Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Gabethewiking]

Wow! I have seen little clips here and there, but I have never watch an entire seminar before. He is a complete lunatic, and his "scientific" knowledge is so sad I'm not sure how he has so many supporters. Perhaps the money isn't for the information, as much as the laughs you can get from it (?)

No Red, it is very much serious, even Creationist of his own kind take a step back and distance themselves from him, and as amusment material it won't work either as you will get really annoyed by various lies (he seems to believe what he is saying) he is spouting.

And I am going to be honest with you, so far I marked you as a regular Creationist, you claim Evolution is a fact at the same time as you deny Evolution saying it only happens between the same 'kinds', which you do not define. This is a problem as "Macro" and "Micro" as it is known as, does not really exist, and we only have Evolution, you accept Evolution, you accept that animals are all linked to eachother.

I will ask the same as Auto asked you, could you give us your general views so we get an understanding of your mindset, it would help alot.

* Do you accept the Fact of Evolution?
* Do you accept that the world is not 6000 years old?
* Do you acept Human History?
​

And so on. Please let us know your general view.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne, with all due respect.

You said that "kinds" do not change outside of these "kinds" and yet you can not provide an expalantion of what a "kind" is, so how can you make this claim? I show you one "kind" becoming another "kind", how would you know? The word is useless and I ask you not to use it anymore as it has no meaning (you cant define it).

I will concede that it is something that has eluded creation scientists since its beginnings.

Now, if you have another word for a group of Animals that can interbreed, use this, or just go with "Species". What you know as "Macro" Evolution is a fact, if you want to learn about it, we are all open to take our time and explain it to you, but please do not Lie to us and pretend you want to learn and ignore all the evidence we give you.

"Macro" is (essentially) defined as speciation, so of course it is a fact. I use "macro" to mean change within kinds, which I believe has not been observed, therefore it isn't a fact. I know you (and every other evo) don't like the terminology, but I don't know of any other words that can get across the idea better.

Are you interested in me posting this evidence, or would you rather retain your ability to deny that it exists?

Ignorance is bliss

Seriously, if you want to post the evidence I'll look at it at respond to it. I myself think that it would be interesting to see what this site can come up with. I remember you saying that it would be a big time commitment for you, so I just want to say don't over due it. Just post what you can and we can run with that. And if any other posters want to add to anything said please feel free.

 

[Gabethewiking]

"Macro" is (essentially) defined as speciation, so of course it is a fact. I use "macro" to mean change within kinds, which I believe has not been observed, therefore it isn't a fact. I know you (and every other evo) don't like the terminology, but I don't know of any other words that can get across the idea better.

Okay, first you need to understand that your opinion and beliefs are irrelevant to reality. So we are on the same plane here, okay?

We have seen one animal 'become' another. And this is the problem, you do not understand Evolution and this is why you do not accept it. If you understood it you would most likely exlaim "Oohhh!! Now I get it", and this is what I need to explain to you, which I suspect could be hard as you most likely are of the Creationist type that simple deny what they do not like (I am sorry, but that is how Creationist work).

Do you understand that Evolution does not say that a Dog have sex with a Cat and they get offspring, and a Duck does not mate with a Crocodile making a CrocoDuck, are we on the same playing field so far?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm happy to; I'll just do it a little at a time. Some questions of clarification, though:

Would you answer my question about what your total position is, so I know where we differ?

And would you take a stab at the question I asked: what predictions can we generate from your hypothesis? Again, this will help me to focus on which specific areas I need to provide evidence for.

Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

It occurs to me yet again, RedOne, that it is hard to present evidence against a hypothesis that is not well-defined. I will need to show that evolution progresses beyond a "kind," whatever that may be. Can you provide a working definition for purposes of discussion?

 

[RedOne77]

No Red, it is very much serious, even Creationist of his own kind take a step back and distance themselves from him, and as amusment material it won't work either as you will get really annoyed by various lies (he seems to believe what he is saying) he is spouting.

I found thunderfoot's commentary on his videos in the 'why people laugh' series quite entertaining, but I suppose watching what he says for more than 10 minutes would get very annoying.

