Creationists, please provide evidence

[Pegg]

The Illustration comes from a Scientific Journal on Evolutionary Biology.
The article is on the chronology of Elephant evolution . PLoS Biology: Proboscidean Mitogenomics: Chronology and Mode of Elephant Evolution Using Mastodon as Outgroup. (I recommend the article, good reading.)
Notice the dates range from 34 Million Years Ago to .01 MYA (10,000 years ago)
All the data in the illustration supports Biological Evolution and explicitly refutes a literal Biblical Creation.

Not only that, but the illustration shows four separate genera (your definition of a Biblical kind) for what you also claim is one single kind.

i understand that, however the illustration aptly shows what a 'genesis kind' is. Modern biologists call them different genera but if they can interbreed then they are of the same 'genesis kind'...all elephants fall into one genre

an elephant is an elephant 'kind' whether it has long tusks or short, big ears or small. Anatomical differences are all part of the genetic purpose...to produce 'variety' and it in no way indicates that one elephant is a different 'kind' to another elephant. They are all one kind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't have an argument Penguin. I'm butting out of this really. However, I am re evaluating my religious stance to 'creationist', not young earth though.

Not young earth? Then what was all that stuff about a global flood all about?

For me, we are here because of some natural process, ie TOE, Alien life had something to do with it (which begs the original question re first life) or some entity produced causation. In other words we would not be here if some entity did not intervene somehow. I am satisfied that some entity intervened. Most call that entity God.

Toe is too piecemeal. It's too all over the place. Perhaps we are here through a natural process but I do not think TOE explains it. I feel that scientists also see this and are looking for other explanations or additional explanations ie memes etc.

Memes aren't an explanation for the history of life.

I really don't know what you mean when you say that the theory of evolution is too "piecemeal". And I think that it explains natural processes very well.

I feel that if a natural process produced the first living cell, then it should have happened in more than one case, anyway. To ponder that this process only happened to produce life once is inconcievable to me. It would have been more believeable if a cluster of cells had formed. I think the reason all genomic research points to single cell ancestry is because they are misinterpreting the data. This is easier to believe than only one cell came to life in the eons of time. In fact, I feel that if it were interpreted correctly it would point to ancestry to an initial kind, and that the similarity amongst all species is design, rather than common ancesry to a single cell.

Umm... no scientist I've ever heard of has said that life started with a single living cell.

In fact, most hypotheses I've heard have talked about life starting without defined "cells" at all.

And none of this has any bearing on evolution, anyhow. This is all about abiogenesis.

I do not see natural selection as a method to produce different kinds in the way of sensibility, without all the species rhetoric eg chimp to human, bird to dinosaur, rather than wolf to dog or primrose to some other flower, can produce true species change as in common rational understanding.

However, regardless of not being able to come up with a solid case for a creative event I feel recent genomic testing more supports intelligent design or creation than it does ToE.

In what way? What about this testing do you think supports ID/creation?

"All known beneficial mutations affect only an organisms biochemistry. Unfortunately all known morphological mutations are harmful.

That's not true.

Evolutionists say they are clear about their term species, despite the species problem. Perhaps you'd better ask which one of the CLEAR species category they are using. Usually they use the biological/isolation that is confused by the fact that a dog and wolf (different species) can sucessfully mate as well as other so called separate species."

As I pointed out before, species is to some extent an arbitrary definition... but this ties into the history of life being a continuous sequence of change, just as the ToE suggests. When you divide a smooth continuum into discrete separate parts, it's going to be arbitrary to some extent.

Basicaly I feel ToE is truly straw grabbing. The concept of species used to show speciation and the proof of macroevolution appears to be rubbish to me. They are all cases of microevolution. Just because a researcher gives them a different name means little. In other words, even if you took a wolf and made a domestic dog out of it in a lab setting it is still one kind of animal, they can still mate sucessfully, As the article I posted states no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgment."

I think you're ignoring most of the evidence. For instance, there's a very good sequence showing the development of whales from land animals to what we have today. If that's not "macro-evolution", I don't know what is.

So it is pointless talking about kinds, which is a favourite topic here. The info on arch, all the stuff I have read while being here and contradictory research on every point of evidence for ToE, the use of the species concept being thwarted to suit the various arguments, leads me to truly believe researchers are grabbing at straws to uphold ToE.

But wait a minute: you don't get to have it both ways. You make excuses for why you can't provide evidence to back up your claims, and then you make statements like this about how there's all sorts of evidence for creationism. It seems to me like you're trying to have it both ways.

