first off, i'm not trying to push either theory... this is an argument i always stay out of, but recently i had a simple thought...
from a scientific standpoint, both are equally ridiculous.
i guess this will sound like the little kid who just keeps asking "but why," but:
if we all agree that matter cannot be created or destroyed (everything comes from something), then where did that original gaseous cloud (or whatever the current theory says everything started from) come from? or the energy for a 'big bang'?
or for the creationist:
an oldie but a goodie-where did God come from? "He just always has been" doesn't explain much.

maybe what i'm trying to get at here is that it might not be that terrible of a thing to just say "i don't know where universe came from."

what do y'all think?
-mdv

FWIW:

I try to stay out of this type of debate. But the point you don't raise is the one that always bothered me:

Darwin never stated that the Biblical Story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution were mutually exclusive. So why do folks argue about one versus the other?

I have no problem accepting God as the creator of all while simultaneously discussing the role evolution played in that creation.

I guess some folks take a literalist view of Genesis. But, those same folks also tend to take other parts of the Bible as parables, not direct recitations of fact.

I dunno, just always struck me that The Way, The Truth, and The Light, did not exclude scientific inquiry into the mechanics of creation, biology, and physics.

Just my 2 cents . . . . .

BMT

Well, the Big Bang came out of a "singularity," which is sort of like a point, except a point exists in space and all space and time were in the singularity with all matter and energy. And since Physics will not let a singularity exist where it can be observed, Physics cannot be used to find out what created the singularity. Call it God, the Force, El Shaddai, or whatever you want.

And who created God, the Force, or El Shaddai?

Recent work has focussed on something called String Theory. Likely, but not proven. In one scenario, the universe has 10 dimensions. We cannot even visualize this, though physicists can do the math. Three dimensional membranes exist inside of them. When two of these three-dimensional membranes crash together, viola! The Big Bang. There can be many of these three dimensional universes, all forever isolated from each other like the surfaces of two-dimensional bubbles floating through the air.

And as for who or what created the 10-dimensional universe.....

i tend to agree with BMT, what makes them mutually exclusive? im a firm believer in evolution BUT ive seen and delt with some wierd stuff that cant be explained by anything short of something along the lines of a "higher power" or "ghosts" or something else. not everything can be explained.

Rattler

no mystery to me. i know exactly how the universe was formed. it's there for the learning in black and white. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here are my notes from a presentation I gave to a college age Sunday School class the last two weeks. I ran out of time--I would have liked to present descriptions of evolutionism and creationsim as well as intelligent design. However, I figured these kids would all be familiar with creationism and evolution, so I focused on the one they hadn't heard about, intelligent design.





A Christian�s Perspective on the Origin and Development of Life





Two vital things



1. God is responsible for the origin and development of life



John 1:1-3. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.



2. There is no requirement to interpret the word �day� (Hebrew is �yom�) as a 24 hour period



Norm Geisler ((Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 270, (1999)) [An old earth Evangelical Christian, and one of the most respected apologists in our day]



�The normal meaning of yom. The usual meaning of the Hebrew word yom �day� is 24 hours unless the context indicates otherwise.



�Day (yom) can mean a long period. Most often the Hebrew word yom means 24 hours. However, the meaning is Genesis 1 is determined by context���.Even in this passage in Genesis 1-2, yom is used of the whole of creation. Genesis 2:4 refers to �the day (yom)� when they were created. The Hebrew word appears elsewhere for long periods, as in Psalm 90:4 (cited in Peter 3:8): �For a thousand years in your sight are like a day (yom) that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.�



Page 273



�In fact, many orthodox, evangelical scholars hold the universe is millions or billions of years old, including Augustine, B.B. Warfield, John Walvoord, Francis Schaeffer, Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross, and most leaders of the movement that produced the famous �Chicago Statement� on the inerrancy of the Bible.�



Harry Rimmer (Modern Science and the Genesis Record, pages 12-13 (1937)) [ A young earth creationist]



�Are the Days of genesis literal days of 24 hours each, or are they periods of time? To the question we can only reply �we do not know�: and then set forth the evidence that shows also why we cannot know��this word �yom� appears in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament 1480 different times! and is translated into the English in our Bible by no less than 54 different words��It is thus absolutely impossible to take any one meaning of the many that are permissible and say, ��Yom� must translated thus, and only thus, in every possible case.�



Biblical Christianity requires you believe God is responsible for the origin and development of life. It does not require a specific view as to the interpretation of "yom" in Genesis.





Theories on Origin and Development of Life



Note: For every possible theory, there are those who are very dogmatic and closed minded about their preferred theory. Some folks have ulterior motives, some are very arrogant and condescending toward those who disagree, some are very emotional. Many defend their chosen theory with religious fervor. This applies to all of the various views. Ignore all this, and focus solely on the science and reasoning behind each of the theories.



Also, these descriptions are generalities only. Each person will very likely have a slightly different view on exactly what his or her pet theory says.



Evolutionsim



Belief that life originated by random chance and developed over a long period of time through small, step-by-step increments; due to solely to natural causes. Believe there is a generally continuous transition of life from the simplest species to the most complex. Hold to a very old age of the earth. A Christian, by definition, cannot believe in this kind of evolution



Theistic Evolution (Slow Creation)



Belief that God initiated the process and set up the physical laws governing the earth, but life originated and developed over a long period of time through small, step-by-step increments; due to primarily to natural causes. Believe there is a generally continuous transition of life from the simplest species to the most complex. Hold to a very old age of the earth



Creationism



Belief that God created the in earth in six literal days. Do not believe there are any transitional species, but believe all the various kinds of life appeared fully formed and changed only slightly before extinction. Believe in natural selection and adaptation to the environment, but believe such changes do not cross species lines. Hold to a very young age of the earth



Intelligent Design



Belief that God created life. Do not believe there are any transitional species, but believe all the various kinds of life appeared fully formed and changed only slightly before extinction. Believe in natural selection and adaptation to the environment, but believe such changes usually do not cross species lines, and when they do, they don�t go very far past the original species. Consider the age of the earth not be a defining issue, but lean toward an old earth age



Note: We are led to believe that all credible biologists believe in the theory of evolution. This is probably because they all �close the ranks� and put their differences aside when anyone challenges the theory of evolution. However, there have always been a significant number of respected biologists that have not accepted the Darwinian model of a gradual evolution through incremental taking place over a long period of time.



The Modern Intelligent Design Movement



Michael Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, 1985 � Molecular Biologist



Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991 � Law Professor



William Dembski, Intelligent Design, 1999 � Mathematics/Philosophy



Michael Behe, Darwin�s Black Box, 1996 � Molecular Biologist





The Two Theories of Evolution



Darwin proposed two distinct theories, his special theory and his general theory.



Special Theory. Microevolution. New races and species in nature arise through natural selection. This is a relatively conservative theory and is restricted in scope. It is not very controversial, and it includes the mechanisms of natural selection, adaptation to environment, survival of the fittest.



General Theory. Macroevolution. These mechanisms that cause new races and species in nature to develop go far beyond change within or slightly across a species. The change is continuous and unending, and is how all life developed.



Problems with Darwin�s General Theory



- Fossil Record

-- No transitional species

-- Punctuated Equilibrium

-- Archaeopteryx

-- Coelacanth

-- Horse



- Microbiology

-- Cells: simple to complex

-- DNA is stabilizing, mutations are very rare, and are not normally passed on

-- Irreducible Complexity, the bacterial flagellum



- Typology

-- Genetic distance





Life�s Origin



- Prebiotic soup

- Not enough time, even if the earth could have supported life 4.5 billion years ago.

Rattler:

Could you please explain this statement? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

BMT <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

nice, blaine.

Ditto, Blaine.

Yes, but which came first? The Chicken or the egg? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I actually know.

















Chicken and an egg are in bed and the egg is smoking a cigarette, the chicken says "Well that solves that!"

We all cannot agree to that. Simple matter of fact is that matter can be created and destroyed. Its energy in the universe that remains constant.

E=mc^2

There are a couple of different theories and none that I'm all that heavy one ... although I like reading or listening about them (as long as they stay away from the hardcore Physics and math <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

The biggest pill I find hard to swallow is the fact that most say our universe is the only universe. Space is limitless, but our Universe (if you follow the big bang theory) has boundaries, constantly expanding boundaries, but boundaries none the less. Eventually our universe will collapse on itself and another Big Bang will occur. My question is why not beyond our universe can there not be another universe just now undergoing the big bang? Millions and millions of universes! Space is limitless. To think this is the only universe is rather egocentric. Is it not? But this is not readily accepted belief ... and I cannot understand why ... oh well!!

Good day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Not this debate again....where's Ringman, anyways? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Earth is just a runaway terrarium science project in Miss Jones 3rd grade classroom. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />









Hope I don't get struck down with lightning for that one!<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

IMHO, the people who wrote the bible had no concept of science or experimentation. They and the people who read the bible were not able to understand the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. They explained these mysteries using concepts that the people of the time could understand, i.e. the creationist explaination.

T Lee:

The earth was created by Mice after they had determined what the answer was to the great question of life, the universe, and everything. The answer was 42.

Unfortunately, the mice did think to figger what the great question of life, the universe, and everything WAS.

In order to determine what the question was, the Mice made planet earth.

At least, that is how it was explained to me by Arthur Dent and his buddy, Ford Prefect. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(Oh wow, this one goes WAY back to those dimly lit college days)

BMT

See? This discussion is mildly entertaining, but the real issue was discussed (one-sided) ad-nauseum with AFP, Ringman, and Myself a couple of months ago in the Religion forum.

Ah...fond Memories, eh Art? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Certainly not mutually exclusive, but Evolution theory has certain problems, as well as the Creationists who believe the earth was created out of nothingness in six literal days.

Fact of the matter is that God will do nothing except by natural means (which by definition are the Laws of God), including the creation of the earth. This means that by some method unknown to us now the Earth and all in it was created. Of course the idea that the Earth was created from nothing, since everything is either energy or matter, is absurd. Of course the idea that Man, created in God's image evolved from some sort of amoeba, is equally ludicrous. Obviously the truth lies somewhere in between.

the only point i was trying to bring up (and poorly, at that) was this:
as i see it, you're going to just have to decide to believe something. i would be shocked if somone could convince me one way or the other on a scientific basis, purely because you just can't explain where these things (God, energy, 3-D membranes in a 10-D matrix...) ultimately came from.
everything's gotta come from somewhere, right?

God's Vending Machine. Given the luck he has had with mankind ... I bet he didn't even get his change back with this one! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I got no problem with evolution, evidence for it permeates the natural sciences. I've been through and through this before too.

As an early Ecologist said: "Remember man that thou art dust..."

I see no conflict between evolution and Christian beliefs, and those who seek to use evolution to "deny the existence of God" (as in those moronic Darwin fish) are, of course, f-ing idiots.

Birdwatcher

Okay, so let's just say that either theory is "right." What does that mean for humans today in our relationship with the planet as a whole. (Note: This is not a post saying we shouldn't hunt/fish/trap/etc. To say so would essentially be to say that other species shouldn't either, and that's ridiculous).

Okay, (in alphabetical order) if Creationists are right, then God made everything, thus it is His, and if we screw it up/kill it off, He'll be really pissed. And, that would be bad.

Now, if Evolutionists are right, then we descended from the same origin as all other species. Thus, we are all related, and all interdependent upon one another for survival. So, if we screw it up/kill it off, we're destroying distant relatives, and cutting our own safety net of survival. And, that would be bad.

So, what is the real disagreement, I must've missed that part...

Ok, BMT I vaguely recognize the reference. Where did it come from? I recall the story as a civilization built a huge computer and had it find THE ANSWER. After many years (generations?) the high priest found it uplugged and had to give an answer. 42 was the answer. The process was repeated to find out the question. The question ended up being "How many roads must a man walk down." I dunno, something like that.

Maybe "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Universe)?" I just can't place it.

Anybody?

S

A coworker had a good way to think of this. When a four yr old asks where babies come form, we tell them, "Well, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much a baby grows inside the mommy and is born......."

That is about all the four yr old can understand. It is 100% true, but it leaves out many details.

Enter the Omnipotent Creator of the Universe. He created the cosmos using certain principles, many of which we are probably not capable of understanding today. However, he needed to express to a very primitive, nomadic people, how he made all this stuff.

Knowing the comprehension capabilities of his audience, God did not start with the cosmological equivalents of the sperm, egg, zygotes, and chromosomes, he gave Moses the equivalent of "Well, when a a mommy and a daddy love each other very much..............."

Birdwatcher,

If you got through my notes I posted earlier, you saw I believe a Christian can hold to evolution as long as he believes God initiated the process. John 1:1-3 requires a Christian to accept God was involved at some level.

Once that issue is settled, then we can focus purely on the science and see which model best fits the evidence we have at hand today. Some will say the Young Earth Creationist Model, some will say Theistic Evolution, and some (like me), will say Intelligent Design. When none of us feels compelled to question another's faith because of their view of creation, we can have much constructive dialog...............Unfortunately, that is not the norm

Blaine

I read Mike Behe's book twice, and being a mechanic I was fascinated by it. Lots of machines in just one cell including a blue print reproduction room. Behe's point is that all those complex machines, placed together into an interacting system and then finely tuned to work.... well the mathmatical probability of that happening by chance is equal to impossible for any candid thinking person.

Einstien came to the conclusion of the mathmatical and scientific evidence and absolute need for God, who stands outside the material world and outside of time itself.

If God came from anywhere or anyone then he ain't God.
God cannot be fathomed by our finite created mind.
I believe God was revealed through credible revelation, ie Jesus and the Hebrew prophets who predicted events 500, 1000 and 2000 years in advance.

Christ is credible because of his inherent goodness manifest in his deeds and teachings.
Christ is credible because he was pre-predicted thousands of years in advance in great detail.
Christ is credible because they never paraded his dead body through the streets of Jerusalem to put down the upstart heretics, (ie the Christians) and prove their belief a fraud, hence- Christ did in fact rise from the dead.

Christ speaks of Adam as an actual historical figure, therefore I believe this credible voice... I was created in the image of God and did not ever come from no monkey.

But like the other fellow points out, if we are from monkeys and baboons and dogs and frogs then anyone who kill critters is a murderer and ought to go to jail.

Entropy- it is all running down...
Order from disorder- HA!

I surmise that there can be only one ultimate Truth. When revealed that Truth will unify the elements found in today's disparate positions. Or, there is no Truth and none of the various positions have impact on the finality of death. Or, there could be parallel and co-existent Truths.

What is of concern is less the taking of sides on these issues rather the living of a good life, a honorable existence. Me? I do believe there is purpose to our current state and life beyond mortal existence. Even acceding such one is still left to live each day. As a matter of our progression we will learn what is and what is not.

Under an Idaho night sky up on the Clearwater in elk camp there are no aetheists at the campfire.

My friend, I believe that says it all!

To paraphrase a quote from my Ecology/Evoloution prof in undergrad when I asked him whether he believed evolution and religion were mutually exclusive.

"Evolution tells how we got here and Religion tells us what to do while we're here."

[quote]Ok, BMT I vaguely recognize the reference. Where did it come from? I recall the story as a civilization built a huge computer and had it find THE ANSWER. After many years (generations?) the high priest found it uplugged and had to give an answer. 42 was the answer. The process was repeated to find out the question. The question ended up being "How many roads must a man walk down." I dunno, something like that.

Maybe "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Universe)?" I just can't place it.[quote]


Sharpshooter:

You got it, "The Hitch-Hikers Giude to the Galaxy." Followed by "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe." Then "Life, the Universe and Everything." Then the fourth book of the trilology (its comedy, deal with it) was "So long and thanx for all the Fish." I cannot recall the the title of the fifth book.

BMT

I've never understood the big controversy between the two schools of thought. For years, I have been of the opinion, which has been stolen recently by notables in the community (but I can't prove it), that evolution is the means God chose to create. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. But don't let me spoil a good argument. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Regards, sse

Pointer, (IMHO) that is as accurate, as precise, and as succinct as is possible.

Guys,

Actually, Naturalistic Evolution (not Theistic Evolution) does not describe how we got here. Pure evolutionists are stymied of life's origins, and they tend to stay away from that issue. Yes, their are a few overarching general statements of how life may have originated (Richard Dawkins comes to mind here), but there is not a detailed accounting of how life developed from non-organic compounds. They thought they had a good answer in the 50s with the pre-biotic soup and lightening, but since then they have not found support for the pre-biotic soup in the fossil record. As such, they focus on how life developed after it originated.

Michael Behe gives a good accounting of why Naturalistic Evolutionists avoid the topic. Basically, because there is so little origin evidence out there, there is not a lot to write about. When you are a PhD candidate or a PhD that needs to be published, you need to have some solid evidence and data so you can build your case and contribute to the "Theory". It is very difficult to do that with origin questions. It is not as hard with evolutionary development after life originated.

Now the Theistic Evolutionist has a definite advantage here. He/she has believes God started the process, and as such is free to explore how He started it and how life developed. While I believe the Intelligent Design model better fits the evidence than Theistic Evolution, I can have an very good discussion with an Theistic Evolutionist because the focus is on what the best model is, not who has the best belief system.

