literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 07:16 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mamabadger, so then can you please explain why the examples we have given of distinct species, not able to breed, are not acceptable? It seems because you think they look too much alike. And are of the same "kind", which is a made up category.
orangebird is offline  
#182 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 11:00 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
Sorry - I guess I'm not explaining what I mean very clearly.
It seems as if every discussion of new species evolving actually refers to a variation, not a real species. I think everyone accepts that organisms change over time in any number of ways. In ordinary speech, animals that change in colour, size, behavior, or other characteristics are called different species. Even biologists use this terminology, and ordinarily that's fine as a way to distinguish between groups of animals that look or act differently. However, they are still not different species at the genetic level.

Let me be very explicit, then. I am calling two animals the same species when the sperm of one will fertilize the ovum of the other. A new species has evolved from the old one only when that is no longer possible.

Over and over, animals are said to "evolve" into a different "species" when all they are really doing is going through outward changes. There is no new species, really. For example -

One group of flycatchers become separated from the rest and gradually develop a different mating song. The two groups will no longer interbreed. Is this a new species? No, sperm from either group will still fertilize ova from either group. They are not separate species; they just shun one another.
The same applies to any two groups of the same animals who become separated by distance, adapt to a different habitat, or are domesticated.

Lions and tigers are considered separate species. They are even native to two different continents. However, we now know that a lion and tiger, if brought together, can interbreed. In the strictest sense, they are actually the same species. I have no idea how long they have been separated, developing different characteristics, but however long it is, it was not long enough for them to change, genetically, into two species.

I'm afraid I'm spending far too long on this one point, but all the references I see here concern animals developing variations, not making the "great leap" from one species to another. I was trying to point out that forming an actual new species is a bigger deal than everyone seemed to think; I keep hearing about groups of animals who will no longer mate with each other (doesn't matter, their egg and sperm are still those of one species) or who are physically incapable of mating with each other (still doesn't matter, for the same reason) or who have been separated for ages (so were the lion and tiger) or what have you. If this still isn't clear, well, just move on.
Please come back, it's driving me crazy we can't come together on a definition. And I think in terms of the literal interpretation of Noah's arc, it is an important point.

When we have shown you species that have evolved in to two distinct species (unbreedable) you have came back and said they look too much alike. So are we talking about looks or are we not?

OK, here is one of my favorite games. What kind of animal is this?

Is it:

#1


#2

-or-

#3
orangebird is offline  
#183 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 11:25 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, I want to come back to this.

Earlier I posted this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

And here is part of the following conversation:


Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
I didn't want to put link after link, I just put a couple of examples. The main argument is that they are either human or not, not a mix.

I didn't see this post before I posted above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post


An intermediate isn't going to be a human, if it were, it would be a human. What do you mean by "mix"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
By mix I mean intermediate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
If those aren't intermediate species, what are they?

OK, my last question there wasn't answered. What are these other bones then? It was implied that they are not an "intermediate" because they aren't human. But if they were human they would be human and not an intermediate? If you look at the oldest fossil in the chain, compare it to humans of today, would not all the ones between the oldest and newest be "intermediates"? or "mixes"? What are you looking for when you ask for an intermediate? What, to you, makes something a "mix"?

I think we could eventually come out on the same page if we start to describe what we are asking for. Maybe I hope for too much! But it is important for me to understand the other POV. I want to understand what their questions are and where we actually disagree. Is that asking too much Thanks for being so patient with me.
orangebird is offline  
#184 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 12:32 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Haven't read the thread yet, don't get much computer time on weekends. I'll try to catch up later.
StacyL is offline  
#185 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 12:35 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Haven't read the thread yet, don't get much computer time on weekends. I'll try to catch up later.

Yeah!
orangebird is offline  
#186 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 04:27 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, lets start with something simple, the horse.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au..._evolution.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

What is it about the evolution of modern equus starting from eohippus and following it (and it's descendants) up that tree to the modern day that doesn't seem correct to you? We have many fossils of the intermediates, there are clearly different species in the modern day:
Quote:
-Equus burchelli: the Plains zebra of Africa, including "Grant's zebra", "Burchell's zebra", "Chapman's zebra", the half-striped Quagga, and other subspecies. The Plains zebra is what people usually think of as the "typical zebra",
-Equus zebra: the Mountain zebra of South Africa. This is the little zebra with the dewlap and the gridiron pattern on its rump.
-Equus grevyi: Grevy's zebra, the most horse-like zebra. This is the big zebra with the very narrow vertical stripes and huge ears.
-Equus caballus, the true horse, which once had several subspecies.
-Equus hemionus: the desert-adapted onagers of Asia & the Mideast, including the kiang
-Equus asinus: the true asses & donkeys of northern Africa.

