The question I have never seen Creationists answer

[Vance]

Right now, the leading Creation Science groups acknowledge that evolution happens. They agree that the basic "mechanical" processes described by science actually do occur and have occurred throughout history. In fact, some of them (AIG, one of the big groups) actually USE the processes of evolution to explain how we got such diversity within species after the flood (they just say that these evolutionary processes happened REAL fast). The only difference is that they say that these processes could not actually cause changes from one "kind" into another "kind".

The reasons for this limitation is based on the following:

1. The concept that the evolutionary processes could result in different "kinds" is contrary to Scripture.

2. We have never seen it happen. Yes, we have seen speciation (even AIG recognizes that we have actually observed evolution creating new species), but not to the level of an entire new "kind" being created.

What Creation Science has NOT done is to provide a plausible scientific explanation why evolution *wouldn’t* eventually create new "kinds" if the environmental scenario called for it. They acknowledge (because they can’t deny) that the processes of mutation, selection, etc, work basically how the current state of the theory describes. And these processes, if let go on for long enough and with sufficient pressures, will transform a given population group AS MUCH AS IS BENEFICIAL to best fit the environment. If the degree of beneficial change is so great that it would result in what anyone would have to agree is a new "kind" then what is to stop it? Where is the "brake" in the process which would prevent it from continuing to evolve right on past any "kind" barrier?

This part I have never seen answered. Is there something I am missing here?

 

[Crusadar]

The problem again vance is that scripture does not teach evolution, it teaches a special creation. But if you want a strictly scientific discussion as to why evolution could not have happened nor why it will never happen, we can do that.

Realize however that it does not substitute for the word of God, and it is very dry - spiritually unsatisfying and has no eternal value whatsoever for it pales in comparison to the word of God.
The question then becomes does evolution (as pertaining to the process dreamt up by Darwin which now replaces scripture) occur. To an extent it does, but that is not what creationists call it. They are nothing more than variations within a given kind and will not result in transforming any one kind into another.

I think I brought this topic up a while back before everything was lost due to the crash. But lets not discuss what evolutionists and creationists already agreed on as to occur that is - there are changes that occur within the given kinds (and not the outlandish conclusions that are drawn from those variations as a mechanism for change from one kind into another.

Lets go back to even when the first life even became life, the question then is are the naturalistic laws put in place by God sufficient to start the auto assembling of the first living organism?

 

[notto]

Vances point has just been made.

 

[Amleto]

What Creation Science has NOT done is to provide a plausible scientific explanation why evolution *wouldn’t* eventually create new "kinds" if the environmental scenario called for it.. They acknowledge (because they can’t deny) that the processes of mutation, selection, etc, work basically how the current state of the theory describes. And these processes, if let go on for long enough and with sufficient pressures, will transform a given population group AS MUCH AS IS BENEFICIAL to best fit the environment.

Beside the fact that there isn't any evidence (tmk) of intermediate creatures (ie intermediate between fish/amphibian/mammal etc), and that nearly all mutations are detrimental.

Natural selection is only a micro-evolutionary process.

These processess were surely around for 'long enough' when the rock/ice came and wiped out the dinosaurs. Their population (for the most part) didn't transform as much as is beneficial because they died!

The degree of beneficial change being big, doesn't mean that a specie can incorporate it before it is wiped out, if ever.

Basically I perceive your argument as: given enough time, and correct circumstances, micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution. Again, to my knowledge, there is no evidence for this.

There are plenty of problems with the current theory of evolution eg giraffes.

 

[notto]

The mechanisms for 'marcro' evolution and 'micro' evolution are EXACTLY the same.

Dinosaurs = birds.

Macro-evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild.

 

[Vance]

Again, you are simply saying "no evidence of it", but that is not my question.

My question is simple: Since

1. Creationists agree that the actual mechanical processes of evolution take place (mutation, selection, etc) and that these processes create change in a population group, and

2. If given enough time and the correct "pressures" a population group will adapt as much as is beneficial to best reproduce in a given environment, then

3. What is the scientific explanation of the "brake" in that process which prevents this process at some point short of the "kind" barrier?

This is a very important question.

As for your other points:

- we have a lot of transitional species. Unless, of course, you are looking for something "half-x and half-y". I think Lucaspa has a long list of them.

- evolutionary processes take a LONG time. When there are relatively sudden climatic changes, species can not adapt fast enough to be able to survive in the new environment and go extinct. Perfectly consistent with evolutionary concepts.

