Creationists: Evolution is No More Unlikely than Embryo Development

[Gunfingers]

There is nothing so frightening as a man who thinks he cannot be wrong.

You've clearly never met a lady who thinks she can't be wrong.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm talking about wrong on the evolution vs creation debate, sure I might be wrong with some of the evidence I present but I don't believe I am wrong on the big picture of are we here by natural processes or divine creation. And when I teach Sunday School in my church like I did last Sunday and destroy evolution, nobody argues they just nod their heads in agreement. It is obvious to others not just to myself that we are created.

hahaha you have got to be joking. I almost fell over my chair laughing. They don't argue with you mainly because they don't know any better. And they enter the class already agreeing with you. Most of them have probably been raised to believe the nonsense you tell them, so of course they're not going to argue. HAHA

 

[Gunfingers]

I think what he's trying to insinuate is that we are a product of the same process. He seems to think that we were indoctrinated to believe evolutionary theory and therefore can't accept anything else in the same way that he was indoctrinated into Xstianity.

It might make sense if it weren't for the fact that many of us (myself included) were born into very religious families and were taught initially that evolution was crap.

 

[Kerr]

I'm talking about wrong on the evolution vs creation debate, sure I might be wrong with some of the evidence I present but I don't believe I am wrong on the big picture of are we here by natural processes or divine creation. And when I teach Sunday School in my church like I did last Sunday and destroy evolution, nobody argues they just nod their heads in agreement. It is obvious to others not just to myself that we are created.

I would like to see what would happen if you did that to people who actually understood evolution. Doubt they would nod or agree.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I would like to see what would happen if you did that to people who actually understood evolution. Doubt they would nod or agree.

They certainly haven't here.

 

[ragordon168]

I would like to see what would happen if you did that to people who actually understood evolution. Doubt they would nod or agree.

they'd either walk out midway through or sit him down and go through it step by step untill he finally got what ToE is

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm talking about wrong on the evolution vs creation debate, sure I might be wrong with some of the evidence I present but I don't believe I am wrong on the big picture of are we here by natural processes or divine creation. And when I teach Sunday School in my church like I did last Sunday and destroy evolution, nobody argues they just nod their heads in agreement. It is obvious to others not just to myself that we are created.

Not many people in that Sunday School I suspect.

Do any of them have college education?

 

[fantome profane]

And when I teach Sunday School in my church like I did last Sunday and destroy evolution, nobody argues they just nod their heads in agreement.

Isn’t it interesting that you can “destroy evolution” in your sunday school, but you can’t do it here? Getting a bunch of like-minded people to agree with you isn’t much of an accomplishment. If you had a good argument then you should be able to change the minds of those who disagree with you.

sure I might be wrong with some of the evidence I present but I don't believe I am wrong on the big picture of are we here by natural processes or divine creation.

Do you ever wonder how wrong you are with the evidence when you talk to your sunday school class? Does it matter? If the evidence doesn’t matter to you conclusion why bother with the evidence? If the evidence does matter shouldn’t you make sure you have it right?

 

[darkendless]

Wrong, according to ToE, species change over time to give us all that we see, if animals only reproduced their own kind then that would not happen.

Are you retarded? I mean i've seen your arguements destroyed in about 3 threads now and still you continue like they weren't.

Whats even more hilarious, was you ignored my ENTIRE POST in reference to the geology to destroy young earth creationism. I spent a whole 5 minutes on that and you ignored it because nothing you could say would refute it.

In reference to Sunday school. Well a bunch of Christians talking about evolution would be rediculous. The only people who can destroy evolution are those ignorant enough to ignore science entirely. The dishonesty and intillectual retardation of Christianity is staggering. You shame Christians who are smart enough to think with an open mind.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Embryo development isn't really that similar to evolution. Embryo development is one entity developing over its own life span, while evolution is an entire species developing into another species or a very changed version of the same species, over many many generations. It's just not the same at all. If anything, I think evolution would be MORE possible than embryo development. Maybe that's exactly what you were saying though... I'm not sure.

 

[ragordon168]

Embryo development isn't really that similar to evolution. Embryo development is one entity developing over its own life span, while evolution is an entire species developing into another species or a very changed version of the same species, over many many generations. It's just not the same at all. If anything, I think evolution would be MORE possible than embryo development. Maybe that's exactly what you were saying though... I'm not sure.

the way i saw it he was saying if that little 'blob' could turn into a fully functioning human being in about 9 months then couldn't animals change form over millenia

 

[whereismynotecard]

Okie dokie. That makes sense to me. :danana:

 

[Gunfingers]

Embryo development isn't really that similar to evolution. Embryo development is one entity developing over its own life span, while evolution is an entire species developing into another species or a very changed version of the same species, over many many generations. It's just not the same at all. If anything, I think evolution would be MORE possible than embryo development. Maybe that's exactly what you were saying though... I'm not sure.