And I also want to ask if the only thing you guys will accept is fossil records. I am not sure where I got the idea that that was what you were looking for but for some reason I gathered that. Is other evidence acceptable for me/us to bring up at this point? Because that is the most amazing thing about the theory right now, to me anyway, that the DNA evidence all agrees with the fossil evidence. In fact, it seems every way scientists have looked at it, geology, observed speciation, whatever, they all agree. Predictions have been made and later technology in DNA sequencing, or new fossil finds, have matched up and confirmed the predictions. It really is a well supported theory. So I wonder if you would accept genetics? Or are we just sticking with fossils?

And I want you to know that I want to play fair, I plan on reading the book you wanted me to Stacy.
orangebird is offline  
#187 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 05:57 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Mamabadger, I really don't think you are reading my posts. The study I quoted is an example of two populations of worms that, by your definition, became two different species i.e. after a period of isolation their egg and sperm were combined and did not produce viable offspring. <skip> Can you please address this rather than simply restating your position?
You posted just as I was writing my last post, so I missed your reply until now. This is a very busy thread! :

Quote:
If I may offer a suggestion, it seems that while you say that different species are defined as the egg and the sperm not producing viable offspring, your actual definition is different. That in order to be different species, they have to look totally different as well. This is the "folk" concept of species i.e. I can look and see that birds are all related and dogs are all related but that dogs and birds are not related. By that definition, the worm populations in my link would still be the same species because although their eggs and their sperm do not create viable offspring, they still look like worms.
Quote:
(from Orangebird) When we have shown you species that have evolved in to two distinct species (unbreedable) you have came back and said they look too much alike. So are we talking about looks or are we not?
I'm not sure where I ever mentioned appearance as being an issue. The only time I recall is when I said that two particular types of songbird were likely the same species because they were identical in appearance, behavior, and habitat, with the one exception of their mating song. Other than that, I don't think I've brought it up.
The only time I've read an assumption that two species must be related based on appearance has been in relating hominid fossils to humans, and that was a different poster.

As for the rat worm study, yes, that is what I mean by a genuinely separate species, and could be an example of real speciation in the wild. Obviously, it is not yet conclusive, for several reasons.
1) The study used a sample of just four (!) original pairs of worms. (Would you accept a conclusion about the safety of a vaccine based on studies of eight children?)
2) The animals had been exposed to non-lethal toxins, and nothing was said about the effect of these toxins on the worms' reproductive system.
3) As always, the evidence still only shows that the worms did not sucessfully reproduce with those of the other group, which does not yet prove that they have changed genetically.
I have no idea of what is involved in worm reproduction; probably it is fairly simple, but it is still possible that either changes in one group's characteristics or, at a very basic level, behavior (probably the WH group), or effects of toxins on the WH group, have made it less likely that the other groups will reproduce with it (or to produce viable eggs. We have seen that exposure to DDT has caused the eggs of some bird species, and some populations of that species more than others, to produce non-viable eggs) which would have to be ruled out before any conclusions could be drawn.
However, it's a good example, and the first one I've seen here that specifically addresses the issue of genetic species.

Quote:
What kind of animal is this?
I have no idea. Why?
mamabadger is offline  
#188 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 06:42 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because it's cute!


OK, since you brought up lions and tigers then, what about tigers and the common house cat. Are these seperate species and can we agree they share a common ancestor? Right now I'm toying with animals that still exist. I want to take this back eventually to some animals that are extinct. So what about tigers and house cats? Seperate species? Yes/no? I'm just trying to figure out where we can agree species are seperate but related.
orangebird is offline  
#189 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 07:36 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
OK, since you brought up lions and tigers then, what about tigers and the common house cat. Are these separate species and can we agree they share a common ancestor? Right now I'm toying with animals that still exist. I want to take this back eventually to some animals that are extinct. So what about tigers and house cats? Separate species? Yes/no? I'm just trying to figure out where we can agree species are separate but related.
I have no way to tell if tigers and house cats are the same species or not. Since they are physically unable to mate, I suppose the only way to determine that would be to mix the sperm of one with the egg of another in a lab, and see whether they can produce an embryo. If so, they are the same species.
mamabadger is offline  
#190 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 10:59 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yikes - you guys are moving fast! I will catch up tomorrow!
StacyL is offline  
#191 of 294 Old 08-19-2007, 11:58 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey, thanks for the response!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
I'm not sure where I ever mentioned appearance as being an issue.
Sorry, I misunderstood. It's just that I had posted about the study several times and you didn't seem to be accepting it, so I thought maybe there was some other, further criteria you were looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
As for the rat worm study, yes, that is what I mean by a genuinely separate species, and could be an example of real speciation in the wild. Obviously, it is not yet conclusive, for several reasons.
1) The study used a sample of just four (!) original pairs of worms. (Would you accept a conclusion about the safety of a vaccine based on studies of eight children?)
2) The animals had been exposed to non-lethal toxins, and nothing was said about the effect of these toxins on the worms' reproductive system.
3) As always, the evidence still only shows that the worms did not sucessfully reproduce with those of the other group, which does not yet prove that they have changed genetically.
OK, some responses to the above:
1) I think you misread the study. The study was not done on four pairs, it was done on the population of descendants that resulted after over 20 years from the four pairs i.e. a population of thousands (assuming a life span of maybe three years). That population was then interbred with populations from the wild and the eggs and sperm could not create viable offspring. So in terms of the analogy you gave, this would be equivalent to testing vaccines on a group of children that are the 7th-generation descendents of of four pairs of ancestors which would be a sample population of about 25,000 children. Yes, I would accept such a study.