I will ask the same as Auto asked you, could you give us your general views so we get an understanding of your mindset, it would help alot.

* Do you accept the Fact of Evolution?
* Do you accept that the world is not 6000 years old?
* Do you acept Human History?
​

And so on. Please let us know your general view.

By fact of evolution, I accept that populations change in allele frequency over time due to mutation and natural selection. I also accept speciation as a fact. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by fact of evolution, but if that is it, then yes, I accept the fact of evolution.

I used to accept that the world is 6,000 years old, but I'm aware that there is some dispute on that fact within Biblical scholars, so I'm agnostic to the age of the Earth. For the purpose of the discussion lets say that I believe that the upper limit is around 10,000 years, but there is a chance that I might change it as we talk about it, again I'm not sure what the age is.

What do you mean by human history? I believe that there was an Adam and an Eve, and they are the ancestors of all humans.

I believe that God created everything in 6 days, but He did not create 2 of every kind, He created populations of kinds, and possibly several different species of each kind, which were then subjected to evolution/adaptation. I believe in a world wide flood, but that populations did survive outside of what Noah could see from the Ark. I understand that there is not a lot of geological evidence for the flood, but I'm not familiar with geology so I take the flood on faith.

Just for clarification, I do accept speciation within kinds. In terms of evolution, I can't think of anything else right now. If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

We have seen one animal 'become' another. And this is the problem, you do not understand Evolution and this is why you do not accept it. If you understood it you would most likely exlaim "Oohhh!! Now I get it", and this is what I need to explain to you, which I suspect could be hard as you most likely are of the Creationist type that simple deny what they do not like (I am sorry, but that is how Creationist work)

I assure you I understand how evolution works. If you want, I can explain evolution to you, that way you know I'm not lying. And if I do have something wrong, you can point it out. Would you like me to do that? I understand that dogs can't mate with cats and get offspring, they are on two separate lineages and their DNA is not compatible with each other to produce offspring.

It occurs to me yet again, RedOne, that it is hard to present evidence against a hypothesis that is not well-defined. I will need to show that evolution progresses beyond a "kind," whatever that may be. Can you provide a working definition for purposes of discussion

I know I'm being difficult, and I apologize, but lets just stick with evolution. I think over time we'll see if the evidence can break the "kind" barrier.

I do not propose creation science as science, despite the name creation "science", just as a paradigm opposed to the ToE in that all life originated from a single cell. I see creation science as taking what we believe to be the truth, and trying to work it in with what we know about the universe so far. There are many things we do not know, and there are many problems with this, most notably the definition of "kind". I see this as a parallel with the story of scientists climbing the mountain only to find a bunch of theologians at the top who've been there the whole time.

Again, if you have any more questions regarding what I believe please don't hesitate.

 

[fantome profane]

I used to accept that the world is 6,000 years old, but I'm aware that there is some dispute on that fact within Biblical scholars, so I'm agnostic to the age of the Earth. For the purpose of the discussion lets say that I believe that the upper limit is around 10,000 years, but there is a chance that I might change it as we talk about it, again I'm not sure what the age is.

That is still what we would call a young earth. Considering that most scientists believe the earth is aprox 4.5 billion years old it makes little difference whether you believe the earth is 6000, 10 000 or 13 000 there is still a huge discrepancy. (and given that the universe is around 15 billion the discrepancy is that much bigger)

I would recommend we start here with a new thread about the age of the earth. We could give the kind thing a rest (for now). What do you think? Would you be interested in that?

 

[RedOne77]

That is still what we would call a young earth. Considering that most scientists believe the earth is aprox 4.5 billion years old it makes little difference whether you believe the earth is 6000, 10 000 or 13 000 there is still a huge discrepancy. (and given that the universe is around 15 billion the discrepancy is that much bigger)

I would recommend we start here with a new thread about the age of the earth. We could give the kind thing a rest (for now). What do you think? Would you be interested in that?

Be my guest, feel free to start with the age of the Earth or the universe.

