Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi Resha-
Since gluadys and I appear to be trading off on some of these, I'll offer a response.
In general, convergent evolution usually applies to smaller branches of the tree of life, and works within the larger finding of UCA. Thus, CE and UCA are usually not alternatives to each other. (such as gluadys' classic example of fish, and whales). However, in this paper, as you point out, they are.UCA cannot be a cause for a change of species. The offspring of a bullldog and a husky will have a common ancesry, but the offspring will always be a dog, no matter how man gnerations are involved. Thee is no biological evidence that fish and whales have a common ancestry. In factd if you look at wha the "experts" say, whales evolved from a dog-like land animal.
The paper, and the review, are yet another clear case of support for UCA.[quote[
I know I have jumped in late in thisdiscussin but how did they support UCA?
If someone has pointed to them saying they cast doubt on UCA, and singled out that sentence, it may be a case of the creationist quote mining practice I mentioned earlier, where creationists resort to dishonest means - taking quotes out of context- to fool people. If you were fooled, I'm sorry that happened to you - we can all be fooled.{quote}
It also may not be the case. You see to imply that creation scientist are willing to be dishonest in quetioning the "evidence" presented by evolutionists. If you want to examine some dishonesty, check what i s presented as evidence in whale evolution.
Thanks for pointing that out. Clarifying our terms always helps discussion, and that's especially true with evolution (which is a common word that can mean many things in popular usage). UCA is a better focus because I think it is UCA, not evolution, that some Christians have problems with. In fact, I'd narrow that down to vertebrate UCA. I think that very few YE creationists would agree with VUCA. I narrow it down to VUCA because even though UCA itself is an established fact, there is even less room for disagreement, and the evidence is even more clear, with VUCA.IMO most creationists have problem with all of the opinions of evolution, not just UCA. The evolutionist like to say somethng has b een proven but they do not provide the method used to prove it. To concude that a species wwwihout a vertebra could produce a kid with one, is biologially impossible as far as real science is concerned and the fossil record will not only not support such a conclusion, if anything, it will support "after its kind."
Regarding "assumptions", that word is often used to avoid looking at the conclusions based on the evidence, which show UCA to be most likely correct.No, we call it an assumption when the evidence does not support he conclusion and "most likely" indicatreds the evidence is lacking to confirm the conclusion.
That was for gluadys, but I'll answer too in case you are interested. I have no formal training in biology. That means I have no basis to disagree with the experts. The experts are clear in their consensus in support of UCA, and every discussion and piece of evidence I can find makes me agree with them (not that it matters).It is not necesary to have a formal educaion in biology to understand a few basic facts: Parents cannot pass on to their offspring a chracteristic for which neither have the gene for. Also, there are Christins with just as good credentisla ss the evolutionstbiologisst whw reject evolution, including UCA.
As for Genesis, it makes perfect sense to me that it describes the fact that God did the creating, using allegory and poetry to set that out. Genesis does not claim to describe "how" God created, and with Jesus primarily using allegories (parables) in his teaching, and the Holy Spirit using allegory in the opening of John's Gospel, it's hardly a surprise that the Holy Spirit starts out with allegory and poetry at the start of Genesis.
In Christ-
-Papias
It makes more sense to take Genesis literally. WE can prove "after its kind" which is more than anyhing offered as the explanation of the evolutionists. In fact they cannot tell us what the first life form was and they have no idea if it ever produce a different species.
Sme with matter. They cannot explain how all the matter we have in the universe got here. Using the BB is of no value because it does
not explain either how the matter and the energy need to go bang got here.
kermit
Clarivoyance wrote:
OK. And hey, did you see my note to you at the end of post #11?
-Papias
Imagine a population of our theropod dinosaurs living in a valley. A volcano rises up, and separates the valley into two similar halves, so now there are two theropod populations, separated by a volcano. The Northern valley happens to be near a forest, which slowly grows into the valley over thousands of years. So now the northern theropods live in a forest, while the southern ones dont. Imagine that when predators come around, they can catch and eat some of the theropods in the southern valley, the theropods escape as they always have, by running. However, now in north, with all the trees, running doesnt work as well (you run into a tree), so some theropods escape by climbing the trees. Most are pretty unsuccessful, (after all, they are mainly runners, not tree-climbers) and many are eaten. The theropod population is greatly reduced, for a while. However, a theropod happens to have a better claw for grasping, and that theropod survives by grasping branches and climbing trees. Her children of course have the slightly better grasping claws, and soon the entire population is descended from her (the others were eventually eaten as the predators ran out of the easy-to-catch kind of theropod). This kind of competition continues, with any mutations for grasping claws surviving, and mutations for fast running being useless (and therefore being eaten). So after many generations, the northern theropods are a little different from the southern population, and they live more up in the trees. A few of them have a little webbing in their armpits they survive a little better because this can slow a fall from a tree, so when they fall, if the fall is from a moderate height, they have a slightly better chance of surviving the fall. Some mutations cause more webbing, some less but the mutations for less webbing cause death by falling, while that for a little more webbing is more likely to survive by gliding. After a while the theropods are tree dwellers who now have webbing between their arms and their bodies, like bats or pteranodons, and can glide from tree to tree. Imagine that around this time the volcano crumbles back into the ground. The two theropod populations meet, but now they are too different to interbreed they have become two different species. The two species live side by side in the valley from then on.
Lizards remaining liizards is not evolution. Both groups you mention are still lizards and some are sub-species.
This is the same way languages develop. Think about Latin, French and English. Early on, there was a language similar to Latin. People who spoke this moved to France and England. Over time, small changes (mispronunciations = mutations) occurred in their speech, and the people France sounded a little different from the people in England. They still both spoke Latin but it was a little different kinda like the difference between the English youll hear in New York compared to the English youll hear in rural Alabama. Over time, it became more and more different, like the English in Alabama versus the English in London. Then more and more differences accumulated, until a person in France would not be able to understand a person in England at all the language had evolved into two different languages. Thus, saying that a mutation couldnt make a new species because then the new animal would have no one to mate with. is like saying that French could not have evolved from Latin because then the first Frenchman would have had no one to speak in French to. This is how speciation occurs with entire populations changing over time, not individuals.
You cannot transfer biologial truths to non-biological truths. Biology has proven lines of what happensn and how. Languages do not. Of course there are similarities in languages because at one time all spoke the same language, but God changed all of that at the tower of Babel.
kermit
Papias thanks for the great example. It's really easy to understand once someone breaks it down like that. However, I really want to hear it from someone who doubts evolution because I'm sure if they actually understood it they wouldn't deny it.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but understanding doesn't always equate to acceptance. And I'm afraid the well has been poisoned. Now that an example of what you want has been posted, what kind of example could someone provide that wouldn't just seem like a copy?
gluadys,
I'm going to ask something that might seem rather strange. You haven't responded to my question yet, so I don't know if you have a degree in biology. If you do, could you evaluate something for me?
If you saw in one of my previous posts, I deleted a citation. It was one I only found recently, and I hadn't properly vetted it, so it was a mistake to post it. As I checked into the background of the author, he started to come off as a bit of a nut case. At the same time, I didn't find any responses to his paper ... it seems no one has actually called him out ... maybe because they've decided it's not worth it.
Still, supposing you were a reviewer for some biology journal and this paper showed up on your desk, and you had no reason to suspect the guy's credentials, what would you say about it? I know that's a hard thing to ask. It would be hard to stay objective, but I'm curious. How much of what he says is based in proper biology? Does he raise any good questions?
http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3653v1.pdf
I understand it and reject it.
UCA will not allow a change in species. Common ancesry willl not allow them to jump proven biological facts---parents cannot produce a kid with a characteristic for which neithr has gene and mutaqtions cannot be the mechanism for that kind of change.
Mutations do not add chracteristics,. They change exising onens. For example the gene for skin pigmantation is present and the gened mutates. The mutation does not give the offspring skin, it changes the characteristic of the skin.
Common ancesry cannot be proven.
There is no known common ancestry between sea life and land life.
The data actually show that we are part of the ape family (Family: Hominidae)Thee is not common ancesstry between apes and men.
In fact the "experts" in whale evolution say whales evolved from a dog-like land animal. But they can't explain biologiically how the land animal lost its legs and developed fins or how it lost its nose and developed a blowhole.
Don't just look at what evolutionists say. Look at wht Christians scienetis say also.
Like Papias, I have no formal qualifications in biology.
I assume you are referring to the creation accounts in particular and possibly to the account of the flood. Once we get to Abraham, the setting is clearly historical even if the story is not.
I would consider that a friendly amendment, as long as it is understood that the observed data are data of evolutionary change. ...
Does that take the circularity out of it?
Yes. That is a good way to put it. Btw have you ever taken a look at Bayesian reasoning? Essential, I think, to understanding much scientific discourse today.
I think one has to accept some "self-evident" truths in any field.
Well, since formally nothing in science is established, that applies to UCA as well. Given the evidence, however, and the lack of any alternative so far, it deserves provisional confidence.
I certainly don't think the science of evolution will fall apart if it is ever established that archaea and bacteria did not have a common ancestor.
For some reason it is a common perception that circumstantial evidence is sub-par.
That's one reason I prefer to speak of "populations".
It is basically junk science relying on a lot of typical anti-evolutionary canards. It consists of "refuting" much that is not even claimed or inferred from evolutionary theory.
As such, I was curious about what you thought of how he was summarizing the different topic areas in the main body (not the introduction).
Everything you post shows you do not understand it.]
Right, if I disagree with you it is because I don't understand it. Let me suggest there are Christian scientists more qualified than you and they understand it and reject it also.
And if that pigmentation did not exist prior to the mutation, then the mutation added a new characteristic.It did not. The person was going to acquire skin even if the mutation did not occur. The mutation only altered the skin characterisstic. It did not give it a new charaqcteristic. Even if what you say was true, it could not be the mechanism for the change needed for a species to become a different one. If the mutaion happened in a homo sapian, the kid would be a homo sapian and would contune to produce after its kind.
You can't provide one example where a mutation produced a different species. You can only speculate that if you had enough time it would happen, but time will not change biological facts.
Scientists seem to agree with you on that, at least as far a the universal common ancestor goes. But it is still very well supported by the evidence and a rational conclusion from the data.What evidence. If it was well supported, it would be a proven fact and it is not.
Yes, there is. Look up "early tetrapods" and especially "Tiktaalik"
And, in a different time-frame "Pakicetus" and "evolution of whales".See this is the game evolutionist try to play. They say it happened, so it must have but they NEVER produce the biological evidence tha made it possible.
Can you explain how a land animal lost its legs and developed fins or how it lost it nose and developed a blowhole. Dogs dont have those genes so i aint' gonna happen.
The data actually show that we are part of the ape family (Family: Hominidae)See, you just did it. You say the data shows it but you do not provide the data.
I don't know where science is in the detailing of the whale genome, but I expect that the biological explanation is soon forthcoming. It is amazing how much history is sitting in genes. Once the genetics are understood, all you need is natural selection to preserve the new characteristics. <<
A leg cannot biologically become a fin. Natural selection is another thing that has never been proven. Even if it was true, the rabbit with a stronger leg would still be a rabbit. He might live longer but he would but he would still be rabbit.
>>You mean Christian scientists like Loren Haarsma, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux and Kenneth Miller (to name just few)? They all support evolution.
There are some very good Christiasn scientist who support evolution, but there are more like those at the ICR and Answers in Genesis, who reject it and reject it on scientific evaluation.
My main problem with evoluion is first of all, "after it kind" refutes it and to date no one hs shown scientificlly how the biology works to make it happen.
kermit
Everything you post shows you do not understand it.]
Right, if I disagree with you it is because I don't understand it.
Let me suggest there are Christian scientists more qualified than you and they understand it and reject it also.
And if that pigmentation did not exist prior to the mutation, then the mutation added a new characteristic.
It did not. The person was going to acquire skin even if the mutation did not occur. The mutation only altered the skin characterisstic.
You can't provide one example where a mutation produced a different species.
Scientists seem to agree with you on that, at least as far a the universal common ancestor goes. But it is still very well supported by the evidence and a rational conclusion from the data.
What evidence. If it was well supported, it would be a proven fact and it is not.
Can you explain how a land animal lost its legs and developed fins or how it lost it nose and developed a blowhole. Dogs dont have those genes so i aint' gonna happen.
The data actually show that we are part of the ape family (Family: Hominidae)
See, you just did it. You say the data shows it but you do not provide the data.
There are some very good Christiasn scientist who support evolution, but there are more like those at the ICR and Answers in Genesis, who reject it and reject it on scientific evaluation.
My main problem with evoluion is first of all, "after it kind" refutes it
It's much easier to deny everything in the real world and just accept whatever story you were told when you were 4, by your parents. No thinking involved. Easy.
OK, I 'll take a closer look at that section.
You had an evolution storybook from your parents when you were 4?
No, I actually broke away from my programming, examined the EVIDENCE and found no actual reason to accept a creation myth from Bronze Age men who knew nothing about science, germ theory or how the world came about.What evidence did you look at? How did you verify it waa accurate?
Most religious people are simply unwilling to do this.
Do you have some facts to back that up or are you just offering your opinion?
No, I actually broke away from my programming, examined the EVIDENCE and found no actual reason to accept a creation myth from Bronze Age men who knew nothing about science, germ theory or how the world came about.
It's much easier to deny everything in the real world and just accept whatever story you were told when you were 4, by your parents. No thinking involved. Easy.
Are you saying people in the Bronze Age weren't smart?
Are you saying people in the Bronze Age weren't smart?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?