The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Job 33:6]

Wow, I'd forgotten all about 'canopy theory'. I seem to remember Hovind advocating for that back in the day. Although I've noticed Hovind-style arguments have fallen out of favor which is probably not a surprise given his imprisonment.

What is canopy theory?

 

[Job 33:6]

It is interesting that this matter is discussed in Chapter 3 of Donald R. Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. On pages 78-80 the author explains Ernst Mayr's 'allopatric speciation model' in which 'small isolated populations on the fringes of the main population [are] the likeliest sources of new species.' This model is now generally accepted by biologists.

In 1972 Eldredge and Gould applied the allopatric speciation model to the fossil record, and found that if it is correct scientists should 'not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, they would expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation event. In other words, they would appear suddenly in the fossil record', exactly as is observed.

You ought to read the book; it would help you to understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.

Just finished one of Gould's books earlier today. Prothero is another favorite author of mine. Glad to hear that others read their works.

 

[John Bowen]

Creationists often demand evidence for fossil transitions to "prove" evolution. But I've noticed a pattern when presented with evidence for these requests:

1) If it's a finely graduated transition within a specific group of organisms then it's simply accepted as evolution within a "kind".

2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".

Basically, there's no way to satisfy these kind of demands because creationists will always reject connecting graduated transitions to transitions across higher taxa. It effect they've left themselves an automatic "out" when it comes to accepting or rejecting fossil evidence and reconciling that evidence within their existing belief system.

The theory of evolution been disproved by Quantum Physics and 80 yrs of experiments to prove its correct.It hasn't become mainstream in the education institutions. Because they have build up this false ideology around evolution.And because Quantum Physics is such a radical idea people cant understand it yet.Even though Jesus Christ taught it 2000 yrs ago in a veiled form.

 

[pitabread]

The theory of evolution been disproved by Quantum Physics

No.

 

[Shemjaza]

The theory of evolution been disproved by Quantum Physics and 80 yrs of experiments to prove its correct.It hasn't become mainstream in the education institutions. Because they have build up this false ideology around evolution.And because Quantum Physics is such a radical idea people cant understand it yet.Even though Jesus Christ taught it 2000 yrs ago in a veiled form.

How so?

 

[pitabread]

The first time a population emerges from another population that it cannot procreate with, it has violated the "ITS OWN KIND" stipulation.

You normally equate "kind" with genus, but now you appear to be arguing it means species. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[pitabread]

What is canopy theory?

It's the idea that pre-Flood the Earth was surrounded by a water vapor canopy. It's a way of explaining where some of the Flood waters came from. It's also been used to try to explain a pre-Flood climate and ecosystem. Hovind would even equate it to living in a hyperbaric chamber and suggested this is why people lived longer back then.

It's not a very popular idea even among creationists. I believe that even Answers in Genesis rejects it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You normally equate "kind" with genus, but now you appear to be arguing it means species. You're contradicting yourself.

Kind is genus is kind.

IF a zebra and a horse are both in the same genus (and they are; I looked it up before I made that post) ... but if the zebra and the horse are in the same genus, then one of two things:

1. God doesn't want them procreating, so they can't.
2. Taxonomists have them in the same genus, but they need to be in different genuses.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a very popular idea even among creationists. I believe that even Answers in Genesis rejects it.

According to Genesis 1, a cache of water was taken into space somewhere (moon, Mars, wherever).

 

[Astrophile]

What's your definition of "transitional"?

The same as Wikipedia's: 'A transitional fossil is any fossilised remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil. Later in the same paragraph, the article explains that 'Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups'.

I'm not sure I understand. Why aren't fossils of the large non-isolated populations within the main population equally preserved?

They are, and, so far as I understand it, that is the whole point of the allopatric speciation model. Fossils are preserved from the large non-isolated central populations, but because these populations are not the source of new species, their fossil record is one of evolutionary stasis. This, again, is what is observed; for the most part the fossil record, which is the record of the large non-isolated populations, shows little or no change in an individual species or genus from its first appearance to its extinction.

 

[pitabread]

Kind is genus is kind.

