Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution.

What constrains 'micro-evolution'?

 

[McBell]

oh no boy!! u simply dont have any arguments to support ur stand

You wish.
How about you actually read this thread?
Here are a couple other threads you should read:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/57273-challenge-evolutionsts.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/59823-if-age-earth-6000-years.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creation/58171-part-2-attack-creationism.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6-earth-13-000-years-old-soon.html#post761311
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/51943-creation-museum-now-open.html
​

Evey one of your "points" has been refuted and shown to be nothing more than ignorant drivel at least once within the above threads.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

RF does not allow plagiarism. Several posts have been removed. Please be sure to aviod plagiarism by giving references and putting material that isn't yours in quotes. Please don't cut and paste from the Internet, but post links to material instead.

Thanks,
A_E

 

[camanintx]

How is evolution "evident" in our anatomy? What, homology? You are confusing the evidence from its interpretation. Even before Darwin, the same human anatomy is explainable by a concept called ideal archetypes, meaning the Creator used the superior design prototype throughout His Creation.

If cats have always been cats and dogs have always been dogs, then why don't we find cat and dog fossils from the early Paleocene? If all we find from that era are fossils of animals that exhibit both cat and dog features, how is it not evident that cats and dogs descended from a common ancestor? If the creator used "ideal archetypes" for all of it's creations, then why do some animals have better eyesight or better hearing that others?

Homology is no proof of evolution anymore than similarities between volkswagens and a porsches are due to a common ancestor.

Actually VW's and Porsche's do have a common ancestor, the Benz Velo. If modern autos didn't retain some of the same basic features, they wouldn't be able to coexist on most roads.

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution. What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).

Why do you reject macro-evolution when you haven't explained what constrains micro-evolution?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What constrains 'micro-evolution'?

Intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Autodidact]

I hear some interesting similarities and some common features about different species, the hand like features in the bat, whale and human arm,but they are still individually DISTInct by their limited DNA within species.

Good on you, roli. It's great that you're engaging with the evidence and asking questions. Yes, those features are interesting. If you think about it, all mammalian skelteons have basically the same number of bones in the same arrangments, just bigger and smaller. Just to choose a few randomly, here's a cat:

a bat:

and a bear:

See the similarities, the same basic bone arrangement? ToE explains that is because we share a common ancestor. Further, ToE predicts (and remember, prediction is the big deal in science) that if biologists discover a new mammal somewhere in the jungles of the Philippines, it will have this same basic bone structure.

 

[Autodidact]

Yet the funny thing is, why are'nt some of these species that we have common ancestory with, not completely extinct, I mean if what ToE says about certain things phasing or dying out,should'nt our common ancestors ultimately be extinct..

They are. Most of the species that have ever existed are extinct, including most of our common ancestors, including even the common ancestor of humans and the other apes. In fact, biologists estimate that 99% of the species that have ever existed are extinct.

It seems to me that this fact is a huge problem for special creation. As I understand it, the core idea of special creation is that at some point in the not too distant past, God created each species (or "kind", whatever that is) and they have not changed since, new species (or "kinds" ) do not arise. They each breed true and identical.

One problem is that species go extinct all the time. In fact, we know of many species that have gone extinct just in the last 100 years, like the Tasmanian Wolf, Passenger Pigeon, and Dodo. If no new species ever arise, we should be seeing fewer and fewer species, biodiversity constantly decreasing, until eventually everything would be extinct. But that is not what the world or the fossil record look like. In general, biodiversity has been increasing throughout earth's history, with more and different kinds of life as you go forward through time.

(On a side note, a theological issue, it's odd that a perfect etc. God would create species just to go extinct, and not bring new species into the picture. A God who set up a system where the whole thing is continually regenerated and continues seems a bit more perfect. However, apologists can always think up some way to justify anything God does. After all, His ways are mysterious to us!)

Extinction is very important in evolutionary theory. In fact, it's really a driving force. When we talk about natural selection on a species, rather than individual, level, we're really talking about extinction. Natural selection is all about choosing, not randomly. What doesn't get chosen (by surviving) goes extinct. This selection pressure is what keeps new species developing all the time.

Evolution also explains why species go extinct. If you think about it, variation plus selection is kind of a blind creator. What gets selected--what survives and reproduces--is what works in that particular environment. When the environment changes, as it usually does, if it doesn't work in the new environment, bingo--extinction! For example, if an animal survives well in a warm environment, and then an ice age comes, boom--it's extinct. Only those adapted to live in the cold survive.

 

[Autodidact]

I would like to hear a complete list of what our comon ancestors are, please.
Is this speculative view shared by all ToE ADHERENTS

A complete list would take an entire book.
And you can read it on line.
The word you are looking for is "biologists" or "evolutionary biologists." The rest of us are just people who accept and use science, including biology, as a way of learning about and understanding the natural world.
It's not speculative, it's extremely well evidenced. There are corners we're still exploring and learning about, and some parts are still speculative, but then of course they're presented and taught as such. For example, they haven't worked out all the relationships between our hominid ancestors. But a lot of it is quite well established. Fortunately, The Ancestor's Tale is available on-line via the above link.

