So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that new species do arise, but...what? You talked a lot about what the Bible says, and that God magically poofed something into existence--apparently not species.
Obviously species. Apparently not the new species.
And I havent talked a lot about anything yet. This was to be about teaching me evolution not about Biblical perspectives. I dont know why youre trying to confuse the two (I have an evil surmising though). Yet you asked questions about what I believe and my being courteous enough to answer led to a bunny trail.
What then? God magically poofed
Spoke
each genus into existence at some point (when?)..
The third, fifth and sixth days
and evolution takes place only within a genus, but then, for some reason stops at the genus line? Is that what you're saying? We get new species, but no new genera? Every genera has been here since its creation and every new species that has ever appeared is in one of those genera that has always been here? Is that what you're saying now?
Yes. I was saying it then too, you just werent aware of it.
O.K., some questions:
How does evolution know to stop at the genus line?
Evolution doesnt know anything.
How did you decide on genus as the level/limit on change?
We have empirical proof of species change.
Why does evolution stop at that point?
I have to say that I havent thought that out but I would hazard an answer that the complexity of the change is the limit.
Did you know that most creationist psuedo-scientists do not define "kind" as genus, species, family, or any other recognized biological category?
Im not surprised that science and Biblists have different modes. Would you seriously expect them to have the same ones?
The actual definition given by the "baraminology" (lol) group at AIG is virtually incomprehensible, but it's not genera. (I can find it if you're interested.)
Is this an example of your mockery of those who disagree with your standard belief and the courtesy that you extend them?
creationist pseudo-scientists
baraminology (lol) Or does your courtesy stop at just answering questions and not the tenor of your dialogue?
What is the evidence in favor of your hypothesis?
We have empirical evidence of only species change. Well, I suppose there have been instances where certain species were reclassified into another genus. Probably not the genus change were speaking of though.
Lets say for a moment that genus change happens. It should be testable according to scientific method. We know that there are certain organisms that mutate quite readily and reproduce often. Take the Strepp virus as an example. There may be a better one, but, dammit Jim Im a sign painter not a biologist. It should not be that difficult to induce circumstances that would cause a variation in Strepps basic make-up. With Strepp, it has already shown its ability to mutate by resisting penicillin. Next, isolate those few examples and repeat the process until a new species and eventually a new genus arise. It would seem to me that this would be both a possible and desirable experiment to prove macroevolution with empirical evidence. Has it been attempted?
Does this include the genus Homo?
Does what include Homo? Are you asking if the genus Homo has or can evolve? I actually suppose thats Biblical in a sense. But were talking evolution (?) I suppose, in which case, the species included in Homo obviously evolve, according to my plan.
As for your question about relatedness among genera
Did I ask a question about that?
the strongest evidence is DNA. Do you see why that is?
Sure.
Through DNA, we can actually calculate how closely related any two species are.
You say related, I say similar.
But it's important to remember that it's never just one piece of evidence. If something is truly scientifically supported, it's always by the totality of all the evidence. So it's the DNA, and the fossils, and the homological similarity, the geographical distribution, the pattern of vestigial structures--all of these are consistent and point in the same direction. That's what makes us confident that the conclusion is correct.
My rub here is that there are a mountain of options involved in verifying the ToE and when there are competing possibilities the one which points to the existing view is chosen because of the other evidence used to support it; evidence which is concluded in the same manner. It is the obvious sneer (which you previously exhibited) by the followers of the established norm that stifles alternate explanations or a unifying concept between atheistic thought and Biblical perspectives.
With that in mind let me put your statement in a different light. So it's the DNA and what we assume about it, and/or the fossils and what we assume about them, and/or the homological similarity and what we assume about it, and/or the geographical distribution and what we assume about it, and/or the pattern of vestigial structures and what we assume about them -- all of these then seem to be consistent and appear to point in the same direction. That's what leads us to our conclusion.
Now, since you like evidence, Ill give you some. This comes from the field of abiogenesis but is indicative of the problem. Its the Miller-Urey experiment that produced a couple of amino acids in a beaker. This was heralded as proof that amino acids could be generated upwardly from their precursors. What it failed to further correlate to this discovery was that the two greatest byproducts of this process were carbolic acid and tar. In large quantities. There is no geographical evidence of the amount of tar or carbolic acid that would have been produced by that process if it generated usable quantities of amino acids. Nor does it account for the other large majority of amino acids that are required. Nevertheless this is used to prove a necessary step in abiogenesis.
More evidence of science bias comes from physics. For a long time physicists wanted to believe in a static universe because an expanding universe pointed to a beginning. A beginning smacks of a creator and that was unacceptable. Incorrect models of the universe resulted. Einstein went so far as to conceive a cosmological constant out of thin air to satisfy his model.
The Punctuated Equilibrium theory scared Darwinists crapless for a while because it would have tossed the mechanism for evolution out the window.
I firmly believe there is a common ancestry of thought in the ToE community and a gradual evolution of original thought that is guided by the natural selection pressures of artificial selection that leads to their favored conclusions. I say that much of these types of conclusions are based on an amount of faith that science will never admit.
But you think I eat too much baloney.
If you're really interested, we could pick two closely related genera and see how all the evidence all adds up to demonstrate their relatedness.
Now we are getting back on topic. You pick your best example. Ive asked for this a number of times. Hopefully its not rats. If you need help, perhaps elephants might be a good example.
For example, take the genus Mus, typical mice, and Rattus, typical rats. Would you agree that a house mouse is more like a brown rat than it is like a redwood tree? O.K., ToE says the reason for that is that they are both descended from a common rodent ancestor--that they are more closely related, and that explains their skeletal similarity, the similar appearance, similar internal organs, modes of reproduction and, most importantly, their extremely similar DNA. The DNA of redwood trees and house mice will have some similarity, but much less than that of a mouse and a rat. ToE explains and predicts all of this. Do you have any problem with any of that?
Only this, genetics says they are similar. The ToE says they are kissing cousins.
Say I wanted to create an hairy beast of my own. We can call it a VLR (very large rodent). I want it to have beady eyes, hair, a backbone, a skinny tail, etc (and look less like my Aunt Margaret and more like Angellous). The evidence, from genetic study, says that these structures must have certain genetics. For a simple analogy take the word red. It has three certain letters. I can change one and get bed. To get that specific word (structure or trait) I must use the correct letters (genetics). Now I could say I want a maroon rodent. Technically its red but Ive used wholly different letters. Genetics allows for this. The wing of a bat is different than a wing for a sparrow. Therefore a red wood and a red mouse do not need the same genetics in order to be red. In creating my own mouse it would follow existing genetic machinations and therefore genetically resemble other existing mice and rats and not a tree (or Aunt Margaret). Unless of course I wanted my VLR to have leaves.
Perhaps it would satisfy science that God existed if every divisible part of my VLR just showed more uniquely VLR parts. Yet, it makes perfect sense that similar organisms have similar genetics (even though God spoke them into existence).
