the PROOF is in the ........pudding???......

[cleft_for_me]

1. Environments change over time.

2. Allele frequency changes in animals occur over time. Simple variations during meiosis are usually responsible.

3. Some of the combinations of traits resulting from allele the changes allow the animals that have the combinations to survive more frequently and procreate more frequently.

4. Through genetics, the traits that work best in the environment in question are passed down to the offspring of the animals that have them. (Offspring occur more frequently for these animals, remember)

5. Since there are now more animals alive who possess the beneficial combination of genes, they too have more offspring, and before long almost the entire population has the change.

6. If the animals are suited to the environment, no additional change will occur, because no group will procreate more frequently than the majority group that now exists.

7. If the animals are not suited well enough for their environment, positive change will continue. Lasting negative change will not occur because those members of the population who have the more negative gene combinations will not consistently outlast the members who have the positive combinations.

8. If a change is neutral, some of the population will have it but others won't. (Example: eye color in humans. There is no real advantage to having one eyecolor over another, so the trait is not selected out as people with all different eye colors can see equally well on average)

9. Positive changes will build up over time as more positive variations present themselves in the population.

10. Eventually, with so many differences between members of a species who live in one type of environment, and those members of the same species that live in a different environment, the two groups will no longer have enough in common physically to produce fertile offspring. By definition, this constitutes the formation of a new species.

Well, there you have it, ten things that will never be disproved. The reason that I can be so confident is that the ten steps listed above are really just an example of cause and effect. There is simply no way that they could not happen given the occurrence of items number 1 and 2 in the list. Unless you dispute that environments change and variations occur during procreation, the rest must logically stem from that.

Hey guys. I know I said in my last post that I was very pressed for time at the end of my school quarter's weeks, but I saw a couple topics that moved me to post again. (So I guess don't panic if I don't reply at a decent time)

Anyways.

danaman5 , nice name.

I don't know where you got this info from, but I think that with a few of them you are correct. Absolutely there are changes within a species. That would explain why there are so many variations of canines, cats, moths, it is endless. I need to point out here that there is plenty of evidence for microevolution. However, have you checked out, I mean deeply/thoroughly checked out all the evidences is for macroevolution (change from one species to another)? Have you looked into the recordings of how "ape-men" were discovered? If you have though, what do you think about the evidences presented and their reliabilty to strongly support the theory of macroevolution? Interesting subject by the way.

 

[caravelair]

However, have you checked out, I mean deeply/thoroughly checked out all the evidences is for macroevolution (change from one species to another)?

we have directly observed speciation (change from one species to another) many times. see this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

and apart from that, there are many strong evidences for macroevolution and common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[jobob]

Have you bothered to learn any science? Certainly doesn't seem so from your postings.

Hypocrite much?

Thats right............ as usual ANYONE who doesnt agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of evidence is immediatlely incorrect

You folks say you dont have ABSOLUTE PROOF, yet if we prefer to draw our own conclusions from the data we're NOT listening and learning from science.......

My assertion will remain the not one single evolutionsist will EVER know what they believe as science is constantly changing.........

All you folks know is what youre told on a day to day basis and who knows what that will be tomorrow

 

[Physics_guy]

Thats right............ as usual ANYONE who doesnt agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of evidence is immediatlely incorrect

You folks say you dont have ABSOLUTE PROOF, yet if we prefer to draw our own conclusions from the data we're NOT listening and learning from science.......

My assertion will remain the not one single evolutionsist will EVER know what they believe as science is constantly changing.........

All you folks know is what youre told on a day to day basis and who knows what that will be tomorrow

Umm, learn to read. John seems to think that all here that disagree with him have not tried to understand the Bible. I asked if he has tried to learn any science - which he hasn't. THat is what is called being hypocritical.

Oh, and I personally much prefer having a flexible knowledge base to the immutable, dogmatism that you are expousing. I know you find your beliefs comforting, because they require little work or study, but I prefer putting out a little more sweat in studying the Universe. To each his own though.

 

[Physics_guy]

Sure, I learned a little bit of science when I was in the 6 grade. Do you want to have a conversation about science?

So, you feel it is right to castigate others for not studying your religious texts, yet you feel that expending any effort to learn any science since the 6th grade is unimportant. Sorry, but that is the definition of hypocritical.

Introspection is sometimes a useful tool - use it and you may find that you need to adjust your attitudes every once in a while.

 

[Physics_guy]

I notice a lot of things.
For example. I notice that you need to grow up and quit acting so immature.
You must get along great with your students, your right at their level.