 

[darkendless]

I used to accept that the world is 6,000 years old, but I'm aware that there is some dispute on that fact within Biblical scholars, so I'm agnostic to the age of the Earth. For the purpose of the discussion lets say that I believe that the upper limit is around 10,000 years, but there is a chance that I might change it as we talk about it, again I'm not sure what the age is.

You need to add a few more zero's onto your guess there.

There is also very little geological evidence for a flood. Visit the thread titled Noah's Ark, i have explained why it is impossible about 200 times in that thread.

 

[Autodidact]

By fact of evolution, I accept that populations change in allele frequency over time due to mutation and natural selection. I also accept speciation as a fact. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by fact of evolution, but if that is it, then yes, I accept the fact of evolution.

Exactly so.

I used to accept that the world is 6,000 years old, but I'm aware that there is some dispute on that fact within Biblical scholars, so I'm agnostic to the age of the Earth. For the purpose of the discussion lets say that I believe that the upper limit is around 10,000 years, but there is a chance that I might change it as we talk about it, again I'm not sure what the age is.

Well then you have a big problem--the math doesn't work. It runs smack up against the paragraph above.

Speciation, the fact of evolution, takes time. Lots of time. Hundreds of generations. Unfortunately, this is going to involve the issue of kinds again. Take those bats, assuming they are a kind. We know about 1100 extant species. I think we can assume at least another 900 bat species that are either extinct or not yet discovered, so you've got a rough 2000 species there. Most bats have about 1-3 litters a year, and live around 20 years. The rate of speciation varies wildly depending on environmental change, but let's say 1000 generations or so. Call a bat generation 5 years, x 1000 generations = 5000 generations to get a single new species of bat. Then there's some math that's too complicated for me involving square roots, (can a mathy person help us here please? Or a knowledgeable person such as painted wolf?) but anyway my point is that there is no way that you can get 2000 species of bat in 10,000 years, unless you get a new bat species every 5 years, which I'm sure you'll agree you don't.

This applies to every "kind" you can name--if you can name any.

What do you mean by human history? I believe that there was an Adam and an Eve, and they are the ancestors of all humans.

I believe that God created everything in 6 days, but He did not create 2 of every kind, He created populations of kinds, and possibly several different species of each kind, which were then subjected to evolution/adaptation. I believe in a world wide flood, but that populations did survive outside of what Noah could see from the Ark.[/quote] This seems contradictory to me.

I understand that there is not a lot of geological evidence for the flood, but I'm not familiar with geology so I take the flood on faith.

You're not familiar with geology so you assume that all of it is wrong? Wow, that's just...arrogant. Good thing you never need geologists to find oil so you can drive your car.

I know I'm being difficult, and I apologize, but lets just stick with evolution. I think over time we'll see if the evidence can break the "kind" barrier.

How will we know if we don't know what the "kind" barrier is?

 

[Danmac]

To Creationist:

​

Could you explain to me what you think is the difference between​

1. Theory of Evolution
&
2. Evolution.

That's easy. Theory is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven.

 

[darkendless]

That's easy. Theory is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven.​

​

 

[RedOne77]

Speciation, the fact of evolution, takes time. Lots of time. Hundreds of generations. Unfortunately, this is going to involve the issue of kinds again. Take those bats, assuming they are a kind. We know about 1100 extant species. I think we can assume at least another 900 bat species that are either extinct or not yet discovered, so you've got a rough 2000 species there. Most bats have about 1-3 litters a year, and live around 20 years. The rate of speciation varies wildly depending on environmental change, but let's say 1000 generations or so. Call a bat generation 5 years, x 1000 generations = 5000 generations to get a single new species of bat. Then there's some math that's too complicated for me involving square roots, (can a mathy person help us here please? Or a knowledgeable person such as painted wolf?) but anyway my point is that there is no way that you can get 2000 species of bat in 10,000 years, unless you get a new bat species every 5 years, which I'm sure you'll agree you don't.

