About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try to stick to the one idea of light coming to the earth. Not everything the Bible says. Because the Bible itself says there are things hard to understand in it.
Photosynthesis is necessary, isn't it? And yes, I am going over the Bible, too. It doesn't mean I understand everything.
So evolutionists understand that light is necessary, don't they, for growth on the earth. We see what's around us. When I was young I appreciated sunlight, didn't know the Bible, didn't really associate sunlight with God arranging for it to reach the earth in the way it does, but I could feel the warmth and knew not to look at the sun directly.
Yet it is written that God at the beginning of life on the earth enabled sunilght to penetrate the atmosphere in a profound way. And scientists seem to say that light first began to penetrate the earth a long, long time ago, before the growth of plants and emergence of animals.

I really have no clue about that. I would think that the early Earth atmosphere would have been transparent to visible light. It had a lot more carbon dioxide and was still mostly nitrogen, as it is today. Those gases let visible light through. One thing you should know if that "science" articles in popular sources often get the science wrong. To double check you would need know how to go to what is called "the primary literature" or peer reviewed journals. The articles tend to be very boring if one is not into the science. Dry as dust, just facts, figures and how they did their work.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither.

The ages of the fossils and the rocks are derived from counting the isotopes present in each specimen.

Thus, Kent Hovind's claim that "they date the fossils by the rocks they're in, then they date the rocks by the fossils they found" (or something like that) is patently false.

Right now that's beyond me about isotopes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I really have no clue about that. I would think that the early Earth atmosphere would have been transparent to visible light. It had a lot more carbon dioxide and was still mostly nitrogen, as it is today. Those gases let visible light through. One thing you should know if that "science" articles in popular sources often get the science wrong. To double check you would need know how to go to what is called "the primary literature" or peer reviewed journals. The articles tend to be very boring if one is not into the science. Dry as dust, just facts, figures and how they did their work.

So you think it's possible that light did permeate through the atmosphere before the growth of plants, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

A species will quite frequently split into two different species. The first thing that happens is some sort of separation. Both groups continue to evolve until the point where they can no longer interbreed. We even have examples of that right now. They are called ring species. This one where A can breed with B and B can breed with C and C can breed with D but D can no longer breed with A. By the breeding definition of species those are two different species. And yet by the same definition A and B are the same species, B and C are the same species etc.. This sort of "problem" with species, that they cannot be clearly defined, is due to evolution. If creationism were true we should be able to find hard lines between species without any of this sort of fuzziness.

So yes, the offspring of a single species can eventually become multiple speceis.

Just so I understand, in other words, you believe one species can evolve to more than that, and eventually the offshoots cannot interbreed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think it's possible that light did permeate through the atmosphere before the growth of plants, right?

Yes. I did not click on your link. I should have, but it does not sound like a reasonable claim to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just so I understand, in other words, you believe one species can evolve to more than that, and eventually the offshoots cannot interbreed.

Yes, that is observed in nature regularly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is observed in nature regularly.

It is observed? Please do provide examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is observed? Please do provide examples.

I will provide an article. Now you may say "but they are still the same kind" and I will respond "Of course they are"

Kind is an undefined term that creationists use. They seem to think that evolution means a "change of kind" but that never happens. That is why I point out that you are still an ape. In our evolution people never stopped being apes.

Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone - Now so it seems I am reading that brain size does not equate to intelligence. The more I read, I realize that the function or intelligence of an elephant is obviously different from a human. Yes, I have a lot to go in reference to understanding more, but I doubt that an elephant feels the need to write and record their species' history, but then again, I see no evidence of that desire from the elephant world. Or maybe the elephants haven't expressed it yet. But want to.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will provide an article. Now you may say "but they are still the same kind" and I will respond "Of course they are"

Kind is an undefined term that creationists use. They seem to think that evolution means a "change of kind" but that never happens. That is why I point out that you are still an ape. In our evolution people never stopped being apes.

Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution

Before I read the article, I hope it's not talking about birds and beaks and another type of bird that seemed to have emerged. Is it? Yet now you cause me to wonder if robins and bluejays and turkeys interbreed.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will provide an article. Now you may say "but they are still the same kind" and I will respond "Of course they are"

Kind is an undefined term that creationists use. They seem to think that evolution means a "change of kind" but that never happens. That is why I point out that you are still an ape. In our evolution people never stopped being apes.

Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution

I realize that scientists do have a situation defining species. " species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. However, the classification of a species can be difficult—even riddled with controversy." (National Geographic...hopefully you don't discoiunt that as a 'creationist' publication)

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone - Now so it seems I am reading that brain size does not equate to intelligence. The more I read, I realize that the function or intelligence of an elephant is obviously different from a human. Yes, I have a lot to go in reference to understanding more, but I doubt that an elephant feels the need to write and record their species' history, but then again, I see no evidence of that desire from the elephant world. Or maybe the elephants haven't expressed it yet. But want to.