Wow, now that was a mature answer for a 52 year old. They say as senility kicks in, a childlike persona often becomes noticable.

 

[cleft_for_me]

we have directly observed speciation (change from one species to another) many times. see this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

and apart from that, there are many strong evidences for macroevolution and common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Hey.

Thanks for the info. That is quite a bibliography! I have also read the article you mentioned. I know that there is no single objective definition of the species barrier. It is noted that biologists use about a half-dozen or so definitions. I should not have used the term 'species' then. I did not realize your definition until I read through the examples,.. my bad.

Regardless, this is what I've found:

Instead of small changes accumulating and resulting in large changes (for example, a pigeon to a dog, or a dog to a horse), the small changes appear to be bounded. It is change within limits. Fruitflies is one example in your bibliography. Flour beetles, the apple magot fly, or even the horse and the mule. In that sense, absolutely speciation takes place; but, it is change within limits. Darwin knew this when he bred pigeons and made it his business to understand "state-of-the-art animal husbandry and breeding," which is change within limits. As Ph.D. earning student in biophysics of Univ. Illinois explains his findings on the limitations in small-scale evolution:

"There seems to be an internal balance of pressures--a restoring action in the genetic system--and it is not clear that small-scale change can actually lead to the large-scale change required by evolution. This is ironic, since nature provides us with seemingly endless examples of variety. Species fill every niche and come in all shapes and sizes, yet there seems to be a barrier that inhibits the movement of any one species too far from its own design."

 

[JohnR7]

So, you feel it is right to castigate others for not studying your religious texts,

Try and keep up with the conversation guy. People who have advanced degrees in science come here and belittle us for not having any knowledge in science. But they often know nothing about the Bible. If for arguements sake lets say I have a sixth grade level of understanding of Science. There are even more people who only have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible.

Actually, most christians have maybe a 8 th grade level of understanding about science. That is a lot higher of a understanding level than what a lot of non christians have in their understanding of the Bible.

I know you find your beliefs comforting, because they require little work or study

No work or study, yeah right. Did you just get off of the boat? Are you new here?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I notice a lot of things.
For example. I notice that you need to grow up and quit acting so immature.
You must get along great with your students, your right at their level.

As I suspected... nothing useful to add.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thats right............ as usual ANYONE who doesnt agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of evidence is immediatlely incorrect

Hypocrite much, Mr. Infallible Interpretation of Genesis?

You folks say you dont have ABSOLUTE PROOF, yet if we prefer to draw our own conclusions from the data we're NOT listening and learning from science.......

Except that you're not drawing conclusions; you had your conclusions long before you ever saw the data...

My assertion will remain the not one single evolutionsist will EVER know what they believe as science is constantly changing.........

We believe in what is we think is correct until someone comes along and proves it wrong. By your own words, you've admitted you won't do that.

All you folks know is what youre told on a day to day basis and who knows what that will be tomorrow

It's called "learning." Why laugh at that?

 

[Smidlee]

The cosmology of the Bible is that of the Babylonians, which had a flat earth with a vault for "heaven". As such, the cosmology is embedded in several passages of the OT. These are: Genesis 1:2-8, Genesis 7:12, Isaiah 40:21-22, Job 22:14, Job 37:18, and finally Daniel 4:11. The passage in Daniel can only be literally true if the earth is flat, otherwise the view is impossible on a spherical earth. Isaiah 40:22 refers to the earth as a circle, but I remind you that a circle still lies all in one plane and is flat and in Isaiah is the word "ball" for a round object! Finally, there are astronomical sections in the noncanonical but influential Book of Enoch that refer to the earth as flat.

These passages led early Church fathers like Lactantius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria to be flat-earthers. About 550 AD Cosmas Indicopleustes published Christian Topography that explicitly spelled out a flat earth.

So, taking the Bible only, it says flat earth. What you have done is so accepted the extrabiblical knowlege and so completely re-interpreted the passages non-literally that you have forgotten that this is what you have done. So, if you can do that for flat earth, why not for Genesis 1-3?

The Bible states in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. And there are still Christians around today that argue from that the earth is the center of the solar system!

First it been noted that the "flat earth" wasn't a widely accepted by the church most loved to claim.It was pretty well known to the first church knew the Greeks learned about the earth was a globe and only a few powerful men who rejected Greek science basicly forced the "flat earth" idea.It like judging all christians today only by what the Pope said when clearly there many christians who disagree with the Pope. Also you have fail to let scriptures interpret scriptures.
1) First Daniel 4:11 is clearly a dream just like the one pharaoh had with the thin cows eating up the fat cows which not surpose to be taken literally. So Never assume things in dream should be taken literally but has to be interpreted.it like saying the Bible claims a cow is a meat eater.