Actually the reason it's significant is because it indicates common descent. See we have the genes for tails, and gills, and various other things our genetic ancestors had, but those genes are inactive in us. During our developmental stages in the uterus those genes are actually briefly active, which is why we develop a tail and gill ridges and probably a few other things.

So, no, it has nothing to do with how much the baby changes and everything to do with showing yet more evidence of common descent.

 

[MSizer]

I don't like to pick on you MoF, seriously, I honestly don't, but do you really think it will impress us when you say that you had a bunch of children agreeing with you? I could tell my niece that her doll is mad at her and she'd believe me. I don't even know what to say.

 

[camanintx]

If it was just as likely then there wouldn't be all this discussion about it. I can't remember the last time a creationist denied embryo development. The fact is humans produce humans and apes produce apes.

Do you realize that the definition of any species is an arbitary one? Your argument is about a logical as saying that since Smith and Jones have different last names they could not share a common ancestor.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you realize that the definition of any species is an arbitary one?

What do you mean by that? The definition of species is not arbitrary. A species is a group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing viable fertile offspring. This is not arbitrary. I think the other levels of the taxonomic system (genus, family, order etc) could more accurately be described as arbitrary, but not species.

 

[Gunfingers]

Except that's not actually the definition of species. Try to apply that definition to a bacteria. It doesn't reproduce sexually, it simply divides, so saying it can reproduce with another of its species is meaningless.

What about when i take organism populations A, B, and C where A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, but A and C cannot reproduce together. That happens. Are they all in the same species?

There actually isn't an accepted definition of species because of that. Nine times out of ten that isn't an issue, and we can ignore it, but we can't really use it as an official definition.

 

[fantome profane]

Except that's not actually the definition of species. Try to apply that definition to a bacteria. It doesn't reproduce sexually, it simply divides, so saying it can reproduce with another of its species is meaningless.

This is true and I though about mentioning that but decided to keep it simple. But still just because there are exceptions to the definition doesn’t mean there is no definition. I think you can do the same thing with just about any term used in science, but that does not mean there are no definitions, and it certainly does not make the terms arbitrary. Ask a microbiologist why certain bacteria are classified as a species and they will give you a good reason, it is not arbitrary. And the definition I gave works very well and is widely accepted for macro plants and animals.

What about when i take organism populations A, B, and C where A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, but A and C cannot reproduce together. That happens. Are they all in the same species?

There actually isn't an accepted definition of species because of that. Nine times out of ten that isn't an issue, and we can ignore it, but we can't really use it as an official definition.

Again exceptions to the definition do not mean there is no definition, nor do they mean it is arbitrary. I think a “ring species” could be considered a single species. It is interesting however that if some of the neighbouring populations were to die out we would have an actual speciation event.

 

[camanintx]

What do you mean by that? The definition of species is not arbitrary. A species is a group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing viable fertile offspring. This is not arbitrary. I think the other levels of the taxonomic system (genus, family, order etc) could more accurately be described as arbitrary, but not species.

While the ability to produce viable fertile offspring differentiates a majority of species as we define them, it gets problematic the closer two species are to each other. Lions and Tigers are distinctly different yet they can produce fertile offspring.

It is even more difficult when one of the two species in question is extinct so we cannot evaluate the feasibility of interbreeding. Could Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis? If you think of all life as a continuum of individual organisms descended from a common ancestor, where we draw the lines between two species can be as arbitrary as how we assign family names.

 

[fantome profane]

While the ability to produce viable fertile offspring differentiates a majority of species as we define them, it gets problematic the closer two species are to each other. Lions and Tigers are distinctly different yet they can produce fertile offspring.

It is even more difficult when one of the two species in question is extinct so we cannot evaluate the feasibility of interbreeding. Could Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis? If you think of all life as a continuum of individual organisms descended from a common ancestor, where we draw the lines between two species can be as arbitrary as how we assign family names.

I understand but you are still pointing out exceptions. You can view life as a continuum, but genes do not flow freely throughout this continuum, if they did we wouldn’t have the great diversity of forms that we do.

wikepedia

ligers are often faced with a variety of health risks and other issues. Ligers only exist in captivity because lions and tigers live in different regions and would never breed voluntarily in the wild. Ligers are larger than both their parents which is usually dangerous to the pregnant tigress and may make it necessary for offspring to be delivered via caesarean section. The liger often has a very limited life span as well as birth defects and other mutations.

It seems that although lions and tigers are genetically compatible enough to interbred and produce offspring that is fertile, it is not clear that ligers are in fact a viable species. But don’t you see that the simple fact that we are debating the definition means that the definition exists. I concede that the definiton may be problematic in some circumstances, but it is definitely not arbitrary.