not on the internet. You are going to have to find the old-fashioned paper copy, which means you are going to have to go to a university-level library. I found all of them in the State University of New York at Albany library. So I've seen them. You can too.

There are some websites that will walk you through transitional series connecting one Class to another and one Phyla to another. This is by a series of transitional species. Often there are transitional individuals connecting the species.
Fossil Horses FAQs
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller

Have fun.

SilenceInMotion said:

Imagine how many souls out there walk without God because YEC's make a big deal out of what is worthless to salvation anyway? Have some accountability. You didn't see the Catholic Church making a big deal about it in the 1800's, and yet you fundamentalists go and jump right off the edge about it.

Click to expand...

Creationism survived origins theories such as spontaneous generation, and the soul's command of the physical body's activities endures. So Darwinism and abiogenesis shouldn't be seen as too much of a problem "for salvation."

Greg1234 said:

So Darwinism and abiogenesis shouldn't be seen as too much of a problem "for salvation."

Click to expand...

Darwinism and abiogenesis aren't a problem for salvation. But creationism is a huge problem for salvation. It places a human, literal reading of Genesis above God. Basically, it breaks the 1st Commandment.

It also pits God vs God. In that confrontation, God can only lose. Which means that people seeking God for salvation can't find Him, because creationism has made sure God loses, and thus people turn away from salvation.

Yes, creationism has survived. It was gone by 1880 but a few die-hard individuals dug in their heels and brought it back with The Fundamentals. It was on the ropes again in the early 1960s, but Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham and some others kept pushing it. It's truly amazing sometimes how people can keep up the push for rejecting God. Makes me wonder if Satan really isn't as powerful as God. How else can you account for the perseverance of such a wrong doctrine as creationism? Despite all the evidence God gave us that it is wrong.