Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Sure, its a list of flying things that just happens to be all birds ... except for one entry for bat. No flying fish, no flying squirrels, no flying insects.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote that closely. Flying fish and flying squirrels don't have wings. The word owph means "owner of a wing"

Flying insects are addressed elsewhere and I bet that if we dig into it we can make sense of that too.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Make no mistake, those lists have nothing to do with my atheism, they only show that the Bible is flawed and if it is the word of God, it would be perfect, since God is perfect.

Actually what most items on those lists show is that either the author is a liar or just hasn't learned to read yet.

 

[Soggy]

Actually what most items on those lists show is that either the author is a liar or just hasn't learned to read yet.

You mean like all the creationist 'scientists' that try to refute evolution with fallacy? (Points finger at Mr. Green)

:1poke::1poke:

 

[ClevelandDiver]

"The answer you are giving people each time can be boiled down to: Bible = Truth anything that contradicts it = false. "

That's not the answer I gave as a review of my entire post will demonstrate.

It is not the literal answer you gave, but it appears to be the core argument behind your posts, i.e. boiled down to...

To put it another way, please show one example where you posted that you agree with something that contradicts the bible or a post where you say the bible is wrong.

I may have missed it as I occasionally wonder away from the thread and 300 posts go by.

 

[Hank49]

Actually, its more like 9,000-11,000 years (pigs were domesticated around 7,000-9,000BC). Regardless,
You are correct.
Depends on which definition of "species" you're using. There is more then one definition, so it gets complex.

Bryan

OK, the question then is, how long does it take? Let's say one was to take....a clown fish population (a brood from 5 different families...thousands of babies) and rear them in lower salinity water (29 ppt) drop temperature to 20C and feed them diets they have never seen that are lower in protein (perhaps a rough example). AND, without the accompanying anemone, which would even change predatory pressure and or disease pressure.
Probably less than .01% would survive but if you kept breeding them in the same conditions....in essence, creating an Ice Age overnight for that family group, does anyone have any idea how long, or how many generations, it would take for the surviving genes to pass on, creating virtually a different animal which could no longer mate (perhaps due in part to less attraction. It's amazing how picky female shrimp can be over their mates) or perhaps survive in the parent stock environment due to DNA differences? It would seem that with extreme environmental pressure one could make evolution happen under controlled conditions. You would certainly go down in the history books if you could do it.

 

[AevnsGrandpa]

Last time I posted this thread was only at 192 pages!

I just read back a few pages and noted a few things I would like to bring up.

First, someone stated something about dogs and wolves being able to breed and alluded this to something having to do with evolution. I would like to point out that wolves are still dog kind. What some may say is evolution is nothing of the kind (no pun intended) There is a huge amount of "horizontal" variability with in the different species (kinds) which gives us everything from wolves to poodles, but they are still just dogs. I just attend a very well done conference on this subject and per quotes from leading evolutionary scientists there has yet to be found any intermediary fossils found in the fossil record. Thus we have no vertical change, one species to another, but lots of horizontal change due to adaptability and natural selection (which is not evolution).

Also it was Jonah that was in belly of the fish for 3 days not Noah!!

For specific reference to what I am saying please do research on the following 2 sites;

Answers in Genesis and
Institute for Creation Research

Lastly, Having faith in God doesn't mean we turn off our brains and don't use reason, but we as believers come from a world view that God created and see the evidence from that point of view where as the evolutionist comes from the world view that everything has happened through the natural processes going on in the world today, without any "supernatural" influence.

Since neither Creation or Evolution can truly be scientifically proven (if you question this you don't know the definition of science) both are belief systems about the past based on a certain interpretation of the evidence we have today, in other works it is a faith based world view.

Thanks for you'll time!

Jeff

 

[Soggy]

I just attend a very well done conference on this subject and per quotes from leading evolutionary scientists there has yet to be found any intermediary fossils found in the fossil record.

Please cite the leading evolutionary scientists you speak of along with their work.

Thus we have no vertical change, one species to another, but lots of horizontal change due to adaptability and natural selection (which is not evolution).

Yes, that is evolution. Evolution is change in a species over time. That's it. Once again we have someone arguing against evolution without know what it is.

