Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

They asked you a question, not for a re-statement of your claims. At what point is a change in allele frequency a "fundamental shift" as opposed to merely a gradual shift? Are you unaware that changes in allele frequencies over time can happen gradually?

It's never been my contention that gradual change in species is impossible. My contention is that the dramatic and continuing change in the make up of the earth happens one species at a time and each of these changes is usually very sudden.

Only God can answer the question of when sufficient "evolution" in a given species can be considered a new species. Well, more accurately, perhaps, is that this is a semantical question or a taxonomic question and I believe in neither semantics nor taxonomies. Frankly my emphasis on individuals is simply because I don't believe any two "rabbits" are exactly the same species. Only individuals act and are conscious and counting "rabbits" can lead one astray. Each fossil represents an individual and forgetting this might lead one astray.

I would say that a species has undergone sufficient change that aggregate behavior and average appearance of adults has changed enough that they are no longer appear to be the original species. In extreme situations any major change in appearance or behavior constitutes a new species. This is why I believe we are a new species, homo omnisciencis. We once acted strictly on our knowledge like all other species and now act solely on our beliefs since our operating system changed from digital to analog. We look the same but we certainly don't act the same, individually nor collectively.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's never been my contention that gradual change in species is impossible. My contention is that the dramatic and continuing change in the make up of the earth happens one species at a time and each of these changes is usually very sudden.

Only God can answer the question of when sufficient "evolution" in a given species can be considered a new species. Well, more accurately, perhaps, is that this is a semantical question or a taxonomic question and I believe in neither semantics nor taxonomies. Frankly my emphasis on individuals is simply because I don't believe any two "rabbits" are exactly the same species. Only individuals act and are conscious and counting "rabbits" can lead one astray. Each fossil represents an individual and forgetting this might lead one astray.

So you believe change happens "one species at a time" but believe every individual organism isn't "exactly the same species"? How does this make sense?

I would say that a species has undergone sufficient change that aggregate behavior and average appearance of adults has changed enough that they are no longer appear to be the original species.

Again, this is extremely vague. What qualifies something to "appear to be the original species" or not? How can you clearly delineate one species from another?

In extreme situations any major change in appearance or behavior constitutes a new species. This is why I believe we are a new species, homo omnisciencis. We once acted strictly on our knowledge like all other species and now act solely on our beliefs since our operating system changed from digital to analog. We look the same but we certainly don't act the same, individually nor collectively.

But what is the basis for this conclusion other than "we act differently"? Surely "acting differently" is not a qualifier for species. If a human child is born with severe learning difficulties that prevent them from thinking creatively, are they not a member of "homo omnisciencis"?

 

[ArtieE]

No, sorry, for us it's got nothing to do with theory. It's about strongly held beliefs based on faith.

We have a different definition.....a bit like science's definition of a theory.

You have strongly held beliefs based on faith too....you just can't admit it.

I have one strongly held belief: I believe the scientific method is the correct way to find truth. Life on Earth might be a result of biological evolution, or maybe some god(s) created it, or maybe some extraterrestrials created it, or maybe it's a result of something we haven't even thought of yet. Either way, picking one and believing in it is wrong since you have closed your mind to the other possibilities. You have done the exact opposite of what one should do to find truth.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This is by DEFINITION.

What definition?

How do you determine that every fossil of every species that is currently buried in the ground has been discovered already? Are you omniscient?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

All observable fundamental shifts have been sudden exactly like every other change in life.

Where is this sudden shift?

Wolves didn't evolve into dogs and dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. Darwin was wrong and current theory is most probably wrong as well because it doesn't agree with observation or the fossil record.

Any evidence to back up these claims?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You have strongly held beliefs based on faith too....you just can't admit it.

False. You can't point to those faith based beliefs because they don't exist.

 

[cladking]

So you believe change happens "one species at a time" but believe every individual organism isn't "exactly the same species"? How does this make sense?

Again, this is extremely vague. What qualifies something to "appear to be the original species" or not? How can you clearly delineate one species from another?