See above - in the end, does it really matter either way? Isn't the point above the most pertinent to the conversation and our present situation, or am I just missing the point?

I mean, let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that Darwinian evolutionists are exactly right and we evolved from the same biological tree of life as every other species on this planet. So what?

Religion (any of them), morality, common sense, and good judgment tell us what to do while we're here, alive and kicking.

Even if there is no afterlife, shouldn't those philosophies and theologies on their own have enough merit to have us look to they for guidance as to how we live our lives, regardless of how, biologically and evolutionarily, those lives came into existence?

In the end, no one gets out alive, no one know (for a fact) what happens then. All we know is how we live our lives, play the game, and that's really all that matters.

"This world may be only illusion -- but it's the only illusion we've got." --Edward Abbey

VAnimrod,

All the theistic evolution I.D. garbage chalenges the authority of God's Word. Either God is able to communicate or He is not God.

As far as religion goes, remember religious fanatics hijacked some planes and killed about 3,000 Americans and others with them. Religions is worthless for helping folks live decent lives. One needs a relationship with God. And that only comes throurgh Jesus Christ. Jesus says,

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me." Kinda egotistical, isn't He?

I may disagree with you on some minor side issues, but the core of your post rings so true.

AFP, excellent post... thanks for taking time to put it down. For me, the lack of transitional/intermediary species in the fossil record alone is all the evidence any serious minded person should need to question evolution. Evolution requires more faith than I have! I'm not one of those that believes the earth is 6,000 years old... the fact that God's Spirit "hovered over the face of the deep" and that the earth was "formless and void" leads many to question (me included) whether there was a pre-adamic creation where, perhaps, Lucifer was a Lord ("I'll exalt my throne above God's")... certainly would eplain a lot in the fossil record and makes one wonder whether Genesis 1 starts after a flood-judgement. Regardless, the scripture is not clear enough to be dogmatic about it.

hey blaine,

i like your balanced view but feel that you lack perspective...

the natural evolutionist has forever sought the proof of his theories... in point of fact such proof has been anounced time and again, only to be explained away by further revelations of empirical science... the acceptance of natural evolution, as a theory, requires some fair sized assumptions.....

still it is evident, in the geological record, that species have changed over time... the saber tooth tiger existed. it walked the earth in it's day much the same as the bengal tiger walks today.... it is widely accepted, (correct me if i am wrong) that the tiger of today is a descendant of the sabertooth...
is the tiger of today bigger?, stronger?, faster?, more well developed in some way???
or how about the wooly mammoth and the elephant???
or the precursor to todays crocodilians that is referred to as super croc.....

the fossil record clearly indicates a trend, but it's not very complimentary to any particular species today... including us..... a lot of postulation has occurred on just what cro magnon man did with all of the braincase that the fossil record indicates he had.....

jokes about the gene pool aside, most researchers believe that man was, in the distant past, a vastly superior specimen compared to today... john w

The way I see it the current Theory of Evolution is bankrupt. There is no convincing evidence for what is taught in schools as fact, and the little evidence evolutionists can round up doens't stand up under close inspection. The fossil record hasn't brought forth the numerous transitional forms that Darwin expected, the rapidly expanding field of molecular biology stands contrary to what evolutionists expected, the orgin of life remains a massive problem to the theory, and the list goes on. I believe the reason many scientists still hold to the theory is because it's the best naturalistic explaination they can come up with, and they are unwilling to accept a theistic viewpoint despite evolution's lack of convincing evidence.

Now when it comes to Theistic Evolution, I just don't understand why any Christian would accept this. Why compromise what the Bible says so it can agree with faulty science? Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Theistic Evolution require there to be death before the fall of man. My logic is this; In order for evolution to take place it would need the mechanism of natural selection to root out the less effective organisms while supposedly pushing the more effective ones along the path of evolution. This requires death though, and I don't see any way for evolution to take place after the fall unless you totally disregard what the Bible has to say about the amount of time after the fall.

Personally I lean more towards the ID movement simply because it seems apparant that microevolution does sometimes go beyond the borders of speices. When it comes to the age of the Earth I'm not yet sold on either side of the debate, but I intend to look into it further.

Evolution allows animals to adapt to changing conditions. It does not ensure that larger and stronger animals are more successful. What is most likely is that conditions changed so that smaller more agile cats had significant survival advantages over the huge saber tooth tigers.

While the saber tooth tiger may have been more powerful than the wild cats of today power is not the sole or primary measure of success.

Today's cats generally exercise some restraint in social situations and this is an advantage to their survival as a species. It could be that the saber tooth tiger lacked this restraint and therefore a large number died because of injuries inflicted in conflicts between them.

The saber tooth tiger would be more effective at bring down large animals than today's cats. This would be an advantage when large animals are readily available. When large food was not readily available their large size and large teeth would be a disadvantage. A smaller more agile cat would be able to survive on smaller prey when a saber tooth would starve.

Conrad

The theory of evolution is a logical explaination for the changes in animals and people that we see in fossils. If you think that it is bankrupt then you don't understand the theory or are unwilling to consider it.

We have done experiments that demonstrate the principle of natural selection. We know that a species adapts to it's environment. These are the facts that evolution depends upon.

The arguements against evolution that you state are from people who are unwilling to consider it because it contradicts what the bible says. They think that evolution is an attack upon their religion so they make up false arguments against it. You have to think of creationism as a simple explaination of a complex thing to unscientific people.

The bible was written and read by men who had no concept of or knowledge of science. It was impossible for them to understand the theory of evolution. The bible explained creation in terms that they could understand. Just like grownups simplify the complex so that children can understand.

Another example of this is that using science and we have determined that the current universe is expanding outward away from one point in space. The only rational explaination is that it was created from a huge explosion. How come the bible does not mention this fact ? The people who wrote it had no concept of science. They wrote their explaination for the creation in terms that they could understand.

Conrad

Sorry about the late reply, didn't have any time last few days to respond.



I'll take you up on this. While I'll admit I haven't given the theory as good of a look from the evolutionary stance as I have a creationist stance, I do have a good understanding of the issues at hand, and I'm not so blinded by presuppositions that I won't look at the evidence. I have looked at the evidence, and I find the theory unsatisfactory.

Now about the fossil record. You claim that it provides good evidence for evolution, but I must disagree. Where are the transitional forms? Do you ever wonder why they are called "missing links", obviously because they are missing.



The number of fossils hailed as transitional forms are anything but common though, and the dozen or so that do exist have strong arguements against them. The fossil record doesn't show the alleged changes in animals and people, at least not the marco level which is the subject at hand. I fail to see how the fossil record could be claimed as strong evidence for evolution.




During Darwin's time the fossil record was far from complete, so he was expecting future discoveries to back up his theory. Today the fossil record is very nearly complete, most certainly complete enough to show that there aren't inconceiveable number of transitional forms. Out of 329 families of terrestrial vertabrates 79.1% have been recovered as fossils. When we don't include birds, which fossilize poorly, the number jumps to 87.9%. So it is clear we won't be finding the fossils Darwin was looking for.



I won't disagree with you that natural selection takes place and that a species adapts to it's environment. But I don't think these are the facts evolution depends upon. Evolution depends upon whether or not natural selection can cross the gaps between kinds which is far from an established fact. The more you look into the evidence you will see that nature is profoundly discontinuous. Kinds remain within their own kinds. Evolutionists can't even come up with functional, hypothetical intermediates between the kinds.



If I'm to accept Evolution it must be demonstrated to me that it is possible and likely that macroevolution can take place, but the evidence continues to show it isn't either possible or likely.



I challenge that statement. Christians are not the only ones who challenge evolution, and those who are Christians don't "make up false arguments." Some of History's greatest scientists rejected evolution. To name a some: Louis Pasteur, Georges Cuvier, Lord Kelvin, James C. Maxwell, Louis Agassiz, Rudolph Virchow, Henri Fabre, John A. Fleming, and Wernher von Braun.



The problem is that though you are right in saying that it was written and read by men who couldn't understand evolution, The way creation is explained in the Bible doesn't allow for evolution. See my previous post for why.



For the most part I can agree with you here. The Bible speaks of creation in a way that allows for the Big Bang, and God likely didn't explain the cosmological priciples behind it simply because they couldn't understand it.

You may be suprised to hear that the Big Bang actually provides a good argument for a Creator. I'm currently reading a book by Lee Stobel (author The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith) titled The Case for A Creator, and in this book Lee interviews many of the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement. One interview is with William Lane Craig who developed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument based on three premised. (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe had a beginning. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. That is just the basics of it. If this intrigues you let me know and i'll provide more info.

I expect that the problem is that we do not have a large enough sample of fossils to allow us to see the "transitional forms".

Further more, how do you explain that the fact that fossils of a new type of animal shows up at a certain time ? How did this new type of animal develop if evolution was not responsible ?

Also, according to the bible man should have been present from the beginning of time. However fossils of man are not found until way after the dinosaurs have disappeared ? Where were the men while dinosaurs were in existance ?

What we really need is to understand how DNA works and how it can be modified to produce changes in the species.

If transitional fossils actually existed there'd be far more of them than non-transitional fossils. We should be able to walk out the door and quite literally trip over them. We can't. That's because they don't exist. Evolution is a faith based on no evidence other than theory and a rejection of the existence of God.

ConradCA, Darwin used to say the same thing. Now, 150 years later, there are litterally billions available for investigation. The most recent discoveries show man or his artifacts in almost every layer. Also more than 90% of the fossils are out of the correct order to support evolution. I saw a photo of a fossil burial ground recently. Mixed in with the dinosaur bones were mammal and bird bones. They all lived together and were killed and burried together in Noah's Flood.

If evolution was so obvious theories like the "hopefull monster" theory would never be brought up. Hopefull monster is the idea a reptile laid an egg and a fully feathered bird hatch out. The same concept is being presented for irreducible complexity in cells and even down to the gene level. Evolutionists are desperate. They have a fantastic blind faith in their religion.

Ringman, you're on the bottom here so I attached to your post for no reason other than convenience.

As to evolution vs creation.

The day I can hold in my hand a genuine artifact/fossil that says "God's flashlight, return to God if found." or something else that shouts actual genuine Jesus/God fossil/artifact I'll stick with evolution. There are plenty of fossils around that get some of the less understanding creationist in a snit but I have yet to see anything tangible that suggests there ever was a Noah's Ark, baby Jesus or whatever.

There are plenty of fairey tales published and printed by the thousands and yet very few adults believe in the Easter Bunny, Tokoloshi, Babe the Blue Ox etc. What make the bible any different than any of the other books of yarns other than some adults happening to believe it true???

Anyone seen a Yeti recently, I heard one is living in the Ark!

I think DaveKing has produced a valid point. What makes the Christian creation myth correct and all other creation myths simply incorrect/misguided? Christians aren't the only group of people to explain the beginning of time through the use of elaborate myths/stories so why is it assumed that it is either the Chistian myth or evolution? Maybe Christians and evolutionists are wrong and the Souix creation myth is the true explanation. Sound ludicrous? I believe in God and am a church-going Lutheran, however I really don't think one can deny that evolution occurs now and has always been occurring. I look at the whole issue from a pragmatic viewpoint, there is no way to decisively conclude just exactly what is true in this discussion without joining the ranks of the departed. I can wait.

You are searching for scientific knowledge in a document written by people who were ignorant of science. In your desperation to prove the correctness of everything written in the bible you (or others) are making up facts so you can argue about this issue.







After excluding the many fossilized primitive crustations, worms and maybe fish that are very common there are not billions of fossils available. It is more on the order of 1,000s.







The oldest dinosaurs are about 150 billion years while the olds fossilized man is 6-7 billion years. What explanation do you have for this fact ? You may have seen a photo showing both dinosaurs, mammal and bird bones, but it is pretty easy to fake something like that up. Who found these bones and how old were they ? I expect it was created by someone who was desperate to have evidence to support what the bible says.



As a matter of fact, they have found a fossil or two that show feathered reptiles! The idea is not that the reptiles changed into feathered birds over night. It is that there was a reptile that jumped from tree to tree to avoid predators. A slight genetic variation caused feather like things to appear on the wings and this allowed it to jump farther. This variation quickly became the present in this type of reptile. As time past the feather like things became more like feathers and each time this happened this feature quickly spread through out the species because it allowed the species to jump or glide further.



Didn't Jesus say "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's". A further corollary should be added " Give unto science what is science and give unto God what is God's".



Conrad

� The Judeo-Christian account of creation was given to men by the Holy Spirit of God Himself -- "not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," Peter wrote. Other ancient accounts from other cultures are men's fanciful conjectures and surmises -- man's creations, "by the will of man."

� Evolution as a broad general process of gradual change is observable fact. No evidence exists that evolution spontaneously began the existence of anything from scratch or developed lower orders of created beings into higher orders of evolved beings. (Do you think that apes and monkeys would consider evolution into humans "progress?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

(I'm not posting this of my own accord or with any intention to engage in any continuing debate on the subject. A Campfire regular asked me, by PM, to post this comment in lieu of his own attempts to present the above facts. Take it or leave it.)

Conrad,



Like I posted earlier on this thread--and in all humility you need to read it if you haven't yet--a Biblical Christian can be true to his/her faith whether they believe in Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. As such, I am very happy--in fact I insist--on leaving the Bible and faith out of this discussion.



Darwin proposed two theories. His "specific theory" is that of natural selection, adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc. The specific theory is not in dispute, and is his brilliant contribution to science. His "general theory" concerns the continual development of life across species lines. There is extremely little evidence for his general theory, and it takes a lot of faith the believe it.



I accept the earth is billions of years old. Nominally, the earth could have supported organic life as we know it 4.5ish billion years ago. About 3.7ish billion years ago we had the pre-Cambrian explosion. We have fossil evidence of this. 800 million years is not enough time for life to have developed by chance form non-organic compounds. It is not remotely feasible. The only way some convince themselves that life could have evolved in such a short period of time is via reasoning such as: "Well, we know life started 3.7 billion years ago, so it must have developed in 800 years via chance." This is a classic logical fallacy, where the effect does not necessarily follow from the cause.



Now most evolutionists are aware of the problem of origin's, so they just ignore it. For good reason. You do not advance academically unless you can make major contributions to the theory. There is so little evidence available concerning origins that very few have even tried to address it from a scholarly, scientific approach. How could they write a scientific doctoral dissertation unless they have a reasonable amount of solid evidence? In the late 50s early 60s they thought they had an answer, with the pre-biotic soup and lightening, but since then most have left that hypothesis because there is no fossil evidence of any pre-biotic soup.



Another problem with evolution is the extreme complexity of organic life. In Darwin's time, they thought the cell was a simple blob of stuff. When I went to grade school in the 60s, they taught me there are three parts to a cell: the membrane, the nucleus, and the goop in between. Today, we know the cell is extremely complex.



So let's take just a small part of some cells, like bacterial flagellum. It is a rotating "tail" that is spun electrically. It is a miniature electric motor. All it's component parts have to be in place for it to work. To date, no one has been able to explain how a working bacterial flagellum evolved in a step-by-step process. Very few have even tried. The same is true for cellular cilia.



Evidence of transitional species is another problem for Darwin's general theory. No we all know how in Darwin's day paleontology was brand new, and how he explained away the lack of transitional fossils as just a lack of looking. However, today we are in the same boat. There have been a couple of fossil series that at first glance appear they might be in a series, but the vast majority are not. They are clearly delineated species that appear all at once in the fossil record, stay relatively unchanged, then disappear all at once.



An excellent example is the coelacanth. It was a fish thought to be extinct for millions of years, when one was caught by fisherman off the coat of Madagascar in the late 30s. Now I'm sure you have heard about the coelacanth. It was supposedly proof of evolution. However, they didn't tell the whole story.



The coelacanth was part of an order of fish-like animals thought be transitional between fish and amphibians. They were called "rhipsidians" (sp?). They do kind of look like a fish in the process of growing legs. It was with great excitement that the scientists got a hold of the coelacanth and autopsied it. Here, at last, they had a genuine example of a transitional species.



Well, they found the coelacanth was 100% fish. Nothing transitional about it at all. Of course, they didn't exactly advertise that.



There are other examples. The series of horses form eohippus to the modern horse isn't really as clean of a progression as they want to admit. The archaeopteryx is now though to be all bird, and they have proposed another creature "pro-avis" which they think would have been transitional. Of course, pro-avis is just an imagined creature.



Two commonly cited examples as proof of evolution are Galapagos finches and the peppered moths. On one particular island in the chain, Darwin found two types of finches. One had large beaks, the other had small beaks. During times of drought, he noticed more large beaked finches. The large beaked birds were better able to crack open the tough, dry seed casings found during dry spells. During wetter periods he found more small beaked finches.



This is an excellent example of adaptation to the environment, but it has nothing to do with animals evolving from one type into another. There were both large and small beaked finches in existence before and after the drought. The small beaked finches did not evolve into large beaked finches, they were just temporarily reduced in numbers during droughts.



The peppered moths are another example. During the industrial age in England, the tree's bark in one particular forest became darkened with soot. There were two types of peppered moths, light colored ones and darker ones. The speculation was the darker moths would survive better during this time because they would be harder to see against the dark bark of the trees than the light colored moths. This all makes sense, but they found the moth's don't hang out on the bark, the hang out amongst the leaves.



Even if they did rest on the bark, again we still have both dark and light colored moths before and after. We do not have one type of moth evolving into another. Again, and excellent example of adaptation, but it has nothing to do with amoebas turning into fish, then info frogs, lizards, gorilla's, and truck drivers.



Form a microbiological perspective we find more problems for Darwin's general theory. It was originally thought that by examining stuff like hemoglobin, we would find a progression among animals. For example, it was thought a human's hemoglobin would be more similar to a horse's than it would a silk worm's. Well, there is no such correlation. In general, animals are equally distant from each other in terms of hemoglobin types. Horse hemoglobin is no closer or further away from human hemoglobin than silk worm hemoglobin.



That is all I have time for tonight, and I have only scratched the surface and been very general. When you do the research--like I am doing--you find that there have always been a significant number of evolutionists that have not had faith in Darwin's general theory. However, when they are forced to pick sides between Darwinian gradualists and Young Earth Creationists, they close ranks with the Darwinians.



Blaine

Aye.

Blaine... no you haven't scratched the surface at all, of science at least...

I ain't no expert, just reasonably scientifically literate, and see half-truths and things stated out of context here.

Cringing at the thought of hours spent researching minutae in another one of these threads... OK, here I go...



Agreed, science merely examines evidence and draws conclusions, certainly there is abundant scientific evidence contradicting the Bible as LITERALLY true as presented in our current English translations. On the other hand, those the seek to use the theory of evolution to DISPROVE God, like those execrable Darwin Fish folk, are the worse kind of morons; EDUCATED morons.



I'm a tad puzzled here, how could one have a "scholarly, scientific approach" in the absence of evidence? Your implied position seems to be "well then God must have done it", an untestable theory. About as untestable as the ol' "Alien Science Experiment" saw.



"Extremely little evidence?? Well I suppose there's the general order of appearance of different Phyla and Classes in the fossil record, then again one can compare embryological developement in different Classes of Vertebrates, or even human embryological development.



Expound upon this please, 800 million years sure SOUNDS like a long time.



I would have thought in general terms they DO appear in a series, going all the way back to appearance of animal and plant Phyla and such. You yourself in this statement allow that there may be least a few good candidiates. Of course specific examples would be a bit much to hope for given that the fossil record is a series of random snapshots over a very long period of time rather than a movie. Likely some of the better examples will be disproven too, which brings us to...



Who on earth are "THEY"?

The true nature of the coelocanth was discovered decades ago, and any evidence associated with it was similarly disproven. I knew this, anyone who bothered to walk into a library and looked knew this. Why would "THEY" continue to advance such easily disproven evidence as you suggest "THEY" (whoever that is) have done?



Ahh "THEY" again... Umm, I believe it was Paleontologists themselves who immediately noted discrepancies (especially concerning teeth). I knew this, anyone who picked up a book and read it knew this. In fact what the equine fossil series mostly presents is a reduction in digits and and increase in size. Almost certainly the genes FOR full digit developement are present in Horse DNA, now I'm wondering if these are present in the embyo and resorbed, or whether these gene sequences are masked from developing at all.



Umm... a bird with reptilian teeth and a long tail with dinosaur vertebrae, having flight feathers but not having a keeled breastbone associated with modern birds is NOT a transitional species?

Naaah, what you are slanting and spinning is the fact that it belongs to that group of bird-like dinosaurs to which MOST of the familiar forms (including most all the ones in "Jurassic Park") belong.

A point of trivia; other small feathered dinosaurs have since been discovered, not PROOF, but interesting evidence.

A point of semantics; pro avis might more properly be termed "hypothetical", your use of the term "imaginary" being part of your biased spin (sorta Liberalesque if ya ask me).



Proof of evolution? I had thought that these examples were and are regarded as provable example of observable genetic drift (must be that nefarious "THEY" again). Genetic drift being one of the easily observable principles upon which the theory of evolution is founded.

The other principle is reproductive isolation, the most severe of which being genetic incompatibilily (a zygote cannot form). Another being reproductive isolation based upon simple mate preference (why most of us don't find [bleep] attractive) or else reduced ability to procreate in the hybrids either through sterility (like in mules) or reduced fitness (like lion/tiger hybrids, easy to produce in captivity, but without a prayer of survival in the wild, being neither good tigers nor good lions when competing with their parent species) .

All these levels of reproductive isolation are easily observable in birds. The familiar Baltimore Oriole of the east now interbreeds freely with the western Bullock's Oriole in recent areas of range overlap such that they were reclassified into a single species, the Northern Oriole. This range overlap following the destruction of the prairies, both these closely related species being forest birds.

Lately they have been split into separate species again with the discovery that the hybrid offspring, though fertile, have no genetic future in as much as they and their offspring usually lose out in competition with their parent species. The THEORY being that these two obviously similar species have drited genetically apart in isolation.

Another interesting example is that of the familiar Herring Gull, circumpolar in distribution. North American Herring Gulls can breed freely with the slightly different Western European forms, which in turn can interbreed freely with Siberian Herring Gulls. However, North American and Siberian Herring Gulls are different enough that they do not interbreed.

All of which doesn't PROVE evolution, that would require an eon of continuous observation, but genetic drift and reproductive isolation are both easily observable. Combined, the two do strongly suggest evolution as a logical outcome. (far from the pipe dreams of your own entirely imaginary "THEY").



Dammit AFP! (genuine irritation here)... this is a typical example of dissembling by the anti-evolution folks.....

(like the coelocanth... like the Eohippus... like repeated references to the sinister straw man "THEY".....).

...in this case triumphantly jumping on the example of hemoglobin while completely failing to mention abundant supporting evidence presented by DNA and numerous protein sequences. Have you looked in a bird book lately, the taxonomic groupings of passerines have been almost completely rearranged by such biochemical eletrophoreses. Yet ANOTHER example of ACTUAL science in action.



Another half-truth. No one is forced to "pick sides". Young Earth Creationism is uniformly rejected because of contrary physical evidence.

Much scientific debate has accrued around the exact nature of evolution. To allude to your earlier reference, while their is little evidence shedding light on the origin of life, there is much suggesting the evolution of life. Hence while the former has received little attention, the latter has receive abundant attention.

As you previously pointed out, academic careers are made upon exciting new discoveries. Find as much credible evidence against evolution as there is suggesting it occurs and such would be TRUMPETED from the rooftops of academia (the nefarious "THEY" notwithstanding).

To suggest anything else would imply that all these many scientists are dishonest half-wits incapable of independent thought. At least you have graciously allowed that many of them might be believing Christians.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,







Give some examples.







It is illogical to assume that just because I am critiquing macroevolution that I am proposing God or aliens. In this discussion, I am only interested in critiquing macroevolution, not proposing any alternative. I am only interested observable science here--not speculation about God or aliens.







The fact that there are separate, distinct Phyla and Classes is not what we expect to find if macroevolution were true. We would expect to find a continuous progression of creatures as they evolved form one type into another. Instead, all we have is very distinct species appearing all at once, remaining fairly unchanged throughout their existence, then disappearing all at once.



Embryological development is merely convergence.







Folks (evolutionary biologists and mathematicians) have sat down and calculated the rate at which events occur. They have have then determined how many events are needed for life to have formed. Then they calculate the probability of that happening. In short--the books are all in the other room and it is way too late for me to be up--the odds of life appearing via random processes in 800 million years are so astronomically small the mathematicians consider it impossible.







No, they appear as distinct and separate species. That is why Gould and Eldredge proposed punctuated equilibrium.







"They" as you must know, are the main movers and shakers in the realm of evolutionary thought. Yes, the true nature of the ceolocanth was discovered years ago, but "they" didn't bother to tell anyone their idea of rhipsidians being transitional was wrong, and another nail in the coffin of macroevolution.







Then why do many school textbooks still present the progression of horses as proof of macroevolution?







I am not the one who pronounced Archaeopteryx a bird and not transitional. It was evolutionists. No, using the word "hypothetical" is spin because it implies a legitimacy that does not exist. "They" imagined such a creature, which is very consistent for what it takes to put your faith in macroevolution. Lest you think that is a slam, it is what Dawkins tells us to do every time we come to a hard part in macroevolution. He says just to step back and imagine..........







We are in agreement, evidences of Darwin's specific theory is not proof of his general. Evolution is only suggested if you use your imagination.







When Gould debated Johnson for the first time, he told Johnson "You are a creationist and I have to stop you." So much for scientific objectivity.



BTW, let's stick to debating the merits of the idea sans the emotion.

Birdwatcher, This very moring I listened to two fellows wth doctorate degrees. One in literature and the other in physical chemistry. Both are young earth creationist. They were being interviewed on a radio program which I never heard of before and didn't pay any atention to the station. At any rate they both told of similar experiences.

They have been invited to Christian colleges to speak. Both said in the science department the educated scientists have no problem accepting the Bible as scientically accurate world history; including Devine creation, the curse and the Flood. It is the theoloical departments where the doubts arrise.

There are litterally hundred of scientists with advanded degrees who accept the Bible as litteral accurate world history.

Geeze AFP, I lost a 2hr post through a computer glitch (prob'ly way too long anyway) OK, here's the gist.



1) First off you ask me for some examples of the possible inadequacies of the English translation of the Bible. This I find odd as you yourself, taking into account evidence that the earth is indeed old, expound at length in this very thread how the word "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily mean "day".



2) In a previous post you included the cheap shot of saying that evolutionists "ignore" the question of the very earliest origins of life. I called you on this, stating correctly that there was no other option, given a lack of evidence. You responded by saying that was what you had said. Nope, you stated that they "ignored" it.



3) The issue of transitional forms; Evolution does not require or predict that all members of a lineage be represented in the fossil record. Indeed, some of the most obscure and odd life forms extant today are exceedingly limited in distribution, doesn't mean they dont exist.



Punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Gould et al. has a resolution of a geologic time scale, these "intantaneous appearances" of new forms are separated by up to millions of years.



Also, you ignore the fact that increasingly complex forms within many Phyla do occur sequentially in the fossil record, exactly as evolution predicts. Also, the fossil record becomes increasingly comprehensive with decreasing age, it ain't just horses where there are observable trends.



One doesn't need to look at fossils either, observable stepwise increases in complexity are especially apparent among living forms of the Annelida, Arthropoda and Chordata.



4) Speaking of transitional forms, please provide me the title of a current textbook where fossil equines are presented as PROOF of evolution, as you have stated. Clearly you are not familiar with the tortuous rigors of Biology textbook selection at the State level.



5) You state that Archeopteryx (a dinosaur-looking creature with feathers) is clearly not transitional because "evolutionists" said it wasn't. Yet at the same time continue to accuse other prominent evolutionists of promoting their agenda by not mentioning the coelocanth.



Explain please why Gould, Eldridge and that other guy you mentioned would have occasion to mention the coelocanth at all. Also, in the midst of your continuing allegations you leave entirely unadressed the issue of why those nefarious evolutionists (the notorious "THEY") would promote such a patently disprovable example like the coelocanth.



6) When I pointed out that, unlike hemoglobin, DNA certainly DOES imply different degrees of relatedness between life forms as predicted by evolution you sidestep the issue, asking me to describe exactly how DNA might have evolved.



To which I would reply that one can certainly observe DNA presently evolving. Through ongoing processes of genetic drift and reproductive isolation. I did correctly observe that while speciation was a logical outcome of such processes, observing that would take a very long time, hence genetic drift and reproductive isolation were at best merely evidence.



To whiich you diismissively replied that predicting evolution as an outcome required "imagination", implying a lack of logic.



Odd, you yourself subscribe to the similarly unprovable theory regarding the probable age of the earth. Does such require "imagination" too?



While I'm asking, please explain how similar embryological development among different life forms is a result of "convergence", convergence from what?



7) Despite stating that little is known about the very earliest years of life on earth, you state with certainty more than once on this thread that it is impossible for life to have spontaneously appeared over the better part a billion years. Thus precluding evolution and supporting intelligent design.



Seems an apparent contradiction here; unknowable conditions on the one hand along with absolute certainties on the the other. Unfortunately to rectify this contradiction you're gonna have to expound at length on the theories of those other folks in that book in the other room (maybe its that Johnson feller).



8) Finally, after freely and incorrectly castigating the motives and intelligence of a whole slew of the "evolutionists" (more than once I might add) who make up the majority of the scientific community, and after selectively picking and choosing evidence to support your position, you request that "we keep our emotions out of this".



Tell ya what, I'll not get irritated if you'll stick to the facts.



Birdwatcher

ohh nooo... still one more thing.

With regards to Mr Gould's statement to Mr Johnson to the effect that "You're a creationist and must be stopped".. please provide context.

I'm certain that what Mr Gould was referring to was not a competing theory (which after all could be published for peer review just like any other) but rather the rabid attacks of Johson et al. and on the scientific process in genral and Mr Gould in particular, in tone exactly similar to Michael Moore's recent attacks on the Right Wing in general and President Bush in particular.

Hmm... you yourself have irepeatedly implied the existence of "a vast evolutionist conspiracy"....

I dunno, maybe its convergence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher, Absolutely. Why did the Superentendant of Schools in California try to shut down Christian Heritage College? Because they included creation in their teaching. Tell us what would happen if a school teacher started teaching creation in a government school.

Amazing how otherwise cynical, technology and science driven people can hold so fast to a faith-driven superstition. No there ain't been any fossils found of a missing link, but man's been around so little time, that ain't surprising. I don't know about you, but even if evolution ain't exactly right, its a hell of a lot more plausible than a feller pullin' a rib outta his chest, makin' a woman outta it, an' fornicatin' till there's a viable population to beget 6 billion people, who don't even share all the same genes! Seems to me God could have created the earth, then let her go to do what comes natural. Same can be said of the universe, in which case life on earth is a pure accident. That's a hell of a easier pill to swallow than the Genesis story, specially in light of what we now know. I got some acquaintances that swear all the dinosaur bones found everywhere were put there by satin. Talk about denial. Seems to me, the more people try to figure out exactly what God's all about, the more they end up revising their philosophy as soon as some new piece of science or natural history disproves their idears. Best to go with the flow and admit we ain't got it all figured out yet, and its entirely possible that, like all creatures under the sun, for us, death is the end. I know that's an uncomfortable thought to most, because we are an arrogant species. But try not to think of death as the end; just think of it as a really good way to cut down on expenses.

do the math, 'skinner, on two people startin' the earth's population. not a stretch at all, from what i see. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Muleskinner , You need to read your bible again . A feller did not pull a rib out of his chest and made a woman out of it .

I do know that man is fallible . His science fallible and so is his self righteous morals . We will never find the answer of how life begain from the science of man .

Fish, I dunno if you're comment was made half in jest, but of course to build a population from a single family (did Adam and Eve have daughters too?) is genetically impossible, the deleterious effects of inbreeding being what they are. These effects of inbreeding probably being why a great many forms of life, including ourselves, have innate mechanisms in place to prevent it.

On the other hand I expect God can do whatever the heck He wants and tweak DNA as needed. Saying so of course ain't science, but rather faith.

Isn't the question "whom did Adam and Eve's kids marry?" an old and knotty problem for Bible scholars?

Birdwatcher

I remember a news story from a few years ago about flooding in Texas. The top soil was washed away from the banks of a river, and in the bedrock Dinosaur tracks were found with with Human footprints walking along the same path. Some of the human footprints were in the dinosaur prints. I never heard anymore about it , I wonder why?

Well, as probably the only one around here supremely dumb enough to assume the title "defender of evolution" I suppose I should continue...

Ringman writes...


Hard to imagine he could actually close a private school unless said school was receiving State funds. Far more likely that he could withdraw State acreditation on the grounds that the formal curricula offered in the classroom differed from that mandated by the State.

On the other hand, LOTS of things get discussed in classrooms, good and bad, that ain't on the State curricula either. Could a public school teacher present arguments for creationism in the classroom? Yepper, and many do.

Also, I dunno any regulation against assigning research papers and such comparing different theories, including Biblical literalism. From a practical standpoint, there are few things a teacher wishes to avoid as much as irate parents, especially righteously irate parents. Towards that end, any teacher worth his salt steps lightly in this area, and stresses that evolution is but a theory, presents the evidence, and tell the kids they can make up their own minds.

Amax writes...


Amax, all I can tell you is that there have never been verifyable human footprints mixed in the same rock strata with dinosaur footprints. If there were, paleontologists would RUSH to the journals to announce their find, such theory-destroying discoveries being the stuff of which academic careers are made.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

It takes a lot of time and effort to properly address these issues. I am willing to do it, as I believe many macro evolutionary arguments are in error. I also don't buy into every Young Earth argument or Intelligent Design argument. I would very much like to debate the ideas, theories, and facts involved in this discussion.