2) We don't know what exactly they were exposed to, but there are all kinds of natural toxins/viruses/bacteria that populations of animals in the wild could be exposed to, so this is not an artificial event. Also, note that the worms were able to reproduce within their own community, so their reproductive systems obviously worked fine.

3) See, this is where I get confused about your definition of "changed genetically". What does that mean? In your other posts, you have said that it means the egg and the sperm cannot combine to create viable offspring (as opposed to animals simply not mating because of mechanical difficulties like size, or behavioral differences like mate preference.) I understand that. If you read the article, you will see that it distinguished between "premating isolation" which means the animals don't mate, and "postmating isolation" which means the animals do mate and can't produce viable offspring. This is exactly your stated definition. So if you are still questioning (3), that means you must have some other criteria up your sleeve besides the one you have stated. 'Cause if that really is your only criteria, this study fits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
I have no idea of what is involved in worm reproduction; probably it is fairly simple, but it is still possible that either changes in one group's characteristics or, at a very basic level, behavior (probably the WH group), or effects of toxins on the WH group, have made it less likely that the other groups will reproduce with it (or to produce viable eggs. We have seen that exposure to DDT has caused the eggs of some bird species, and some populations of that species more than others, to produce non-viable eggs) which would have to be ruled out before any conclusions could be drawn.
We can rule this out, actually, because the worms can reproduce within their own community just fine. Also, as stated above, the failure to reproduce was not due to mating behavior or other premating issues. It was a postmating failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
However, it's a good example, and the first one I've seen here that specifically addresses the issue of genetic species.
OK, now if you read the article you will see that there are a few other examples of postmating isolation given. In plants taken from the wild (no laboratory "artificial" conditions); in D. simulans flies; and in mosquitoes. So there are actually multiple examples of what you said never happens.
Thao is offline  
#192 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 12:50 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you Thao for helping me figure out exactly where the problem is. I thought great examples have been mentioned, but there seems to keep being problems with them that I can not isolate. As far as I am concerned all the examples mentioned on this end of the argument are valid and I am having a hard time distinguishing where this line is being drawn. Sometimes I think posters are arguing the breeding capabilities, and when that has been bought up it has been that they are too similar "looking" so I am getting really confused. I've been trying to break it down to baby steps to find the line. I am glad to see the worm line has gotten somewhere (frankly I was trying to stick to mammals out of fear I would get "well they are still bugs")

Thank you!
orangebird is offline  
#193 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 12:51 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
However, it's a good example, and the first one I've seen here that specifically addresses the issue of genetic species.
Wait, seriously? I have seen many. We must be reading different threads