These questions are chiefly related to semantics and taxonomies. Every rabbit is different but most rabbits can breed with most other rabbits of the opposite sex and most rabbits can't breed with anything else. To the degree all rabbits can only breed with other rabbits they constitute a unique species. But they are all still different and there are always exceptions to their "rabbithood" (rabbitude?).

But what is the basis for this conclusion other than "we act differently"? Surely "acting differently" is not a qualifier for species. If a human child is born with severe learning difficulties that prevent them from thinking creatively, are they not a member of "homo omnisciencis"?

Again semantics.

It seems that the advent of complex language is what created homo sapiens so it seems logical that a dramatic change in the nature of complex language resulting in new behavior could constitute another species change.

 

[cladking]

I have one strongly held belief: I believe the scientific method is the correct way to find truth. Life on Earth might be a result of biological evolution, or maybe some god(s) created it, or maybe some extraterrestrials created it, or maybe it's a result of something we haven't even thought of yet. Either way, picking one and believing in it is wrong since you have closed your mind to the other possibilities. You have done the exact opposite of what one should do to find truth.

I agree except that science might never find any truth.

Reason, logic, math, and science are the best means to seek new truths but there might be old truths all around that we dismiss through habit and the inability to test them.

 

[cladking]

What definition?

How do you determine that every fossil of every species that is currently buried in the ground has been discovered already? Are you omniscient?

You said fossil "record".

Whether you meant this literally or not the fact is we can only consider those fossil individuals which have actually been found and are in the "record".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You said fossil "record".

Yes, that would include all of the fossils currently in the ground.

Whether you meant this literally or not the fact is we can only consider those fossil individuals which have actually been found and are in the "record".

The fossils we currently have are the fossil collection, not the fossil record.

 

[cladking]

Where is this sudden shift?

It would appear the first was 40,000 years ago when complex language arose.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It would appear the first was 40,000 years ago when complex language arose.

Where is the sudden shift seen in the fossils?

 

[cladking]

Yes, that would include all of the fossils currently in the ground.



The fossils we currently have are the fossil collection, not the fossil record.

OK, but the original statement was still;

They also claim that nowhere in the fossil record are there transitional fossils, as if they have dug up every single square inch of fossil bearing strata to support such a claim.

There still are only the fossilized individuals actually found and we can't presume the transitional fossils must exist to comply with the ToE.

 

[cladking]

Where is the sudden shift seen in the fossils?

There are two areas of the brain that control speech. My guess is there was a mutation that more closely tied the broccas region to higher brain functions.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There are two areas of the brain that control speech. My guess is there was a mutation that more closely tied the broccas region to higher brain functions.

Where is the sudden shift seen in the fossils?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There still are only the fossilized individuals actually found and we can't presume the transitional fossils must exist to comply with the ToE.

You can't assume they don't exist, either. Your entire argument is an argument from ignorance where you argue that species must have been magically poofed into being because we don't have every single transitional fossil for every single lineage. All the while, you ignore the transitional fossils we have found, and also ignore the fact that every single fossil fits into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution which can't be explained by creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would appear the first was 40,000 years ago when complex language arose.

What makes you think that that was when complex language arose? I must have missed that article.

 

[cladking]

Where is the sudden shift seen in the fossils?

Exactly!!!

The most important changes of all don't show up in the fossil record because they affect individuals or the soft tissue of individuals.

The very fact that change is best seen in individuals masks change in species because few or none of these affected individuals are fossilized. Even if they are we can't see it in the bones and more likely preserved structures.

 

[cladking]

You can't assume they don't exist, either. Your entire argument is an argument from ignorance where you argue that species must have been magically poofed into being because we don't have every single transitional fossil for every single lineage. All the while, you ignore the transitional fossils we have found, and also ignore the fact that every single fossil fits into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution which can't be explained by creationism.

I don't presume they don't exist. I presume nothing is evidence until it's shown to exist.

 

[cladking]

What makes you think that that was when complex language arose? I must have missed that article.

This is the earliest indication of what archaeologists call "symbolic" beliefs and behavior. I believe it's merely ritual we see rather than religion or superstition.