As my other post says "Good luck talking science on RF". Won't happen. Evolutionists require something solid as evidence to debate before anyone can enter into a debate of substantial veracity. It is imposible arguing with fluffy, vague concepts. I'm done!

I don't get it. What's wrong with asking for evidence?

 

[Pegg]

From a previous post of mine...

viable is not the issue here

they were able to interbreed and were able to conceive...it doesnt matter that the offspring only lasted a couple of weeks.

 

[Pegg]

None. It's a meaningless, useless, undefined term that has no bearing on reality, which is why I wouldn't use it.

I guess for your purposes I would say it means something like Family when they get on the ark, and species now. In other words, it's nothing but a screen for a lie.

well there ya go.

modern biology has so blurred the lines that you cant even decide at what level interbreeding animals should be placed.

The reason for that is because biologists place animals all over the place...some interbreeding species are put together, others are separated such as tigers and lions even though they can produce hybrids.

Moses had a simple idea for an animal 'kind'...it was those who could produce offspring. Doesnt get much simpler then that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

well there ya go.

modern biology has so blurred the lines that you cant even decide at what level interbreeding animals should be placed.

The reason for that is because biologists place animals all over the place...some interbreeding species are put together, others are separated such as tigers and lions even though they can produce hybrids.

Moses had a simple idea for an animal 'kind'...it was those who could produce offspring. Doesnt get much simpler then that.

So kind just means "species" then?

Also, stop blaming science for your inability to accurately define "kind" in a scientific sense. We already have working definitions on virtually all levels of taxonomic rank.

 

[Autodidact]

The limit is phenotype change.

Really, please explain how and why.

Read the peer-reviewed articles.

Please cite them; I'm excited to learn about this exciting new development in evolutionary theory.

Philosophical assumption is then used to assume that spontaneously generated abiogenesis happened sometime in the distant past, or that the phenotype change we all observe sometime in the distant past actually wasn't just phenotype change, but even greater change.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you trying to claim that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is somehow about abiogenesis? I repeat, ToE makes philosophical assumptions in the same way and to the same degree as all of science. Do you have a problem with that?

You are basing conclusions regarding the limit of biological evolution not on observation but philosophy.

Really? What conclusions? What philosophy?

No I am not mushing up anything. I separate philosophy and science.

Uh, good. What does God have to do with anything?

Abiogenesis happens for Darwinian origin of life.

Not really. It doesn't matter for ToE whether abiogenesis happened, or life was always here, or God magically zapped it, or what. As long as there was an organism that could reproduce, ToE takes it from there.

God is the origin of life within creationism.

Why do you keep talking about God?

Each are not to be talked about because if abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then neither does God have to be involved for creationism

There is no logical connection between these two statements. In any case, there's no need to talk about God at all.

. Its called equal treatment and conducting science without a double-standard.

Newsflash: creationism isn't science. It's religion.

No, science has nothing to do with philosophical extrapolation that predicts something not in accordance with known observation. Namely anything above phenotype change.

Of course it does; that's the heart and sole of science. Observation, extrapolation, hypothesis, prediction, confirmation or falsification. In this case, after having done that, the theory is extremely, extremely, multiply, repeatedly, strongly, confirmed.

I have already explained creationism.

I must have missed it. What I'm looking for is your hypothesis for HOW you believe God created the various species on earth. Is it magic poofing? Or something else? If something else, what? Thanks. If you already explained it, please direct me to the post.

 

[Autodidact]

Right all these shows is ID in effect. Everything screams ID. Yet somehow in Darwinian evolution, biology has to be random spontaneously generated order into life, etc, etc.

This is false. Is it due to ignorance, or dishonesty? Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life, and it's not a theory about randomness.

Look all around, many, many things in nature are intelligently designed. Houses, cars, etc, etc. Why would biology be any different?

Well let's put on our thinking caps and see if we can notice anything that distinguishes cars from camels.

 

[Autodidact]

If that's the case, then quit saying God has something to do with the origin of life for creationism.

It's the creationist who are saying that, ad nausem. I'm worn with trying to get them to stop. It's a bit thick to be accused of the very thing I'm railing against.

Leave the origin of life out of it,

Believe me, I'm trying, but you keep dragging it in again.

and lets deal with scientific observations of phenotype expression change.

No, let's deal with your hypothesis for how we get different species, and what evidence might support it. Do you have one?

No, no, no... We are not dealing with the origin of life, just diversification of that life.

Good, would you please stop going on and on about it? Thanks.

ID is in an inference of design, in nature.

Fascinating. Unless you want to present a hypothesis concerning the MECHANISM of how that design got manufactured, you may want to start a thread about Intelligent Design.