- the giraffe is actually a very good example of adaption. This faulty example of a "problem" for evolution was discussed in the science forum and found to be empty.

 

[Crusadar]

The mechanisms for 'marcro' evolution and 'micro' evolution are EXACTLY the same.

Dinosaurs = birds.

Macro-evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild.

I suppose you were the observer and you are immortal right?

 

[notto]

I suppose you were the observer and you are immortal right?

Well, I wouldn't have to be to understand that the mechanism for macro and micro evolution are exactly the same. Anybody who understands the theory of evolution in its scientific form would know that.

I also don't need to be immortal to understand that we have seen macro evolution in the lab and in the wild. This has happened in my lifetime.

The dinosaur bird thing is a theory but it is based on evidence (unless God created a 'Dinosaur Kind' a 'Bird Kind' and in addition created a 'Feathery Dinosaur' kind and a 'Toothed Bird' kind.

Is that your assertion? That the 'kinds' we find in the fossil record where all created separately? God created dinosaurs with feathers and birds with teeth?

 

[Vance]

The problem for Creationists is that many of the species found are SO much a mixture of traits of two different "kinds" that even they disagree over which it is!

This is even true of hominid species. There are a handful of hominid fossils that are such a combination of ape and modern man traits, that even Creationists disagree which category they should be placed in. When you have one Creation Scientist saying that it must be an ape because of traits a, b, and c, and then you have another Creation Scientist saying that same EXACT fossil must be a Man because of traits x, y and z, you got yourself a transitional.

 

[Crusadar]

It matters not what my assertions are notto, what matters is what scripture tells us - and guess what? No where is evolution found - so your conclusions that God used evolution are only supported by you and those who wish to believe men and not God, for where does faith come from:

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

Since scripture does not teach evolution it is not the word of God you have placed your faith in but your own concoction of what God is not.

 

[Alessandro]

Amen

 

[Amleto]

Again, you are simply saying "no evidence of it", but that is not my question.

My question is simple: Since

1. Creationists agree that the actual mechanical processes of evolution take place (mutation, selection, etc) and that these processes create change in a population group, and

2. If given enough time and the correct "pressures" a population group will adapt as much as is beneficial to best reproduce in a given environment, then

3. What is the scientific explanation of the "brake" in that process which prevents this process at some point short of the "kind" barrier?

This is a very important question.

As for your other points:

- we have a lot of transitional species. Unless, of course, you are looking for something "half-x and half-y". I think Lucaspa has a long list of them.

- evolutionary processes take a LONG time. When there are relatively sudden climatic changes, species can not adapt fast enough to be able to survive in the new environment and go extinct. Perfectly consistent with evolutionary concepts.

- the giraffe is actually a very good example of adaption. This faulty example of a "problem" for evolution was discussed in the science forum and found to be empty.

When talking of transitional species, I see jumps from one to another, I do not see one attribute changed, then another until finally a new specie has 'arrived'.

The giraffe is a good example of adaptation, but where did it come from in macro-evolutionary terms? Certainly not the horse. Where then, could it have come from?

A scientific reason for the 'brake' is from observation of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

By construction, the theory of evolution requires that there has been enough time for these things to happen, yet all the evidence is of abrupt changes from one specie to another. Not evolution.

 

[Amleto]

The problem for Creationists is that many of the species found are SO much a mixture of traits of two different "kinds" that even they disagree over which it is!

This is even true of hominid species. There are a handful of hominid fossils that are such a combination of ape and modern man traits, that even Creationists disagree which category they should be placed in. When you have one Creation Scientist saying that it must be an ape because of traits a, b, and c, and then you have another Creation Scientist saying that same EXACT fossil must be a Man because of traits x, y and z, you got yourself a transitional.

But this would be an example of micro-evolution in my view as hominids are one kind. Therefore this doesn't require a transitional in the sense of progressing from one kind to another.

 

[notto]

It matters not what my assertions are notto, what matters is what scripture tells us - and guess what? No where is evolution found - so your conclusions that God used evolution are only supported by you and those who wish to believe men and not God, for where does faith come from:

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

Since scripture does not teach evolution it is not the word of God you have placed your faith in but your own concoction of what God is not.

Scripture does not teach relativity or nobel gas laws either. The Bible is not a science book.

(again, vances point is proven).