However, you sometimes seem to feel any opposition to macro-evolution is a personal attack on you.

To begin with a clean slate, I have never intended to disparage you personally in any way. If I have somehow offended you in any way, I apologize. While I believe ideas are fair game, I do not believe people are. Let me know if you are willing to try and debate this topic in a polite, positive, albeit pointed manner. I think many of us can learn much from such an exchange.

amax155 , The human footprints and dinosaur tracks you are refering to are in Glen Rose Texas on the Paluxy river or creek . Has been a subject of debate for years . It is thorn in the side of the religion of evolution . It's kept quiet by that group of believers .

Do a search on the Paluxy River .

Birdwatcher, You keep forgetting evolutionists are predjudice. There was an evolutionist who viewed the prints. His responce, "All this show is that in the future man will develope a time machine and go back and walk with dinosaurs." One detective from Dallas said, "If I saw these prints at a crime scene, I would say they are positively human. But since they are with dinosaur tracks, I don't know what they are."

There is a group, with permission, which every summer unearths one more track to follow a trail of dino and human tracks. It's tough to fake a brand newly unearthed trail.

The facts contradict the theory of an old earth. God's Word gives us the answer: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." By looking at the geneologies, one can discover the approxamate age of creation.

As far as Adam and Eve's kids marrying: They married their siblings or nieces or nephews. God's Word informs us Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. The idea that there would be problems with close marriages is is based on the genetic load today. They were nearly perfect. After all, the creation was brand new. Even Abraham married his sister. It was not until Moses that God saw fit to stop close marraiges.

bw:
geometric progression. the numbers add up. only point i was making to 'skinner. what Father God did about the gene pool is a mystery to me because inter-family breeding is clear in the Bible.
now then, as for "transitional" species and dating, who's to say so-called transitional species were not just animals that were a little different from the get-go and then died out? no way to scientifically prove transition; mere "observation" of what appears to be transition.
as for guessing the age of things based on half-life dating: sure, there is atomic half life, and it is apparently steady. but it still does not tell you at what point degradation began. that is always the problem with scientific dating: there is no benchmark and there cannot be one. degradation of a given element (i cannot think of the actual word here; please forgive me), whether it began 1 billion years ago or 20,000 years ago, it is steady and that is all we can know.

About whether or not man could have descended from two people, the way I have heard it explained was that after creation DNA hadn't yet accumulated the imperfections that cause problems with inbreeding. I don't know if there's any truth to that or not, just another possible explaination.

I don't know the details of carbon dating. However, it does work and has been proven to the satisfaction of people who spend their whole lives studying the topic. If you feel that you have proof that it is invalid then you should write a paper to provide the evidence to everyone. It would be published by many scientific journals if true.

From your comments it appears you do not understand the science behind carbon dating. You appear to be grasping at straws for an argument to discredit carbon 14 dating.

Here is a description:




Conrad

Thanks for the lesson on carbon dating .
Fish280 is right . There is no benchmark or baseline to measure from .
How would we know that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in living things in the past would be the same as it is now ? What variables would affect the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio ?

ConradCA,

Have you heard of an Acelerator Mass Spetrometer? They have been used to date carbon 14 in diamonds!! If the diamonds are really millions of years old, how is there a detectable amount of C14?

Ringman,

Q: Have you heard of an Acelerator Mass Spetrometer?

A: Yes. I've operated one.

Q: They have been used to date carbon 14 in diamonds!! If the diamonds are really millions of years old, how is there a detectable amount of C14?

A: No they haven't.

Why are you people bothering to hash this out?

Every intelligent person knows that the Genesis accounts are false and that evolution occurs.

The Bible Thumpers refuse to consider any of your evidence because they are frightened (incorrectly) that proving Genesis is false would be the same as proving Jesus a fraud.

Their position is the same as in earlier generations when they thought the world was flat and refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

Incidentally, the Bable categorically states that the earth is flat (disagreeing with itself whether earth is a disk or has four corners) and that stars are little bitty lights that can fall on the ground.

Their arguments are so childish that they bear no rebuttal: "I don't believe carbon 14 works because I didn't take enough math to understand the explanation," and "there aren't any missing links."

Let them come up with ONE IOTA of EVIDENCE that anything in Genesis really happened.

Instead they say, "Genesis is absolute historical truth because the scriptures say so and I believe in the scriptures."

You might as well tell them they should worship Babe the Big Blue Ox. They're so dumb that they believe some scientist who found human and dinosaur tracks intermixed would closety the evidence instead of publishing it and WINNING THE NOBEL PRIZE.

When debating the topic of evolution it becomes apparent that what is at stake is potentially very different for the participants. For the evolutionist, unless they are trying to use evolution to "deny the existence of God" (entirely beyond the purview of science BTW), what is at stake is merely a theory, for which, to my mind, no better explanation has yet been proposed ("we don't understand it therefore God must have done it" being an unsatisfactory hypothesis IMHO).

For those who interpret the Bible literally however, ANY explanation other than seven days of Creation becomes quite literally an attack on the Christian Faith . Many folks here are Young Earth Creationists. I don't expect that most people come to a place like 24hourcampfire to have their fundamental beliefs assaulted, prob'ly most of us come here to shoot the breeze and BS about all sorts of things.

The risk of evolution threads is that such folks will be driven away 'cause coming here is not fun anymore and/or insulting. On the other hand, neither does evolution belong on the "Religion" board, and certainly I wouldn't care to debate it there.

Young Earth folks must necessarily take much on Faith. For example, the argument that the first humans could marry their immediate relatives with no deleterious effects because they had "perfect DNA" is certainly not backed by any observable evidence today. Neither do I believe supported by the preponderance of evidence is the assertion that the Earth and Heavens began only thousands of years ago.

Splitting the difference are the Intelligent Design crowd, who by interpreting the original Hebrew terms for the length of Creation differently, are thus able to remove much of the inherent conflict between science and Gospel. The fundamental flaw of this crowd however (IMHO), is that they are literally looking for miracles, miracles by their very nature defying scientific explanation. (for those looking for formidable pro-Intelligent Design arguments, check out the very well written www.reasons.org website).

One thing that quickly become apparent in any debate of this nature is the enormous amount of evidence to be considered, a whole lot more than just finches on the Galapagos or footprints in Texas (the vast diversity of corrobarating evidence being regarded by myself as one of the great strengths of the theory of evolution).

Like most folks, I come here to kick back and relax after a long day at work, not spend hours browsing the web. I'm gonna jump off of this particular thread, and start separate threads over the next few days addressing specific parts of this debate that interest me. Specifically them finches and those Texas footprints in the rock.

It is NOT my attention to attack anyone's beliefs, being aware that from a Young Earth viewpoint I am likely a poor deluded fool. Well anyway, if I AM wrong, here's hoping that God has a sense of humor.

Birdwatcher

Birdwathcer,

Sounds good. I agree that the biggest detriment to engaging in this type of study is the hours and hours of pouring through books to make sure we attribute the correct concept to the correct guy. I hesitate everytime I start into it. On one hand, I do not want to appear like I am giving in on the major points, on the other, it is a lot of time-consuming work.

I like the idea of exploring one or two topics at a time. We can be more thorough, and the task seems less daunting.

While some do, many many Christians who interpret the Bible literally are not bound to a seven 24-hour day creation account. There are many ideas on this, the most interesting one having to do with the slowing of time as the universe expands.

I interpret the Bible literally, and am not committed to the seven 24 hour day approach. There is nor requirement to interpret "yom" that way. To reuse a quote I posted earlier,

�In fact, many orthodox, evangelical scholars hold the universe is millions or billions of years old, including Augustine, B.B. Warfield, John Walvoord, Francis Schaeffer, Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross, and most leaders of the movement that produced the famous �Chicago Statement� on the inerrancy of the Bible.�

Of course, my take on this debate is a bit different than yours. As a Evangelical Christian of many years, I do not wrestle with who started the process. As such, I leave that behind and focus on the how. That is why I do not care to discuss matters of faith in this topic, and why I focus on what we see and observe naturally.

While I do not hold to their view, Creation Science has developed an impressive list of scientific evidence that supports their view.

I like Intelligent Design the best. They are not concerned with the age of the earth, and they include agnostics, as well as people from many faiths. The leaders are University Professors who have come to view macro evolution as a theory with too many holes. Denton and Behe are molecular biologists and Johnson was a law professor (do NOT argue with him. I have met him, and that timid looking little man with his polite smile can shred most folks arguments with not too much effort). Dembski is a Mathematics professor with PhDs in Math and Philosophy.

This is not an attack on anyone personally, just my observation. It is a philosophical issue. Non-theistic evolutionists say life originated due to random chance. This cannot be observed or proved. It must be taken on faith. IDers believe an intelligent agent designed the processes that are responsible. This too cannot be observed or proved and must be taken on faith. However, it seems to me evolutionists consider their unprovable belief scientific and consider the IDer's unprovable belief unscientific. In fairness, IDers often consider the evolutionist view closed minded and narrow, so neither side is faultless.

Regardless, all this is illogical, given neither view can be proved or disproved. A detailed examination of the evidence does not conclusively lead to either chance or design. Such conclusions are determined based presuppositions of the individual, even though we all like to say we objectively looked at the evidence and logically chose our view.

I say both evolutionists and IDers must exercise faith to believe what they cannot see. I say it's important to recognize this, then mostly forget about it and focus on what we can observe. The IDer does not routinely invoke God and miracles to explain things. If anything, the miracle is in fully grasping the details. The argument is design vs chance. Neither side should worry about where the search of the evidence leads. If it leans toward a view of random natural processes being the agent, that does not mean there is no God. If the evidences leans toward a view of design, the evolutionist does not have to find God.

On my shelf, my own personal references include:

Naturalistic Evolution

The Origin of the Species - Darwin
The Descent of Man - Darwin
One Long Argument - Mayr
The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory - Gould

Philosophy of Science

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Kuhn

Theistic Evolution

Finding Darwin's God - Miller

Young Earth Creationism

The Scientific Case for Creation
The Young Earth
Dinosaurs by Design
Modern Science and the Genesis Record - Rimmer

Intelligent Design

Evolution, a Theory in Crisis - Denton
Nature's Destiny - Denton
Darwin's Black Box - Behe
Intelligent Design - Dembski
Not By Chance - Spicher
Darwin on Trial - Johnson

That is one reason why it takes me so long to research these issues!

I am looking forward to a very edifying and constructive discussion.

Blaine

blaine:
you won't get courteous discourse from some folks like indy. he apparently thinks we Christians are all stupid. i guess if a fella like me with an IQ over 140 can be stupid, then anybody can be stupid. how about you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
then you've got conrad and birdwatcher and such who are courteous in their discourse. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

fish--

I resemble that remark! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Seriously, I never thought "we Christians are all stupid." I believe that the majority of Christians disbelieve the stuff about Adam and Eve and Noah's flood. I don't believe that the fundamentalists have any right to hijack and monopolize a religion.

As for the rest, in my experience, if you do believe these things, and if your IQ is 140, then you may be the exception that proves the rule.

there are many bright people, indy, who hold the Bible is inerrant, people like me who came to it slowly, gradually, painfully, reasonably over decades, and others who make the leap immediately and still others in between.
but ultimately, issues such as evolution and whether noah's flood was worldwide or regional are just chaff compared to the whole-wheat, eternally nutritious kernal of salvation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"but ultimately, issues such as evolution and whether noah's flood was worldwide or regional are just chaff compared to the whole-wheat, eternally nutritious kernal of salvation."

You got that part right, IMHO, fish.

One wonders why topics such as evolution are so much more popular then, and daw so many posts.

it's just one of those hot-button thangs. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, my IQ was tested at 140 as well. Augustine's IQ is thought to have been 200, which I think is higher than Einstein's.

I think the big problem in all this is people are usually unaware of their own presuppositions and biases.

Well, I dunno how smart it is to go bragging on one's IQ, I took that test and got a 74, which they said was passing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Browsing idly on those Galapagos finches I came on the Creationist site www.answersingenesis.org . From what I gather from their finch editorial, these folks allow for the appearance of new species by evolution, but on a Young Earth timeline, the ancestors of todays species having been on the Ark. An interesting contrast to www.reasons.org, which apparently takes the inverse stand; creation without new species but on an old Earth timeline.

I have piles of books, but most of 'em are on guns, weapons, birds, and history. Nothing at all on evolution. I did just buy a new book called "Apaches: A History and Culture Portrait" by one James L. Haley, actually a very good military history of the Apache Wars as well.

Why is that relevant here? Well.... turns out the very first chapter opens with a bit of traditional Apache religion....


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

Answers in Genesis seems to be a very dogmatic Young Earth organization. I became irritated at their tone and approach reading their magazine "Creation", and I am not really opposed to their position. However, I do admit they put me on to Lee Spicher, who has a very good rebuttal to Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker".

I guess I just dislike dogmaticism of any flavor. I think it is very arrogant for any of us to say our way is the only way and not even allow the possibility of differing ideas.

A problem I see with the websites you reference here is they are focused on encouraging believers. While Hugh Ross is an incredible apologist and has no doubt made formidable arguments for design from a non-religious viewpoint, his website has a different purpose. Here is an excerpt:

"Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the wholly true Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ."

While I support what Reasons is doing 100%, I do not find that approach effective for discussing "origins" questions with anyone other than believers.

That is why I have all the books and typically stay away from websites for this discussion. However, here is a decent website for ID, and here is an excerpt from it:

"Intelligent Design network, inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity will lead not only to good science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. "

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

BTW, do you ever make it out to Bracken Range by Rolling Oaks Mall?


Blaine

AFP, How many ways are there to the Father?
Did Jesus really die a phyiscal death?
Did Jesus experience a physical resurection?
Upon what do you base your answers for these questions and is there any wiggle room?

What irritates me is the theory of evolution being reguarded and treated as a fact or law of science . We are brain washed with the theory of evolution from grade school to grad school .
T.V. programs like Animal Planet , Discovery Channel , National Geograpic , ect . all reguard the theory of evolution as a fact .

Ringman and fish 280
God created mankind on the 6th day. He created the individual Adam on the 8th day. Therefore, it is easy to understand that Cain went to another land or territory and married from those peoples created on that 6th day. Man was created before that first spirit man, Adam, who later failed spiritually and became one of the regular guys already here so to speak.

Notice also that Adam was commanded to replenish the earth which meant that there existed in times past another age of living beings even before the creation of man on the 6th day. You have to read the book of Job to discover the reality of that previous age.

Therefore, you do not have to get into the incest problem at that point. Later on yes in the Bible, but not then, but that still happens today.

Dinosaurs existed in that previous age. For us to deny certain scientific evidence destroys our credibility. I vascillate but the 7 days are figurative even for this new age at this time. Hey, certain revelations come along at different times. I am just glad that they do come. Certain mysteries we will not solve until the right time.

If you don't mind, please explain the difference between natural selection and evolution. Then please explain why it's not possible/fact.

Simply put as I understand it, natural selection leads to evolution in some/many cases. We had "bred" dogs to be many different varieties by "un-"natural selection and these dogs have evolved from something they were once not (simple example). Whitetail deer in the north of North America are typically larger the Whitetail deer in the south of North America, is this evolution??

The Creation myth does not preclude evolution as I understand. Creation simple put something here and this something went on it's merry way to be-all-it-can-be maybe evolving along the way.

While I hesitate to quote the latest theories of human evolution on account of they have changed so much over the years and may yet again be turned on their ear, the preponderance of the evidence seem to indicate that, based upon the lack of variability in our DNA, humans are a young species of limited ancestry. In fact we may have sprung from a single female within the last 200,000 years.



Likewise there appear many forms of humans or near-humans in the fossil record, the earmarks of modern humanity in the form of artistic innovation and possible religious expression appearing quite recently and spreading rapidly, the changes appearing to have sprung mostly from a shift in our software (ie. brains and thought processes) as opposed to our hardware (skeletons). Now THAT account of evolution at least has broad parallels with the Biblical account of Creation.



With respect to dogs, it will probably be of interest to most folks here that, based upon their genetic and behavioral similarities and complete inter-fertility, dogs are no longer classified as a separate species (Canis familiaris) but instead have been reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus familiaris). Yepper, that tubby, gassy old dog underneath your chair is a bona fide WOLF, and so is your Aunt Ethel's poodle.



Turns out dogs are gentically most similar to Asian races of the gray wolf, pointing to an Asian origin for the dog with most of the subsequent breed development occurring in Europe. Relevant to both sides of the evolution debate is the tremendous genetic variation possible in a given species as evidenced by the gray wolf/domestic dog complex.



Worth pointing out though that, for the most part, dogs were apparently bred from wolves by a process of subtraction. Dogs have smaller brains, never outgrow their juvenile subservience to the top wolf (us), and suffer a variety of physical deformites by either arrested or diminished expression of the basic wolf genetic complement. An extreme physical example being the Chihuahua which looks EXACTLY like a wolf fetus. Additionally, all the behavioral traits we have selected for in various breeds of dogs (aggression, tracking, retrieving, pointing etc...) are all components of the normal wolf behavioral repertoir.