It is a factor. It is not the only factor. Web working within the same family the members with a larger brain tend to be more intelligent.

Elephants have no means of recording history. Though the do appear to actually have very good memory. Remembering friends and foes for a very long time.

Brains in very different families will work differently. That is why we do not compare human brains directly to elephant brans. But chimp brains and human brains are not that different. There are some reasoning processes where they beat us. Simple memorization steps for example. But for deeper thought we appear to win.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Before I read the article, I hope it's not talking about birds and beaks and another type of bird that seemed to have emerged. Is it? Yet now you cause me to wonder if robins and bluejays and turkeys interbreed.

Why not? Speciation occurs when two closely related populations can no longer breed. That is all that it is . There will appear to be very little difference at all when it first occurs. But then over time as the species continue to evolve those changes will begin to add up.

You asked for something that occurred in real time, and that is exactly the sort of event that the theory predicts. It does not predict the massive sudden change that you seem to want to have occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize that scientists do have a situation defining species. " species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. However, the classification of a species can be difficult—even riddled with controversy." (National Geographic...hopefully you don't discoiunt that as a 'creationist' publication)

Yep. And do you know why"

Now this is very very important. Creationism predicts that since speciation does not occur that changes would be obvious. We should always be able to see whether two different populations are the same "kind" or not. But we don't see that. We have speciation that can be very hard to see. And that is what the theory of evolution predicts. Do you understand that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I will provide an article. Now you may say "but they are still the same kind" and I will respond "Of course they are"

Kind is an undefined term that creationists use. They seem to think that evolution means a "change of kind" but that never happens. That is why I point out that you are still an ape. In our evolution people never stopped being apes.

Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution

OK, I understand that it says a new species that does not interbreed with other once-related birds occurred. Here again I will say that while it is interesting, they are still birds. And this also can be used for evidence about the animals on the ark, that it didn't take that long for variances within species to occur (I won't use the word kind now because I'm still not sure of the validity (differences) of these things).

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep. And do you know why"

Now this is very very important. Creationism predicts that since speciation does not occur that changes would be obvious. We should always be able to see whether two different populations are the same "kind" or not. But we don't see that. We have speciation that can be very hard to see. And that is what the theory of evolution predicts. Do you understand that?

No. Let's start with the definition of speciation. Here's one definition of it: "

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Now I assume this means that it involves no inbreeding, is that right, once a new and distinct species appears. Yes, biologists may look closely as they say in time at the birds that separated in the article, I'll try to look at that again so I further understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I understand that it says a new species that does not interbreed with other once-related birds occurred. Here again I will say that while it is interesting, they are still birds. And this also can be used for evidence about the animals on the ark, that it didn't take that long for variances within species to occur (I won't use the word kind now because I'm still not sure of the validity (differences) of these things).

Of course they are "still birds'. I truly wish that you would drop that YEC argument. You keep forgetting that you are still an ape. In fact you are still a monkey.

Do you know what a Strawman Argument is?

If I say that you believe that you will live forever because some Jewish guy got nailed to a tree that would be a Strawman Argument since that is a gross mischaracterization of what you believe. If you were insulted by someone using that argument against you I would not blame you. You are essentially making the same argument when you claim that evolution predicts a change of kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will provide an article. Now you may say "but they are still the same kind" and I will respond "Of course they are"

Kind is an undefined term that creationists use. They seem to think that evolution means a "change of kind" but that never happens. That is why I point out that you are still an ape. In our evolution people never stopped being apes.

Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution

So that is your definition in reference to apes because -- ? gorillas and bonobos etc. stand upright with 2 arms and 2 legs? And have faces that resemble humans to an extent, rather than cats or dogs? OK, cats don't walk upright for the most part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Let's start with the definition of speciation. Here's one definition of it: "

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Now I assume this means that it involves no inbreeding, is that right, once a new and distinct species appears. Yes, biologists may look closely as they say in time at the birds that separated in the article, I'll try to look at that again so I further understand it.

That is one definition of species and probably the most common. It is not the only one. But yes, when they can no longer interbreed successfully they are different species.

Remember, a journey of a thousand miles has to start with a single step. Speciation is the very first step.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they are "still birds'. I truly wish that you would drop that YEC argument. You keep forgetting that you are still an ape. In fact you are still a monkey.

Do you know what a Strawman Argument is?

If I say that you believe that you will live forever because some Jewish guy got nailed to a tree that would be a Strawman Argument since that is a gross mischaracterization of what you believe. If you were insulted by someone using that argument against you I would not blame you. You are essentially making the same argument when you claim that evolution predicts a change of kind.

I'm not going to stop mentioning that birds are birds even if they don't interbreed in all the species among themselves. Because while speciation is certainly possible, it does not mean that birds are apes. Now I can only imagine that the different varieties of birds may have separated from one type of bird. But then maybe not, since logically I suppose it takes two birds to tango. So there had to be TWO I suppose, at the beginning of procreation of bird population.