OK, now that it is clear we aren;t only going to be worrying about fossil evidence, thank goodness! What do you make of the error in the area of DNA that regulates vitamin c synthesis (remember how we, humans, need to consume vitamin c in our diets? ) Unlike most mammals, humans do not synthesize vitamin c and need to have it in our diets. There are a few other mammals who also need a dietary intake of vitamin c. All mammals (except the few with a crippling mutation) have the same functioning gene, the one that helps them to make vitamin c, and the same one exists in us and our monkey/ape friends, except that we, us and our simian buddies, share a same mutation on this gene. The interesting thing is, the specific mutation that we have on our string of DNA, in the area that is responsible for the synthesization, is the exact error that is on the DNA of our close ape relatives. The other couple animals, guiea pigs and mice(?)[i forget wht the third group of animals is] also have a mutationon the vitamin c synthasizing gene, but a totally different mutation. The one we share with our ape relatives is idental showing that we have a common ancestor who had this mutation.
Quote:
For the example of the GLO unitary pseudogene of humans, it is known that vitamin C is required in the diet of other primates, (though not for other mammals except guinea pigs). The theory of evolution would make the strong prediction that primates should also be found to have GLO pseudogenes and that these would carry similar crippling mutations to the ones found in the human pseudogene. This prediction was stated in earlier versions of the present essay. A test of this prediction has recently been reported. A small section of the GLO pseudogene sequence was recently compared from human, chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan; all four pseudogenes were found to share a common crippling single nucleotide deletion that would cause the remainder of the protein to be translated in the wrong triplet reading frame
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, all, the exact same gene mutation. Why, if not for evolution and a common ancestor?

oh my gosh, please forgive my spelling and thinking for tonight. I got home from work a bit ago and should have been in bed already. I'll probably be horribly embarassed and come correct errors in the morning.
orangebird is offline  
#194 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 02:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
I have no way to tell if tigers and house cats are the same species or not. Since they are physically unable to mate, I suppose the only way to determine that would be to mix the sperm of one with the egg of another in a lab, and see whether they can produce an embryo. If so, they are the same species.
Ligers are prone to gigantism, and tigons have a tendancy towards dwarfism. Both are generally sterile. Both are short lived. If all the lions and tigers died and the "species" was left to ligers and tigons, the "species" would die out. Just because something may be able to create a hybird animal if we mix up their sperm and egg in a lab does not mean that they are truly the same species. It means that they are still genetically similar enough to create a hyrbid, but they cannot procreate successfully and successful procreation is what defines a species. A species will not survive without successful procreation and anything that cannot precreate succesfully now, could not less than 5000 years ago after the flood either. If there were only tigons or ligers on Noah's ark, we would have no lions, tigers, tigons, or ligers today because they would have died out in one or possibly two generations. I highly doubt that housecats could succesfully mate with a tiger because they can only mate with a handful of small wild cats, not even lynx or Bobcats, or anything that you would think they would be able to mate with. It's been tried because people will buy exotic cats, even if they are unhealthy hybrids. A housecat and tiger mix, if possible, would likely be an unhealthy hybrid that was sterile and died young. So obviously Noah needed all of the different species of cats, not just one protocat that gave birth to a new species every couple years.
jennica is offline  
#195 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 03:34 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wonder if this is where the disconnect lies between our definition of "species" and Mamabadger's definition. If two populations can create an embryo or even an offspring, but the offspring is not viable (meaning it always dies, or is really unhealthy, or is sterile and cannot reproduce further), are those two populations different species or not?

In other words, are donkeys and horses, which can mate but only produce infertile mules, the same species or different?

I would say they are different species, that is the definition I have been using. Viable offspring. But maybe Mamabadger would say no, if they are still similar enough to produce an embryo no matter how unviable in the long run, then they are one species.

If that is the case, Mamabadger, I do think you need to be clear about that, as I don't believe it is a commonly accepted definition of the term. I mean, just to avoid confusion.
Thao is offline  
#196 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 02:39 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, I've been reading up a little on Creation Science and it does sound like what Mamabadger has been talking about is called "kinds" or "baramin" by the Creationists. Here's an explanation:
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
Where the confusion is, is that exactly what these are has not yet been defined. One creationist website I read said that they are roughly parallel to the genus level, whereas this one says they are roughly parallel to the family level of taxonomy. They do say they are linked to reproduction, but don't say precisely how. The one thing all of the websites I read agreed on are that "kinds" are definitely NOT the same thing as "species".

I don't have a problem with them making up a new term and new classifications (after all someone made up our current system of taxonomy), but until they nail down some rules about how to define what makes a "kind" then it's really not very useful from a scientific standpoint. So I'll stick with the traditional terms until that happens.

So to summarize the last couple pages of this thread, the evolution of species (microevolution, i.e. ring species, worms) has been observed and scientifically documented. Evolution of animals across genera or families (macroevolution, i.e. a fish becomes a reptile becomes a mammal) has not been observed. Do we all agree? :-)

I will point out however that it is a logical error to say, as I think Mamabadger has been saying, that since we have never seen animals evolve across genera or families that this then disproves the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution is true, we would still not see animals evolving across genera or families because it happens over hundreds of millions of years and so is not something we can reproduce in the lab or observe in our lifespan, even with short-lived creatures like fruit flies. There are, however, a multitude of other testable hypotheses related to macroevolution which we can examine; orangebird's last post is one.

