Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

You keep saying this but if you actually studied flood accounts you would find some similarities in other flood accounts far away from the Mesopotamian area. How do you account for those? Do you really think it was all a borrow? If you still illogically do, then you are not taking into account the stark differences between the Genesis account and all other accounts. The Egyptian and Babylonian accounts establish creation on the basis of wars and jealousy between the gods. No one today would even debate the credibility of those accounts. Tell me where on the internet I can go to find 80 pages of debate between pagans supporting the ancient pagan views of creation vs modern science? The Genesis account shows the unity of the Godhead in starting creation in the context of creating good.
This assertion is not logical and ahistorical.

And worse logic by an educated man is to assume that no one did it when it was clearly done.

What's the purpose of snowflake organizational complexity?

If the donkey, the horse, and the zebra can produce cross-species offspring (although infertile), doesn't that imply that God didn't blink them into existence as separate species?

If he did blink them into existence as separate species in three distinct acts of creation, why would they have any chance at all of producing any sort of cross-species offspring, any more than, say, a flounder and a cottontail rabbit can?

If he didn't blink the donkey, the horse, and the zebra into existence as three separate species in three distinct acts of creation, then you must confess that they were at one time a single species. If so, how did they become three distinct species? By what process? Whatever your answer is, it cannot be that it was an example of micro evolution. It would have to be macro by definition, since they cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species, establishing that they are three different species of equine.

Joseph Campbell thought the greatest invention was the brick. It allowed mankind to make "shrines" for ancestors, enshrine certain values that were valuable to the tribe, classification friend or foe, creationist, evolutionists etc.
This allowed for handing down "models" behavior as the Hero Epics generation to generation.

Carl Jung expanded this to archetypes. Behavior types that exists at the subconscious level.

Current Neurological Research on short term memory, brings new questions to old concepts. Such as "does free agency even exist". given the physiological nature of the nervous system. Some researchers suggest that our "selves" are rebuilt each day before awakening, somewhat on the Jung models.

If your interested. Christof Koch institute is deep into this. "Methods in Neuronal Modeling" and "Biophysics of Computation"

The snow flake and starling are examples of different orders of complexity.

The snowflake is an example of a second order planar system, that has symmetry of scales, and while beautiful is simple compared to higher orders. It consists of only 2 differential eqs. x and y and the vector field when graphed is swirling, meaning it is stable. Melting vectors go out and growing vector swirl in.

The bird clip is a 2 dimensional planar view of the flight path, that looks very different in 3 dimensions. This system has many differential equations representing the flight paths. This 2 dimensional planar view is called a "Fractal"

and is plotted against time on the x axis, position on the y. Technically its called the "phase plane". Thats, why it changes thru time.

before the advent of increased entropic devices (computers) almost all analysis was done against time. the math was just to complex.

now it is possible to plot each of the differential equations. different phase planes, leaving time out to see what the fractal looks like, or including it in a 3 dimensional "cube". to watch the fractal change.
(additional such things as Fourier analysis, Wavelet analysis, Cosine transforms, Laplace transforms can be performed to see what "information" is at each fractal stage. )


Memory systems, (nervous systems) work in much this way and it has been proposed that the fractals they create are metaphorically similar to Jungs Archetypes.

While helping my daughter with a science fair project on quarks, I asked her, " how do cells communicate?" without hesitation she replied "Cell phones"

I was speechless,, but fundamentally they do communicate with waves, cell phones electromagnetic, and cells conc. gradients, and even electrical impulses.


if your interested. "Mathematical Physiology" J. Keener. (invented the vectors used in pacemakers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae
Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils. All extant species are in the genus Equus.

This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.

Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?

Or metaphorically similar to fractals found in trees. We all know our share of knotheads.

I would be happy to take a look at this perisodsctyla question, but ..... first....perhaps you could elaborate on your take on that Brooks Wiley Entropy etc issue from a couple of days ago. You kinda implied that if we didn’t understand it, our comments were... what ...meaningless? We wouldn’t have a clue unless we understood it..... I don’t want to waste your time with an ignorant comment and since you seem to know something, perhaps you could share?

I gave you my view. What is yours?

Okay, so now the distinction between micro and macro has moved from differences within species to differences within members of the same family. Fine. So, did God specially create the three of them by three separate acts of creation, or were they once the same species, and then only later became three distinct species that cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species?

How about you sustain your premise as to why you propose that the donkey, the horse, and the zebra are an example of macro evolution rather than relying on the mere emotional assertion?

Excellent question. They have to keep moving the dividing line between micro and macro further up the cladistic scale.

I'll ask again:

Okay, so now the distinction between micro and macro has moved from differences within species to differences within members of the same family. Fine. So, did God specially create the three of them by three separate acts of creation, or were they once the same species, and then only later became three distinct species that cannot produce fertile offspring cross-species?

You are pointing out an important clarification. Creation scientists more precisely use the word "kind" as a dividing line between micro and macro evolution but sometimes that has been confused with species (which has happened on this thread by using species very generically). The idea of "kind" is a family group of related species. As you well know the whole species groupings undergoes reconstruction from time as more information is obtained. The "kinds" are viewed as the original boundaries or groupings set from creation from which the multiplication of species would take place. How scientists group the extinct animals known only by the study of the fossil record is something that has fluctuated based on the data available and how it is interpreted. This difficulty is there for all scientists--whether atheistic or theistic. I cannot answer your question for sure, but as noted above, DNA studies are showing there are more extinct species that should be grouped into one family than previously thought. In fact the growing trend of DNA studies is bringing more species into one family rather than creating more divergence. Based on this it is far more likely that there was variation within the kind which led to species within the same family not being able to interbreed due to genetic changes over time. At any rate I do not think there is any conclusive evidence that suggests macro evolution. The fossils of allegedly different lines of evolution in vastly different time frames are sometimes found within the same sedimentary layer of time. This to me would point to more parallel developments and less linear developments.

Originally Posted by LeroyBeans

Originally Posted by Thunderstick

This is another example of micro evolution because the evolution is always limited to the same family of species.

Thunderstruck, you are another example of macro ignorance, but would you call evolution in the order Perisodactyla microevolution too?

Seems to me that Leroy and TRH are not keeping up with what is going on in the evolution news. This horse business was discredited long ago. Here is one example.... from a noted and well respected evolutionist:

[u]Lifted:

Many museums and school textbooks today depict horse evolution as orthogenetic. That is, variations in the fossil record of the horse follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic. In other words, evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. This is **not** what evolutionists teach today. Orthogenesis has been proved wrong and is no longer accepted by evolutionary scientists.

Notice this comment by the late Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, world renowned evolutionist and palenthologist:

“Orthogenetic evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. Discussion of this point has been so lengthy and extensive that it has, frankly, become boring. There is at present a clear consensus of paleontologists that orthogenesis, in this sense, is not real. There is no known sequence in the fossil record that requires or substantiates such a process. Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth “tigers,” can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic. All supposed examples are more simply and fully interpreted as due to some other cause, such as natural selection.”
[/u]



A falsehood remains a falsehood, no matter how many claim it to be true.... no matter how often it is portrayed on the evening news as incontrovertible fact.

TF49 you are going to incite another emotional Darwinian meltdown.