 

[Autodidact]

I have often seen this Sylvia Brown,she's an interesting study, on the outside seems convincing, I guess, but I think if anybody receives and processes enough information, from enough people ,learning and studying similarities in human behavior,emotions, needs and psycology, in death related incidences,they can piece together a very compelling argument that not only convinces the immediate family members but the whole audience that they have indeed talked with the dead. Is it no wonder people flock to hear her perdictions , but a quick study of her, unbias of any emotional attachment from passed loved ones, one quickly see's the brilliant orchestrating one can do with enough information. Everybody comes to hear from her what they have already imagined ,so she gives them what they want.

This vivid picture of what the imagination can do ,with enough information piecing it together as if it all fits together ,without mentioning the enormous gaps and holes that seems to allow so much logic to fall through.

I agree--what a fraud! Her techniques have been well exposed and documented by cognitive psychologists. The best way to detect and expose fraud like this is by the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method is basically a set of techniques for minimizing fraud and bias.

 

[Autodidact]

This must be common and evidential in all livng species than, name some in the human anatomy.
Please list some vestigials in humans, by rights we should have a whole list of them within the human body ,I know several organs can be removed and we still function.
Share this theory regarding humans ,I am aware that there were 180 but have since been reduced to "0"

I don't know about all, but they are very common. I think one dramatic example in humans would be the tail bone. We have a tail bone (coccyx) but no tail, because we are descended from animals that did have tails. Occasionally a baby is born with a little tail that has to be surgically removed. This is called an atavism.

Nice hypothesis, but I will look into that ?

Good for you. When you do, vestigial does not mean "useless" or no function. It means that the feature is much more deluxe than is needed for the minimal function it now performs.

I'm sure the wings or vestigials do help balance but are really only part of some random coincidence.

Why are you sure of this? Biologists believe it is because they were descended from birds that did fly. On what basis do you disagree?

In general, why do you think you got it right, while the people who study it for their living got it wrong?

Give me the name of the fish and I will check this out

I think that one is a Tetra, but there are various kinds of blind fish, like the ocean hagfish, the Mexican Cave Fish. There are also blind snakes and blind salamanders.

 

[Autodidact]

How is evolution "evident" in our anatomy?

by comparing it to the anatomy of our ancestors and near relations.

What, homology? You are confusing the evidence from its interpretation. Even before Darwin, the same human anatomy is explainable by a concept called ideal archetypes, meaning the Creator used the superior design prototype throughout His Creation. Homology is no proof of evolution anymore than similarities between volkswagens and a porsches are due to a common ancestor.

That's one way. As I said, all of this is compatible with creationism, since creationism makes not specific predictions. However, unlike ToE, the opposite would also be consistent with creationism. You don't even have to come up with the ideal archetypes. After all, who are we to tell God how to create?
However since you do posit this, the problem of course is that they're not always superior. For example, either bird wings or bat wings work better, one is superior and one is inferior. If God were choosing the ideal archetype for flying creatures, that's what he would use.There's no reason for penguins, who don't fly, to have the same wing structure as birds that do, while bats, who do fly, have an entirely different structure. Except for evolution. Evolution explains exactly why that is so--it's because penguins descended from birds who fly, while bats descended from mammals who didn't.
It's not that there is such a thing as homologies, it's that they always, every time, track the pattern of ancestry. And this matches up with the fossil record, the other resemblances, and, most importantly, (as we will see later) the DNA.

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution. What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).

Some do, some don't. They're not a consistent bunch. However, you are not using the word "macro-evolution" in the sense that biologists use it. Are you saying that you agree that new species arise from old species via variation plus natural selection, but you don't think this accounts for all species, or that it can't keep going into genuses, families, and so forth? That there is a limit to how far this process can go? What limit, and why?

There is no leap of logic or faith, however, it's all about the evidence, which is what I'm presenting here.

:sorry1:[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

First of all what you listed above are examples of MICRO-evolution. It's funny how evolutionists like to talk so much about MACRO-evolution ("from goo to you" theory) but all they can offer as evidence are examples of adaption WITHIN a specie. Well for your information, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution. It's this BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept because 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics.

No, these are all separate species that have evolved from other species of sighted fish. Whether you call this micro-evolution or macro-evolution depends on how you define your terms.

The thing about micro to macro is this. Micro means evolution up to the species level. Macro is the extrapolation to genus, family and so forth. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that yes, new species do develop, but then the process stops and does not continue up to the genus level. Why not?
What evidence from modern genetics? Please describe or cite it for us.

Secondly, you might want to know that it is a MYTH that evolution has any practical applications. Just check out this admission cited by anti-creationist Larry Witham in his book Where Darwin Meets the Bible (Oxford University Press, 2002) cites a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which shows how limited evolution really is as a practical scientific theory:<snip>

No it's not, but it's not what we're talking about here. Basically all of current immunology is based on evolutionary theory, among other things. In any case, let's get through the evidence before we start talking about practical applications, since that is going to take us a good long while.