I do believe, that for whatever reason, species evolved faster in the past. This may be due to a built in adaptation mechanism. Punctuated equilibrium states that populations under stable conditions will remain relatively unchanged, while populations experiencing environmental changes will evolve rapidly. This would help explain that after the flood, the environment of the populations changed very rapidly, augmenting the level of speciation. With isolated populations during and after the flood via floating islands, the flounder affect can create several different sub-species very rapidly, and with these populations genetically isolated allopatric and peripatric speciation can occur. And post-flood these new species/sub-species can further speciate in concurrence of parapatric and sympatric speciation. Genetically, these 'in-built' adaptation mechanisms can come in the form of gene expression. Through DNA methylation and histone proteins controlled by diet you can change the phenotype extensively, and these new traits can be passed on to the offspring. These gene expressions can further increase the level of speciation ultimately creating a wide variety of species in a short period of time.

 

[gnostic]

I'm just saying everything within the sight of Noah was killed (except the Ark), and elsewhere things must have survived, as indicated by the text itself. If you choose to interpret it another way, that is your choice.

Even if you think the flood happened to be a local one, the Genesis still doesn't make sense.

If it is a local flood, then why build ark that large?

If the flood is local, then why did Noah stayed in the ark for a WHOLE YEAR?

If the flood cover the highest peak of mountain, then where did all that water go?

Water don't just vanish, especially if you believe the Genesis say it cover mountains.

I used to accept that the world is 6,000 years old, but I'm aware that there is some dispute on that fact within Biblical scholars, so I'm agnostic to the age of the Earth. For the purpose of the discussion lets say that I believe that the upper limit is around 10,000 years, but there is a chance that I might change it as we talk about it, again I'm not sure what the age is.

Some creationists, known as Young Earth Creationists (or YECs) believed the earth and the universe to be 13,000 years old.

According to the YECs, each of the day in Genesis 1, equate to 1000 years (1 yr = 1000 yr).

This is still incorrect, scientifically, archaeologically and historically. Humans have existed longer than that. And the dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago.

And if the universe is 6000, or even 13,000 years old, then we should not be to see our nearest spiral galaxy neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy, which is over 2 million light years away. Light should not exist before 6000 or 13000 light years away, if you believe in the traditional creationists or the YECs.

What do you mean by human history? I believe that there was an Adam and an Eve, and they are the ancestors of all humans.

Human history began about 5000 years ago (about 3000 BCE), in 2 separate civilisations, in Egypt and in Sumer (Mesopotamia). It coincide with the beginning of the Bronze Age.

When I say "history", I am meaning writing. Everything before that is prehistory, which predated writing.

But since you are using human history as the whole prehistory+history, then that's really difficult to determine.

The early modern human, denoted as Homo sapiens can be divided into 2: archaic and early.

The early modern humans, which we belonged to, which is Homo sapiens sapiens.

Evidences of the oldest anatomically modern humans, to date, is just under 200,000 years ago, found near Omo River in Ethiopia. 200,000 years ago would put humans in the Middle Paleolithic period (Paleolithic means "Old Stone Age"). This mean the Homo sapiens human lived around the same time as the Neanderthals.

If Adam and Eve existed as the 1st humans, then they would have to live in at the very least, in the Upper Paleolithic period. Which is about the time of the true modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens), which date between 40,000 years ago to the end of the Ice Age, hence 10,000 years ago (8000 BCE).

The end of the Ice Age, marked the Neolithic period, when farming and animal husbandry (raising domestic cattle and flocks), and more settle lifestyle. Tools were more sophisicated than Paleolithic human culture. And pottery began appearing.

Oldest town is Jericho. And the earliest walls around Jericho have been dated to 8000 BC, but earlier settlement have been discovered, which has been dated to 9000 BC.

Do you understand what this, RedOne77?

That mean about 10,000 years ago, a walled Jericho existed over 4000 years before Adam and Eve were supposed created around 5800 years ago (which is 3800 BC). According to the Genesis and the traditional creationists, Jericho shouldn't exist before Adam.

 

[gnostic]

That's easy. Theory is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven.

Spoken like a true scientifically-ignorant hill-billy/yankee. :foot:



You have just proven that Creationists don't understand science.

