The Shadow and Substance of Descent

[mark kennedy]

I wanted to share some of my thoughts and experiences in the ongoing creation/evolution controversy. I have noticed a couple of things that I would ask all creationists to consider. First of all the modern evolutionists are desperatly trying to distance themselves from Darwin, abiogenesis and the fossil evidence.

Darwin made only two signifigant controbutions to evolutionary biology. The most signifigant was the Origin of Species through Natural Selection. He offered in this exclusivly naturalistic work an alternative to, what he called, special creation. Natural selection is based on random variations that result in one racemic mixture of a species having a competitive adantage over others of their own kind. His philosophy was based not on natural science (at least not exclusivly) it was in fact based on the philosophy of his grandfather Ermaus Darwin.

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves,
Was born and nurs'd in oveans pearly caves.
First forms minute unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass.
There, as successive generation bloom,
New powers aquite and larger limbns assume.
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
(Eaasmus Darwin 1731-1802)

Charles Darwin's warm little pond where life was supposed to have sprung from was identical to the oceans pearly caves. What is more important is that the modern evolutionist is finding it impossible to qualify and quantify live emerging from purly naturalistic mechanisms. Thats why abiogenesis is said to not be a part of evolutionary theory. The truth is that it is the basis for it.

I have made the point many times that the fossils are simply a contrived morphology. In other words, the fossil evidence is fragmentary and twisted to fit the universal common ancestor model. This is strangly easy to defend, you have to understand how species is defined in both evolutionary biology and natural history.

In evolutionary biology species is simply an organism or group that interbreeds and produces fertile offspring. What is fascinating about this is that it is identical to the Genesis concept of kinds, where creatures reproduce according to kinds. Here is a prime example. Australopithecaus afarensis (Lucy and others) were found in southern Africa and the name actually means 'southern ape'. These now extinct apes are said to have been bipedal (walked on two legs). Now if you actually look at the fossil evidence they used to establish this as an historical species was based not on one, but three seperate specimens including a footprint. What is even more devastating for this postition is that the descendent of these apes (modern chimpanzees) has a living descendant still alive today! Its called Pan paniscus, aka the pygmy chimpazee.

What happened is during the antidelving period (period before the deluge, aka the flood) animals were much larger. In the time after the flood they began to scale down and transposed into chimpanzees and various other kinds of smaller primates. What is remarkable about this point is that when you bring it up to the evolutionist they just go off and show virtually no interest in the actual fossil evidence.

What this all means is that in natural science is that there is no need for us to develop a new model for creationism. The genuine article of science has allready provided a definition for species that is perfectly consistant with the Biblical word 'kinds'. What is even more important is that the fossils are all either apes, their descendants or humans, and their descendants. The genuine science is actually on our side, I just wanted to share that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[adam149]

I would discourage you about claiming that the Kind boundary is at the level defined by "evolutionary biology," because, firstly, it was a creationist who developed the taxonomic categories, and secondly because this is a human conception forced onto nature. Thirdly, most types classified today are not classified according to the original deffinition. If it looks different than the others in it's genus, they give it a new name and claim it's a new species, whether it is or not.

If you read my article on kinds (http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind), I provide evidence to substanciate this, as well as defining the Kind.

Hope this helps somewhat.

I wanted to share some of my thoughts and experiences in the ongoing creation/evolution controversy. I have noticed a couple of things that I would ask all creationists to consider. First of all the modern evolutionists are desperatly trying to distance themselves from Darwin, abiogenesis and the fossil evidence.

Darwin made only two signifigant controbutions to evolutionary biology. The most signifigant was the Origin of Species through Natural Selection. He offered in this exclusivly naturalistic work an alternative to, what he called, special creation. Natural selection is based on random variations that result in one racemic mixture of a species having a competitive adantage over others of their own kind. His philosophy was based not on natural science (at least not exclusivly) it was in fact based on the philosophy of his grandfather Ermaus Darwin.

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves,
Was born and nurs'd in oveans pearly caves.
First forms minute unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass.
There, as successive generation bloom,
New powers aquite and larger limbns assume.
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
(Eaasmus Darwin 1731-1802)

Charles Darwin's warm little pond where life was supposed to have sprung from was identical to the oceans pearly caves. What is more important is that the modern evolutionist is finding it impossible to qualify and quantify live emerging from purly naturalistic mechanisms. Thats why abiogenesis is said to not be a part of evolutionary theory. The truth is that it is the basis for it.

I have made the point many times that the fossils are simply a contrived morphology. In other words, the fossil evidence is fragmentary and twisted to fit the universal common ancestor model. This is strangly easy to defend, you have to understand how species is defined in both evolutionary biology and natural history.

In evolutionary biology species is simply an organism or group that interbreeds and produces fertile offspring. What is fascinating about this is that it is identical to the Genesis concept of kinds, where creatures reproduce according to kinds. Here is a prime example. Australopithecaus afarensis (Lucy and others) were found in southern Africa and the name actually means 'southern ape'. These now extinct apes are said to have been bipedal (walked on two legs). Now if you actually look at the fossil evidence they used to establish this as an historical species was based not on one, but three seperate specimens including a footprint. What is even more devastating for this postition is that the descendent of these apes (modern chimpanzees) has a living descendant still alive today! Its called Pan paniscus, aka the pygmy chimpazee.

What happened is during the antidelving period (period before the deluge, aka the flood) animals were much larger. In the time after the flood they began to scale down and transposed into chimpanzees and various other kinds of smaller primates. What is remarkable about this point is that when you bring it up to the evolutionist they just go off and show virtually no interest in the actual fossil evidence.