 

[4Pillars]

by comparing it to the anatomy of our ancestors and near relations.
[/font][/color] That's one way. As I said, all of this is compatible with creationism, since creationism makes not specific predictions. However, unlike ToE, the opposite would also be consistent with creationism. You don't even have to come up with the ideal archetypes. After all, who are we to tell God how to create?
However since you do posit this, the problem of course is that they're not always superior. For example, either bird wings or bat wings work better, one is superior and one is inferior. If God were choosing the ideal archetype for flying creatures, that's what he would use.There's no reason for penguins, who don't fly, to have the same wing structure as birds that do, while bats, who do fly, have an entirely different structure. Except for evolution. Evolution explains exactly why that is so--it's because penguins descended from birds who fly, while bats descended from mammals who didn't.
It's not that there is such a thing as homologies, it's that they always, every time, track the pattern of ancestry. And this matches up with the fossil record, the other resemblances, and, most importantly, (as we will see later) the DNA.

Some do, some don't. They're not a consistent bunch. However, you are not using the word "macro-evolution" in the sense that biologists use it. Are you saying that you agree that new species arise from old species via variation plus natural selection, but you don't think this accounts for all species, or that it can't keep going into genuses, families, and so forth? That there is a limit to how far this process can go? What limit, and why?

There is no leap of logic or faith, however, it's all about the evidence, which is what I'm presenting here.

:sorry1:

[/quote]

Nice strawman arguments, but Creationists don't believe in "methodological supernaturalism" and we don't subscribe to the "god of the gaps" theories. In fact God in the Bible tells us to examine His creation, i.e. learn how it works, because in it His glory will be shown. Just like if somebody were to give me a car, and I don't know anything about cars, knowing that someone created that car will not hinder me from learning about how that cars works and see the genius of its designer.

Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created. All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith. :yes:

 

[4Pillars]

No, these are all separate species that have evolved from other species of sighted fish. Whether you call this micro-evolution or macro-evolution depends on how you define your terms.

The thing about micro to macro is this. Micro means evolution up to the species level. Macro is the extrapolation to genus, family and so forth. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that yes, new species do develop, but then the process stops and does not continue up to the genus level. Why not?
What evidence from modern genetics? Please describe or cite it for us.

Ummm..."genes" are not the same as "genetic information", that's like saying a letter is the same as the paper it's written on.

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.

Being able to test a speculative theory is not the same as a known recurring event which characterizes &#8220;operational science&#8221;.

:yes:

 

[Jistyr]

I apologize that my response is a bit late, but I just couldn't resist replying to this statement:

If man never came from rock and man never always existed, where did the first life form come, please don't say we just evolved. Where did man come from[?]

Well to answer both of your questions, I must simply state that I do not know, neither does anyone else.

If every single bit of evolution holds true, no matter what you think, evolution is not an explanation for the creation of life. Evolution is not there to state, define, or explain the instance in which life came into existence.

Evolution shows the progression of life, or the evolution of it, and it may show how other organisms in time evolved into man.

I can never help but laugh when someone assumes that evolution is the equivalent to creation in the respect that it shows the origin of all life as we know it.

It does not. Once again let me say this, the purpose of the theory of evolution is not to show the creation of life, it shows how it adapts, changes, and morphs over time and creates complex things, such as the eye, or even more complexly, the human being.

Evolution does not substitute for all of the curiosities that creation attempts to fulfill, it merely refutes a number of its tenets.

 

[painted wolf]

Ummm..."genes" are not the same as "genetic information", that's like saying a letter is the same as the paper it's written on

Umm... sorry, but your mistaken.
The letters would be the nucleotides, the individual bits that make up DNA. Codons are groups of three nucleotides that produce amino acids, these would be the words....Genes are collections of codons... this is the information as they are what controls what gets made when and where.

This is basic Genetics.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical.

Ludicrous ...

 

[4Pillars]

Ludicrous ...

A scientific inquiry whether in physics, chemistry, geology, or biology, are under &#8220;operational science&#8221; so long as it involves observable and repeatable events. Both Evolution and Creation are under &#8220;historical science&#8221;. So for evolutionists to say Creationism is not science simply shows their ignorance of the nature of science, because they wrongly think that all science is under &#8220;operational science&#8221;.

:sorry1:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... for evolutionists to say Creationism is not science simply shows their ignorance of the nature of science, because they wrongly think that all science is under “operational science”.

Stop babbling and tell us what distinguishes so-called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, and what constrains the former.

 

[camanintx]

MICRO-evolution is observable. MACRO-evolution is strictly historical. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.

Gravity is observable but star formation is strictly historical (we've never actually seen a star spring into life). Does that mean you don't accept the theory of gravity?

If you are going to claim that micro-evolution cannot lead to macro-evolution, shouldn't you at least try to explain why?