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.
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.
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.
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.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
How so?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.
The first time a population emerges from another population that it cannot procreate with, it has violated the "ITS OWN KIND" stipulation.
What is canopy theory?
Kind is genus is kind.You normally equate "kind" with genus, but now you appear to be arguing it means species. You're contradicting yourself.
According to Genesis 1, a cache of water was taken into space somewhere (moon, Mars, wherever).It's not a very popular idea even among creationists. I believe that even Answers in Genesis rejects it.
What's your definition of "transitional"?
I'm not sure I understand. Why aren't fossils of the large non-isolated populations within the main population equally preserved?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it does.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.
What's wrong with that?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?
Either that, or you're not listening.You're still contradicting yourself.
Then don't worry about it.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.
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?