You are aware that not all creationists agree to this definition though and that many seem to include broader inclusion of multiple genera in a single "kind".

IF a zebra and a horse are both in the same genus (and they are; I looked it up before I made that post) ... but if the zebra and the horse are in the same genus, then one of two things:

1. God doesn't want them procreating, so they can't.
2. Taxonomists have them in the same genus, but they need to be in different genuses.

Then does it have to do with reproducing or not? Because you previously argued that if a we observe speciation (i.e. a single breeding population diverging into two or more isolated breeding populations) then that is not allowed. Which would suggest that you are trying to argue against speciation and therefore arguing that "kinds" would fall under species.

But you're back to claiming kind = genus which means each kind would include potentially more than one species regardless of whether they can reproduce.

This is the problem with nebulous terminology and not having consistent biological criteria to go by.

 

[Valetic]

You are aware that not all creationists agree to this definition though?



Then does it have to do with reproducing or not? Because you previously argued that if a we observe speciation (i.e. a single breeding population diverging into two or more isolated breeding populations) then that is not allowed. Which would suggest that you are trying to argue against speciation and therefore arguing that "kinds" would fall under species.

But you're back to claiming kind = genus which means each kind would include potentially more than one species regardless of whether they can reproduce.

This is the problem with nebulous terminology and not having consistent biological criteria to go by.

I think the point is this.

Who is man to define what a kind is? Or who is man to define what genus each animal goes in?

In the bible, man had dominion over the plants, animals, and earth when God created Adam.

And the only thing Adam did was name each animal, not scientifically categorize them.

 

[pitabread]

I think the point is this.

Who is man to define what a kind is?

Creationists keep trying to argue there are biological barriers of evolution associated with whatever a "kind" is supposed to be. Thus they're the ones trying to define it.

Or who is man to define what genus each animal goes in?

In the bible, man had dominion over the plants, animals, and earth when God created Adam.

And the only thing Adam did was name each animal, not scientifically categorize them.

We scientifically categorize animals to make it easier to identify and study them. It's mostly just for human convenience.

Nature doesn't have categories.

 

[Valetic]

Creationists keep trying to argue there are biological barriers of evolution associated with whatever a "kind" is supposed to be. Thus they're the ones trying to define it.



We scientifically categorize animals to make it easier to identify and study them. It's mostly just for human convenience.

Nature doesn't have categories.

Imo it should be the opposite. We don't decide what reproduces with what. God does, and He did through the intricate design of the universe and all of the laws in it.

Idk what a kind is, all I know is a cat can't reproduce with a dog and a horse can't reproduce with a monkey. They're all different kinds of animals obviously. Some creatures share very close similarities yet can't reproduce while others don't share as many yet they can reproduce. Regardless, the way I see it, they're all about the same kind.

Matthew 18:3 "Truly I tell you," he said, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

[AV1611VET]

Then does it have to do with reproducing or not?

Yes, it does.

A coyote produces what? wolves and domestic dogs and dingos? (I think.)

But wolves can't mate with tigers ... which are outside of their kind.

For an animal to be a "kind," it has to come from its own lineage.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, it does.

A coyote produces what? wolves and domestic dogs and dingos? (I think.)

But wolves can't mate with tigers ... which are outside of their kind.

For an animal to be a "kind," it has to come from its own lineage.

You're still contradicting yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists keep trying to argue there are biological barriers of evolution associated with whatever a "kind" is supposed to be.

What's wrong with that?

 

[pitabread]

What's wrong with that?

Because they're bad at it. Nobody has ever demonstrated what creationists keep claiming. Hence, why it seems every creationist has their own definition of what a "kind" is. And in some cases, more than one definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're still contradicting yourself.

Either that, or you're not listening.

And guess which one I think it is?

Kind is genus.

I can't make it any simpler.

Maybe that's why you don't understand?

Science has a way of messing things up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they're bad at it. Nobody has ever demonstrated what creationists keep claiming. Hence, why it seems every creationist has their own definition of what a "kind" is. And in some cases, more than one definition.

Then don't worry about it.