The fact you state the mechanisms of biological evolution and such, seems to me even greater design must of been placed within nature to sustain life.

Yes but the question is HOW HOW HOW did it get there, in the way described by ToE, or in some other way?

 

[Autodidact]

I understand that. The thread is about looking for a sign that the earth was created *poof*.

No, it's not. It about evidence for the Young Earth Creationist hypothesis for how God created the various species of organisms.

Creationism is based on belief in God. If you're looking for a sign that the earth was created by somebody, you might as well be looking for a sign that there's a God.

Would someone please do me a favor and get some huge colored fonts and type HOW HOW HOW NOT WHO HOW for me? I can't bear to do it again.

 

[Autodidact]

Subby, I agree. All known beneficial mutations affect only an organisms biochemistry. Unfortunately all known morphological mutations are harmful.

Cite?

Since you have no hypothesis for how God created the various species, what on earth are you doing in this thread?

 

[Autodidact]

But no penguin I cannot provide a complete volume of evidence.

How about an iota of evidence? A peppercorn? An atom? Any evidence at all.

 

[Subby]

Really, please explain how and why. Please cite them; I'm excited to learn about this exciting new development in evolutionary theory.

Are you kidding me? Phenotype expression change is so basic.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you trying to claim that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is somehow about abiogenesis? I repeat, ToE makes philosophical assumptions in the same way and to the same degree as all of science. Do you have a problem with that? Really? What conclusions? What philosophy?

No problem, its good you realize this. However science isn't philosophy so you might want to rethink your approach and separate the two.

Uh, good. What does God have to do with anything?

Nothing if you wanna rely on the science of creationism.

Not really. It doesn't matter for ToE whether abiogenesis happened, or life was always here, or God magically zapped it, or what. As long as there was an organism that could reproduce, ToE takes it from there.

EXACTLY!

Why do you keep talking about God?

Because I am comparing the two philosophies of Darwinian evolution and creationism. They also rely upon science of biological evolution.

There is no logical connection between these two statements. In any case, there's no need to talk about God at all.

Indeed because that's philosophy. Let's talk about the biological evolution, or scientific observations, of creationism.

Newsflash: creationism isn't science. It's religion.

Creationism fully relies upon biological diversification or evolution of species.

Of course it does; that's the heart and sole of science. Observation, extrapolation, hypothesis, prediction, confirmation or falsification. In this case, after having done that, the theory is extremely, extremely, multiply, repeatedly, strongly, confirmed.

Exactly the wrong approach to use in science. You only report raw observations, and let individuals decide on philosophy involved.

Extrapolation is taking present processes and projecting, into the future/past that they still worked the same way. That isn't science, science is present reality based on experimentation and observation. Anything outside of that, that was not DIRECTLY measured by science observation, is philosophical conclusiveness.

Even with extrapolation Darwinian evolution doesn't rely upon just the observations, but project HUGE leaps of evolution not directly seen.

I must have missed it. What I'm looking for is your hypothesis for HOW you believe God created the various species on earth. Is it magic poofing? Or something else? If something else, what? Thanks. If you already explained it, please direct me to the post.

Again, for the tenth time. Creationism fully supports phenotype expression of biological evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

It is pointless talking about kinds, which is a favourite topic here.

Then why did you and the other creationists in the thread bring it up?

 

[Autodidact]

i understand that, however the illustration aptly shows what a 'genesis kind' is. Modern biologists call them different genera but if they can interbreed then they are of the same 'genesis kind'...all elephants fall into one genre

an elephant is an elephant 'kind' whether it has long tusks or short, big ears or small. Anatomical differences are all part of the genetic purpose...to produce 'variety' and it in no way indicates that one elephant is a different 'kind' to another elephant. They are all one kind.

And what is a kind?

 

[Autodidact]

well there ya go.

modern biology has so blurred the lines that you cant even decide at what level interbreeding animals should be placed.

Modern Biology is doing just fine, and does not use YOUR term, kind. YOUR term, "kind," is your entire basis of your disagreement with ToE, but you can't even tell us what it is.

The reason for that is because biologists place animals all over the place...some interbreeding species are put together, others are separated such as tigers and lions even though they can produce hybrids.

Why would this have any effect on YOUR definition of YOUR word?

Moses had a simple idea for an animal 'kind'...it was those who could produce offspring. Doesnt get much simpler then that.

Now that's a species. Are you sticking with species? Can we work with that? Or are you going to switch back to genus or family?

 

[Autodidact]

Are you kidding me? Phenotype expression change is so basic.