What this all means is that in natural science is that there is no need for us to develop a new model for creationism. The genuine article of science has allready provided a definition for species that is perfectly consistant with the Biblical word 'kinds'. What is even more important is that the fossils are all either apes, their descendants or humans, and their descendants. The genuine science is actually on our side, I just wanted to share that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I would discourage you about claiming that the Kind boundary is at the level defined by "evolutionary biology," because, firstly, it was a creationist who developed the taxonomic categories, and secondly because this is a human conception forced onto nature. Thirdly, most types classified today are not classified according to the original deffinition. If it looks different than the others in it's genus, they give it a new name and claim it's a new species, whether it is or not.

If you read my article on kinds (http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind), I provide evidence to substanciate this, as well as defining the Kind.

Hope this helps somewhat.

I had read the article before and it is very interesting, but I wonder if we are on sepeate pages about the definition for species. The point has allways been for me that there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the genuine article of science for the creationist or the evolutionist. Science has to have standards and the Darwinian has abandoned them which is why taxonomy has turned into a convoluted mess. Nothing is ever really defined or determined but it is actually viewed as scientific.

Think about it, if the creationist can define the difference between humans and other primates then nonconstancy of species goes the way of the dinosaure. I found an interesting article on how the transition from dinosaure to birds would not provide an advantage. The real problem is the lungs, birds and reptile have very different breathing systems. Crocodiles and birds have very different lungs as well and I think this is the key to putting this ridiculas universal common ancestor myth away for good. Make them look at the actual evidence and stop letting the superficial simularities decide the tenats of modern biology.

I appreciate your advice but I ask you to consider that the meaning of 'kinds' in Genesis and the working definition in the modern synthesis are identical. If I can't get a creationist to see this then what chance do I have with these militant Darwinians. Creationists built modern biology and it is wrong for them to be excluded from the mainstream.

My problem is simply this and I will take any response to this very seriously. If we are to maintain a taxonomy from multiple common ancestors we are going to have to come up with at least a rough estimate of how many animals were actaully on the Ark.

I'm sorry, but I feel I must find not only a definition for species in general, but for particular definitions for identifying lines of descent. I not only think this is possible, I think its the only way to turn this thing around.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, both now and forever,
Mark

 

[Beowulf]

I read a couple weeks ago where a group wanted to redefine what you're talking about Mark. They were painted as radicals or something or other.

Darn it anyway. I should have saved the link.

Anyway, the article stated that it would be a huge undertaking. It was something to do with the actual name in that just by looking at it one could tell it's class or genus ..etc. But it would cause a lot of problems since there would be no way to edit past editions of books.

I've searched everywhere I could thing of to find that article. Maybe someone else may have read it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I read a couple weeks ago where a group wanted to redefine what you're talking about Mark. They were painted as radicals or something or other.

Darn it anyway. I should have saved the link.

Anyway, the article stated that it would be a huge undertaking. It was something to do with the actual name in that just by looking at it one could tell it's class or genus ..etc. But it would cause a lot of problems since there would be no way to edit past editions of books.

I've searched everywhere I could thing of to find that article. Maybe someone else may have read it.

There is no real reason to change the definitions totally. For one thing like I have been trying to tell everyone, the one in the modern syntesis is identical to the concept of 'kinds'. The lines of descent are allready established and they don't support the single common ancestor model. I don't know why everyone thinks we have to do away with the underpinnings of science. The truth is on our side.

 

[Micaiah]

Interesting. I'd like to see a tentative list of the various kinds that were first created.

For example, it is thought that the 'cats' were initially one kind. The domestic cats of today, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards ets.

My first reaction is to say that sounds a bit far fetched. Can a leopard change its spots? Is it possible the original cat gene for marking pattern included variants for stripes, spots, and plain?

 

[mark kennedy]

Interesting. I'd like to see a tentative list of the various kinds that were first created.

For example, it is thought that the 'cats' were initially one kind. The domestic cats of today, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards ets.

My first reaction is to say that sounds a bit far fetched. Can a leopard change its spots? Is it possible the original cat gene for marking pattern included variants for stripes, spots, and plain?

The be brutally honest I really don't have a list, if anyone has actually made one I can't find it. Now as far as cats, think about it for a minute, what are the inheritable traits. They are most often things like color, size, and shape. I have noticed a trend in the evolution (limited to descent from multiple common ancestors of course) for animals from the antidilvian period (time before the flood. The animals scaled down. Apes scaled down from larger primates to chimps and other monkeys, dinasaurs had allready made dramatic changes in size and whatever their descendants are, if they even have any, they are no bigger then a large crocodile.

I do know there are only about 60 phylum, if you had several thousand, or even several hundred it could concievably account for the diversity of today. What you would have to have is a much more accelerated evolutionary change and it would have to include speciation. If you ever noticed that most of the diversity of life exists is in lush rainforests and jungles. Following the flood the would have been ample opportunity for creatures to adapt to the changing ecology. Over time these evolutionary changes would have slowed down as the resourses began to dwindle it would have become more gradual, which is what we see today.

I am still trying to get a handle on the principles, the particulars may well be out of reach do in large part to the unwillingness of evolutionary biologists to even consider how this might have occured. Taxonomic relationships and cladistics are still in a state of flux, it will be some time before these line of descent can be traced back to there original 'kinds', if its even possible to reconstruct.

 

[Beowulf]

Taxonomic relationships and cladistics are still in a state of flux, it will be some time before these line of descent can be traced back to there original 'kinds', if its even possible to reconstruct.

Good post

I think if tracing back to the originals was the goal we may have a much better chance of doing so. Instead the goal is to come from the simplest form of life to man and not the other way around.