(As an aside, the short legs of weiner dogs results from a simple deficiency of growth hormone, exactly the same as the most common form of dwarfism in humans. WHY OH WHY has no one administered growth hormone to a weiner dog puppy to find out what they are supposed to look like? Surely a Nobel Prize awaits......)



"AHA!..." the Creationist might say, "...dogs were bred by man from wolves by subtraction but nothing new was added to the originally created wolf DNA....." ....the only problem being that there ARE genetic sequences unique to dogs and not found in wolves. Behaviorally, dog puppies in particular appear to have an innate attraction to humans and a unique inclination to observe and interpret human actions.



The unique genetic sequences in dogs either arose by mutation, or were originally present in a population of wolves not surviving to the present. Either way a permanent genetic change (evolution) has apparently occurred in either the dog population (new genes) or the wolf population (loss of genes).



All of this being a moot point of course if dogs and wolves really ARE the same species <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Which brings up the larger issue of what exactly is a "species" anyway, the assumed immutability of said species being a cornerstone of many folks' opinions on this topic.



Birdwatcher

now THAT, bw, was an interesting post.

seen any cool birds lately? all i have in my yard right now are robins, mockingbirds and sparrows. the butterfly bush is about in full bloom, so maybe some hummingbirds are soon due. gotta get some more feed out.

Birdwatcher

My mind cannot make the leap from wolf to Chihuahua, St. Bernard, bulldog, greyhound, Great Dane, spitz, Doberman, Pit Bull, Great pyrenees and every other weird configuration. We do not see these strange configurations in other animals that go the spectrum of extremes in size and odd shapes as the dog. How does it progress? Fish, monkeys, and felines are not examples as different ones cannot mate to produce offspring as the dog does. Is not the dog unique?

StarJCB

I agree wholeheartedly! Absolutely correct! It is brainwashing, plain and simple. It is tyranny and forced conversion via the power of the governmental sword.

If you are poor and unqualified to home school you MUST send junior to school which means evolution, (usually in 9th grade biology class but sooner than that in an introductory form)

AND which school system teaches Intelligent Design as a scientific counter system of creation? If it is happening please let me know?

Behe and Demski and others of their ilk have so destroyed evolution theory I can't believe intelligent people still adhere to it at all!

BUT it seems to me that the socialistic godless, fornication as a field of study, Teachers Union have a strangle hold on our public schools and our next generation. They produce the monstors of our day. Those that come through unscathed, credit it to parents and churches and boy scout troops that counteract these commie liberal godless babykiller, sodomite rights evolution teaching enemies of all that is good.

That is what I really think...

Sorry Bird, weren't thinking of you of course! heh heh heh

In very simple terms--which means I'm just too tired to go and drag out the books to find quotes and references...........

Natural Selection: The elimination of traits that do not enhance the production of offspring and contribute to the future survival of the species.

Macro Evolution. Species changing due to an increase in genetic information.

The dog is a good example, but it is a reverse example. The original dog/wolf/dingo/whatever contained within it's genes all the information necessary to produce Dobermans, Rotweillers, Poodles, Labs, Spaniels, etc. Breeders, by carefully removing the traits they didn't want--IE reducing genetic information--have been able to come up with the kinds of dogs we see today.

However, you cannot start with my Doberman--even if he weren't neutered--and wind up with the original dog. My Dobe's genes do not contain all the necessary information, and breeder's are not able to add in new information. They can only select the traits they want to breed out.

So while during natural selection "nature" selects the traits to be eliminated, with artificial selection the breeder selects the traits to be eliminated.

BTW, this is a key point that must be understood in the argument for and against evolution. In general, those who believe in macro evolution believe information canbe increased and thus result in new species. Those who do not agree with macro evolution believe genetic information cannot be increased.

While many speculate as to how information can or cannot be increased by looking at the fossil record, observing what we can see today, etc; the answer really lies in the details of microbiology.

Blaine

slasher, You vascillate because you do not believe the Word of God. What did God write with His Own finger?

"For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything that is in them." Exodus 20:11

Is replenish like repent, rejoice, reduce, reproof, repromand, resemble, etc., etc. Let's see. Should we believe you, a confussed Bible student or God's Word? God's Word says,

"The first man, Adam, became a living soul." 1 Corinthians 15:45

"For since by man came death, by a man also came the resurection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

"And He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..." Acts 17:26

"Now the man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all the living." Genesis 3:20 There was not "incest problem at that point" because it was God's command to fill the earth and there were no other humans.

Repent, read and believe your Bible.

" All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteouness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I was going to give you a very detailed explanation but realized it would be futile at this point in time for you. You are still very confused Ringman. You repent <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



AFP

I am still wanting some details as to how they bred out the traits and ended up with something as large as a Great Dane or St. Bernard and something as small as a Chihuahua and pointy faces v flat faces, long, thin bodies v short, thick bodies, etc.

Fish... the tide is already turning, Texas coastal observers have reportred post-breeding purple martins (presumably from the southern states) heading back south, and a majority of the green hummers you get this summer will be this years young headed in the same direction. But... down here June is the doldrums by and large, until the end of the month when the shorebirds (mostly female) begin to pass back through on the return journey from the High Arctic.

Slasher.. it ain't just dogs, search on different breeds of hogs, and then compare them to wild boars, or on different chicken varieties and then compare them to the Indian red jungle fowl (the wild ancestor of the chicken, looks just like a red fighting chicken).

Failing that, go to a pet store and look at all those weird goldfish, they are all descended from a species of brown Asian carp.

Now with dogs, they are not so variable really.

Size: the result of multiple genes, easily understood. If Shaquille O'Neal marries a 6'5" woman, it ain't likely that many of their kids will ride in the Belmont Stakes. Mercilessly breed small to small, or large to large, selecting the extremes and quite rapid changes can result.

Color: it takes a whole sequence of genes acting one after another to produce most coat pigments, a mutation that changes even one gene in the series so it no longer works will result in no color at all ie. white. Some of these color gene mutations work or not work based upon chance, hence those areas of hide grown from embryonic skin cells with working genes form colored patches, those from embyonic skin cells without working color genes form white patches in a random patchwork. Yet another color mutation found in cats and rabbits is affected by temperature, hence siamese cats are darkest on the coolest parts of their body ie. feet, tails and faces. Cruel experiments have been done involving shaving patches of the white fur on siamese cats and then keeping the shaved areas cool with ice. The fur in the shaved, cold areas grows back dark.

Note that blue heelers ain't actually blue, nor has there ever really been a blue ox (Paul Bunyan not withstanding), in dogs we can only get those pigments present in wolves. Wild parakeets are green, a combination of blue and yellow pigments. Turn off the yellow pigment genetic pathway and you get blue feathers, and vice versa to get yellow.

With the coat, sled dogs generally have a full on complex wolf coat consisting of long guard hairs and shorter undercoat. Our short haired breeds are devoid of much of the wolf coat but heavy on the undercoat, again through blocked gene pathways due to non-functioning gene mutations. The wool mutation ie. thick felted hairs that never fall out due to abberant protein content has arisen in at least three domestic animals; sheep, dogs (poodles) and llamas. In the Tropics there are many breeds of sheep with hair, not wool, just like their wild ancestors.

Short noses in dogs? A look at the skull of such breeds as boxers and bulldogs will reveal a massive failure of the nasal bones to enlongate, hence the top teeth are crowed forwards in the short top jaw with the longer lower jaw projecting. Do nasal boes vary in legnth in humans? Yepper, look at the British royal family.

Long ears? I don't have a clue <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

AFP... your single Doberman does not have enough genetic variation to make a wolf, but neither does any one wolf have enough genetic variation to make a doberman, or all the other subspecies of wolves for that matter. Dogs do not have LESS genes than wolves, most have a few less WORKING genetic pathways than do wolves. These working genes most often apparently became non-working due to chance mutation, usually a very simple alteration in a DNA sequence. Give me a population of Dobermans and enough time and I'll breed ya a wolf, or something that looks and acts just like a wolf, or any breed ya want. The best guesses are that people have been selectively breeding dogs for at least 10,000 years, and in some areas they never got very far away from the wild type, there ain't no Arctic spaniel breeds.

This sort of reversion is readily observable in feral hogs, which over the course of generations revert to wild type, and in goldfish, in which even the weirdest forms likewise revert to being small brown carp in a couple of breeding cycles.

Anyway, your argument implies that natural selection necessarily only subtracts, which reduced variability would only act to place a species in increasing peril as years go by. Indeed those Galapagos finches you mentioned a while back retain a splendid ability to revert over generations to a smaller beaked form despite the most ruthless selection towards larger beaks during dry periods.

Neither does your argument explain those DNA sequences found only in dogs.

Dixie.. I ain't in no union, and from reading my posts, do ya really think I'd force blind doctrine on anybody?

Birdwatcher

AFP, Birdwatcher

Thanks.

Dixie,

Think of it this way:

There is evidence that evolution happens. Birdwatcher has described it in the short run. Fossil evidence confirms it happens in the long run (large changes take longer to happen). DNA evidence confirms it happens in both short and long run.

Intelligent Design might be a neat idea but so far there is no evidence for it.

None of this has anything to do with "socialist godless fornication...commie liberal godless babykillers...or sodomite rights teeachers."

BTW who are Behe and Demski?

God created the stars on the 4th day per the Bible. Think light years. While one can debate at what point in time one carbon dates, the light years and ages of stars can be calculated in billions of years which conflicts with the statement of many that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is easy for one side or the other to argue creation v evolution on the earth but the stars and the light years are definitely measurable.

BirdWatcher

Thanks for the thoughtful info and reply.

Let's ponder this:

A trait that is currently of little value occurs naturally at a low incidence. The possibility of finding a single specimen is rare but there are examples if one looks long enough.

This same rare but normally occurring trait for some reason becomes vogue/beneficial. Would folks carrying this trait not seek out one another and would not "normal" folks tend to opt for a partner with this desired trait? In how short a time could one expect to see this rare trait become "normal" and is it possible that this could seem to be a "miraculous transformation" when viewed from some time in the distant future? (Viewed from the distant future as in examining fossils.)

Consider the human six (6) finger trait.

"Dixie.. I ain't in no union, and from reading my posts, do ya really think I'd force blind doctrine on anybody?"

O course not Mr Bird!

Indy...

Usually when it comes to this topic you go after my jugular with a rusty razor!! heh heh heh, what is this civil reply tactic? Trying to get my guard down and then in with the razor?? heh heh heh.... just kidding...

Behe is a microbiologist... he came up the idea of irreducible complexity. You know, one living cell is an interlocking group of subsystems, all of which have to be tuned to work toghether, and the mechanisms of the subsystems are complex devices also. So for and so on. Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and Demski built on his work introducing the mathmatical probability of those systems assembling themselves together by accident, his work..."Intelligent Design"

Dembski?
Demski? can't remember

William Dembski:

http://www.designinference.com/

Michael Behe/ Irreducible Complexity:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Thanks, DixieFreedom.

I'll read up on this stuff when I get the time and sharpen said razor if appropriate. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Dave... well I sure wouldn't want to portray myself as an expert. I do have two degrees in the Sciences and am a compulsive reader with a retentive mind for interesting trivia.

Mathematically, any given trait only has to infer even a slight increase in the number of offspring left behind in order for that trait to predominate over a number of generations while the percentage of individuals not having that trait becomes vanishingly rare. This would occur even without partners preferentially seeking out those with the beneficial traits.

It is doubtful that partners are often able to recognise and prefer a specific new trait having survival value except in the most general of terms (for example, who among us can tell by looking which of the opposite sex are naturally immune to AIDS, as a tiny fraction of our population is). Most organisms DO however preferentially seek out a reasonably strong and healthy partner, and presumably said organisms endowed with an advatageous trait would tend to appear stronger and healthier to prospective mates and/or be better able to compete for said mates. Which of course results in a progressively larger percentage of the population possessing that trait.

Traits which have NO perceptible effect on survival value could and apparently do persist indefinitely. Case in point, genetic immunity (as opposed to aquired immunity) in humans.
When Europeans arrived in the New World and upon certain Pacific Islands approximately 90% of the indigenous populations in these places perished of infectious diseases brought in by the Europeans (same thing would have happened if it had been African or Asian explorers arriving, Europe, Africa and Asia all being close enough for diseases to spread). But not ALL the inhabitants of these places died, a small fraction apparently by chance had enough genetically-based resistance to survive, and passing on those genes to their descendants (the inhabitants of Tahiti no longer die from the common cold).

Presumably these chance resistance genes had no apparent survival value but persisted anyway in the millenia before Columbus.

Given a severe enough selection pressure the changes in the population can indeed be very rapid (like those Galapos finches) and even slow changes of that nature would be far too short for those changes to appear gradually on the fossil record.

In fairness though I think what you are getting at is intermediate stages between obviously different life forms, a bone of contention for the Intelligent Design camp. I dislike the terms "macroevolution and microevolution", feeling that these terms are arbitrary groupings of a continuous process, but the ID crowd would be quick to point out that I have been referring to within-species variation, not the multitude of profound genetic changes necessary for a reptile for example to give rise to a mammal.

Evidence for THAT sort of gradual change hinges upon the fossil record, with supporting evidence provided by the observable developmental stages of present life forms.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher



Once again an interesting read and yes were pointed toward the intermediate/transition critter(s). I often wonder where they are and if they are simply below the threshold value for sporadic fossil creation & discovery.



Reptile to mammal, "cold" to "warm" blooded.



Monotremes, poikilotherms (hummingbird & torpor states)



I find it all interesting but don't have time research all I find interesting.



I wonder though if with the present critters residing on the planet and the varying condition under which they live and breed that it may be possible to "create" a cold blooded mammal or a warm blooded reptile. Critters seem to fit nicely into most/all available niches, create a new niche and "presto" a new critter fills it (is god still busy making stuff or is he/it/she/? on vacation and Darwin's busy in the critter workshop).

Dave... the subject of transitional forms bears controversy because such are evidently in some degree in the eye of the beholder. Generally speaking, the younger the fossil record, the more forms that appear transitional there are, this with the caveat that "transitional" probably doesn't mean "ancestral", rather it means evidence of an intermediate stage in complexity.

The greatest discrepancies in the fossil record are the among very oldest fossils, when aparently most all of our present Phyla were present in their simplest forms. It is of interest to note that fish, amphibians, birds and mammals themselves are not placed in a Phylum "Vertebrata", but rather in the Chordata, refering to a dorsal spine of cartilage along the nerve chord present in all of the embyos and some adults of this group, including the simplest and apparently very ancient group of filter-feeding marine "sea squirts" (Tunicates).

But you are correct when you point out that absence from the fossil record doesn't necessarily mean something never existed, just that there is a lack of direct evidence that it did. Some of our most unusual creatures today (including that coelocanth fish mentioned way back on this thread) are so rare and/or limited in distribution that any fossils resulting from them would likely NEVER be found.

Since the topic of transitional species is such a contentious one (and worthy of its own thread) I might as well add inflammatorily that much of the popularity of the Behe/Dembski/Johnson trio might arise from the fact while that few, if any, other scientists have come out to support 'em (one reason why you can sum 'em up in three names), these guys have gained huge support among folks mostly on THEOLOGICAL grounds ie. their theories depend upon the existence of a Creator. The incorrect assumption among most of their adherents being that evolution necessarily denies a Creator, which it most assuredly does not.

With regards to why these three guys haven't won a Nobel prize or enjoyed much SCIENTIFIC acclaim of any kind there are a couple of possibilities:

a) They are right, everyone knows it, and all the other scientists are part of a vast God-hating conspiracy trying to shut 'em up (one wonders why those three guys haven't been lured into the Smithsonian on some pretext and quietly "collected").

or

b) Most scientists find their collective hypotheses ("we don't yet understand it therefore God must have done it") unprovable and their assumption of the virtual impossibility of any other explanation invalid, and further feel that science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God.

Birdwatcher

Dave I should add, with respect to your last comment that the rule in nature seems to be that if you can do it and leave offspring, and their offspring can survive too, then it can happen. Hence we have such oddities as egg-laying mammals secreting milk onto their fur through diffuse, modified sweat glands (platypus), flies raising one larvae at a time internally before giving birth to a full-grown larva that immediately drops to the ground and pupates (tsetse fly), and fish able to raise their body temperature considerably above ambient water conditions at a metabolic cost in energy comparable to that of mammals (tuna).



Less weird we have the annual spectacle of millions and millions of assorted songbirds migrating across the Gulf of Mexico each year, sustaining huge losses in the process and needing to raise larger clutches of young to make up for said losses, while their stay-at-home Tropical relatives get by with rearing only half as many young.



Why would a 4" warbler (Blackpoll Warbler) migrate north through the US from Brazil to Alaska in May, and then after breeding migrate southeast to New England, then CONTINUE migrating southeast over the Atlantic to pick up high-atitude winds a couple of hundred miles offshore that will carry it to Brazil four days after leaving New England? Because they can, and produce surviving young that can do it too.