You are claiming there is a limit on evolution, and the limit is phenotype change. No, I'm not kidding. Please present the many fascinating peer-reviewed articles, which I assume you've read, or would not mention, that show that phenotypic change is a limit on biological evolution. I'm eager to learn about it.

No problem, its good you realize this. However science isn't philosophy so you might want to rethink your approach.

That all of science, including evolution, is based on the same philosophical assumptions? Uh, O.K., doesn't that go without saying? Are you suggesting that science needs to rethink those assumptions? Do you reject or accept them? Do they work? Are you in favor of science, or against? Why even bring it up?

Nothing if you wanna rely on the science of creationism.

Then why do you keep bringing Him up? What science of creationism?

Because I am comparing the two philosophies of Darwinian evolution and creationism.

Darwinian evolution is not a philosophy. It's a scientific theory. Duh. Creationism is a religious belief.

They also rely upon science of biological evolution.

I have no idea what you are driving at.

Indeed because that's philosophy. Let's talk about the biological evolution, or scientific observations, of creationism.

Any time now.

Creationism fully relies upon biological diversification or evolution of species.

Some does, some doesn't. Some creationists deny it's possible, some claim that it happens at lightning speed, and many do both in the same thread, in fact, right in this thread.

Exactly the wrong approach to use in science. You only report raw observations, and let individuals decide on philosophy involved.

Raw observations ! = science. They're only the raw material.

Extrapolation is taking present processes and projecting, with a uniformitarianism philosophy, into the future/past that they still worked the same way.

Yup. That's how science works.

That isn't science,

On the contrary, it's the heart and soul of all science.

science is present reality based on experimentation and observation.

No, science is not "present reality," that's ignorance.

Anything outside of that, that was not DIRECTLY measured by science observation, is philosophical conclusiveness.

Can you find a scientific, not creationist, source to support your bizarre view of science? In your view, there is no science. Well, maybe chemisty. No astronomy, no cosmology, no geology, no physics, just ignorance.

Again, for the tenth time. Creationism fully supports phenotype expression of biological evolution.

And for the tenth time, there is no uniform definition or theory of creationism. Some supports biological evolution, some rejects it, and some does both in alternation. What's your hypothesis? What mechanism do you think accounts for the diversity of species? And remember, HOW, NOT WHO, HOW.

 

[Subby]

You are claiming there is a limit on evolution, and the limit is phenotype change. No, I'm not kidding. Please present the many fascinating peer-reviewed articles, which I assume you've read, or would not mention, that show that phenotypic change is a limit on biological evolution. I'm eager to learn about it.

The point is, biological evolution, as it is observed without philosophical bias, does NOT produce change beyond phenotype expression.

That all of science, including evolution, is based on the same philosophical assumptions? Uh, O.K., doesn't that go without saying? Are you suggesting that science needs to rethink those assumptions? Do you reject or accept them? Do they work? Are you in favor of science, or against? Why even bring it up?

Modern science as it is practiced today disregards a line between philosophical conclusion and scientific observation and which foundation they derive deductions in nature from.

Therefore science as it is practiced conducts a philosophical bias within its papers which you clearly attest to.

Then why do you keep bringing Him up? What science of creationism?
Darwinian evolution is not a philosophy. It's a scientific theory. Duh. Creationism is a religious belief. I have no idea what you are driving at.

How did you have philosophy a moments ago, and now you don't? Are you trying to form a line like I have done? If so its still blurry.

Any time now.

Some does, some doesn't. Some creationists deny it's possible, some claim that it happens at lightning speed, and many do both in the same thread, in fact, right in this thread.

Well I am telling you, THIS creationist regards biological evolution as clear fact, just like you.

Raw observations ! = science. They're only the raw material.
Yup. That's how science works.

Good, then you understand the philosophical bias involved.

On the contrary, it's the heart and soul of all science. No, science is not "present reality," that's ignorance. Can you find a scientific, not creationist, source to support your bizarre view of science? In your view, there is no science. Well, maybe chemisty. No astronomy, no cosmology, no geology, no physics, just ignorance.

Why can there be no astronomy, etc because I talk about relying on raw observation for interpretation? And when you don't rely on raw observation just highlighting the philosophy involved? Its just being honest and allowing true scientific observation to shine through.

And for the tenth time, there is no uniform definition or theory of creationism. Some supports biological evolution, some rejects it, and some does both in alternation. What's your hypothesis? What mechanism do you think accounts for the diversity of species? And remember, HOW, NOT WHO, HOW.

This is MY VIEW, we are debating, I only inject MAINSTREAM creationist thought.

