Those interested in the foundational fallacies of Evolution.

[gluadys]

For a cat to turn into a mouse that would be (macro-evolution).

No, that would be magic, not evolution.

 

[Freedom777]

not directly related to evolution
but how can we see light
from stars
millions of light-years away
if the earth is <6k years old
that's one question
that got me thinking

i know
u'll probably say
maybe the speed of light changed [rolleyes]
but there's no evidence for that
and u asked about evidence

Hi Card42 Thats a good question,the answer lies in the framework used in cosmology.You my be interested in listening to Russell Humphreys Audio on star light and time.http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/searchProcess.aspx?pg=11&rpp=100&of=&od=
Scroll down to, 24 feb 2001 Star light and time.This will help you to understand.

 

[lucaspa]

OK, I've read some of Wilder-Smith's books, but listening to the lecture, it is clear that he is arguing against atheism. He has accepted the basic statement of faith of atheism -- natural = without God -- and is looking for direct supernatural intervention by God. He is using god-of-gaps theology. That's a fallacy to start with, since gotg is bad theology.

Next, he states that evolution includes abiogenesis. It doesn't. Darwin made that clear in Origin:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

So, as far as TEs are concerned, God can have zapped the first life into existence by supernatural means. But Wilder-Smith doesn't care about that, because if this happened, then man evolves from an ape-like ancestor and this is the point he is objecting to. His first statements were reading from Genesis 1:26-27.

However, Wilder-Smith makes the equation: Energy + first cell + mutation + natural selection = evolution which is speciation.
1. Mutations are one source of variation. However, in sexually reproducing organisms, sexual recombination is the major source of variation.
2. Speciation -- splitting of a lineage to get 2 species where there was 1 -- requires other mechanisms than given here. There must be isolation of populations such that there is no gene flow. This is either geographically or ecologically.

Now, to jump to my bottom line, abiogenesis has been observed.
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Therefore whatever semantic or rhetorical or logical arguments Wilder-Smith cares to give are moot. We have seen living cells arise from chemical reactions.

So, what we have to do is get Wilder-Smith to stop being a closet atheist and admit that God is part of "natural" so that God created life by chemistry.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi Card42 Thats a good question,the answer lies in the framework used in cosmology.You my be interested in listening to Russell Humphreys Audio on star light and time.http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/searchProcess.aspx?pg=11&rpp=100&of=&od=
Scroll down to, 24 feb 2001 Star light and time.This will help you to understand.

This is an example of an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid falsification. The problem with it is that the ad hoc hypothesis has separate consequences that are falsified by other data. For instance, Humphreys idea that light traveled faster runs up against Einstein's E=mc^2. If c increases, the energy coming from radioactivity and fusion in the stars increases quickly to the point where the stars blow up!

 

[lucaspa]

The argument attacks both abiogenesis and macro-evolution.
Simply put, a cat will always be a cat. Although there are many varieties(micro-evolution or a better term genetic remnant variation). For a cat to turn into a mouse that would be (macro-evolution)

As Gluadys pointed out, that would be magic.

Macroevolution is speciation. The creation of a new species. Species are the only biological reality. Everything else -- genera, families, orders, classes, phyla -- are groups of species. So, once you have speciation you have macroevolution. I have a thread on observed speciation here http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 And that's only a few of them.

First, the fossil record shows only a handful of 'supposed' transitional forms when there should exist trillions*trillions of them and it should be very clear of there gradual steps from one kind to the next.This does not exist in the observable fossil record.

There should exist "trillions of them" if the major mode of speciation is phyletic gradualism. However, if the major mode of speciation is allopatric speciation, then there should be few sequences. Now, even one transitional form falsifies creationism. You have just admitted that there are transitional forms.

I also have a thread of sequences of transitional individuals that link "kinds" Species, genera, families, orders, and even classes. Mammals and reptiles are classes. In addition, there are sequences of transitional species linking different kinds, such as the dino to bird, reptile to mammal, and land animal to whale transition. http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 Also attached is a picture of 6 out of 2,000 transitional individuals linking two species of snails.

Second,Of the kinds that are alive today, none show no such evidence of it gradually turning into somthing else.

On the contrary, the Observed Speciation thread has lots of those. I like this one: 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. because

1. The "fruit" flies on the bread or meat diets now only eat those foods, so instead of "fruit" flies we now have 'bread' and 'meat' flies.
2. The genetic difference between the new species of flies and the old is 3% of expressed genes. When we look at comparable genes between chimps and humans, it is less than 2%. So these new kinds of flies are farther apart genetically than the kinds chimps and humans!

 

[lucaspa]

I'e been listening to more of Wilder-Smith. According to Wilder-Smith, information is the "surprise effect". As he says, if you have the letter "q", the rule in the English language is that you have to have a "u" after the "q". But if you pick a "t" instead, then that is information, because it is a surprise!

Also, if you pick the letters "c" and "a" out of a hat by chance, and then pick the letter "t" next, "by chance" (his words), then that is information!

So, Freedom777, I am puzzled by Wilder-Smith's definition. Perhaps you can clear it up for me:

1. Getting a non-sense sequence like q-t is information.
2. Getting a word c-a-t by chance is information.

So, according to Wilder-Smith, something that doesn't make sense and something gotten by chance are both information. However, he has defined "creation theory" as:
matter + energy + time + information = creation. But if information is nonsense or against the rules or comes about by chance, where in creation theory is God? It seems to me that Wilder-Smith has just given the atheistic version of creation: chance.

Please clarify that for me.

 

[Freedom777]

[size=+1]What are "kinds"[/size]
According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.
After the creation, creatures of a kind bred either among themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds, species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic variation built into the kind when it was created.

At the time of its creation, each kind was created with sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those that are yet in existence today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind, but they have the net effect of deterioration of that kind. Nevertheless, mutations are always horizontal rather than vertical microevolution, and can never produce a new kind or a more complex kind. They also cannot add to the genetic content of a kind, mutations merely distort already existing information.

This model denies macroevolution -- transformations of one kind into another kind.

Some examples of possible kinds (which would really have to be determined by an experienced taxonomist):

o Horses

o Cattle

o Dogs, Wolves.

o Cats, Tigers, Lions (many species in this kind)

o Spiders (many species)

o Flying insects -- many kinds.

o Fish -- many kinds.

o Dinosaurs -- many kinds.

o Human Beings of all races (one species)

Some kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.





[size=+1]Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system? [/size]





It is often difficult for productive dialog to commence between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting worldviews. This is especially true in the area of anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by the evolutionist community to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human, referring to all descendants of the first created man and woman.

It may be surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut, accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic categories, including Homo sapiens. While there is some consensus on these categories, there is enough uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes placed into one classification, only to be switched into another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit well into evolutionary theory.

The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.

The problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics rather than genetics.

Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind.

Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics.

Written By, Darren Gordon gordond@iname.com