Birdwatcher

Guys,

I haven't forgot about 'ya! I have a checkride tomorrow and need to study flying stuff tonight. I will dig out the books and address the idea of the increase of genetic information. I probably have perspectives for big name evolutionists, creationists, and intelligent designers.

You know, we could greatly elevate the level of debate if some more folks would read and reference the pertinent books in this field. A good start would be to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for an evolutionist perspective, "Evolution, a Theory in Crises" by Michael Denton for the intelligent design perspective, and "The Young Earth" by John Morris for a young earth creationist perspective. These works are only a start.

Other important references would be stuff by Gould, Simpson, and Mayr for and evolutionist perspective, stuff by Johnson, Behe, and Dembski for the ID perspective, and stuff by the Creation Science Institute for the young earth view.

Much is gained by reading these works. While cutting and pasting "sound bites" from websites is easy and somewhat useful, you do not get the whole context of the man's thought like you do by reading his book. For example, "The Blind Watchmaker" contains some tasty bits of info that can be used to defend evolution. However, when you understand those bits of info in light of Dawkin's whole argument--a sustained case for atheism--his info takes on a different shade of meaning. When you read "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson, you also find some tasty bits of info in support ID. However, when read the whole book you come to understand Johnson's mission is to get a fair and unbiased hearing for ID, then his comments take on a different shade of meaning.

After saying all that, I realize it takes a lot of time to read and study, and like Birdwatcher said, it's hard to get motivated to do that after a long day at work. But it's still a good thought.........................

Blaine

Birdwatcher, The coelocanth was an index fossil until discovered alive and well. As much as it may not be popular to believe, there are at least two evolutionist authors who have written books about "out of order fossil". They are only out of order if you don't accept the historical world wide flood.

Ringman

You are passionate, predictable and certainly unshakable, I sincerely wish you well in life.

Birdwatcher,

Do you know why there so many species of birds? It seems that each subtle niche requires a total specialist, as opposed to mammals who are much more generalists. For instance, here we have 28 species of warblers (including the blackpoll) that either migrate through in May or stay here and nest. Why so many slight variations?

A good example is the blue-winged warbler. They live in the same place as the golden winged. Why is there a golden winged at all (and once in awhile, hybrids)?

Or cuckoos. A few years ago we had an infestation of gypsy moth caterpillars. Both species of cuckoos showed up. Now, no gypsy moths and no cuckoos. Why couldn't our more common insectivorous birds handle the gypsys?

In short, do you know the reason why there is such diversity of bird life? We got 129 species in one day this year in a small area.

I tought this thread had die off through the process of natural selection but I can see it has evolved into something else . ( BREEDING DOGS ? )

DaveKing , If you don't mind , please explain how life evolve from nothing . How a single cell life form evolves into a multi-cell life form ? Where in the fossil record dose this transition take place ? Can you show me any rock formation or canyon wall that proves evolution by the fossil record ?

STARJCB,

Somewhere I asked and never received an answer from anyone. Maybe here I will get an answer.

What is the name of the two celled animal?
What is the name of the three celled animal?
What is the name of the ten celled animal?
What is the name of the hundred celled animal?
What is the name of the ten thousand celled animal?
What is the name of the 100,000 celled animal?
What is the name of the millin celled animal?

I read one evolutionists who said, " 75% of all evolution occured between the single celled animal and the invertibrates and yet we have no evidence for it."

StarJCB

I'm not an authority on evolution or natural selection, not even well read on the subject, just interested.

Life from nothing; I suspect is was started by one of my kids, many times when they were growing up there were little incidents of things showing up unexplained, dirt on the floor, broken cups, etc. I'd ask them "Where did that come from??" Their answer was most often "I don't know... nowhere I guess!". I'd then often ask "Well then, who did it??" and their answer to this was nearly always the same "I don't know, It just showed up on it's own!".

Single cell life to multicell life: This is easier and I even know the sex and religion of the first single cell life form. It was a male, I suspect a teenage male. Had it been a female there would still be no other life forms other than that initial one. I suspect this teenage male single cell lifeform experimented with everything it could find and eventually found a suitable receptical for it's passion(s).

All this happened behind closed doors with the lights out (it was a Catholic <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) so there are no witnesses and also no fossil record. If you'll notice the recent pictures of the Pope you'll see he spends a good deal of his time searching the ground looking for evidence of this initial first encounter by this primordial Catholic.

I don't believe there's any evidence that I could point out to you that would "prove" anything other than what you already believe in your heart.

Sometimes faith causes blindness, on both sides of the situation.



Ringman

I'm feeling particularly jovial today, let me help out a bit.

What is the name of the two celled animal?

Conjoined ameoba. Or perhaps a developing zygote.


What is the name of the three celled animal?

A democrat.


What is the name of the ten celled animal?

A decimal.



I think of cellular life more like clay bricks. We make clay bricks, they exist singularly and are good for various things in that form, hold open a door, smash a finger... Once we have mastered making the initial brick we immediately see that building a structure from two (2) bricks is not too bright, how about building a large(r) building with the bricks, something useful.... perhaps this is what life decided to do with it's spare time.




Hell, I don't know how this all works, I didn't design the place I only live here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Star, Ringman... the dog issue is very pertinent to this thread, as it involves selection and mutation, two processes thought central to evolution.



With all due respect, if you must ask about different levels of cellular oranization (one cell, two cell etc...), then you are a tad rusty on your basic Biology. The $64,000 question in this issue is not how do cells organize in groups, but how did cells happen at all.



Once you have a cell, the rest is pretty easy by comparison, and examples of all levels of complexity are abundant today.



A brief review....



SINGLE CELL:

Abundant in any drop of water. The classic amoeba-looking like a raw egg, moving around and devouring things. In our blood we have white blood cells that look and act very much like amoebas, devouring things that have antibodies attached to them (like invading bacteria). The weird thing is that when we bleed, these things can survive out side our bodies in the right environment for several weeks, crawling around looking for things to devour. The instructions that make these sort of cells are in our DNA. Indeed, we begin our own existence as a single cell, that divides to form a ball of identical cells. Divide this ball of cells and you get identical twins resulting.



The taxonomical Kingdom of one or a couple of celled organisms is called Protista, and operates upon rules all its own. Some of these things have chlorophyll like a plant (algae), some of these "plants" can also turn around and devour their neighbors like they were animals. Others swim around in clusters of a few cells (two to hundreds).



Most all these single cells reproduce by dividing, just as the cells in our bodies do. Others come together to exchange and remix DNA, such sexual reproduction not always involving just two partners but sometimes four or more merging at once.



An extreme example of this sort of thing are the common slime molds (present on any damp rotting wood) which defy classification. For much of their life they resemble single-celled amoebas, but when the time to reproduce comes HUNDREDS of these things join together in one giant cell containing hundreds of nuclei. These huge cells appear as the "slime" on dead wood from which these organisms derive their name. After the super cell crawls around for a bit the nuclei in this supercell sexually merge with their neighboring nuclei to create myriad daughter nuclei. At this time the supercell dies, as it dies it forms distinct raised structures containing spores, each spore containing a single daughter nucleus. These spores blow in the wind, and germinates to produce a new amoeba stage.



TISSUE:

By definition a group of cells attached together all performing a single function (like the lining of your mouth, which is made by instructions in your DNA).



Common sponges are examples of animals that dont get beyond the tissue level. The cells secrete the sponge matrix upon which the sponge tissue rests, all the cells drawing micro-organisms to be devoured into the sponge by means of waving flagellae. Such, when landing on the sponge surface, are devoured by the sponge cells exactly in the same way an amoeba feeds.



When they are not reproducing, jellyfish, sea anemones, and the tiny hydras consist entirely of three tissue types... an inside digestive one, an outside protective/poisonous one, and an intervening network of nerve tissue between the two. Touch one of these, and the whole organism contracts due to nerve impulses. Touch the outside, especially on the tentacles and stinging cells die, extruding a long poisonous spine as they do so. Tentacles with attached prey contract towards the opening ("mouth") of these simple bag-like animals and the prey digested by the inside layer of cells.



You can take a hydra (looks like a tiny jellyfish) and pull it inside-out through its mouth. If you do this the inside cells will recognise that they are on the outside and migrate inwards, likewise the outside cells will recognise that they are on the inside, and migrate outwards until the hydra reassembles itself. Our own cells migrate to appropriate positions during our embryological developement.



Flatworms (the planarian of biology class, and myriad parasitic flukes and tapeworms) likewise consists of only three tissue layers when not reproducing, flatworms are one up un jellyfish though because they have an identifyable front and hind end (bilateral symmetry) even though, like a jellyfish, their digestive system has but one opening.



Very early in embryological development our own ball of cells differentiated into tissue layers, and a one-ended central cavity appears (which cavity later of course forms a second opening, our own first opening becomes our anus if anyone wanted to know where they started <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, in segmented worms and insects that first opening becomes the mouth, indicating a very early split between these groups).



ORGANS and ORGAN SYSTEMS

By definition an organ is a group of tissues functioning together to perform a single function. An organ system is a group of organs likewise functioning together to perform a single function.



Those hydras and flatworms form simple organs when the time comes to reproduce sexually, tissues of reproductive cells suported by the other tissue types in centralized locations (analagous to our own testes and ovaries, which by the way, like all vertebrates, we are all born with both sets of)



Everything from roundworms on up (including us) is organized to the organ system level (I think about food with my brain, walk to the refrigerator using my muscles and eyes, devour it with other muscles, digest it with my stomach and intestines).



Worth remembering that EVERY cell in our bodies has the instructions to make all the rest, this is why cloning is such a threat, and why our own stem cells discarded at present with the umbilical chord offer both a threat and a promise.



Birdwatcher

Indy... If I knew "why" I could probably also probably explain how cells first arose in that long-ago primordial soup <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> However we can observe that the maximum number of species tend to occur in the most stable environments (the rain forest, warm and wet year round, being the classic example), the number of species declining in general proportion with the extremity of the cold and/or dry season.



Another factor appears to be the age of the habitat type, contrast the spruce-fir forests of Northeast Canada on the geologically very old and stable Canadian Shield that host those many species of warblers with the spruce fir forests of the Northwest, which have far fewer different kinds, including three (Hermit, Townsend's and Black-throated Gray) all very similar to and apparently recently separated from the familiar widespread Black-throated Green Warbler (our Golden-cheeked being yet another apparent Black-throated Green offshoot). The Northwest has also, geologically been the scene of fairly recent and repeated cataclysmic volcanic activity (want something else to worry about? read up on the Yellowstone basin <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).



The theory is that over the millenia those warblers on the Canadian shield have had eons to minutely specialize and grow apart in that predictable spruce fir belt (even when said belt migrated southwards during cold periods).



Closely related species CAN merge together when conditions change. Look what is happening to the Black Duck now that the eastern forests have been cleared and Mallards have moved in. Enough Black Duck females are choosing Mallard drakes as mates that the species is becoming genetically swamped and might disappear entirely.



With the Blue-winged and Golden-winged warblers it appears their ranges were formerly separate enough that little interbreeding occurred. In modern times the Blue-winged has, as you know, been steadily expanding north and competing for the same habitat. It appears the Blue-winged has a slight competitive edge such that over time Golden-wings in these areas of overlap disappear. IIRC hybridization appears to be a function of mate availablity, the first arriving Blue-wings and the last surviving Golden-wings in a given region mating with the other species by necessity. Certainly there appears to be no surviving populations of intermediate hybrid stock (F1 hybrids being rare, F2 generation hybrids being much rarer still).



Many here will be delighted to learn that the infamous Northern Spotted Owl is similarly threatened by the closely related and familiar Barred Owl, Barred Owls have been expanding their range north and west into the Spotted Owl range, and Spotted Owls have been interbreeding with these more numerous newcomers, threatening to eradicate the whole Northern Spotted Owl subspecies by genetic swamping.



Birdwatcher

It appears that you guys don't believe in the scientific method. This is how we have developed medicines that cure deseases such as small pox. How we created the atomic bomb. How we developed a modern society and how we solve problems.

The theory of evolution was developed because it was the most logical theory that fit the scientific evidence. Which is:

1) Life has changed through out the ages. This includes the the development of single and multi-celled organizoms, the development of dinosaurs, the development of mamimals, and the development of humans.

2) A species responds to changes in it's environment through a process known as natural selection. Small and large genetic differences that provide survival advantages are naturally selected and soon are propagated through out the species.

3) If a species is split across barriers such as oceans to seperate species eventually develop as each portion of the species responds to different environments.

This theory does not explain how the first life developed on earth. But it matchs the facts as we know them better than any other explaination.

If you still prefer the "creationism theory" then please tell me how it explains the scientific facts.

Conrad

The process that created the modern dog from wolves is called selective breeding. It works as follows:

1) Someone captures wolf puppies and raises them.

2) After a while these domesticated wolves are present in most human societies.

3) Human societies train dogs to perform important tasks such as hunting, guarding, pets, and herding. As the humans take good care of their dogs their always is a surplus of dogs. Some of these dogs are better at their tasks than others and these exceptional dogs are selected to breed while the others are killed or prevented from breeding.

4) After thousands of years of selective breading dogs with the best desired characteristic for specific jobs were developed.

Of course the OTHER $64,000 question is how ANY amount of cells to ANY amount of organization can result in a being that has conciousness. Science can explain my body, it cannot explain how I am aware that I exist.

Birdwatcher

I've been lurking on this topic from the beginning, and I've finally decided to jump in.



My buddy, the Israeli paratrooper, once had a problem with some part of the Old Testament and went to her rabbi for an explanation. The rabbi listened for a long while, quietly nodding as she went on about the impossibilities of the Noah story and after a bit she quieted down for him to get a word in edgewise.



"Why must the story of Noah," he said, "Have to agree with scientific fact? Of course it doesn't. What kind of boring world would this be if all of science had to agree with God's word? You think God gives a whit about the difference? You are being silly. Go enjoy your life."



The arguments of science vs. religion seem to have heated up in the Renaissance. What was at stake then was an issue of church infallibility. In order to maintain supremacy, the church attempted to quash certain scientific debate in order to prove it was infallible and therefore under divine inspiration. Of course, the papacy was relying on the old pagan, Aristotle, for answers. Look how far that got them.



Now we come to this argument over Creationism versus Evolution, and folks want to take sides and somehow make this a litmus test on whether or not you are a true believer. I am just a poor Methodist, guys. The Bible is a great book, and I believe in it and I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, but it is not the only book on my shelf. The Bible does a great job of telling me a lot of things, but it tells me very little about how to clean a gun or what caliber to choose in my next rifle, or how often to change my oil or rotate my tires. Maybe you guys can read more into it than me, but I trust Darwin over Deuteronomy the same way I trust Rand McNally over Isaiah to tell me how to get to Albuquerque.



If I pick up Jack O'Connor and read that the 270 is the cat's meow, I'll take that as gospel, or at least one man's honest assessment of the truth. I will not try to verify it against Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. Quite honestly I have very little faith that a bunch of Semites running around the desert thousands of years ago had much insight on the subject. True, God may have delivered the definitive text on hunting rifle selection to a prophet back then, but the Counsel of Nicea did a pretty good job of tidying that stuff up before it got to us in the present day.



Let us assume God came down to deliver his definitive description of Creation to his poor beleaguered prophet (we'll call him Schmendrick )



Yahweh: Schmendrick? Schmendrick?



Schmendrick : Yes Lord?



Yaweh: Why are you hiding? Come over here.



Schmendrick: Sorry, I was hoping you'd leave me alone today. I've got the sheep to shear, and the goats to milk and little Shmendrick Junior wants to go toss rocks at the goyem and. . .



Yaweh: This is much more important. I need you.



Schmendrick: Yes, Lord.



Yaweh: So where was I when we left off yesterday?



S: I think you were talking about ziggurats and gambrels



Y: That's ZYGOTES and GAMETES, you dolt.



S: Sorry.



Y: How am I going to get the word out about how I created the universe and the wonders of nature if you don't get even the simple things right. When we get into this whole mechanism of natural selection-- it is pretty neat stuff, but it's subtle. You've got to pay attention.



S: Sorry. By the way, Lord. I took the last batch of scrolls down to the temple the other day to have them adopted as Holy Scripture, and they kicked me.



Y: They what?



S: They kicked me. They kicked me, and they beat me and they took away all my scrolls and told me if I came back they were going to have me stoned to death.



Y: That's it!!! I want you to go down there and-



S: I'm not going back, Lord. They mean it this time. They're going to stone me and little Schmendrick Junior and the whole rest of the family just in case what I've got might be catching.



Y: So you're not going.



S: That's right.



Y: And all the scrolls have been destroyed?



S: No, I still have the first batch that they sent back. They said they were drivel, because there is nothing smaller than a worm. They said the whole thing about bacteria and viruses and antibiotics and curing cancer is all the ramblings of a madman.