What Creation Science has NOT done is to provide a plausible scientific explanation why evolution *wouldn’t* eventually create new "kinds" if the environmental scenario called for it.

As far as scripture goes, I guess I'm in good company since your understanding of scripture was falsified over 200 years ago and most Christians (including religious scholars) accept that Genesis was not (nor cannot) be literal.

 

[Alessandro]

Thats what they think.

 

[Bushido216]

You do realize that a species is defined as being reproductively isolated (i.e., we can no longer mate with chimpanzees).

That's fairly accepted.

We next assert that Micro-Evolution occurs.

Macro-Evolution simply refers to a collection of Micro-Evolutions across a larger timeline.

So what's so hard about that?

BTW, before you start blurting scripture, you have to prove the science wrong. The reason why atheists are atheists alot of the time is they see science falsifying a literal interpretation.

k?

(P.S., I'm at a campus right now, will be for a few days, expect no responses, though I'll try my best.)

 

[Vance]

Amleto:

Sure, some of the progressions have gaps, as would be expected over billions of year. The point is that we have species that are very persuasively part of a transition from one species to another. Actually that is not even the correct way of looking at it. It is not as if there is species A on one side, and species B on the other, and all those in between would be just there as "transitional" forms between the two. As the VERY slow progression takes place, each variation creates a slightly different, but wholly viable group on its own. They would never be treated as merely a group that serves as a transition between the two. What we have instead is something like a progression from A (a distant ancestor) and Z (a current species). The fossil record may show A, C, D, J, O, T, X and Z. And, of course, some of the connections are more obvious than others.

But these gaps are not always "jumps" by a longshot. And now with DNA helping confirm the links, the gaps are getting smaller every day. The evidence is definitely NOT one of abrupt change from one species to another. In the science forum, they have posted some very detailed progressions which show gradual changes.

Giraffes are in the same family as camels, meaning that camels and giraffes had a common ancestor dromedary.

As for your scientific explanation of the "brake", not only is it not true (there is not a "lack of evidence to the contrary"), it is not a scientific explanation. What is it about the processes themselves, the mechanics we all agree take place, which creates this limitation, this ceiling?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Yes, you have yet to answer their questions (observing).

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It matters not what my assertions are notto, what matters is what scripture tells us - and guess what? No where is evolution found - so your conclusions that God used evolution are only supported by you and those who wish to believe men and not God, for where does faith come from:

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

Since scripture does not teach evolution it is not the word of God you have placed your faith in but your own concoction of what God is not.

But did not God speak the world into existance? Wouldn't that make the universe a living embodiment of Gods word?

If God did speak the world into existance then why does it say things that are different from a literal translation of Genesis?

Either God is lying in his creation or, maybe, just maybe, could humans be wrong to cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Are we really getting creationists in the UK now? I thought it was mainly a lunatic fringe US phenomenon.

Anyway, on with the motley....

Beside the fact that there isn't any evidence (tmk) of intermediate creatures (ie intermediate between fish/amphibian/mammal etc)

Panderichthys, Eusthenopteron, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Protoclepsydrops, Varanops, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Exaeretodon, Adelobasileus, Vincelestes...

, and that nearly all mutations are detrimental.

It's the ones that aren't that matter. Like the ones that duplicated genes to form the blood clotting cascade. Or the one that gave that bacterium the ability to digest nylon.

Natural selection is only a micro-evolutionary process.

Does it know that? What makes it limited?

These processess were surely around for 'long enough' when the rock/ice came and wiped out the dinosaurs. Their population (for the most part) didn't transform as much as is beneficial because they died!

You realise that mass extinction events occur catastrophically, and that morphological change is slow, don't you?

The degree of beneficial change being big, doesn't mean that a specie can incorporate it before it is wiped out, if ever.

I'm not sure what you mean here. BTW - the singular of species is species. You will not impress anyone with your scientific understanding using the term "specie", which I understand is used in coinage but not in science. Bear with me; this is a particular bugbear with me, like misplaced apostrophes.

Basically I perceive your argument as: given enough time, and correct circumstances, micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution. Again, to my knowledge, there is no evidence for this.

Your knowledge is limited. I refer you to retro-viral insertions and human chromosome 2 which are clear evidence of our macro-evolutionary descent from a common ancestor with the great apes.

There are plenty of problems with the current theory of evolution eg giraffes.

Do explain. I'm sure you're familiar with the material alluded to here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#arti on this subject.


[/QUOTE]