2) there is some words you never see in the KJV bible that common today: continent, oceans, planet ,etc. so you have to understand by studing what words would be use instead. Genesis 1:10 is a very key verse "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:..." This plainly shows that the word earth often referes to dry land or what we call "continents" today when the is a few places it could refer to the PLANET Earth as we think of today. it just like the word "day" which could mean the 24 hour day or the daylight part of the day which depends on how the word "day " is uses.
It seems to me because you used Daniel 4:11 to say the bible teaches "flat earth" when anyone who even read this book will know this is a dream of Nebuchadnezzar also the fail to read Genesis 1:10 shows me you are just quoting what someone else said and haven't even took the time to study the bible for yourself.

 

[JohnR7]

First it been noted that the "flat earth" wasn't a widely accepted by the church

Amen, this is a fraud propitiated against the Church. There are those on this board who delight in spreading this misinformation and continue to propitiate this fraud. All the time accusing people like Dr. Dino of being a huckster and peddling nonsense.

What a awesome first post Smidlee, your off to a good start. Now we will see if the skeptics and the scoffers chase you off. Even I admit it is not worth the time and the trouble to argue with them.

 

[JohnR7]

I asked if he has tried to learn any science - which he hasn't. THat is what is called being hypocritical.

Not what you call science. But you have not tried to learn any true science either, so we are even. That means if I am a being hyprcritical, then your being just as hyprcritical. As I have said, whatever you judge me of, you are guilty of. If you were not a hyprocrite, then you would not be accusing me of being one.

 

[JohnR7]

As I suspected... nothing useful to add.

Actually, I was just going to ask you if you had anything of any value to add to the conversation.

 

[Big Phil]

Not what you call science. But you have not tried to learn any true science either, so we are even. That means if I am a being hyprcritical, then your being just as hyprcritical. As I have said, whatever you judge me of, you are guilty of. If you were not a hyprocrite, then you would not be accusing me of being one.

Just out of interest what is "true science"

 

[JohnR7]

Just out of interest what is "true science"

Science that reflects the truth and not error.

 

[Tomk80]

Science that reflects the truth and not error.

And in what way do we know what truth and error is? How do you want to determine that?

 

[JohnR7]

And in what way do we know what truth and error is? How do you want to determine that?

The Spirit of Truth guides us and leads us into all truth. The KJV calls Him the Holy Ghost. The proper term in modern language should be the Person of the Holy Spirit. He has a personality and is not just a power or a force.

John 16:13
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey.
(snip)
Instead of small changes accumulating and resulting in large changes (for example, a pigeon to a dog, or a dog to a horse), the small changes appear to be bounded. It is change within limits. Fruitflies is one example in your bibliography. Flour beetles, the apple magot fly, or even the horse and the mule. In that sense, absolutely speciation takes place; but, it is change within limits. Darwin knew this when he bred pigeons and made it his business to understand "state-of-the-art animal husbandry and breeding," which is change within limits. As Ph.D. earning student in biophysics of Univ. Illinois explains his findings on the limitations in small-scale evolution:

"There seems to be an internal balance of pressures--a restoring action in the genetic system--and it is not clear that small-scale change can actually lead to the large-scale change required by evolution. This is ironic, since nature provides us with seemingly endless examples of variety. Species fill every niche and come in all shapes and sizes, yet there seems to be a barrier that inhibits the movement of any one species too far from its own design."

I don't know who this student is (you gave no reference for this quote) but he/she doesn't seem to be making much sense. What mysterious "internal balance or pressure" is he/she referring to? Also, how much research did this student do on evolution considering his/her PhD studies are in Biophysics?

I know of no limiting factor that prevents species (or populations) from evolving "too far from their own design." The fossil record indicates that not only individual species but entire ecosystems were different in the past. The nested hierarchy and genetic comparisons all support common decent. Clearly, if you are going to examine a population within a period of years rather than thousands of years (or even longer), you would not expect to see large scale changes like a "pigeon to a dog." (By the way, dinosaur to a pigeon would make more sense here).

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Spirit of Truth guides us and leads us into all truth. The KJV calls Him the Holy Ghost. The proper term in modern language should be the Person of the Holy Spirit. He has a personality and is not just a power or a force.

John 16:13
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

And how do you know when the Spirit of Truth is leading you, and you're not just guessing on your own?

What is the difference between "Spirit of Truth" and gut instinct?