Y: Hmmmmm. Well, this isn't the first time it's happened. You at least try and stay awake. Adam? Huh! He was a complete dolt. He'd fall asleep for hours on end and miss most of the story. Heck, I bet he missed the whole thing about growing up in a trailer park before I had the Garden finished. Adam's Dad blew the whole thing sky high one night trying to light the hot water heater. Am I right? That shmuck! That thing with the apple? I told him first, and then told Eve, because I was sure he'd forget. They were both a bunch of dumb goobers.



S: So what is it that you want me to do?



Y: I suppose I could give you something simple and easy to understand so that it'll get past those clots at the temple.



S: Simple? That sounds like a good idea. I like simple.



Y: Okay. You ready? Here goes. In the beginning, I created the heavens from an inflation of an 11-dimensional fabric . . .



S: A what?



Y: You know.



S: What's a dimension?



Y: You have length, width, height? Right? Okay now add in time as a 4th dimension.



S: You lost me again. I'm sorry.



Y: Okay. How about this: In the beginning, I created the Heaven and the Earth. . .



(some time later)



Y: . . And I had Adam create a taxonomy of everything of all the animals and plants and -



S: Can't we just say he named everything?



Y: Well we could, but that leaves out the hierarchical nature. It also leaves out the -



S: Remember, Lord? We're writing this for the clots at the temple.



Y: Okay. I give up for today. Just polish things up as you see fit-- see what you can do with it, and get it off to the temple tomorrow.



S: Tomorrow? Tomorrow is the Sabbath. The wife and I were thinking about contemplating the Universe tomorrow and rejoicing in your bounty.



Y: Oh yeah. Drat. Okay. Whenever. I gotta go; Satan and I are playing a quick nine before dinner and then taking the wives out to see a movie. He�s a good player, but he cheats!



S: What's a movie?



Y: Never mind. I gotta say, though, they've got this guy named Charlton Heston. God! He's the spitting image of me. Sounds like me too! Oh it's hilarious. I've got to find something important for him to do-- that talent is wasted. You'd love movies. Someday I gotta have you and the wife up for day or two. It's a gas.



S: No thanks. I can wait.



Y: Oh yeah, right. Okay. Well see what you can do, and I'll catch up with you early next week.



S: Goodbye, Lord.



Y: Sp�ter!

Shaman

Good, I like it, best version yet!

Let's hear about black holes, I'd like that! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Even if God tried to explain all this today--with all our "advances" in knowledge and science, we still wouldn't get it. After all, how can a being that is not bound by time explain "Creation 101" to beings who can barely comprehend existing outside of time?

Which Came First?
There has been some discussion in this venue of that ancient question, which came first - the chicken or the chicken egg. The answer is quite simple.

A chicken, by definition, is a bird hatched from a chicken egg.
A chicken egg, by definition, is an egg laid by a chicken.

It follows immediately that there can have been no first chicken nor any first chicken egg. Ergo, if there is a chicken today, there have always been chickens and chicken eggs in the past. It can be shown that there was a time in the past when there were no chickens. It follows that there is not now, never has been, and never will be such a thing as a chicken or a chicken egg.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some persons, in response to my article on chickens and chicken eggs, argued that the solution to the paradox lay in evolution, that there was at some point in the past a bird which was not a chicken but which laid an egg from which a chicken hatched. This is all very well (although I am obliged to point out that no one has ever produced this hypothetical non-chicken who had a chicken chick) but there are difficulties with "populational thinking" upon which the evolutionary argument rests.

Since chickens seem to arouse an untoward emotional response in some of my readers I will take for my example the large mouthed bass. The principles are exactly the same and, I hope, there is less emotional involvement with large mouthed bass than there seems to be with chickens.

Consider a population of large mouthed bass. How can we tell if a particular fish is a large mouthed bass. According to the biological species concept it is a large mouthed bass if it can reproduce with other large mouthed bass. (This may be against the law in certain Southern states.) Suppose, however, that the particular fish that we are curious about is sterile. Are we then entitled to say that it is not a large mouthed bass? Perhaps so by the biological species concept and yet the state game and fisheries department will disagree with us.

An earnest evolutionist might point out that said fish (fish have no money whence the expression 'poor fish') had parents that evidently could reproduce. Since the parents were large mouthed bass the offspring was also. And yet this will not do for the evolutionist will with no apparent shame admit and proclaim that if we follow the chain of ancestry back we will find in the ancestral chain a fish which is not a large mouthed bass. We do not know what sort of fish this hypothetical non-large-mouthed bass (do you notice the lack of documentation on these hypothetical ancestors) so we may as well call it a medium mouthed bass. Would it do to say that large mouthed bass always produce large mouthed bass as offspring whereas medium mouthed bass sometimes produce large mouthed bass. Not at all; the same evolutionist who suggested the transition from the medium mouthed bass expects that the large mouthed bass will evolve into something, probably a very large mouthed bass. (I anticpate that some will appear immediately.)

The problem is that membership of an organism in a population is determined, not by its own characteristics, but rather by its relationship to other members of the supposed population. At no time is any specific bass identified as a large mouthed bass on its own merits.

Evidently we have here a problem in definition. There are three major modes of definition - intension, extension, and recursion. To define the large mouthed bass by intension we must determine a set of characteristics by which large mouthed bass and only large mouthed bass have. As the evolutionists will assure us, no such definition is possible - in the history of bass the line between the medium mouthed bass and the large mouthed bass is indistinguishable. In a definition by extension we list all bass, past and present, that are large mouthed bass by definition. This evidently fails because it does not account for future large mouthed bass which, if experience is any guide, will appear with great readiness.

There remains only definition by recursion. Here some individuals are declared large mouthed bass by fiat (Fiat was the minister of definition in Italy) and the remainder are determined to be large mouthed bass by dint of a recursive relationship - in this case the ancestor/descendent relationship. This, too, fails or so the evolutionist assures us, for the traits are not necessarily preserved by the relationship.

In short, since the existence of large mouthed bass is ineluctable, the possiblity of evolution has been disproved by definition.

Sorry, but folks are waffling here...

AFP skips to the metaphysical with...

Knowledge and science HAS advanced, by leaps and bounds. Science of course is based upon physical evidence bound by time, and so is the theory of evolution. Speculations about WHO made everything are beyond the scope of science.

TLEE (tongue in cheek probably) writes...

Nonsensical word play.


True in part, but biologists wrestle considerably with the fuzzy "species" concept. In many cases its clearly evident, but what about those members of a "species" that cannot reproduce with certain other members of the same species? (like those gulls) And then there's them Mallard Drakes seducing Black Ducks. In any event the inherent impermanence and instability of populations is exactly as predicted by evolution.


False. Research museum collections are full of defining "type" specimens, classified entirely on their own merits.


Not true. See the above.


Documentation of a sort exists in DNA. For example gorillas [bleep] and humans all have very similar DNA, given the fact that DNA is known to change over generations this implies a common ancestor. [bleep] and humans both share a distinct inversion on one chromosome, as would happen if [bleep] and humans had a common ancestor more recent than a common ancestor of all three.

Those looking for evidence of God might note that humans have one less chromosome than the great apes, two sets of chromosomes evidently having fused (traces of the telomeres of each still present at the junction). Providentially such a chromosome mis-match makes a viable ape-human hybrid much less likely. After all, if apes and humans could produce viable hybrid embryos some amoral morons would have trotted one out by now.

Another form of documentation is written in stone... in the fossil record.

With respect to those chickens, I can show ya a chicken that ain't quite a chicken, the ancestral Red Jungle Fowl of India. About as much a chicken is the wolf is a dog.


Why do I appear bent out of shape about this issue?

Well its about speaking the truth.... some folks here heaping scorn upon things it turns out on closer inspection they don't know very much about.

Birdwatcher

Sorry Birdy, that whole post was tongue in cheek.



I refuse to get serious about this, it is too much like a cactus plant. You get stuck at every turn, I mean it is full of prickly pears. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Speaking of telemeres, cancer cells divide and their telemeres do not shorten while what we call healthy cells have telemeres that become shorter with each division and this leads to aging and death. Theoretically, cancer cells might be denoted as immortal but they happen to kill the host eventually and thus their sustenance.

Birdwatcher,



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Take a deep breath, hold it, now relax. You do indeed seem bent out of shape and it just is not necessary. In fact, posting when we are in such a state is counterproductive. It kind of undoes all the logical and rational arguments we make when we lose our cool.



We ( all of us) should all be able to admit when we are wrong and when we just didn't think of something a certain way. If we get so entrenched in our positions that we can't step back and critically analyze our own ideas, we are a lost cause.



Here is some more metaphysical musings. It takes much less research to post these. However, DO NOT take any of this personally. None of this has anything to do with you as a person. It just has to do with ideas and concepts.







Compared to what? Where we were in the Middle Ages or where we need to be to scientifically understand how the universe and life originated? The topic of origins is not much addressed in evolutionist literature, probably because it is beyond our present understanding.







Who's rule is that? Why should we limit the scientific method to only physical evidence? Just because we can't see something physically doesn't mean we shouldn't apply scientific principles to understand it. In fact, I think we must make our best effort to use and apply the scientific approach to everything we do.



[quote]Speculations about WHO made everything are beyond the scope of science.[quote]



They are not beyond the scope of science and logic, but they are beyond the scope of human comprehension.



Since we cannot even comprehend existence without time, we are very limited in the conclusions we can draw. We are unable to competently grapple with questions such as "What existed before the universe? Has the universe always existed? What is outside the universe? What would an existence outside of time be like?"



I will get back to the genetic issue when I have time. Remember, I actually read the works of the major contributors to the field and it takes time to find the info.



However, there is no waffling here..............I haven't even read your longer posts yet, (no point in doing so until I can get to the books) so there is nothing for me to waffle about.

AFP... I was speaking figuratively about being bent out of shape, as in prolonging this thread not letting anything slide.



Scientists catch serious flack about this issue, and I can think of no other issue where such theologically-based pressure is applied to suppress the evidence by folks who have little or no knowledge of whereof they speak.



Earlier on this thread you scornfully accused a nebulous "they" (meaning a de-facto cabal of scientists) of actively hiding the evidence, including an issue of a fish whose true nature was revealed long ago (you still haven't answered why "they" would attempt to promote such an easily debunked example).



You gleefully promoted the example of variation in a Galapagos finch population as a failed example of evolution (as if the study was ever intended to prove evolution on a scale you implied).



Finally that hemoglobin issue, you gleefully stated that their appears to be no correlation between hemoglobin morphology and taxonomic similarity. Thus far on casual perusal I have found sources stating just the opposite. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to quote your source on that one too.



You stated with authority more than once that certain possible events during very ancient times were mathematically impossible, yet have failed to state the considerable assumptions necessary to make such an argument.



On the basis of these statements you freely castigated the motives of literally hundreds of thousands of individual scientists. Again, this wouldn't be a big deal except that folks do suffer for this.



Now you suggest that scientific theories should be based on other than physical evidence (as opposed to what? intuition?). Perhaps this might be because you might not agree with what the preponderance of the physical evidence implies.



Every post here I have advanced credible physical evidence, for which I can state sources if need be. The same has not been true of yourself. Indeed sir, go and check your references.



Now despite all of this am I a rabid evolutionist? naaah. The beauty of science is that theories are being gleefully overturned all the time (although evolution has such a volume of corroborating evidence from many disciplines that it'll take quite a bit of overturning) .



Folks should look at the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. But first they should look at the evidence.



Birdwatcher

Ya TLEE, prob'ly I should post some more about those long ago Seminoles <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Birwatcher,

I have repeatedly tried to be reasonable with you and build common ground. I am going to ask you again to at least try and cut out the negative emotion (sarcasm, ridicule, clever barbs, etc). You didn't exactly make a full effort to do that in your last post. You seem to always be on the defensive about this whole thing, and there is no reason for that. I do not look down on you because you disagree with me.

My goal here is pointed debate, but with respect. I do not have to insult you to disagree with you, though you do seem to take much of what I say as if I was intentionally trying to personally slam you. I promise I am not trying to insult you personally. I had hoped to consider you a friend--though I do want to pointedly attack some of the ideas you have, as I have a boat load of rebuttals waiting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I had hoped you would be able to engage on this level because I thought you might be able to represent the evolutionary viewpoint well.

So tell me, where do we go from here? There are really only two choices. Put each other on ignore, or be respectful as we debate. What do you want to do?

Blaine

There's actually a step in the evolution of the domestic dog that preceeds the capture of wild puppies by possibly thousands of years. You can see it happening with the modern influx of coyote.

Proto dogs (wolves) were always mixing it up with humans in one form or another. In some situations wolves were predators of man. In some other situations they were scavengers. Man and wolf lived an unscripted life together. Some wolves adapted to scavenging human kills, human campsites, etc. Some got good at picking off humans. Some humans got good at predating wolves and scavenging wolf kills. Through the process of natural selection over countless generations, some wolves adapted to a close and closer co-existance with humans.

If a wolf got good at it, he could live within a few hundred yards of humans and never have to worry about food. As the humans wised up, they found the wolves were good as early warning systems, vermin killers, vacumn cleaners, and walking food sources (in a pinch). Eventually, you could probably tell a good wolf from a bad, but as yet there was no true domestication on a large scale.

Sometime ago, probably in SE Asia, the coexistance became cohabitation and wolves moved in with man. The dog accepted humans as part of the pack, and the humans accepted another species at their fire. The reason I say SE Asia is that current breeds of dog trace their lineage back to a wolf species that inhabits SE Asia. It could have happened countless times elsewhere, but we just don't have the genetic record to prove it.

You see the process unfolding rapidly here in the Eastern US. At the time of white settlement, coyote was a species that was strictly west of the Mississippi. We did a fair job of knocking back the coyote out West, but the remnants that survived did so by being adaptive. The coyote of today is able to exist with a few hundred yards of man and has adapted to not only existing in close contact with humans, but also drawing sustinance from the margin of our life. These human-adapted coyotes crossed over the Mississippi and have invaded ecological niches previously inhabited by less adaptive foxes.

Give this process a few thousand generations, and you may see a coyote walking in the house some night and begging at the table. However, at the rate they're adapting, they might just as likely be found in the family room playing video games or working the counter at MacDonalds.

BTW: I just gotta tell you this: we have a dog named Barney that has done some extraordinary things. In the past, we found he can do things like work a dead bolt lock. For years now, we've set him up with cable TV and let him watch Animal Planet when we're not home, so he doesn't get bored and let himself out of the house. In the past two months, we've seen some new behaviors:

1) Some times we came home and we found the channel had been changed, but we figured he'd done it accidentally. Twice now, we've caught him going over to find the remote and changing the channel. The last time, I saw him go over, knock the remote off a table onto the floor and then stand on the remote with his paw while watching the TV. The cable box is on the opposite side of the room from the TV (long story) so you have to know to point the remote away from the set to change the channel.

2) He usually stayed on the couch to watch TV, but lately we see him deliberately knocking a pillow onto the floor and curling up with his head on it.

3) Twice since Christmas, I've been awakened at 0400 with the whistled theme to Lassie playing loudly on the TV in the family room, and Barney barking at the screen.

Blaine... I have done nothing but refute or point out glaring inconsistencies in your arguments and made repeated references to the exceedingly disparaging tone of your opening post upon a whole class of folks whom you apparently have little or no personal knowledge. Bear in mind that said opening segue on your part was entirely unsolicited.



I have never here stated that evolution is "true", just pointed out a little of the vast array of evidence supporting that theory. Incidentally, on my bookshelves I have no books on evolution or on genetics, neither am I a genius. All the facts I have related here aren't rocket science or abstract models of probability, they can all be found in any basic Biology 101 or Genetics 101 college-level textbook, things anyone who claims to be reasonably literate in the Life Sciences should be familiar with.



With regard to the Creation/evolution debate that occurs in this country, I can think of no greater Theological assault on the scientific method occurring anywhere outside of the Middle East. In that light, why is it unreasonable that I ask for verification/explanation of your assertions?





(although in fairness, the pro-abortion and human cloning crowd would aver that my own opposition to THEM is Theologically-based, which I freely admit that it is. But then both of these endeavors do not involve interpretation of evidence, just moral judgements and the application of technology)



Feel free to put me on the "ingore" list if you wish, I myself have never put anyone on such a list, and find the tendency of folks here to do so to be unfortunate.



Since this may well be the last post of mine that you read (can one "ignore" on one board here and not on others?) I should point out again that you have not yet added to or supported your original assertions, beyond providing an incorrect definition of natural selection that also apparently contradicts your earlier portrayal of the Galapagos finch study.



Birdwatcher

This has been a great and informative discussion. Let's not have it end with rancor. You two really did not have much to get upset with each other about and both contributed immensely to our enlightenment.

Thank You both

Hey Birdie! Long time no see.
I've got a question for you and any else here who know a bit about birds.
Why am I seeing more resident geese and ducks than I did as shortly as 5 years ago? There are areas around highway 264 in N.C. that hold rather large flocks year round now. Are they breeding at all? Could evolution be causing this change, I threw that in to stay on-topic <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Actually, you appear to have taken what I said in the worst possible light and considered it a personal attack. I was surprised that you took it as you did because that was not my intent. You reaction did let me know I needed to modify my approach to that topic to avoid negative emotional reactions. I apologized for it and have not posted it in that way since. I also thought we had agreed to a fresh start.................