Think about Einstein's general theory of relativity for example. It says that gravitational pull is caused by curvatures in space. This scientific theory is widely accepted, just as macroevolution is, and is taught in schools despite the fact that no one has ever observed or been able to reproduce curved space. It is accepted because people have made predictions (like, light from distant stars will have to curve along with the space) and then tested for those predictions and found the results supported the theory.

In the same way, we can't observe macroevolution but we can make predictions and test for those predictions. The fact that we can't observe macroevolution neither proves nor disproves evolution, it just means it is beyond our ability to test.
Thao is offline  
#197 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 04:01 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
So to summarize the last couple pages of this thread, the evolution of species (microevolution, i.e. ring species, worms) has been observed and scientifically documented. Evolution of animals across genera or families (macroevolution, i.e. a fish becomes a reptile becomes a mammal) has not been observed. Do we all agree?
I agree, except that I think species is being defined too broadly, and extrapolations made too freely, about the evolution of species.
Quote:
I will point out however that it is a logical error to say, as I think Mamabadger has been saying, that since we have never seen animals evolve across genera or families that this then disproves the theory of evolution.
I never meant to say anything of the kind! The theory of evolution has never come close to being disproven. It has never come close to being proven, either. My main bone of contention is that both sides have an axe to grind, and are less interested in finding out the truth than they are in making the other side look stupid. The creationists seem to earn the most condemnation for this in the popular media, but I find evolutionary science to be at least as guilty. Maybe more so, since they are supposed to be scientists, yet are treating evolutionary theory more like a religion than a science.
mamabadger is offline  
#198 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 05:16 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I want to add that I'm not trying to establish an absolute definition of species so much as to demonstrate that the question is complicated. It's not as easy as saying that organisms have gone through changes, that's where we got all our present day species.

The fossil record might be useful, but it also presents problems. The same problem that Darwin encountered, still plagues other paleontologists right up to the present day. A fossil species is discovered. There are no transitional forms leading up to it, and it remains basically the same for as long as remains can be found, even if that covers 100 million years. I think they call this fossil stasis, and it apparently frustrates a lot of scientists. As paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote, "Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a young paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."
Fossil finds which were supposed to resolve this issue have repeatedly been discredited. (There's a neat little book called Icons of Evolution, which outlines famous examples of adaptation, evolution, or fossil finds which have been dismissed by science but are still popularly believed to have importance, such as Archeopteryx.)

The way new species might or might not develop isn't clearly established, either. Things still happen in the animal kingdom which aren't supposed to happen, according to established theory. For example - cave animals. Fish, newts, and crickets sometimes find their way into a completely dark cave and stay there. As we know, after only a few generations, their offspring lose all pigment and become albinos, and they also lose their sight and become completely blind. The usual explanation is, "well, they no longer need those things if they are living in complete darkness." This doesn't answer certain questions -
1) Why would they all lose their sight and pigment? What is the survival advantage? It should not matter if a cave cricket has working eyes, even if it never uses them.
2) Even if they do lose their colour and their eyesight, how would that change their DNA so that they pass their blindness and albinism on to their offspring? Just being in the dark is not supposed to alter the gene for eyesight, especially not in just a few generations.
3) Although these animals are supposed to have evolved out of having eyesight or colouration, if they are taken out into the light, within a few generations their offspring will once again have pigment and be able to see, even if they are raised in a laboratory and have no survival issues.
Similar cases of adaptation, which goes against the way animals are supposed to evolve, were studied by a scientist named Kammerer, who was shunned by his Darwinist colleagues because his findings did not support the current theory on genetics.
The point I am making is that we do not really know that much about species, genetics, adaptation, or evolution. Suggesting that any theory about the origin of species has been established and proven is unwarranted and extremely unscientific. Science has barely started studying the matter. Statements that "this is the way it happened" are philosophy, not science.
mamabadger is offline  
#199 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 10:22 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, I have only had a chance to skim this so I will just make some general comments on the topics touched on so far...

First of all, thanks to mamabadger for arguing the Biblical point of view in literal creation. I was starting to think I was the only one here on MDC who believes the Bible's account!

First, I want to address the Flood. The Flood is critical to both the evloutionists and the literal creationists. Number one - the Flood is the source of fossils. Without the Flood, there are no fossils, and without fossils the evolutionists' only so-called evidence for their theory would be nonexistant.