 

[RedOne77]

I do believe, that for whatever reason, species evolved faster in the past. This may be due to a built in adaptation mechanism. Punctuated equilibrium states that populations under stable conditions will remain relatively unchanged, while populations experiencing environmental changes will evolve rapidly. This would help explain that after the flood, the environment of the populations changed very rapidly, augmenting the level of speciation. With isolated populations during and after the flood via floating islands, the flounder affect can create several different sub-species very rapidly, and with these populations genetically isolated allopatric and peripatric speciation can occur. And post-flood these new species/sub-species can further speciate in concurrence of parapatric and sympatric speciation. Genetically, these 'in-built' adaptation mechanisms can come in the form of gene expression. Through DNA methylation and histone proteins controlled by diet you can change the phenotype extensively, and these new traits can be passed on to the offspring. These gene expressions can further increase the level of speciation ultimately creating a wide variety of species in a short period of time.

Also new species can arise due to a single mutation. For example nylon eating bacteria came about by a single frame-shift mutation. Also it was shown that plants can speciate with as little as 10 point mutations, and many times new species are formed via polyploidy in a single generation. That coupled with gene expression due to methylation and histones modifying the epigenetic code, it doesn't take much for species to speciate with the right conditions.

 

[fantome profane]

Punctuated equilibrium states that populations under stable conditions will remain relatively unchanged, while populations experiencing environmental changes will evolve rapidly. This would help explain that after the flood, the environment of the populations changed very rapidly, augmenting the level of speciation.

I don’t think you understand the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, when they talk about rapid speciation they mean they mean over a period of thousands or tens of thousands of years. This is rapid compared millions or hundreds of millions of years. But still Punctuated Equilibrium requires more time that you believe the earth has been in existence. And I guess you would have to completely ignore the concept of long periods of stability (long being hundreds of millions of years, at least).

 

[Autodidact]

That's easy. Theory is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven.​

This may hold the record for the most inaccuracy in the fewest words.​

 

[fantome profane]

Be my guest, feel free to start with the age of the Earth or the universe.

Age of the Earth

 

[Autodidact]

I do believe, that for whatever reason, species evolved faster in the past.

Not to be too harsh, but this thread isn't about what you believe. People believe all kinds of strange things. This is a science thread, so it's about what there's evidence for. There's not a shred of evidence for what you propose.

This is what happens once YECs try to incorporate facts into their hypotheses. Soon the hypothesis becomes more and more outlandish (and less Biblical).

This may be due to a built in adaptation mechanism. Punctuated equilibrium states that populations under stable conditions will remain relatively unchanged, while populations experiencing environmental changes will evolve rapidly.

Yes, but punk eek also says that the entire ToE is correct. This is more cherry picking.

This would help explain that after the flood, the environment of the populations changed very rapidly, augmenting the level of speciation

Now you're just freely making stuff up. Can we have some relationship to some facts? Also I'm way confused--I thought you thought the flood was a local phenomenon.

With isolated populations during and after the flood via floating islands,

First, it's not Biblical. Second, again--no evidence for any such thing. I've never understood how you can have a flood so violent it carves thousands of feet of rock canyon, but leaves floating islands undisturbed.

the flounder affect can create several different sub-species very rapidly, and with these populations genetically isolated allopatric and peripatric speciation can occur.

Ha ha, funny typo if you review. Anyway, "very rapid" means hundreds of generations. Again, you don't have time for hundreds of generations.

And post-flood these new species/sub-species can further speciate in concurrence of parapatric and sympatric speciation. Genetically, these 'in-built' adaptation mechanisms can come in the form of gene expression. Through DNA methylation and histone proteins controlled by diet you can change the phenotype extensively, and these new traits can be passed on to the offspring. These gene expressions can further increase the level of speciation ultimately creating a wide variety of species in a short period of time.

Again, "short time," in evolutionary terms, means a few hundred generations. Remember, you need enough time for 2000 speciation events. You have time for maybe a single speciation event, and that's for bats alone. If you include beetles, ants, mice, etc., etc, you have speciation events every year--heck, every month. And that is not what we observe.

By trying to combine ToE and YEC, you get a sort of hyper-evolution that is not what we in fact observe, and for which there is not evidence. In fact, this sort of hyper-evolution violates the ToE you claim to accept.