Now I do intend to disparage macro-evolutionary thought and disparage what I have seen as an approach to science that doesn't allow some ideas a fair hearing. That is an attack on ideas, concepts, and methodologies. However, that is not directed at any person.

I think you are an intelligent, worthwhile, competent individual who has good ideas to contribute to the debate. I think you feel strongly about what you believe in and are willing to fight for it. I think maybe you are a bit prone to be a little defensive in this area because of others who have wronged you in the Past. Perhaps a dogmatic Creationist has personally slammed you, or maybe you have seen dogmatic Creationists make emotional attacks on others many times and you are tired of it. I promise you I have no desire to attack you personally.

You have said many times that I haven't given evidence to back up my assertions and all you want for me to do is support my positions. Well, I have too provided evidence, but I do agree that I have not fully supported every position--yet. As I have explained before, this is a time issue and when I have the time to fully research and give a good answer, I will.

However, I have to ask myself why should I take the hours and hours it requires to provide a thoughtful and well-researched answer when all you are going to do is compose a personally belittling and sarcastic response. Why would anyone want to do that?

Look, I am willing to come 1/2 way if you are. I will cut you slack in your tendency toward personal sarcasm if you will not take every criticism I make of evolutionary thought and the evolutionary approach to science as a personal attack. Just let me know what you want to do.

Here is how I think this topic should be debated............

The Galapagos finches are not strong support for Darwinian gradualism. For Darwinian gradualism to be supported, there would have been only one type of finch and it would have slowly changed into the other kind. For example, there would have been only large beaked finches, and a careful examination of the fossils would have shown the earliest finches were small beaked, and over time beaks would have become larger until they were at their present state.

That didn't happen. Both small and large beaked finches existed on the island before the dry seasons, and both types of finches existed after the dry seasons.

Now it is an example of natural selection. During the dry seasons, the large beaked finches became more prevalent. We can speculate that if the dry season had lasted long enough, that all the smalled beaked finches would have died. If that had happened, then we see natural selection at work--the varier animal least able to cope with the changing environment becoming extinct.

Blaine... the Galapagos islands are apparently of relatively recent formation, within the last 4 million years with regular cataclysmic bouts of volcanic island building since then, presumably wiping clean whatever life had accumulated, the upshot being the present forms of life there are certainly much younger than that.



Volcanic islands are not hospitable places for the formation of fossils, but even so a few have been found on the Galapagos, such fossils being young enough to be of species still found there today and so shedding little light on their origins.



The original Galapagos finch study you quoted was of a population of the Medium Beaked Ground Finch on one of the smaller islands in the archipelago. Just to recap... on that island the Medium Beaked is the only Ground Finch species. In wetter periods when there are plant seeds of all sizes available, the variation in bill size is considerable. As you stated in periods of drought the larger beaked forms predominate while most if not all of the smaller beaked individuals die out. However these dry periods were not long enough to selectively eliminate all the smaller bill genes, such that when wet conditions returned those individuals inheriting smaller beaked genes survived too, and the full range of beak size variation was once again evident.



No scientist in his right mind would claim this as an example of evolution from one species to another, what the study DID show is how very rapidly a population can change with respect to variation of a trait between generations.



Of far more interest to the study of speciation is the fact that on the larger Galapagos Islands there exists not one but three species of Ground Finch; the Large Beaked Ground Finch, the same Medium Beaked Ground Finch, and the Small Beaked Ground Finch. Although there is overlap in beak size between them, the three species can still recognize one another and do mate preferentially within their own species. Also of interest is the fact that, in the presence of these two other species, the Medium Beaked does not exibit the same extremes of bill size that it does when occurring alone on the other island.



The point of interest here is that the Ground Finch complex seems to be a snapshot of a group of organisms wavering on the somewhat arbitrary margin between micro- and macroevolution. Further of interest is fact that all three species on the larger islands can reproduce with one another and occasionally do so, but the fact that the three distinct species have retained their separate genetic identities despite such close proximity to each other hints at selection forces acting to maintain the integrity of these separate species where environmental conditions permit.



Since fossils are of little use in exploring the ancestry of these finches, scientists have examined their DNA. It appears a species of Warbling Finch still found on the adjacent South American mainland was the ancestor of all the Galapagos species complex.

see...

http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/finches.html



Now, when looking at a DNA tree as presented in the article two interpretations arise...

a) the evolutionist viewpoint: since DNA is known to mutate over time, accumulated differences in DNA hint at how long ago different species arose from a common ancestor. In essence, the change in DNA is responsible for the physical difference in species.

b) the Creationist viewpoint: OF COURSE similar species have similar DNA, and less similar species have more differences in their DNA. In essence, differences in DNA naturally reflect differences in creation. The observed changes in DNA over time just being a confusing coincidence.



Of relevance to this issue is a recent study of Anole Lizards occurring on islands in the Carribean. Every large island there has a very similar species complex of Anoles: longer-legged forms occupying larger branches, shorter-legged forms occupying brush habitats with smaller twigs and branches.



Anole Lizards cannot swim, presumably they are occasionally carried between islands by chance on driftwood and fallen trees, especially after hurricanes.



When the DNA of these different island forms was examined, it was found that all the diverse species of Anoles on each island had similar DNA, and that the Anole DNA differed considerably between islands. So that a short-legged form on one island was more closely related to quite different longer-legged species on that same island, but not as closely related to the outwardly similar short-legged forms on the other islands.



Again two interpretations.

a) the evolutionist: the similarities in DNA between all the Anole species on each island is evidence that all the lizards on a given island had a common ancestor, and that the different species on each island evolved from that island's common ancestor. The fact that similar-looking species separately evolved on each separate island being a reflection of the similar selection pressures acting on lizards throughout the region. Further support for this hypothesis was found in the fact that any similarities in DNA between separate islands followed the prevailing ocean currents, indicating that the Anoles' ancestors had indeed drifted from island to island.



b) the Creationist's interpretation: all these separate species were created in place, differences in DNA between similar lizards on different islands being just how they were made in this instance.



see:

http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/losos.html



Birdwatcher

Slasher.. certainly many single-celled organisms are as immortal as are cancer cells, reproducing themselves through simple cell division though the eons.



All of which raises the issue of why we are genetically programmed to age and die at all. In strictly biological terms it would seem we are programmed to be born, grow, find a mate, randomly mix our genes with theirs in our offspring and then die, perhaps to avoid competing with our own offspring.



Each individual offspring being a sort of genetic crap shoot, randomly inheriting some of ours and some of our mate's genes on the chance that at least SOME of these different combinations will endow some of our offspring with superior characteristics.



Simplistically, it seems mammals at least live long enough to raise their young and then die. A wolf mates at around two or three years of age, the resulting puppies reach adulthood at about two years of age. Hence a wolf must survive at least four or five years to reproduce. Aging in wolves and dogs accelerates rapidly after about age seven, and few wolves survive that long.



In contrast, humans usually begin giving birth in their late teens or early twenties (long after that wolf has died of old age). Human children are generally cared for by their parents for fifteen to twenty years. Hence humans have to survive until about age forty in order to best ensure the survival of their children. In humans, aging accelerates rapidly after about age forty.



A gross simplification, but an interesting one, and one with many exceptions. Turtles, which do not care for their young at all, apparently do not age much at all either, eventually succumbing to disease, predation or accident when the odds catch up to them.



Note that here I am speaking of biology, and not morality. Our morality being what separates us from the animals.



Birdwatcher

Well hey Shreck!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> How's things down there (over there?) on the coast?



I've been up to my usual stuff, getting way over my head mostly in long debates. Prob'ly my argumentative gene is a negative trait, for a variety of reasons the many hours spent on this PC negatively impacting the odds of my wife and I having more children.



Well heck, at least I'm taking these other guys here down with me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Canadian Geese have been increasing rapidly in the Eastern States. We have lots of lawns, geese graze on grass. Migration in geese appears much less instinct-driven than it is in songbirds. Young geese learn the migration route from their parents in the fall, if the parents don't migrate the young are unlikely too either.



Not sure about the ducks, young ducks do not migrate south in company with their parents as geese do although they might learn from flocking with other members of their own species, I dunno.



Likewise those geese certainly are breeding and multiplying, again I ain't sure about the ducks. Certainly they PROBABLY are breeding if they are mallards. I dunno what other species commonly breed in the Carolinas other than Blue-winged Teal.



Good to see ya again,

Birdwatcher

Oh yes. It definitely makes one wonder.

Gentlemen... sometime in the near future (prob'ly later on today) I will be unavoidably offline for a period, exactly when that occurs being function of exactly when we get around to pulling our CPU and sending it to my buddy the computer guy's house.

So, if I don't respond to a post made here, I'll get to it when I get back online.

Regards,
Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher, Dr. Kindell told me every scientist he interviewed told him they knew evolution was not posible in their own field. The reason they held to it was because they assumed every other disciple had proven it. These interviews happend while he was still an "ardent" evolution and did this reserch as a college assignment. Eventually he became a creationist.

All your evidence is a mater of interpretation. That's why as recently as last night I read about another Ph.D scienctist who is a young earth creationist.

Ringman... while I do not doubt your sources, it would be helpful for purposes of debate if you could state specific examples that caused the changes of heart in these scientists and what caused them to offer what must have been a different interpretation of the evidence.



Ya I know that takes awhile, but it doesn't look like this thread is fading out any time soon.



Birdwatcher

Blaine... while browsing on those lizards I came across another "Blaine" posting on one of those Evolution vs. Creation forums (of which it turns out there are several). Also I recall you mentioning meeting that Johnson feller in person. That being so it seems entirely possible that part of your research might involve contacting those guys directly (which would save a lot of hours research on your part).

Well, all's fair in natural selection and debate I suppose so I have been bracing for a sort of rhetorical broadside across my decks. I did, after all step into this thread voluntarily.

In the meantime let me resolve an apparent contradiction in my own previous posts. In response to your definition of natural selection as a necessarily subtractive process, I responded that domestic dogs (basically wolves subjected to generations of intensive artificial selection) have as many genes as do wolves. Indeed they do have as much DNA, but as you might have been implying, certain alleles, that is TYPES of individual genes, can clearly be lost.

Birdwatcher

I vowed to myself that I'd only be a "lurker" on this list about anything unrelated to guns or hunting. On some other hobby forums I was on - expressing an opinion on religion or polotics was a fast lane to being personally attacked on every issue from that point on. But this list seems to be (for the most part) populated by more rational thinking - what else would I expect from the shooting fraternity?
So, I'm going to jump in on this one - I hope I won't be cruxified for (pun intended) for expressing an interesting observation that I've made over the years. As a High School Geography teacher I occasionally have parents ask me why I don't teach "creationism" or "creation science" when I teach the part of the course that concerns evolution, man's history or the date of the earths various events - things like man's appearance. I also get a lot of questions about why I never talk about a "world wide flood" too.
When I respond by asking if they believe the story of the 1st Woman sending Otter down to look for the earth and coming back with the mud to build it - I'm always greated by a puzzled look. The inquiring parents then usually ask "What on earth are you talking about?" I inform them that what they just heard is the Algonquin creation story.
They respond that that is NOT what they want me to teach.
I then say "Oh - it's the Judeo-CHRISTIAN version of creationism (among thousands of different ones existant on earth) that you want me to teach?
Usually (in the multi-cultural country in which I live) - they then understand the point I'm trying to make.
I've NEVER once in my life (in 24 years of teaching) ever met a person who wanted any version of creationism taught in my class - that wasn't the CHRISTIAN version.
Let's cut to the chase - No one I've ever met want's differing versions of "Creationism" or "Creation Science" taught - what they really want, is for me to promote Christianity. I won't do that in my Geograpy class - nor should I.
Yours,
Brfian

Brian

Thanks for the enlightening and interesting perspective, I'll keep it in mind for future discussions about this subject.

/r

Birdwatcher,

The info about Dr. Kindell is verbal from him on one of our hunting trips. He might have his college stuff, but I haven't seen him for months and there is not much hope now. The last time we went hunting, I had to get an apointment eighteen months in advance because he is always so busy lecturing.

The one I refered to having read about last night is John McEwan. He earned his Ph.D. from Sidney University. He is now Senior Chemist at Access Pharmaceuticals Austrailia "researching more erffective anticancer drugs against tumours".

He says, "Some might argue that we rely on common descent in choosing animal models for drug research, i.e. other mammals like rats and mice for tumour experiments. However, one can better point to common design. We do not invoke evolution when designing drugs or treatment regimes, and in synthetic organic chemistry, evolution is irrelevant."

Birdwatcher,



There is a lot of good info in your last two posts!



I did meet Johnson, but to be honest, his focus is in the socio/political debate about evolution, where I am more drawn to the scientific debate. I'll take it one issue at a time, and look deeper in to the finches.



The dog issue is very interesting. Your comment makes sense, because what we really are looking at is whether genetic information can be increased. I rember Behe and Denton taking about the way genetic info is copied and transferred.....I'll take a peek.



Blaine

I gotta call liar liar pants on fire on this. Bob <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It does sound pretty over the top, but it's all true.

The deadbolt lock thing happened over a bitch in heat about 1/2 a mile away. The first time it happened, we got a call from the cops that our door had been found hanging open. We figured we'd not locked the door, and it had blown open in the wind. Barney was picked up by the SPCA a few blocks away, and I went and got him from the warden.

A few weeks later, the same thing happened, Barney showed up at a neighbor's house close to where the dog catcher had nabbed him. The neighbor called us from the number on his ID tag. The bitch turned out to be owned by her next door neighbor.

The third time it happened in a month, I came home and inspected the lock. Sure enough, there were muddy paw prints. This time, however, Barney was lost in a blinding snow storm. Later that evening, we got a call from the police dispatch. They'd received a call that a "large wolflike creature" had been spotted dancing in the snow on somebody's back deck trying to catch snowflakes in the spotlight. I went over and that's when I found out the neighbor had a bitch in heat.

I experimented the next day. If I locked the door and went into the front yard and called him, it only took about 15 seconds for Barney to work the knob on the lock with both paws. We now lock the door with a third lock, located at the top. It cannot be worked without opposible thumbs. We then exit through the garage. That's now worked for two years. I tried this Winter. Sure enough, he remembered the trick.

Barney watches TV with us. He watches baseball, and hates anyone with a bat. Pro football is his favorite. That, and ODC. He loves watching hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel with me. Elk, deer and turkey blow his mind. If an elk or deer runs off screen, he runs in the other room to look for them.

We started him on the Outdoor Planet when he was about a two. I came home from work early one day and there he was on the couch. I thought he might be sick, because he didn't jump down and greet me. No, he was just watching his show. I sat down and read my mail. At the commercial, he got of the couch and ran over to tell me he was glad I was home. Later, that afternoon, "The New Adventures of Lassie came on." Timmy's mom is now a Vet, and Timmy and his sister help take in a sick rabbit and a sick boa constrictor before the mid-break. Just before the commecial Timmy discovered the boa constrictor and the rabbit missing. Timmy, the sister and all their friends ran out into the yard to look for the missing animals. At this point, Barney got off the couch and dashed out the dog door into the yard in an attempt to follow them.

Here's a picture of him.

Barney, the Wonder Dog

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Prob'ly my argumentative gene is

I think I got a dominant one of those from both parents!
Here's what I've been up too, fun on the water.

Hmmm, that looks like a flat water boat to me.

Ringman

Ramblings from someone named "Dr. Kindell" is not evidence that disproves the theory of evolution. In fact, he could be one of the creationists that distort and ignore scientific facts because they conflict with his religouse beliefs.

Conrad

ConradCA, It's too bad you are so bigoted. Dr. Kindell told me Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it. Does that sound like someone whose scientific opinions will conflict with his "religouse beliefs".



In his last debate Dr. Kindell's Ph.D level evolutionist oponent, when it was time for his rebutal said, "There's nothing I can say to rebut what Dr. Kindell presented."



Since you are an evolutionist, could you give me the reason why most people don't know that c14 has not reached equilibrium? Because it only takes about 30,000 years and that contridicts a lengthy age for the atmosphere. And that is not acceptable to the high priests of evolution. Maybe you can tell us why there is so much helium in the samples of uranium/lead/helium from the precambrian which were tested recently. The helium should have disapated hundreds of millions of years ago. There is a simple reason. The helium is still there because it is not millions of years old.



I think you are the one who "sound like someone whose scientific opinions will conflick with his 'religouse beliefs'."

ConradCA

I don't think any hearts and minds will be changed on this thread no matter how long it gets .
I believe the opposite of you . It's the evolutionist that distorts and ignore scientific fact .
It takes a leap of faith to be an evolutionist or a creationist . I just believe it takes a much greater leap for an evolutionist . The evolutionist has to work very hard and rationalize to make his theorys fit the facts . It takes many mini leaps of faith for the evoltionist .
We humans would like to be a god but we always fall way short . We dabble in our labs with DNA and try to create life as God did . We will never succeed because we have not learned how to make our own dirt .