Answers in Genesis

Been there, it's all a bunch of misinformed claptrap. Much of it is *really* bad.

Lastly, Having faith in God doesn't mean we turn off our brains and don't use reason,

If you believe that Noah and the ark story, yes it does mean that you don't use reason.

where as the evolutionist comes from the world view that everything has happened through the natural processes going on in the world today, without any "supernatural" influence.

No, evolution shows changes over time that happened. Whether or not they were supernaturally influenced is outside the scope of the theory. What we know is that species evolve over time and eventually can become new species. That is not a up for debate. It did happen and the fossil record that you lie about above does have transitional fossils....lots and lots of them

Since neither Creation or Evolution can truly be scientifically proven (if you question this you don't know the definition of science)

Clearly *you* do not know the definition of what a scientific theory is. We're back to that...again...

Thanks for you'll time!

You're welcome!

 

[lamont]

First, someone stated something about dogs and wolves being able to breed and alluded this to something having to do with evolution. I would like to point out that wolves are still dog kind.

i posted that.

you guys really need some elementary reading comprehesion skills.

what i was saying was that several thousand or tens of thousands of years in the future when domestic animals have evolved to the point where they cannot interbreed with their wild cousins, we will have observed actual speciation and that will have proven your argument wrong...

in the future.

i'm well aware that dogs and wolves can interbreed. i used to have a dog that was 1/2 german shepherd, 1/4 malamute, 1/4 wolf.

human society, science, language, etc haven't been around long enough yet to observe speciation.

I just attend a very well done conference on this subject and per quotes from leading evolutionary scientists there has yet to be found any intermediary fossils found in the fossil record.

drop an e-mail to them and get them to update this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

For specific reference to what I am saying please do research on the following 2 sites;

Answers in Genesis and
Institute for Creation Research

been there, done that.

the best argument you've got there is probably the papers on the cambrian explosion, but you're still guilty of looking for god in areas of evolutionary science that we simply don't understand well yet. there's nothing there that would stand up to scientific scrutiny that proves that there are no transitional fossils, that the fossil record is wildly inaccurate, or that speciation cannot occur as the result of evolution.

Since neither Creation or Evolution can truly be scientifically proven (if you question this you don't know the definition of science)

well, you're reasonably well ahead there.

both are belief systems about the past based on a certain interpretation of the evidence we have today, in other works it is a faith based world view.

Thanks for you'll time!

Jeff

scientific theories are falsifiable though, which is what separates them from belief or faith. how can we falsify the "theory" of creationism? i've posted how to falsify the theory of evolution in several different ways.

 

[Warthaug]

OK, the question then is, how long does it take?

<snip example>

It is nearly impossible to say how long it takes for a species to form, as it is highly variable. Some speciation events are near-instantaneous. For example, plants have a tendency to alter their chromosomal numbers (i.e. they'll suddenly start carrying an extra copy of one or more of their chromosomes). This results in a new species of plants in literally one generation, as in the kids are a different species then the parent.

Animals tend to go a lot slower, but it can even be quite fast. For example, the australian rock wallaby is in a phase of rapid speciation right now, as it's genome has been invaded by a virus which is causing whole-sale restructuring of the wallaby's DNA. In the past decade we've seen the rise of ~11 new species, as well as the extinction of some of these species. When/if this will stabilize is an open question, but when it does there is no doubt that we'll see both radical changes within the wallabeys, as well as the formation of new species.

The conventional mode of speciation, as in slow change over time leading to a new species, takes much longer then the above examples, generally speaking thousands or tens of thousands of generations. I don't know what the generation time of a parrot fish is, but multiple that by 5,000-50,000 and you'll get a rough estimate.

However, it isn't that simple. In your example evolution should occur very fast, as you have a small population (so mutations spread quickly) and strong selective pressure (i.e. 0.1% survival). This could drive the formation of a new species much more quickly (several hundred, to thousands of generations). But with ~0.1% survival, I'd expect extinction to be a more likely outcome of your experiment.

But I would end with the same statement I made last time - evolution does not have to lead to new species. There are many possible outcomes, from speciation, to extinction, to remaining the same species for a very, very long time.

Bryan

 

[lamont]

oh interesting, we have already seen a whole bunch of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

evolution in action. proven. game over.