 

[Autodidact]

The point is, biological evolution, as it is observed without philosophical bias, does NOT produce change beyond phenotype expression.

(1) So you keep saying. And you were mentioning the peer-reviewed studies that support this assertion? Could you name them please?
(2) That same philosophical bias that all of science shares? That one?

Modern science as it is practiced today disregards a line between philosophical and scientific observation and which foundation they derive deductions in nature from.

I see, so it's all of science you oppose, not just Biology.

Therefore science as it is practiced conducts a philosophical bias within its papers which you clearly attest to.

Science is based on certain assumptions. I'm in favor of science, and find that it works, and benefits all ofus, including you. You ?

How did you have philosophy a moments ago, and now you don't? Are you trying to form a line like I have done? If so its still blurry.

When did I say I don't have a philosophy? What I said is, ToE is not philosophy, it's science. All of science rests on certain assumptions, and needs to, to work.

Well I am telling you, THIS creationist regards biological evolution as clear fact, just like you.

Great. Then what are we arguing about?

Good, then you understand the philosophical bias involved.

Yes, it's called the scientific method.

Why can there be no astronomy, etc because I talk about relying on raw observation for interpretation?

Because all raw observation gets you is little dots in the sky. Science starts there, and uses the scientific method to try to figure out how they got there. You seem to have a problem with that.

And when you don't rely on raw observation just highlighting the philosophy involved?

Because without that philosophy, as you keep calling it, you can't do science. Personally, I'm in favor of science. You?

This is MY VIEW, we are debating, I only inject MAINSTREAM creationist thought.

That's a good one. What on earth might that be?

O.K., so you're a creationist. Now would you be so kind as to tell us what you mean by that? Thanks.

 

[Subby]

(1) So you keep saying. And you were mentioning the peer-reviewed studies that support this assertion? Could you name them please?
(2) That same philosophical bias that all of science shares? That one?
I see, so it's all of science you oppose, not just Biology.
Science is based on certain assumptions. I'm in favor of science, and find that it works, and benefits all ofus, including you. You ?

1. PubMed home
2. You are in favor of a particular philosophy of science that is no more scientific than the philosophy creationism posits.

When did I say I don't have a philosophy? What I said is, ToE is not philosophy, it's science. All of science rests on certain assumptions, and needs to, to work.

Great. Then what are we arguing about?
Yes, it's called the scientific method.

Nobody argues about the scientific method, that is for deducing raw observation from nature, not a philosophical framework for interpreting that evidence, namely materialism/naturalism.

Your assumptions are no more scientific then mine when dealing with creationism.

Because all raw observation gets you is little dots in the sky. Science starts there, and uses the scientific method to try to figure out how they got there. You seem to have a problem with that. Because without that philosophy, as you keep calling it, you can't do science. Personally, I'm in favor of science. You?

Scientific method does NOT produce a framework of philosophical interpretation.

That's a good one. What on earth might that be?

O.K., so you're a creationist. Now would you be so kind as to tell us what you mean by that? Thanks.

Are you reading my posts? Philosophy and science, we each have. One side, namely YOU, does not know how to separate the two so that you conduct and then report true science or observation through scientific method rather then interpret the evidence in the same technical paper through a philosophical framework.

 

[Autodidact]

1. PubMed home

Oh, so you don't actually have a single peer reviewed article to support your outrageous and false claim?

2. You are in favor of a particular philosophy of science that is no more scientific than the philosophy creationism posits.

Uh no, my point is just that Biology, and ToE, use the same assumptions and the same philosophy as the rest of science. If you oppose them, then you oppose science. You can't separate them.

Nobody argues about the scientific method, that is for deducing raw observation from nature, not a philosophical framework for interpreting that evidence, namely materialism/naturalism.

No, it's not. Methodological naturalism is fundamental to the scientific method. No methodological naturalism, no science. And of course, science, including ToE, takes no position on philosophical materialism or naturalism. To say it does is false.

Your assumptions are no more scientific then mine when dealing with creationism.

Mine are the assumptions that every scientist makes to do science.

Scientific method does NOT produce a framework of philosophical interpretation.

Uh, o.k., whatever.

Are you reading my posts?

Yes but I'm having a heck of a time following them. It would help if you'd answer my questions.

Philosophy and science, we each have.

You haven't established that yet.

One side, namely YOU, does not know how to separate the two so that you conduct and then report true science or observation through scientific method rather then interpret the evidence in the same technical paper through a philosophical framework.

Well apparently I share that problem with all of modern science, while you share yours with the charlatans at the Discovery Institute, so I'm in good company.

Now, do you have a hypothesis, or not?