Fossils are found in mostly sedimentary rocks when the parts of a living thing are replaced by minerals, i.e. literally turned to stone. Evolutionists teach it happened slowly over millions of years, but this is impossible because any dead animal would decay or be eaten by organisms before this could occur. Also, fossilization can't be duplicated in a lab and the process is still a mystery. However, fossils are not rare. In fact, they are so plentiful that the Flood actually becomes a very good explanation! It explains the massive fossil graveyards and perhaps the mysterious process that turned all of those animal bodies to stone as well.

Second, I wanted to touch on the topic of transitionary forms. Without getting into terminology arguments again, the bottom line is this: the whole of evolutionary theory hinges on the "transformation" of ALL life on earth from one kind of animal into another into another. Leaving out the obvious problem of mutations generally being a real detriment causing the demise of a species, and not it's change into something 'beneficial,' the fact is that the evolutionists claim of the process taking millions of years means that there should be a plethora of fossilized transitional creatures. And there isn't. In fact, there is actually no evidence of any animal populations where the entire group has changed into a completley different animal. Evolutionists speculate that some rodents became bats through not one, but a series of accidents involving developing sonar and webbed fingers. But, no matter where they look they find only 100% bat fossils, and 100% rat fossils - no intermediary animals. Creation is the likely explanation as this is what we should expect to find if God really did create each species in the beginning.

I would also like to touch on the topic of agenda, because orangebird said she had no vested interest in the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory. I think the promulgation of evolutionary theory is very much tied to an agenda. The agenda is to set up man/science as "god" and to lead countless souls away from God to their perdition. For someone who has doubted the existence of God, confirmation of His creation is confirmation of His existence and His Omniscient Authority, and therefore requires the unbeliever to reconsider their present way of life, and most likely reform their life to conform with His laws. This is a very offensive idea to most unbelievers. Most of people don't have the humility to face the idea that they are wrong or have been mislead, much less the grace to then do what it required to amend their lives.

Ok, that's my 2 cents for now...
StacyL is offline  
#200 of 294 Old 08-20-2007, 11:06 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook wirters, never happened in nature."

-George Gaylord Simpson, famous evolutionist, Life of the Past (Yale Press: 1953)
StacyL is offline  
#201 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 12:36 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
My main bone of contention is that both sides have an axe to grind, and are less interested in finding out the truth than they are in making the other side look stupid. The creationists seem to earn the most condemnation for this in the popular media, but I find evolutionary science to be at least as guilty. Maybe more so, since they are supposed to be scientists, yet are treating evolutionary theory more like a religion than a science.
Man, I just typed up a long reply and then my computer lost it!:

OK, to make it short this time: Mamabadger, I agree with you that scientists who treat evolution as unquestioned fact are wrong, and probably some of them have an agenda against God (Dawkins comes to mind). However, I do not see that this is the majority of scientists, nor that it affects the ongoing process of inquiry into the theory of evolution. The two men you mention in your post, Eldredge and Kammerer, are evidence of this; they are/were both evolutionary scientists, very much support the theory of evolution, yet are clear-eyed about the gaps and questions.

Scientific theories have gaps and questions, they all do. Having gaps and questions does not disprove a theory. Nor does a theory have to be airtight to be established. If it did, we'd have to throw out Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and many more. A theory is established when it can be used to predict results in duplicated experiments and when it is the best theory that fits the known facts. Evolution fits this criteria. If you want to redefine the criteria and remove evolution from the schools, then you're also going to have to remove Einstein and a whole lotta other stuff that is taught in science class because those theories have gaps and questions too.

So I don't agree with you that evolution is "unscientific", or that it is treated as a religion; it is treated the same way as countless other venerable theories that are accepted and taught. If you (general you) don't like evolution theory, fine; you have two options. Either you can come up with something better by making predictions, publishing results in scientific journals for peer review, replicating results, etc., in other words play by the same rules scientists play by; or question the entire scientific process and throw out all the theories that have gaps and unanswered questions. It is not consistent nor logical to pick one theory and say it is unscientific because there is still much we don't know, while accepting other theories as scientific regardless of the fact there is still much we don't know.

