Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

brinny · Dec 14, 2009

Cabal said:
Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used."

thank you for posting. it sounds like there's nothing definitive, however....or am i maybe not understanding correctly?

TangledUpInGlue · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
what are species?

The most widely accepted definition is Ernst Mayr's, which states that species are "groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." In other words, two groups of organisms are of separate species if they can't or won't successfully interbreed with one another.

This only applies to current living populations; you can't apply the biological species concept over time because populations are always evolving. The best way to explain this is to imagine we had all of my ancestors standing in a line, with the common ancestor between humans and chimps (about 5-7 million years ago) at one end and me at the other. Now, I look quite like my father (standing next to me), and a little less like my grandfather (standing next to him), and a little less like my great-grandfather, and so on. As you go further and further back over time the resemblance between me and my ancestors becomes less obvious, until eventually it's not even clear that we are of the same species. Everybody in that line looks quite similar to their immediate neighbours and less similar to the ones further away from them in the line. (It's probably a good idea to point out that the handsome fellow in my avatar is not me).

Species distinctions in the fossil record are not always clear because of this phenomenon, and names for extinct species are generally named for convenience. I mean, it's fairly obvious that Archaeopteryx is not a trilobite. But for more closely-related specimens like Homo erectus and Homo ergaster, species distinctions are less clear-cut.

Cabal · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
thank you for posting. it sounds like there's nothing definitive, however....or am i maybe not understanding correctly?

No worrehs.

It becomes harder to define the closer a group of creatures are to an evolutionary divergence.

This concept highlights some of the difficulties involved with defining a species when the differences between different populations of creatures are small, or at least small enough to allow some interbreeding:

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed"

The ends of a ring species can't interbreed, due to the high level of genetic differences they've accumulated. Those creatures in the middle, however, can.

Over very large separations, both in time and geography, it's a lot easier to define separate species - the difficulty arises when looking at creatures who are effectively in the process of undergoing evolutionary divergence. It's hard to have a definition of what a species is that includes this point in a creature's evolutionary history on the timescales we're working on.

TerranceL · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.

Darwin never made any claim about how life started.

brinny · Dec 14, 2009

TerranceL said:
Darwin never made any claim about how life started.

hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

Freodin · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

When you ask a certain question, and get a certain answer... do you think you should get angry because this answer does not answer ALL of your questions?

Darwin asked the question: "Why are there so many different forms of life?" and he found the answer: "Because life changes and diversifies over time!"
Any answer regarding to how life began is not relevant for his question. If you want his answer to apply for different questions, the fault is with you, not him.

Skaloop · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

Most of those gaps have been filled in over the past 150 years. Evolutionary theory is not based solely on Darwin, and yes, he did get some details wrong which more modern findings and research have been able to correct. The basic idea, though, still stands.

Anyway, what, exactly, did he write that you find so irritating?

Cabal · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

If a point is out the remit of a theory, then it is not a gap.

ToE isn't meant to explain how life started, therefore it is not a gap in ToE.

Seems to me like the only people giving him "unbridled credence" are those who are desperate to attribute things to him that he didn't actually state.

Cabal · Dec 14, 2009

Skaloop said:
Most of those gaps have been filled in over the past 150 years. Evolutionary theory is not based solely on Darwin, and yes, he did get some details wrong which more modern findings and research have been able to correct. The basic idea, though, still stands.

Anyway, what, exactly, did he write that you find so irritating?

I think it's more what he didn't write that is being found irritating.

You know, the fact that God has never saw fit to divinely inspire the creation of an X-men comic really grinds my gears!

Nathan Poe · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

I think you'll notice that the ones who give him "un-bridled" credence are the Creationists.

Darwin's only real contribution to the theory of Evolution was the mechanism of Natural Selection -- and while Darwin stumbled in several places explaining the nuts and bolts of it, scientists since then have been able to see where he was mistaken and correct the details. Those same scientists, working on information Darwin could not have known at the time, also discovered that he got enough of it right to make it a viable theory.

JusSumguy · Dec 14, 2009

hangback said:
NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE BEGAN,
NO ONE.

Hmmmmm.... Well, I do. And so do you.

Choosing to be blind is not the same as actually being blind.

Nathan Poe · Dec 14, 2009

JusSumguy said:
Hmmmmm.... Well, I do. And so do you.

Just so you know, "Two teenagers in a backseat" isn't the right answer.

Pete Harcoff · Dec 14, 2009

brinny said:
hmmmmmm....ok. That's true. It angers me that soooo many give him un-bridled credence, when there are such incredible gaps in his theories. It's becoming more irritating as i learn more about what he wrote.

Have you read On the Origin of Species?

Skaloop · Dec 14, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
I think you'll notice that the ones who give him "un-bridled" credence are the Creationists.

Exactly. I mean, i admire the man, and think he's a great chap for coming up with a mechanism to explain evolution. But I haven't read any of his books. I don't use his quotes when I am debating in favour of evolutionary theory. I don't consider him the be all and end all of what evolution is or says or predicts. I don't consider him of such eminence that if he was wrong about something, the entirety of modern biology is crumbling.. In fact, other than acknowledging his contribution, I don't need Darwin at all.

The creationists do need him, though, because anything since then is just stronger. They need to attack the weakest point, and the weakest point in evolutionary theory was when Darwin first published. It's only gotten stronger since then.

It would be like discussing Formula 1 cars and saying "Well, you know, Henry Ford made cars that were pretty boxy, so I don't think all those fins and spoilers and aerodynamic calculations are necessary or accurate." It's ignoring decades of advancement in favour of one iconic contributer who is all but irrelevent to the modern application of his contribution.

Agonaces of Susa · Dec 14, 2009

hangback said:
It's called a 'Fish' the same ancestors we had.

They have tens of thousands of 'Fish' fossils.

What is the name of the intermediate species between fish and dogs and cats?

What fossil evidence do you have of this mythological intermediate species?

Nathan Poe · Dec 14, 2009

Skaloop said:
The creationists do need him, though, because anything since then is just stronger. They need to attack the weakest point, and the weakest point in evolutionary theory was when Darwin first published. It's only gotten stronger since then.

Big Brother needs his Emmanuel Goldstein.

It would be like discussing Formula 1 cars and saying "Well, you know, Henry Ford made cars that were pretty boxy, so I don't think all those fins and spoilers and aerodynamic calculations are necessary or accurate." It's ignoring decades of advancement in favour of one iconic contributer who is all but irrelevent to the modern application of his contribution.

Hard to find a creationist who not at least a little bit behind the times -- Good analogy!

Nathan Poe · Dec 14, 2009

Agonaces of Susa said:
What is the name of the intermediate species between fish and dogs and cats?

What fossil evidence do you have of this mythological intermediate species?

Perhaps it's on a spiritual spaceship?

Agonaces of Susa · Dec 14, 2009

Pete Harcoff said:
Have you read On the Origin of Species?

Myth based science-fiction by a trained theologian is entertaining fairy tales but has nothing to do with actual science.

BananaSlug · Dec 14, 2009

Agonaces of Susa said:
What is the name of the intermediate species between fish and dogs and cats?

That is way too many to name. How about let's play pick the mammal? This is one of my favorite games!

http://i.livescience.com/images/090511-cynognathus-09.jpg

(The above is just a small sampling of the many fossils that have been found.) Pick which one(s) you think are mammals, and explain why you made the choice(s).

What fossil evidence do you have of this mythological intermediate species?

Not just fossils, we have many lines of evidence (including genetics) as well.

Agonaces of Susa · Dec 14, 2009

Neither a cat nor a dog.

Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency