PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Facts

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From here:
Facts

"It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

All the experts agree, evolution is as much of a fact as a spherical earth or a heliocentric solar system.  These are not opinions, they are fully supported FACTS.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:01 AM on February 5, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


From here:
Facts


Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Right here is my objection. The TOE includes common descent even if only fractionally. That is the core problem with TOE in general. It builds upon a questionable foundation. There is a difference between subspeciation (observable) and transspeciation (hypothetical) and until we can agree on the terminology of these different things we will continue going around the same circle.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:21 AM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx,

the thing that Creationist seem to ask, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to see a large, non-microbe species transform before their very eyes.  That's not going to happen.  It takes time to see observable change in animals.  But it is happening today.  I will follow with examples later.

1.  It all starts with the age of the earth.  YEC think the earth is no more than a few thousand years old.  There is so much evidence against this idea that the notion is quite ridiculous.  But because a literal interpetation of the Bible seems to indicate that, then it must be so... so some people think.  A lot of people believe in astrology, ghosts, and UFO's too.

2.  You still ignore the fossil record.  There are quite a few fossils that show that life has transitioned from one form to another.  Fish to tetrapod, land mammals to whales, ape-like ancestors to human, for instance.  It doesn't happen overnight.  It takes time.  But when presented with these FACTS you seem to be at a loss to be able to explain them, so you ignore them.  And the time frame that these fossils are found agree remarkably with what evolution predicts.  

If these ancient animals (and plants) had been created, why is it that the time frame of their creations so perfectly matches what evolution predicts?  Why do we see transitional species - that doesn't make any sense by the definition of 'kinds' as presented in the Bible.

Why do we see a mechanism (DNA and mutations) that provide just the vehicle for evolution to occur?  Darwin didn't know about DNA back in 1859, but it has proved to provide just the foundation for natural selection.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:25 AM on February 5, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,
the thing that Creationist seem to ask, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to see a large, non-microbe species transform before their very eyes.


You are wrong. What creationists continuously ask is where is the evidence for microbes to man evolution and since there is none, other than anecdotal evidence, why can't evolutionists admit to the holes in the theory?

Last night I had a long conversation with one of my MD friends, Pathologist, who believes in creation and is currently working on his masters. I asked him why I can't find an evolutionist willing to recognize the difference between what was formerly known as micro and macro evolution and he said because they don't want to officially recognize the difference. He said that in his over 25 years of highly technical practice he has seen no reason why macro evolution needs to be taught as "necessary" to understanding biology.

Until we can come to a satisfactory mutual understanding of the difference between the two similar but unrelated things than any discussion of the age of the earth or the fossil record is a waste of time.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:46 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx, why do whales have vestigial hips and hinder limbs?

All cetaceans that i know of have pelvic remnants in their abdomen. Many cetaceans, especially the great whales, also have a remnant of the femur in their abdomen.

Do you have any explanation for those?

Sometimes you say "I don't know", which shows great honesty.

Few creationists (or "evolutionists") dare to say that when debating. It's a good thing.

But it turns out that we do know. Sorry, but it's the softest way to put it.

Whales descend from land mammals.


Could you believe that they found this fossil? Can you believe it to be a whale ancestor?


Do you believe that this beast is not a whale relative?

Do you see that?

I mean, take a good look.


You can imagine what scientists (or "evolutionists") say.

Hinder limbs.

And you can guess what the creationist usual response is: Those are fins. A mutation put an extra par there.

And i say: Exactly there? Exactly where scientists wouldn't get too surprised?

Besides the regular flippers are also limbs.

Did you know that whales have fingers?


If there's a common intervening creator it looks like He's on our side.
Perhaps the creator doesn't like creationists?

Would you say that all of those were whales, or what? You want something older?

Here you go:



And older:


Would you say that the only relation between all of these animals was that they had a common creator, they lived all at the same time, and decided to die in different layers of the fossil strata arranged by land-water fondness?

You'll say that the last guy has nothing to do with whales, in spite of the fact that it had the same auricular system as modern cetaceans, which is found nowhere else in the animal kingdom...

I'd bet that if i took the skeleton of some four legged whale ancestor and took the hinder limbs away (and arrange the rest in a swimming pose), you'd think it's just a whale.

Like with this one:

Oh, yeah, common creator... I forgot...

Did you know that there were feline sabertooth tigers and marsupial sabertooth tigers?

Normally similar animals have similar genes. We'd say they are related. You'd say they had a common creator.

Sometimes different species in similar habitats, eating similar things, develop (evolve) similar traits. We call that convergent evolution.


Why would God repeat His designs using different genes? Just messing around?

I still don't know if you believe in the ark.

You think a couple of elephants could be a problem? Because there were 15 different genera (spanning 14+ million years) only in North America (at least – more if you subdivide Gomphotherium at all).

You are wrong. What creationists continuously ask is where is the evidence for microbes to man evolution
I never heard that question (the answer is "yes", by the way).

What they ask (just before covering their ears and going "lalalalala") is if there's any evidence supporting Evolution.

and since there is none, other than anecdotal evidence, why can't evolutionists admit to the holes in the theory?
Haha! That's not a hole!

The theory doesn't predict that a fossil for every species that ever existed will be found.

Scientists make predictions using the theory as a tool.

We didn't know that we would find the Tiktaalik. But we pretty much knew what it would look like, and in what strata it could be found.

He said that in his over 25 years of highly technical practice he has seen no reason why macro evolution needs to be taught as "necessary" to understanding biology.
Perhaps because his practice was not in the field of biology?

Unless you think pathology is biology...

I bet a dentist wouldn't find that need either.

They work on one point of the historical line. The dentist doesn't have to know why our canine teeth have such a long root.

So many species gone extinct in such a brief period of time... And you call it "intelligent" design?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:18 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx -
What creationists continuously ask is where is the evidence for microbes to man evolution and since there is none, other than anecdotal evidence, why can't evolutionists admit to the holes in the theory?

Evolution is a fact.  TOE still has work to be done on it to flush out some details.  But the concepts of Natural Selection and Common Descent work very well in explaining what we see of life today, and in the past.

Until we can come to a satisfactory mutual understanding of the difference between the two similar but unrelated things than any discussion of the age of the earth or the fossil record is a waste of time.

Talk about weaseling!  You are a master at it.  You can't even discuss the evidence of the fossil record, or the age of the earth - or even admit that the evidence exists.  

I guess you weren't serious when you said that Creationism looks at the same evidence as TOE does, only has different interpetation.  I can see that you're fearful of saying what those interpetations are - and I don't really blame you.  

Again, Creationism can't explain how life is interrelated.  It can only say that God made each 'kind' of animal or plant.  

Take frogs for instance.  All frogs have lungs - right?  They develop from tadpoles, which breathe underwater through gills and skin.  A connection between water and land.  A amphibian.

Maybe you would be surprised to find out that there was a species of frog that was recently discovered that did not have lungs.

Lungless Frog

The discovery of lunglessness in a secretive Bornean frog supports the idea that lungs are a malleable trait in amphibians, which represent the evolutionary sister group to all other tetrapods, according to the researchers. Barboroula kalimantanensis lives in cold, fast-flowing water, they noted, so loss of lungs might be an adaptation to a combination of factors: a higher oxygen environment, the species's presumed low metabolic rate, severe flattening of their bodies that increases the surface area of their skin, and selection for negative buoyancy--meaning that the frogs would rather sink than float.

This is a rather nice illustration of Natural Selection at work - allowing the frog to take advantage of its aquatic environment.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:16 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right here is my objection. The TOE includes common descent even if only fractionally. That is the core problem with TOE in general.

I fail to see this problem, the statement I posted clearly states that common descent is a fact, so there is no problem here.

There is a difference between subspeciation (observable) and transspeciation (hypothetical) and until we can agree on the terminology of these different things we will continue going around the same circle.

So it's a problem with semantics.  Once again you are wrong, transspeciation is not hypethetical but a fact, as my quote clearly states.  Macroevolution is an observed fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:42 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll talk about it, Orion. I really want to as is evidenced by my "hanging in there against overwhelming odds". But not until we get past square one. Give me the definitions that I have asked for. I know you want to. Just a few simple words that can define and differentiate between molecules to man evolution and wolves to poodle evolution. It can't be the same thing. There is simply not enough genetic similarity between any two order to claim that trans-speciation is a fact. If there were than evolutionists the world over would claim check mate and that would be the end of it.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:45 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there were than evolutionists the world over would claim check mate and that would be the end of it.
As far as reality goes, science has already done this, and it is the end of it.  Evoluytion is an obsrved fact, macroevolution is an obsrved fact, common descent is an observed fact.  No one in biology argues these facts, they are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:07 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Definition time!
> Evolution is the general change in inherit changes within a specieis population.
> Abiogenesis is the origions of life.
> Macro and micro evolution and the same thing.

There is simply not enough genetic similarity between any two order to claim that trans-speciation is a fact.

We share 95% of our DNA with a mouse and I would asume we share a simular amount with dogs as they are also mamals.

to claim that trans-speciation is a fact.

Again, dogs did not evolve into humans. We share a comman, now extinct ancestor. You are not going to find trnasitional species directly between humans and dogs. Instead you will see fossils of dogs that go back to a creature which the fossils of humans also go back to.

Why can't evolutionists admit the holes in the theory.

Sigh. How many times have I said this. It is okay to say you don't knoww everythig. To say otherwise is arogance. Evolutionists and scientists don't know everything. e.g. you have pointed out that evolution does not explain abiogenesis. A theroy does not have to explain everything to be true though. The theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics break down at black holes and the big bang. Are they wrong? Not nessacarily, just incompletle. You cannot arive at a correct theory imediatly, evolution is incomplete but it is much closer to the real awnser (if such an awnser exists)

(Edited by Aswissrole 2/6/2009 at 10:22 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 01:57 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Aswissrole at Fri February 6, 2009 - 01:57 AM
Definition time!
> Evolution is the general change in inherit changes within a specieis population.
> Abiogenesis is the origions of life.
> Macro and micro evolution and the same thing.


Evolution is general change "within a species population". Ok. That fits observation of selection and mutation.

But where is the trans-species part? Where is the  part about bacteria becoming amoebas? Or monkeys become men?

This is where the debate lies.

Do you know that there are very few laws in biology?
> Abiogenesis is the origions of life.

The main one is the law of biogenesis. Look it up. It states that life comes from life.

We share 95% of our DNA with a mouse and I would asume we share a simular amount with dogs as they are also mamals.


How many codes does that 5% that is not in common represent?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:57 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is general change "within a species population". Ok. That fits observation of selection and mutation.

But where is the trans-species part? Where is the  part about bacteria becoming amoebas? Or monkeys become men?

This is where the debate lies.


Timbrx my man,

From the genetic evidence that is currently available, experts can demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that all placental mammals share a common ancestor.  In fact,  with genetic evidence, experts can show that your mother and Cheeta the chimp share a common ancestor--to a much HIGHER degree of certainty than what is routinely accepted by US courts of law when they extrapolate the same genetic information to convict rapists, murderers and other creeps.

So there you have it.  Unless your mother and Cheeta are the same species, you should either change your way of thinking or start protesting the misscarriage of justice that is going on in our judicial system right now!!!



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:57 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are a few trees showing how humans have evolved. Remember, these are probably not complete as not every single fossil has been found and some species (if short lived) may not have left fossils.


Here is quite a nice pictured version of evolution. Unforchinatly its quite basic, but I still think it looks quite nice.
(link as the image is too large)
Click Here

May I recomend the "Walking with Cavemen" documentry series. It is from the creators of "Walking with Dinosaurs" but covers the history and evolution of humans. It was a british documentry and so I'm not sure if it reached the states.

(Edited by Aswissrole 2/6/2009 at 10:20 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 10:16 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx, will you reply to my post? ^_^

About microbes evolving into humans...


One such study is of Myxococcus xanthus, top, which lash their tails together and hunt in a pack. If they starve, they form a ball, above.

"Oh, but they're not becoming human!!" Hahaha!

(Edited by wisp 2/6/2009 at 10:20 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:17 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx, will you reply to my post? ^_^

Nice pictures. I forgot what we were debating.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:11 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, you reached that point already...

Ok, next creationist, please.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:41 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The main one is the law of biogenesis. Look it up. It states that life comes from life.

I did look it up, all I found was this

"Biological term coined in 1870 by English scientist Thomas Henry Huxley to express the hypothesis that living matter always arises out of other similar forms of living matter. It superseded the opposite idea of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis (that is, that living things may arise out of nonliving matter)."

Doesn't look much like a "law" to me.  And it appears to have no evidence what so ever supporting it in regards to the first life.  Looks like you're trying to use a 140 year out of date sound bite as evidence with nothing to back it up.  Show us where the law of biogenesis was experimentally supported or withdraw your claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:43 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thomas Huxley was a well-known supporter of Darwin, and of evolution.  Since at that time Louis Pasteur was disproving the idea of spontaneous generation, it is no great surprise that Huxley would coin the term biogenesis.  But it certainly doesn't have anything to do with disproving abiogenesis.  I think it is safe to say that Huxley was referring to present day life with his term of biogenesis.  Besides, we've come a long ways since Huxley in abiogenesis research.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 04:06 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biogenesis

Doesn't look much like a "law" to me.  And it appears to have no evidence what so ever supporting it in regards to the first life.  Looks like you're trying to use a 140 year out of date sound bite as evidence with nothing to back it up.


This quote could be used very well to describe Darwin's theory. Perhaps we should discard  Newtons law which is even older.

Show us where the law of biogenesis was experimentally supported or withdraw your claim.


The law is self evident. To prove it would be to disprove abiogenesis. How do you prove a negative?

Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Orion, does this fit your definition of evolution?

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:21 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:21 AM on February 7, 2009 :
Perhaps we should discard  Newtons law which is even older.


Newton's laws have been superseded, by the Theory of Relativity.

They are still useful within their understood limitations, just as is the "law of biogenesis".





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:28 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very well put, Apoapsis.

Creationists linger on outdated definitions if they fit their delusions, and ask for facts when definitions are inconvenient to them.

Looks like you're trying to use a 140 year out of date sound bite as evidence with nothing to back it up.
This quote could be used very well to describe Darwin's theory. Perhaps we should discard  Newtons law which is even older.
"140 years out of date." He didn't just say "140 years old".

Anyway, it's obvious what the guy meant by biogenesis. And it's true. Life doesn't spring from no-life.

And it never did.

It evolved steadily from simpler self-replicating chemicals.

I've been thinking about alleles (timbrx: alternative forms of a gene that "compete" to occupy the same locus on a particular chromosome and that control the same character; they are kind of like isotopes to an element).

How does the number of alleles not disprove the Ark or the Garden of Eden?

An individual of any species could AT BEST provide two alleles of each gene (and such an ideal event would be much less likely than the appearance of life): two for each pair of "slots" in two paired chromosomes.

Two individuals could provide a maximum of four alleles for each human gene.

And that number could only go DOWN if new alleles didn't show up.

We can see about six alleles for the eye color.

Was God supposed to sprinkle alleles on several generations of animals since the Ark?

How does Creationism explain such an abundance of information-carrying alleles?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:15 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, if you are going to think about alleles than perhaps you should think about this:

Allele

Definition

noun, plural: alleles

(genetics)

One member of a pair (or any of the series) of genes occupying a specific spot on a chromosome (called locus) that controls the same trait.

They don't "compete to occupy" the same locus. They occupy a locus. They may "compete" for dominance but the recessive always loses unless it has help.

How does the number of alleles not disprove the Ark or the Garden of Eden?


The number of alleles does not "disprove" the bible because the two original pairs could have had enough information to contain all of the genetic possibilities. Add to that mutation (yes, evolution within a species or micro-evolution) and so called "junk genes" and there is plenty of raw material to make a you and a me.

We can see about six alleles for the eye color.


No, we can see about six allele combinations from three gene alleles.

Anyway, it's obvious what the guy meant by biogenesis. And it's true. Life doesn't spring from no-life.

And it never did.

It evolved steadily from simpler self-replicating chemicals.


Please check your logic here, wisp. At what point along the steady progression of self replicating chemicals would you consider them to be alive? Since they don't "spring" to life, do they slither of crawl? Are crystals rudimentary pre-life forms?
Why don't we have silicon based life forms evolving along side of us?

Of course I realize that life from non life defies logic. And just because something defies logic doesn't mean is can't be so. Take God, for instance.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:08 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not entirly sure what wisp is talking about and I know you have already stated that you believe in "miro-evolution". Why you cannot make the intellecual jump and conclude that "macro-evolution", as you call it, is the same thing I don't know. I still don't understand what you percieve the difference between the two to be. Is it that you think species are too different to be related?

You asked why we do not have silicon based life. This is because all life on Earth is desended from a comman origin. Silicon life may exist on other planets as they had a different origin of life, however, silicon life may be impossible or unsustainable.
Are crystals rudimentary pre-life forms? An intreaging idea but I would conclude not as they do not have the ability to reproduce. On the same train of thought: Is fire life?

just because something defies logic doesn't mean is can't be so. Take God, for instance.

Your just setting yourself up to be burnt here. Of course God defies logic and of course God does not exist.


(Edited by Aswissrole 2/7/2009 at 6:05 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 6:05 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting terminology here, aswissrole.

Your just setting yourself up to be burnt here. Of course God defies logic and of course God does not exist.


I believe if you deny God, you do get burned.

If you say that you know God does not exist than you are claiming to know everything. I know you are pretty smart, but I'm pretty sure you don't know everything. I bet you don't even know half of everything. But if you did, could God exist in the other half?

Why you cannot make the intellecual jump and conclude that "macro-evolution", as you call it, is the same thing I don't know.


I might ask why you are not intellectually honest enough to admit that they are not.

Here are some definitions I copied out of my biology textbook:

"In biology, evolution refers to the processes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest forms to the vast diversity that characterizes it today."

"A population is the smallest unit that can evolve."

"Phylogeny- the evolutionary history of a species."

"Microevolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's allele or genotype frequencies."

"Anagenesis or phyletic evolution is the transformation of one entire species into another."

"Cladogenesis or branching evolution is the budding of one or more new species from a parent species that continues to exist."

"Adaptive radiation- the evolution of many diversely adapted species from a common ancestor such as with Darwin's finches."

"Macroevolution is the origin of taxonomic groups higher than the species level."

This book is a 4th edition, 1996 copyright. I don't know how a 2008 edition would treat these definitions.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:20 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's equivalent to me seeing you take a step and saying that it's impossible for you to walk a mile.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:57 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, Apoapsis, very well put.

If it was found that the Bible says that the creation took place 6kkk years ago, would you reconsider Evolution as a valid theory, timbrx?

They don't "compete to occupy" the same locus. They occupy a locus. They may "compete" for dominance but the recessive always loses unless it has help.
You're talking about cistrons, as a synonimus of "gene".

I don't.

Sorry if it seemed like i didn't know what i was talking about.

For future references, and for practicity, assume that i do know what i'm talking about. ^_^

Alleles do compete (in a sense) in the scheme of Evolution.

I didn't say they compete once they already are in an individual.

The number of alleles does not "disprove" the bible because the two original pairs could have had enough information to contain all of the genetic possibilities.
How so? With just 23 pairs of chromosomes each?


We can see about six alleles for the eye color.
No, we can see about six allele combinations from three gene alleles.
Hey! You've done your homework!

That's cool.

But it actually depends on your definition of "gene". Exon-intron-exon (a cistron) is a tempting one (i mean, such units make individual proteins), but during meiosis such divisions don't have to be respected.

To me those six combinations of what you call "genes", are the actual genes. Because a "gene" is a genetic unit. And i'd rather consider the biggest possible one.

Besides, if three genes can be in different locus (or even in different chromosomes), it's pretty much up to you if you decide to think of it as the same gene or not.

But i assure you it's just a matter of semantics. I also assure you that i'm not alone with this definition.

Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene)
Perhaps two cistrons which have a beneficial effect only when they are both present-they complement or reinforce each other in some way-will be brought close to each other by means of inversion.
That's when a segment of some chromosome gets cut and reattached upside down.
Then natural selection may tend to favour the new 'genetic unit' so formed, and it will spread through the future population. It is possible that gene complexes have, over the years, been extensively rearranged or 'edited' in this kind of way.

One of the neatest examples of this concerns the phenomenon known as mimicry. Some butterflies taste nasty. They are usually brightly and distinctively coloured, and birds learn to avoid them by their 'warning' marks. Now other species of butterfly that do not taste nasty cash in. They mimic the nasty ones. They are born looking like them in colour and shape (but not taste). They frequently fool human naturalists, and they also fool birds.
A bird who has once tasted a genuinely nasty butterfly tends to avoid all butterflies that look the same. This includes the mimics, and so genes for mimicry are favoured by natural selection. That is how mimicry evolves.

There are many different species of 'nasty' butterfly and they do not all look alike. A mimic cannot resemble all of them: it has to commit itself to one particular nasty species. In general, any particular species of mimic is a specialist at mimicking one particular nasty species.

But there are species of mimic that do something very strange. Some individuals of the species mimic one nasty species; other individuals mimic another. Any individual who was intermediate or who tried to mimic both would soon be eaten; but such intermediates are not born. Just as an individual is either definitely male or definitely female, so an individual butterfly mimics either one nasty species or the other. One butterfly may mimic species A while his brother mimics species B. It looks as though a single gene determines whether an individual will mimic species A or species B.

But how can a single gene determine all the multifarious aspects of mimicrycolour, shape, spot pattern, rhythm of flight? The answer is that one gene in the sense of a cistron probably cannot. But by the unconscious and automatic 'editing' achieved by inversions and other accidental rearrangements of genetic material, a large cluster of formerly separate genes has come together in a tight linkage group on a chromosome. The whole cluster behaves like a single gene-indeed, by our definition it now is a single gene-and it has an 'allele' which is really another cluster. One cluster contains the cistrons concerned with mimicking species A; the other those concerned with mimicking species B. Each cluster is so rarely split up by crossing-over that an intermediate butterfly is never seen in nature, but they do very occasionally turn up if large numbers of butterflies are bred in the laboratory.

I am using the word gene to mean a genetic unit that is small enough to last for a large number of generations and to be distributed around in the form of many copies. This is not a rigid all-or-nothing definition, but a kind of fading-out definition, like the definition of 'big' or 'old'.

The more likely a length of chromosome is to be split by crossing-over, or altered by mutations of various kinds, the less it qualifies to be called a gene in the sense in which I am using the term. A cistron presumably qualifies, but so also do larger units. A dozen cistrons may be so close to each other on a chromosome that for our purposes they constitute a single long-lived genetic unit.

The butterfly mimicry cluster is a good example. As the cistrons leave one body and enter the next, as they board sperm or egg for the journey into the next generation, they are likely to find that the little vessel contains their close neighbours of the previous voyage, old shipmates with whom they sailed on the long odyssey from the bodies of distant ancestors.
Neighbouring cistrons on the same chromosome form a tightly-knit troupe of travelling companions who seldom fail to get on board the same vessel when meiosis time comes around.

To be strict, this book should be called not The Selfish Cistron nor The Selfish Chromosome, but The slightly selfish big bit of chromosome and the even more selfish little bit of chromosome. To say the least this is not a catchy tide so, defining a gene as a little bit of chromosome which potentially lasts for many generations, I call the book The Selfish Gene.


But since there's discussion about it, your statement makes sense and is welcome.

Add to that mutation (yes, evolution within a species or micro-evolution) and so called "junk genes" and there is plenty of raw material to make a you and a me.
Well, we seem to be almost in agreement...

You acknowledge that Evolution is true, but not to the full extent...

I think two individuals can hardly make a viable population (specially humans). It would lead to an increase in homozygosity in the next generations (resulting in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes).
That would result in:
   * reduced fertility
   * increased genetic disorders
   * fluctuating facial asymmetry
   * lower birth rate
   * higher infant mortality
   * slower growth rate
   * smaller adult size
   * loss of immune system function.

Perhaps you'd say that Noah and family didn't have recessive genes... But without immediate genetic variability any virus could kill us all.

Anyway 4k years of human mutation isn't good enough to produce all the alleles we see today.

We mutate quite slowly now that we're 6kkk, imagine when we were six (Noah and wife didn't produce more than 3 sons), that descended from two people 2k years before...

If you believe in the Ark (please, do tell, for you've been silent about that subject so far) you have to believe in a superfast evolution.

Did Noah carry a pair of the marsupial kind, or a pair of each of the marsupials? Did he carry two of the ape kind? Or did he carry two of each ape species?

You keep attacking the TOE, because it's crystal clear.

What any creationist believes is pretty obscure, random, incongruent, and contradictory from one creationist to the next.

Please check your logic here, wisp. At what point along the steady progression of self replicating chemicals would you consider them to be alive?
It doesn't matter to me.

I don't even know (or care) if viruses are alive or not.

You too know what i mean. Don't play dumb.
Abiogenesis, in spite of it's name, is just about that. It pretty much denies the boundaries between life and non-life.

Any definition is of limited use. "The map is not the territory". Definitions don't change the facts. Don't get too obsessed with them, or you will miss the facts. ^_^

Even when you know something exactly, you might not be able to put it a name. So what?

Would you consider viruses to be alive or not?
I don't care, but since it seems to be so important to you, please, tell. I have good objections no matter what answer you provide.

Of course I realize that life from non life defies logic. And just because something defies logic doesn't mean is can't be so.
What? Are you an evolutionist now?
Take God, for instance.
Oh, answered.

About micro and macro... I know how you feel.

We (well, not me) made up those concepts, you cling to those concepts, and next we take them away from you. Sorry about that. Such frivolous concepts provide little or no intellectual advantage and should have never been coined.

So what you say is that no new organ or function can be produced in nature?

You mean within your lifetime? That's highly unlikely.

We can see how electric shocking organs have developed independently on various species that had an electric sensory system, for instance.

Our pineal gland was once photosensitive. That is evident because it's still sensitive in the descendants of the old reptiles that were our forefathers, and because it now secretes melatonine, that is sleep-related.

Every organ, every species, everything speaks of Evolution. And you cover your ears.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:22 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The law is self evident. To prove it would be to disprove abiogenesis. How do you prove a negative?

How do you prove a negative?  I don't know, you're the one making the claim.  Nothing in science is self evident, everything must be supported by evidence.  You said the law of biogenesis is an established scientific law, yet you can't show any evidence that supports it.  Essentially, you've got nothing to support your claim, teh "law of biogenesis" is meaningless when discussing the origin of life.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:50 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrix - I don't mean you will get litteraly burnt. Its thread talk. You set yourself up to be argued against. Consider it a metaphore.

I have herd this strange argument for god and it is rather pointless. You can't start believeing in stuff because you don't know if its true or not. By your logic we should believe that there is a giant pinapple at the center of every galaxy and that when you go through a black hole you appear on "Who's line is it anyway?".

Can you please tell us what part of "macro-evolution" you don't believe. Try and narrow it down to a single aspect or a series of single aspects.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:00 AM on February 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Aswissrole at Sun February 8, 2009 - 04:00 AM
Timbrix - I don't mean you will get litteraly burnt. Its thread talk. You set yourself up to be argued against. Consider it a metaphore.


I understand the metaphor. I was pointing out the irony.

I have herd this strange argument for god and it is rather pointless.


No, the point is that a definitive statement such as "There is no God" is false simply on the grounds that it is beyond knowing. Atheism is a delusion. Agnosticism is at least intellectually honest.

Can you please tell us what part of "macro-evolution" you don't believe. Try and narrow it down to a single aspect or a series of single aspects.


I don't believe that evolution beyond the species level is proven or even provable. Where I take offense is not in the possibility that it could happen but rather in the pronouncement that it has happened. It falls into the same vein as the pronouncement that there is no God. To say that there is only evolution is equally a delusion. To present (macro)evolution as a fact is a lie.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:16 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, the point is that a definitive statement such as "There is no God" is false simply on the grounds that it is beyond knowing.
Beyond knowing, experiencing, touching, existing.

Atheism is a delusion. Agnosticism is at least intellectually honest.
Yeap. Honest and the silliest of them all.

You can doubt the beingness of a god. Not the God.

The infinite is a concept. There's no point in doubting it.

Does the color red exist, or are there only red things?

Yahweh is so flawed that is definitely a god. But Christians have assimilated him to the God.

I don't believe that evolution beyond the species level is proven or even provable.
And we don't know what you mean by species.

I thought creationists didn't exactly believe in species, but "kinds"...

What's a species? A group of animals that can't mate with any other group perhaps?

What about animals that don't mate?

timbrx, you didn't answer to this thread:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=41629



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:38 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And we don't know what you mean by species.

I thought creationists didn't exactly believe in species, but "kinds"...

Fair statement. Let me clarify.
Species

Definition

noun, singular or plural: species

(taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.

Word origin: Middle English, logical classification, from Latin speciēs, a seeing, kind, form.

The imperfect debatable classification system makes it difficult to define species or kind absolutely.
The original "kinds" would be the ones that could breed together.


What about animals that don't mate?


Such as? The Bible "kinds" from the ark were animals that walked on the surface. I don't think worms counted.

timbrx, you didn't answer to this thread:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=41629

check again.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:31 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The imperfect debatable classification system makes it difficult to define species or kind absolutely.
Of course it does!

To us it's a puzzle. To us it's a very complex issue.

To creationists there's no such a puzzle.

I asked for your definition.

The original "kinds"
By "original" you mean "biblical"? It's not clear to me.
would be the ones that could breed together.
"Would be"? What do you mean? Are you expressing doubt?

The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
That's nothing, so far. An ouroboros.

An individual belonging to a group of organisms
That's not what we're talking about.
(or the entire group itself)
Now i like it more...
having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.
Usually?

Is that what you really mean?

Would you say that individuals that cannot mate with each other (provided that they are of different sex, of course) could still belong to the same species?

Let the dictionary alone: Are the bonobos and chimps the same species to you?

What about wallabies and the big kangaroos?

Foxes and dogs?

Asiatic and African elephant?

Does every rose belong to the same species?

Did you know that tigers and lions can mate?


What about animals that don't mate?
Such as?
Such as some species of Cnemidophorus.


Which is a genus of lizards which belong to the family of Teiidae (wait, do you believe in families?).

In about 30% of the Cnemidophorus species, there are no males, and they reproduce through parthenogenesis (females clone themselves, but they engage in lesbian sex for the cloning to set out). Was that a part of God's plan?

Those species without males are now known to originate through hybridization, or interspecific breeding.

(Source: wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnemidophorus)

Wait... Can there be any interspecific breeding in your theory? Will you regard them members of the same species if they can breed?

The guy/s who wrote the wiki article do/es not.


Would you say that they appeared after the ark?

But if that's the case how could they have become hybridized? I mean, there were only two at the ark, and then what?

If new species appeared after the flood event, in what sense are you denying Evolution???

Which also makes me think...

Does the oil and related products come from the flood? This is a very important issue. I'd like to hear an answer for this one.

The Bible "kinds" from the ark were animals that walked on the surface.
So you do believe in the ark?

I don't think worms counted.
How did they survive then?

Edit:
I still wonder...


Did Noah carry a pair of the marsupial kind, or a pair of each of the marsupials? Did he carry two of the ape kind? Or did he carry two of each ape species?

Would you consider viruses to be alive or not?

Did you follow my definition of "gene" (and "allele")? Did you approve of it?

Did Adam, Eve, and Noah's descendents all have 23 pairs of chromosomes?

Did they have recessive genes at all? If not, how did they appear in such an abundance over 4k years?

Would you agree that there are lots and lots of confusing issues for creationists?

Most of our confusions come just when tagging findings.


(Edited by wisp 2/9/2009 at 12:57 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:35 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, Lots of really good questions.

The short answer is I don't know.

Creationists have coined the term bariminology and developed a classification system in an attempt to answer these very questions about species and kind. They get paid to think. I do it for fun. So let them answer.
http://www.creationbiology.org/

You keep referring to my theory as though it is actually mine. Rather is is a theory that I embrace.

If new species appeared after the flood event, in what sense are you denying Evolution???


I believe that new variations within a kind "evolved"into what we see today. And many more variations of kind died out.

Would you agree that there are lots and lots of confusing issues for creationists?


Sure. No less than for evolutionists. My answer to many of them is God did it that way. Your answer to them might be millions of years did it that way.

While both answers can be unsatisfying, they are equally valid when expressing the inability to know the full answer.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:33 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, Lots of really good questions.
Will you try to answer to the rest of them? At least some short answer...

The short answer is I don't know.
To all of my questions? You don't know whether viruses are alive or not?

The thing about oil and related products is that the ID theory claims that they formed by the pressure of the flood water.

What i say is that if that's the case, how come God ordered Noah to paint the ark with tar?

http://www.creationbiology.org/ takes ages to load, and it's about conferences, i think. I found no text about the subject (but perhaps it's because it's not very well organized, and the text may be somewhat hidden).

You keep referring to my theory as though it is actually mine. Rather is is a theory that I embrace.
There are actually lots of different "theories" under the term "Creationism". Even under "Young Earth Creationism". Or "variants" if you will.

I wonder what's yours.

If new species appeared after the flood event, in what sense are you denying Evolution???
I believe that new variations within a kind "evolved"into what we see today.
They even """"evolved"""" to such an extent as to lose the ability of interbreeding?

Why does that match Evolution so perfectly?

Do you think that the lizard i posted about can fit in the Creationist theory?


Would you agree that there are lots and lots of confusing issues for creationists?
Sure. No less than for evolutionists.
Indeed no less. Much more, i'd say.

But again (and again, and again, and again) our confusion is justified. We know it's confusing!
Specially the tagging part. It's pretty much conventional. We make up tagging rules, and then we find bugs that fall in between of our "classes". Like the Platypus. But we know they can show up.

But it's clear for us that those tags are made up.

In the case of Creationism it shouldn't be that way. There's no convention. Either two animals have a common ancestor, or they don't.

Confusion about species is evidence for Evolution.

My answer to many of them is God did it that way.
His way certainly looks like some species are more related than others, but that all of them are ultimately related.

Your answer to them might be millions of years did it that way.
Hell yeah!

While both answers can be unsatisfying,
I'm satisfied with mine.

they are equally valid when expressing the inability to know the full answer.

You don't know if all elephants share a common ancestor.
We do.

You don't know if all marsupials share a common ancestor.
We do.

We know that any findings we find will be in harmony with Evolution. We can even predict some of those findings.

We can understand and even predict behaviors.

Creationism really doesn't know anything. No matter what we find, you bend your "theory" to explain it.


(Edited by wisp 2/9/2009 at 10:10 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:06 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My answer to many of them is God did it that way.

A classic way for a creationist to get out of awnsering a question. Why did God do it? How did God do it?

A thing that always confuses me about your flood is what happened to the fish? Noah presumably did not take these on the ark and so you must presume they survived the flood. However, there are many extinct sea creatures, probably more than land creatures. How does your flood hypothesis acount for them?

FYI: Stop calling ID a theory. It is a hypothesis, not a theory.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:33 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"God did it that way"... Why does He ALWAYS make it so as to fit Evolution?

Did god want EVERY instinct we see in nature?

Can there be interspecific mating?

Do all elephants share a common ancestor?

Do all marsupials share a common ancestor?

Felines?

Canines?

Apes?

Can members of the same kind lose their ability to mate with each other through generations of isolation?

Did new species appear after the flood, or not?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:49 PM on March 2, 2009 | IP
Atomicus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seems amazing to me people like timbrx still exist? It really perplexes me what it is about evolution that people like him don't get, and why they hold on so feebly to this concept of 'creationism', and KEEP recycling that oft-repeated answer "god made it that way". The narrow mindedness of such a statement is utterly staggering to me. It's been said in this thread and countless others, but the evidence for evolution is simply undeniable on so many levels that it actually rather annoys me that people like timbrx are even given the time of day. It's akin to the Scientology argument of aliens and volcanoes and all that horse crap. Why even enter into debate about it... especially when trying to convince these people is such a fruitless exercise. If you believe in a talking snake and that woman came from a man's rib, then i say good day to you sir, and don't forget your medication on the way out.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:53 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Atomicus at Wed March 4, 2009 - 08:53 AM
Seems amazing to me people like timbrx still exist?

Survival of the fittest. Remember?

It really perplexes me what it is about evolution that people like him don't get,

What I don't get is how someone can claim "evolution is a fact" when referring to the "common ancestry" "microbe to man" aspect of evolution.

and why they hold on so feebly to this concept of 'creationism',

I'd say I have a rather tenacious grasp onto the concept.

and KEEP recycling that oft-repeated answer "god made it that way".

I agree that anti-intellectualism is a weakness that many creationists suffer from. But that is because historically we haven't had to defend our position. That is changing rapidly.

The narrow mindedness of such a statement is utterly staggering to me.

Perhaps because you have never believed in something more deeply than your intellectual understanding allows.  

It's been said in this thread and countless others, but the evidence for evolution is simply undeniable on so many levels that it actually rather annoys me that people like timbrx are even given the time of day.

I can't say that I've won any "points" but I believe I've held my own pretty well. The subject of this thread is "Facts". However it is not the facts as presented in the pretty pictures or eloquent arguments that is at issue. But rather the interpretation of these facts. With all of the "undeniable evidence" there is still nothing that has convinced me that "evolution (microbes to man) is a fact.

It's akin to the Scientology argument of aliens and volcanoes and all that horse crap. Why even enter into debate about it... especially when trying to convince these people is such a fruitless exercise.

Than why are you entering the debate? I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else anything other than that creationists are not totally crazy.

If you believe in a talking snake and that woman came from a man's rib, then i say good day to you sir, and don't forget your medication on the way out.

Perhaps you can recommend some good medications?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:30 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
What I don't get is how someone can claim "evolution is a fact" when referring to the "common ancestry" "microbe to man" aspect of evolution.
To man?

Man, you're obsessed with man.

Man is no big deal, in evolutionary terms. One celled organism to many-celled organisms. That's something!

It's not that hard, but it's quite exciting nevertheless.

The steps in between have been shown to you, and you say that God just made them that way.

Why are we made of cells at all?

God made us that way. Because he fancied it.

You still don't say why is it that God chose to made every living creature in a way that each one of them can be easily be put in the evolutionary tree.

Ok, the liiiitle detailed branching can be somewhat confusing at times (specially when we only have partial fossils to work with). But it's ok. It's a nice puzzle.

We show you the dents and fitting shapes of the pieces, and you deny them.

I've shown you a rat-dog animal turning into a whale, just like seals and several other species are doing today.

I'd still want to know how many elephants did Noah carry into the ark. How many were alive then, and how many are alive today.

Do all marsupials share a common ancestor, or not?

Felines?

Can there be interspecific mating, under your definition of 'species'?

Have new animal species appeared since the flood event, under your definition of 'species'?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:17 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Timbrx.

Firstly it is very honorable of you to admit you don't know about some things in one of your latter posts. That is hard for  anybody to admit, even though it shouldn't be. I am not being facetious when I say that would make you a better scientist than creationist. When scientists can't say something with good reason, they are prone to excusing themselves profusely with caveats that we are now entering into speculative waters etc.

Quote from timbrx at 08:46 AM on February 6, 2009 :Orion,
the thing that Creationist seem to ask, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to see a large, non-microbe species transform before their very eyes.


You are wrong. What creationists continuously ask is where is the evidence for microbes to man evolution and since there is none, other than anecdotal evidence, why can't evolutionists admit to the holes in the theory?


As I understand it, creationists often complain that evolution on a grand scale i.e."to see a large, non-microbe species transform before their very eyes." is not observed and that is supposed to be an indictment upon evolution. Of course it is just another creationist strawman and totally misrepresents what is predicted by TOE.

I am looking to try and see how your "microbes to man evolution" differs from 'large, non-microbe species transformation', and I am finding that hard, as well as what benefit you would gain from making this distinction. If you wish to know how microbes became men, you will have to first understand large, non-microbe species (or even microbe species) transform, from ancestors to decedents, evolving new species along the way. The process is called speciation.

Whether they are macro- or microscopic is not important in any functional sense, except that macroscopic organisms do tend to reproduce sexually, so making species distinction is conveniently punctuated by interbreeding populations. Also the common creationist demand, that the evidence be 'observable' is more easily satisfied, if we have large organisms which can be observed without specialist equipment.

One of the problems that we might point out about your complaint, is that it seems hopelessly ambiguous. As if you have claimed to see a leprechaun, and when we asked you where you saw it, you pointed as you turned in a slow 360 degree circle, waving your extended index finger up and down, and declared "over there".

By saying you have a problem with "microbes to man evolution" you are not specifying whether that is supposed to be a reference to the whole human lineage, or whether you have a problem with the progression from microscopic to man size organisms, or whether you just mean the vast amount of change required to get from a microbe to a homo sapiens.

The usual creationist gripe, is that one 'kind' can not become another. And that is what is usually being challenged when the micro/macro evolution issue is raised.

Last night I had a long conversation with one of my MD friends, Pathologist, who believes in creation and is currently working on his masters. I asked him why I can't find an evolutionist willing to recognize the difference between what was formerly known as micro and macro evolution and he said because they don't want to officially recognize the difference.


Have you tried pointing out what the difference is from a functional point of view? No seriously if there is a functional difference from the genes eye view, then you should be able to point out what that difference is and how inevitable, or at least tangible / real the distinction is?

He said that in his over 25 years of highly technical practice he has seen no reason why macro evolution needs to be taught as "necessary" to understanding biology.

Until we can come to a satisfactory mutual understanding of the difference between the two similar but unrelated things than any discussion of the age of the earth or the fossil record is a waste of time.


I'm sorry Timbrx, but that would be letting you set the agenda and unjustifiably pretend that evolution has a discrepancy which you refuse to specify. Your "microbes to man evolution" could mean anything including the entirety of evolution i.e. every process and event, that leads from microscopic life to bipedal primates. So your problem with evolution is 'evolution'.

I am suspecting your frustration with effect, is a product of your unfamiliarity with the cause or the mechanism of evolution. Without an understanding of the underlying mechanism, you still scratch your head and say 'how is this whole thing possible?' But you cant point as a mechanism and say something like 'X and Y can't both happen if Z is present'. Pointing out a logical dilemma, regarding some cause and effect relationships of a process, is only possible if you understand the proceeds. Understanding your problem, for us, is damn near impossible, if you are not able to point it out.

I know I am going out on a limb, but If I had to guess at something specific you were getting hung up about, I would say it was speciation. That is the process in biological evolution whereby populations may diverge to become new species. I am guessing you don't have a proper working knowledge of natural selection either. Perhaps I can dispense with an explanation of NS, as it does seem that you except what other creationists call micro-evolution. Although that is a nonsense idea, it does at least admit that natural selection occurs and that adaption happens in a breeding population.

You really should gain a working knowledge of natural selection, before you can understand speciation, but let's try and go with whatever we have. You know there is variation in the gene pool of a species even if you don't see it in the outward forms (phenotypes) of the individuals right? As the generations go by, the individuals can vary in their characteristics. getting thicker hair, becoming taller or shorter or whatever. The traits are themselves, expressions of the genes.

Natural selection works, because it can't help it. Any traits that are beneficial to the organism are the ones which lead to a healthier longer and more prosperous life. That inevitably leads to more mates, longer reproductive life and healthier offspring etc etc. Even non reproductive traits, like building shelter / nesting have some impact on overall quality of life and therefore better reproductive success.

Now, the changes in a population are really adaptations to the environment. If it gets colder some may grow more hair and as a result live longer more prosperous and fertile lives. Genes for hairiness will tend to proliferate. Damn, I didn't want to start explaining natural selection, but anyhow... The point is, that it is important to look at natural selection from the stand point of the environment when you are thinking about speciation.  

Adaptation is driven by environmental change and by the changing nature of the ecological niche. Habitats and ecological niches are dynamic changing entities. They are modified by Changing longterm weather systems, forest fires and more directly by the changing opportunities and challenges   presented by other organisms. Organisms in turn also, have an impact on their habitat.

Amidst this turmoil of change a species can adapt because it has a variable gene pool, a library of morphological traits it can drawn upon. Individuals can't do this of course, because each individual is only dealt one hand, a but generations of breeding populations can. Changes in the environment are inevitable and corresponding adaptations for fitness are inevitable.

The collective traits of a species its (phenotype) is like a river flowing through time. We could say the wider the river the greater the population. The faster the flow the more selection pressure and adaptation. The deeper the water the more genetic variation. There are many ways to pad out this metaphor, and one of them is bifurcation. When the river meets high ground more or less head on. The water has to find low ground somewhere because it only flows down hill. Rivers don't always stick to the same path. Sometimes they have to divide or bifurcate into two separate rivers.

Imagine a species of medium sized seed eating birds. Their habitat is an open savanna bordering woodlands. We can suppose that their main staple food supply is a seed producing flower, lets suppose it was something like a sunflower. Fairly large seeds though. Changing whether patterns lately have brought slightly windier weather conditions, and with them a new foraging opportunity. A plant like the dandelion which uses wind for prorogation has started to appear because of the higher breezes.

The seeds of the dandelion like plant are much smaller as they are well adapted to wind dispersal methods. The small seeds are more nutritious but they do require more effort to find and also to pick out of the unripened seed head. Most of the birds can get by quite happily without these new dandelions, but almost all of them learn that if the staple sunflower type is scarce in some extremities of the range you may find yourself in, the dandelion type seed will supply a nice energy hit to tide you over.

The bird species has a natural range of variations so adaptations can lead to new success strategies for more a more prosperous life. Some of these birds find they are more successful than most of the other birds, with the dandelion type flowers, which are now becoming quite prolific, when perhaps their beaks are just a little bit pointier or if they are smaller. The advantage of the pointy beak is to get the smaller seed, the advantage of the smaller size is it's better adaption to ground dwelling as well as to require less of the.  

Different traits of the original species, may favor increased dependence upon larger amounts of the dandelion type plant, while other traits, like larger size, thicker beak, more airborne body, would favor the sunflower eaters. What we have within the same breeding population is that formation of two lifestyle specialties. Notice that there is nothing whatsoever to stop this from happening.

The very same ordinary genetic mechanisms that produce genetic adaption to one single ecological niche can just as easily draw the natural variations into two diverging streams, because what defines a fertile niche, is not prevented from divergence nor is a gene pool or more accurately a gene river.

The differences between the breeding populations are magnified over time at first because the smaller ground dwelling variant, is more likely to find a small ground dwelling mate. This is true even if only because they spend more time in the same situations. The mating game amplifies any difference. On top of this they may then, develop different courtship rituals and plumage that they find more appealing in their own sub-population.

Strengthening genetic bonds with 'birds of a feather' if you will, helps your own genes to survive, because they are better off being shared with somebirdy more like yourself. The physical and embryological characteristics that make fertility and physical mating possible are also just more traits that are themselves controlled by genes.  

The two populations may eventually be self reliant and find themselves in their own completely differentiated niche. The nesting habitats may change to adapt to separate niches. The food staples may change again etc. Once there are clearly different niches and two different populations there is nothing stopping a run away process.

That may be a hypothetical I have drawn, but there is nothing in principal or practice that makes speciation impossible. There is nothing in principal or practice that prevents it from being inevitable. The fact is that genes do exist and they carry phenotypical traits, everything from the crocodiles tail to the ducks beak. So evolution doesn't predict crocoducks but only for want of an environment in which it's body type would be a favorable adaption.

Genes don't know any species boundaries. The same gene for hemoglobin is found in my chromosomes as is found in chimps and any other species which has hemoglobin. The same is true for millions of other genes. Speciation (transition from one species to another) can also be seen spread out in geographical space, rather than through time. The wonderful ring species show us just how one species can make a gradual transition from one place to another through a continuous unbroken chain that eventually ends in a different species, genetically and physically incompatible with the species at the other end.

I do hope that helps, but I won't hold my breath.




-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 5:40 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Than why are you entering the debate? I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else anything other than that creationists are not totally crazy.


Sorry T!  The state of your mental health is not at issue here.

Surely you can't deny that evolution, as a working hypothesis( whether its right or wrong in an absolute sense), has stimulated enormous amounts of scientific effort which, in turn, has been productive beyond Darwin's wildest dreams. To deny this simple FACT would seriously compromise your credibility.

DO YOU deny this fact?
Can you show us where creation scientists have made similar contributions to modern biology?
What, in your view, are the attributes of a GOOD scientific theory?



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:12 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skepticus, you have a gift for spotting the real problems. You always do.

I had not realized.
timbrx, that's exactly what you do. When you say that you have problems with microbe to man evolution, your statement shows billions of years worth of vagueness.

Skepticus
Natural selection works, because it can't help it. Any traits that are beneficial to the organism are the ones which lead to a healthier longer and more prosperous life.
Not true. Organisms are disposable. They are built by the genes, and all it matters to a gene is itself.

If a short life and a cruel death will give the genes more copies of itself, that's what will happen to the organism. And sometimes that does happen.

Normally a gene works in some way on the phenotype. Normally that's the best thing they can do to improve their own chances of making copies. But that doesn't happen all the time.

To each gene, the rest of the genes in the same gene pool are part of their environment. According to its interests, it will compete with some genes (its alleles), cooperate with others, and will fuck others in the ass to benefit itself, if it can get away with it, even for a few generations.

Under normal circumstances meiosis gives each allele a 50/50 chance of making it into the gamete.

There are some nasty genes that work on the meiosis. They 'beat the system'. They cheat. They give themselves a higher chance.

If such a gene can give the organism any advantage, it would be VERY lucky.

What's most likely is that it does some harm (that's what most mutations do).

These are called segregation distorters.

Natural selection doesn't work on organisms, but on genes (which normally manifest themselves on phenotypes, yes, on organisms).

The most famous of these infamous genes is the 't gene'. It's found in mice. It manages to give itself a 95% chance of making it into the gamete.

It gives absolutely no advantage to the organism. It's a parasite gene. And it will spread very quickly.

When a mouse has the t gene in only one set of chromosomes, nothing happens. But when it has it in the two sets (which will happen increasingly often), it will die young, or be sterile.

Wild populations of mice have been driven to extinction because of this fucker.

(I wish we could design a gene like that for mosquitoes. I hate mosquitoes.)

What i was going to is this: don't focus on organisms, or you'll get a couple of things wrong. Like mortality, or generosity, which don't make sense from the point of view of the organism.

Even non reproductive traits, like building shelter / nesting have some impact on overall quality of life and therefore better reproductive success.
To the genes, there's no difference between building a body or building a nest. Building a body is a little more direct, but it's not direct at all.

We can speak of genes for longer feathers, or genes for bigger nests. Same thing.

Now, the changes in a population are really adaptations to the environment.
That's true with the regular meaning of the word 'adaptation', but don't confuse them. In biology 'adaptation' happens in few or one generation. Existing traits work in a new way in a new environment.

It's just semantics, but they pay a lot of attention to that (instead of paying attention to the process of natural selection that gets them so confused).

Hum... 'Us' and 'them' sounds ugly.  

Perhaps I can dispense with an explanation of NS, as it does seem that you except what other creationists call micro-evolution.
You mean 'accept', right? Otherwise i find no sense in that phrase.

I believe that timbrx has little or no problems with your scenarios, because they don't include mutation.

Your speciation happens within the rank of variability of the original gene pool that has been divided.

No 'new information' is needed for that. Just lots of alleles.

How do alleles appear in those numbers from a couple of animals in the ark, and no useful mutation, beats me.

Hum... Perhaps pre-flood animals had thousands of sets of chromosomes, and a very weird meiosis.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:34 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
Surely you can't deny that evolution, as a working hypothesis( whether its right or wrong in an absolute sense), has stimulated enormous amounts of scientific effort which, in turn, has been productive beyond Darwin's wildest dreams. To deny this simple FACT would seriously compromise your credibility.

DO YOU deny this fact?
Can you show us where creation scientists have made similar contributions to modern biology?
What, in your view, are the attributes of a GOOD scientific theory?


No, I don't deny that sub-species evolution is useful. Selective breeding, enhanced genetic traits in corn, etc... Lots of great advances.

Trans-species evolution is another story. I would surmise that if researchers didn't spend so much time trying to prove this aspect of evolution they would actually come up with things that are useful.

I like the dinochicken. It would amaze me if they could pull it off. Even one supposed carry over trait and the chicken lives would be remarkable. But it wouldn't necessarily convince me that they could ever come up with anything other than a strange chicken. They are trying to make the results fit their presupposition. I think that's backwards and wasteful.

What if they said," look at all the possibilities locked inside every strand of DNA" rather than "look at all of the bygone traits locked inside ..."

As to creationist scientists making useful contributions to biology, I don't know. I'd imagine that it would be difficult to to advertise yourself as a creationist if you wanted objective peer review and research money.

I do know an internist and a general practitioner who treat patients daily and believe totally in creation.

A good scientific theory is one that works until a better one replaces it. But I don't see how trans-species evolution is more than an hypothesis.

skepticus
Your "microbes to man evolution" could mean anything including the entirety of evolution i.e. every process and event, that leads from microscopic life to bipedal primates. So your problem with evolution is 'evolution'.

That is a fair assessment. My problem is with "evolution" is that it is a general term used to encompass both what is observed and what is speculative.  

Your description of speciation is very well done. Clear, concise and indisputable. Similar results are obtained daily through selective breeding. I would have hoped that you would have had more confidence in an educated individual having an elementary understanding of natural selection.

Speciation (transition from one species to another)

I agree that a bird population can diverge into different species. But they are still birds. And at what point would a different genus "evolve"? or family?

This is where we have a problem. You point out, and rightly so, that to deny speciation through natural selection is willful ignorance. But to say that to accept speciation requires that you carry the concept forward (or backward as the case may be) and accept all of the rest of the TOE is faulty logic at best.

By saying you have a problem with "microbes to man evolution" you are not specifying whether that is supposed to be a reference to the whole human lineage, or whether you have a problem with the progression from microscopic to man size organisms, or whether you just mean the vast amount of change required to get from a microbe to a homo sapiens.

The usual creationist gripe, is that one 'kind' can not become another. And that is what is usually being challenged when the micro/macro evolution issue is raised.


See, you do recognize where our (creos) gripe is. An yes, you have pointed out (anecdotal) evidence to support your position that the term "evolution" must cover all aspects of variety of life. But it only supports your position because you have a preconception that the same forces that change the ground finch into the tree finch (or the reverse) must have changed the (dinosaur?) into the bird into the finch.

Well, here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. And this is why I think it is disingenuous of evos to lump all of diversity into one generic term and than call creos ignorant because we have a disagreement with the (larger?) part of the term. Talk about a straw man.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:28 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I don't deny that sub-species evolution is useful. Selective breeding, enhanced genetic traits in corn, etc... Lots of great advances.

Trans-species evolution is another story.
You have yet to show us your concept of 'species', and if it's the same as 'kinds' or not.

You have yet to answer me if interspecific breeding is even possible under your concept of 'species', whatever it might be.

Let's talk about specific problems, and give straightforward answers. Please.

But it wouldn't necessarily convince me that they could ever come up with anything other than a strange chicken. They are trying to make the results fit their presupposition. I think that's backwards and wasteful.
They were trying to make conical teeth? What??

Man, we're ages away from being able to pull THAT off.

What if they said," look at all the possibilities locked inside every strand of DNA" rather than "look at all of the bygone traits locked inside ..."
We can only unlock what's already there. We will never be able to unlock our feathers, because none of our ancestors ever had them.

I'd bet my life against 10 bucks on it.

timbrx, did God gave evolutionists magic powers to make predictions based upon a false theory? Because we just keep guessing right. And this will go on and on and on.

A good scientific theory is one that works until a better one replaces it. But I don't see how trans-species evolution is more than an hypothesis.
Because it all fits. Find something that doesn't.

I agree that a bird population can diverge into different species. But they are still birds. And at what point would a different genus "evolve"? or family?
At what point? At a very blurry point that last for millions of years, of course.

This is where we have a problem. You point out, and rightly so, that to deny speciation through natural selection is willful ignorance. But to say that to accept speciation requires that you carry the concept forward (or backward as the case may be) and accept all of the rest of the TOE is faulty logic at best.
If you only had speciation to work with, the TOE would be a hypothesis.

But after thousands of confirmatory facts, it's a theory.

Well, here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. And this is why I think it is disingenuous of evos to lump all of diversity into one generic term and than call creos ignorant because we have a disagreement with the (larger?) part of the term. Talk about a straw man.
Kinda right. That's why i pointed out that you would have no problem with Skepticus' scenarios.

BUT you're basically saying 'Ok, you can give three steps, but not ten. And you definately cannot walk for a mile.

It's up to you to say what's the difference between three steps and a mile. THAT would be naming your specific problem with Evolution.

Besides, NOW you're ok with speciation. But you had said that you did NOT believe in extra-species evolution before.

And you still don't say what a species is to you, and its relation with biblical 'kinds'. And if interspecific (or interkinded) breeding is possible under your two concepts.

I don't think that any of us will have a big problem recognizing that our concept of 'kind' is blurry.

It is blurry because of difficulties in taxonomy. The evolutionary tree.

It should be a piece of cake to you, since you don't believe in it.


No, I don't deny that sub-species evolution is useful. Selective breeding, enhanced genetic traits in corn, etc... Lots of great advances.

Trans-species evolution is another story.
You point out, and rightly so, that to deny speciation through natural selection is willful ignorance.
Huh?

I'm thinking you'll say something about context...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:49 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many elephant species are alive today?

Why does everyone ignore this simple question?

Ok, everyone but Orion.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:50 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - I found it!  I found the answer!

There are 4 (four) spcecies of elephants alive today!  DNA analysis has shown that the two spcecies of African elephants began to diverge about 2 1/2 million years ago.  Then there are two species of Asian elephants.  

Four species of Elephants today


And here i thought there were only two - 1 African and 1 Asian.  Boy was I wrong!  I betcha Noah didn't know there were four seperate species either.  Too bad.  Those other species of elephants he didn't know about must have drowned.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:15 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
No, I don't deny that sub-species evolution is useful. Selective breeding, enhanced genetic traits in corn, etc... Lots of great advances.


Trans-species evolution is another story.
You have yet to show us your concept of 'species', and if it's the same as 'kinds' or not.

I don't have a "concept" of species. Species is the word used to describe the bottom rung in the taxonomic scheme. Though widely used and constantly built upon, this particular rung is the most subjective by either side, as you well know.

You have yet to answer me if interspecific breeding is even possible under your concept of 'species', whatever it might be.

Yes and no (as you well know). Take 3 species of rabbit: x, y and z. X an z can interbreed, y and z can interbreed, but x and y can't. All are still a KIND of rabbit. The lack of ability to interbreed between x and y is due to a DIMINISHED gene pool.


Let's talk about specific problems, and give straightforward answers. Please.

Than please ask strait forward questions rather than flinging a barrage of strawmen as skepticus would put it.

timbrx
But it wouldn't necessarily convince me that they could ever come up with anything other than a strange chicken. They are trying to make the results fit their presupposition. I think that's backwards and wasteful.

They were trying to make conical teeth? What??

Apparently they are trying to make a pre-chicken out of the existing DNA in order to prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

wisp
timbrx, did God gave evolutionists magic powers to make predictions based upon a false theory? Because we just keep guessing right. And this will go on and on and on.

The "guesses" you refer to that prove to be right must be the ones that work within the subspecies area of evolution because to date nothing has been proven to support trans-speciation.

timbrx
A good scientific theory is one that works until a better one replaces it. But I don't see how trans-species evolution is more than an hypothesis.

Because it all fits. Find something that doesn't.

It fits into the box you made for it, but there is no demonstrable emperical evidence for it that would move it from hypothesis to theory.

timbrx
I agree that a bird population can diverge into different species. But they are still birds. And at what point would a different genus "evolve"? or family?

At what point? At a very blurry point that last for millions of years, of course.

Perhaps you see taxonomy the same way as Stephen Gould:
“But,” says Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.

wisp
BUT you're basically saying 'Ok, you can give three steps, but not ten. And you definately cannot walk for a mile.

It's up to you to say what's the difference between three steps and a mile. THAT would be naming your specific problem with Evolution.

Besides, NOW you're ok with speciation. But you had said that you did NOT believe in extra-species evolution before.

And you still don't say what a species is to you, and its relation with biblical 'kinds'. And if interspecific (or interkinded) breeding is possible under your two concepts.

I hope I've already cleared this up.






 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:41 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't have a "concept" of species. Species is the word used to describe the bottom rung in the taxonomic scheme. Though widely used and constantly built upon, this particular rung is the most subjective by either side, as you well know.

Species is the only naturally occurring taxonomic class.  Everything else is man made and our attempt to define different stations in a continuum.  Family, genius, class, phylum, kingdom, have no meaning in nature.  We use those terms to try and break up the life and make it more easily understood.  

Species are breeding populations.  That different but related species can still mate with each other is expected, as I said above, life is a continuum.  As these species become less and less related, as more and more different mutations accumulate in their genomes , they will be less likely to be able to successfully mate.  I don't think it's subjective, once you know how biology works.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:08 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon - excellently defined and explained.  Good job!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:27 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:46 PM on February 5, 2009 :
You are wrong. What creationists continuously ask is where is the evidence for microbes to man evolution and since there is none, other than anecdotal evidence, why can't evolutionists admit to the holes in the theory?


What kind of evidence would you consider not to be anecdotal?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:53 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.