My disagreement with the Creationist movement is that they want Creation taught as an alternative to evolution but they have not done the work of scientific investigation to see if their theory better fits the facts. Recently some Creationists are starting to do this, which I think is great and I applaud. Shaking up the establishment is always a good thing! But they haven't even come up with a definition for what a "kind" is yet. Creation science is in its infancy. If it wants to be taught side by side with evolution science, it needs to develop and prove it's worth, not go to the school boards and demand equal time. I am sympathetic to scientistists that have tried positing creation science scenarios and have been criticized or mocked, but I don't think it is necessarily due to an anti-God bias on the part of the establishment. The establishment has always resisted new ideas to some extent. The scientists who supported quantum physics back in the day got roundly excoriated because their theories contradicted classical physics. They didn't demand equal rights for their theories, they set about scientifically proving them. Nowadays the Creation Scientists need to put on their big boy pants and do the same. :-)
Thao is offline  
#202 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 12:38 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I would also like to touch on the topic of agenda, because orangebird said she had no vested interest in the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory. I think the promulgation of evolutionary theory is very much tied to an agenda. The agenda is to set up man/science as "god" and to lead countless souls away from God to their perdition. For someone who has doubted the existence of God, confirmation of His creation is confirmation of His existence and His Omniscient Authority, and therefore requires the unbeliever to reconsider their present way of life, and most likely reform their life to conform with His laws. This is a very offensive idea to most unbelievers. Most of people don't have the humility to face the idea that they are wrong or have been mislead, much less the grace to then do what it required to amend their lives.
Stacy, with all due respect, it is bad manners in a debate to call your opponent a 1) liar (by saying that Orangebird really has an agenda when she has said she doesn’t) and 2) likely immoral (by saying that the unbeliever i.e. Orangebird and I would have to “reform our lives to conform to [God’s] laws” and 3) arrogant (by implying that we don’t have the humility to admit it if we became convinced we were wrong).

I certainly don’t begrudge you your opinion, we all have the right to our opinions. But certain opinions, when spoken aloud, have a negative effect; for example, I have no desire to debate with someone who has judged me as being a liar, immoral, and arrogant when they don’t even know me. And since I do know me and I know you are way off base, I am far less likely to take anything you say seriously now.

I don’t expect to change your mind about anything, as I’m sure you are chalking me up as yet one more unbeliever who can’t handle the truth, but if you find that you are generally unsuccessful in convincing anyone of your point of view who doesn’t already share your worldview, I would gently submit that maybe it has to do with a general lack of respect in your debating style.
Thao is offline  
#203 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 11:42 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Stacy, with all due respect, it is bad manners in a debate to call your opponent a 1) liar (by saying that Orangebird really has an agenda when she has said she doesn’t) and 2) likely immoral (by saying that the unbeliever i.e. Orangebird and I would have to “reform our lives to conform to [God’s] laws” and 3) arrogant (by implying that we don’t have the humility to admit it if we became convinced we were wrong).

I certainly don’t begrudge you your opinion, we all have the right to our opinions. But certain opinions, when spoken aloud, have a negative effect; for example, I have no desire to debate with someone who has judged me as being a liar, immoral, and arrogant when they don’t even know me. And since I do know me and I know you are way off base, I am far less likely to take anything you say seriously now.

I don’t expect to change your mind about anything, as I’m sure you are chalking me up as yet one more unbeliever who can’t handle the truth, but if you find that you are generally unsuccessful in convincing anyone of your point of view who doesn’t already share your worldview, I would gently submit that maybe it has to do with a general lack of respect in your debating style.
My debate style notwithstanding...

Please understand that I was not singling out orangebird - I was trying to make a reference to the topic of "agenda" in a general way since she had mentioned it so far back in the thread.

Truly, I would never expect to be able to convince any unbeliever of the truth of God's Creation. That is a grace from God, and I don't have anything to with it. But, please do not "hide" behind a claimed personal offense in order to deny what the implications are of the debate we are engaging in.

To say that the existence of God is true, and that His Creation is true, therefore means that ALL of it is true; thereby necessitating action on the part of the person making this realization. I am not singling out you or orangebird as a liar, or immoral, or arrogant. I am simply stating the general implications as a result of discovering the truth. I do not know you - you may be submissive to God if you found the truth.

But, truly, the implications are what keeps this debate such a heated one. We are talking about our souls, ultimately, and not science at all.
StacyL is offline  
#204 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 12:32 PM
 
Pynki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Inside the café au lait
Posts: 7,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
....
To say that the existence of God is true, and that His Creation is true, therefore means that ALL of it is true; thereby necessitating action on the part of the person making this realization. I am not singling out you or orangebird as a liar, or immoral, or arrogant. I am simply stating the general implications as a result of discovering the truth. I do not know you - you may be submissive to God if you found the truth.

But, truly, the implications are what keeps this debate such a heated one. We are talking about our souls, ultimately, and not science at all.
Many, many, MANY Christians have NO problem reconsiling belief in God, and acceptance of evolution. Many Christians have no problem believing the evolution is the processs put in place by God as the means to his own end. Please do not imply that in order to accept the existance of God, and his creation you must believe in creationism.

We are not talking about our souls ultimately. We are talking about whether or not you accept science. Everything in science is a theory, that doesn't make it as nebulous as unsubstantiatable belief.

It's lonely being the only XX in a house of XYs.
Pynki is offline  
#205 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 01:02 PM
 
steffanie3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I understand what mamabadger is saying. Basically, if there is a creator (God) then you have to deal with that creator.

There are scientists when faced with the facts have became Christians and left evolutionairy teachings.

Stephanie married to Jerry  partners.gif  mama to  modifiedartist.gif (10) and superhero.gif(7) and 3rdtri.gif
steffanie3 is offline  
#206 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 01:13 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pynki View Post
We are not talking about our souls ultimately. We are talking about whether or not you accept science. Everything in science is a theory, that doesn't make it as nebulous as unsubstantiatable belief.
I maintain that we are talking about souls ultimately in the discussion of evolution.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it is sold as fact, not theory at all.

Also, to say that Christian beliefs are unsubstantiated is patently wrong and inaccurate.
StacyL is offline  
#207 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 01:18 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
There are scientists when faced with the facts have became Christians and left evolutionairy teachings.
Well sure, but that is not the only possible response. There are also many scientists who when "faced with the facts" become atheists or Muslims or Buddhists. Or become Christian but continue to believe in and study evolution.

I do agree with Stacy on one thing, though, she is right that it is the implications that makes this theory different *for some people*. It's why they fight to keep evolution from being taught in schools and call it unsubstantiated while at the same time merrily accepting other "unsubstantiated" theories like curved space.

To me, though, this is attaching a loaded agenda to a matter which by rights should be strictly science. Let the truth win out; if God really did create everything, the scientific process will eventualy lead to that conclusion.

Quote:
I maintain that we are talking about souls ultimately in the discussion of evolution.
No, you are talking about souls in the discussion of evolution. I and many other posters are not. We are not you.
Thao is offline  
#208 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 01:22 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
So now the big question. Obviously Noah could not fit the millions of species we see on earth today in the ark with him and his family, nor would they be able to care for millions of animals for 40 days. So, many people say that the kinds mentioned in Genesis were not divided by species, but by family or whatever. So, there was one feline couple, not house cats, lions, tigers, etc., and there was one or two rodent types, not the thousands of separate rodents we see alive today, and so on. This makes the story of Noah's ark possible because then there were not an overwhelming amount of animals on the ark, and though the animals that were there would not have been cared for properly by only 8 people, it is in the realm of possibility that they may have survived.

But, this means that evolution did indeed take place. Not just evolution that happens very slowly over the course of millions of years, but extremely rapid evolution that happened in only about 5000 years : If we start with one feline pair and from that pair we see all the different species and subspecies of felines around today, that is rapid evolution.

So, is this type of evolution acceptable, as long as human's are not believed to have evolved?
I have brought back this quote from the OP to point out again that the OP has confused the proliferation of the surviving species after the Flood with "evolution." The extensive changes made to the earth and the successful proliferation of these species and their subsequent variations is not the same thing at all as what scientists claim "evolution" is.

Somewhere here I have a book that demonstrates and postulates the number of species taken on the Ark, and the sizes necessary to account for what we see today. I'll see if I can find it after lunch.

The fact that some Chiristians have been mislead by the idea of evolution and have 'reconcilied' a belief in evolution with their belief in God is a very dangerous thing and again, does exactly what I said - leads souls away from God. It weakens ones' beliefs. If one accepts God, they must accept that all of it is true - that He spoke literally in the Bible, in all respects. This is why it matters so much.
StacyL is offline  
#209 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 01:59 PM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Of course what I stated is a fact. God is the Maker and Creator of all things in Heaven and on earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
The problem with the theory of evolution is that it is sold as fact, not theory at all.
I'm finding the juxtaposition of these two quotes to be interesting.
l_olive is offline  
#210 of 294 Old 08-21-2007, 02:11 PM
 
suzywan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
The fact that some Chiristians have been mislead by the idea of evolution and have 'reconcilied' a belief in evolution with their belief in God is a very dangerous thing and again, does exactly what I said - leads souls away from God. It weakens ones' beliefs. If one accepts God, they must accept that all of it is true - that He spoke literally in the Bible, in all respects. This is why it matters so much.
Like the Pope. Have you called him up and told him about your concerns for his immortal soul?

Your feelings on the Bible really don't line up with R. Catholic theology. Not that it matters, but Catholics tend to see the Bible as Truth, not necessarily truth. There's a difference, I swear

me, my man, and our boys (1/08 and 3/11)
 

suzywan is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off