Obviously species. Apparently not the new species.
So God speaks a single species into existence, and it can give rise to new species. Can the new species give rise to further new species? And so on?
And I haven’t talked a lot about anything yet. This was to be about teaching me evolution not about Biblical perspectives. I don’t know why you’re 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.
ORLY?
sandy said:
I believe the Bible says He spoke them into existance.
sandy said:
I think the best evidence is just to understand what the Bible says happens.
sandy said:
You say that science uses evidence to postulate possibilities. We who believe the Bible use the same methods.
I'm just responding to your posts, sandy. It's not me who keeps bringing up Biblical perspectives.
Well what would that look like? God says, "tiger," and a tiger magically appears, fully formed, right?
The third, fifth and sixth days…
Based on the Bible you don't want me to talk about?
And approximately when were these days?
Yes. I was saying it then too, you just weren’t aware of it.
Yes, contradictory statements can be confusing.
O.K., so for example God created the genus Panthera, and lions, tigers and leopards evolved from it? Is that what you're saying? God didn't create lions and tigers separately? But, for another example, thousands of different genera of beetles?
Evolution doesn’t “know” anything.
Exactly. So how or why does change stop at the genus level. If a species gives rise to a new species, and that one gives rise to a new species, and so on, why don't we get new genera, and how do you know?
We have empirical proof of species change.
Ding! And remember, that's what it's all about.
I have to say that I haven’t thought that out but I would hazard an answer that the complexity of the change is the limit.
So basically you have no idea about your central assertion?
I’m not surprised that science and Biblists have different modes. Would you seriously expect them to have the same ones?
That's not my point. My point is that you define a "kind" as a genus, while prominent creationists explicity deny that a "kind" is equivalent to a genus. I was wondering whether you were aware of that. I believe you are alone in asserting that God created the separate genera, and wondered how you came to that conclusion.
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?
I'm sorry, I'll be more accurate here. The charlatans and liars at AIG have come up with some incomprehensible babble which they cite as the definition for "kind." Would you like to hear it?
I will be happy to defend this characterization, if you like. AIG, like all creationist websites, is full of lies, distortion and misinformation. Calling them "psuedo-scientists" is too kind. They are not any kind of scientists, for the most part they are dentists, engineers and teachers, some of them with fake credentials. For example Ken Ham, the founder, has a "diploma in education" from the University of Queensland.
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 we’re speaking of though.
You are mistaken. Would you like to review the evidence that supports the entire ToE theory that all life descended from a single one-celled ancestor?
In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked what empirical evidence supports your position that God "spoke" the various genera into existence, and species have evolved from them. Are you saying there isn't any?
btw, re: your earlier math questions, I found this interesting math at the famous Theobold page:
In 1983, Phillip Gingerich published a famous study analyzing 512 different observed rates of evolution (
Gingerich 1983). The study centered on rates observed from three classes of data: (1) lab experiments, (2) historical colonization events, and (3) the fossil record. A useful measure of evolutionary rate is the darwin, which is defined as a change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years (where e is the base of natural log). The average rate observed in the fossil record was 0.6 darwins; the fastest rate was 32 darwins. The latter is the most important number for comparison; rates of evolution observed in modern populations should be equal to or greater than this rate.
The average rate of evolution observed in historical colonization events in the wild was 370 darwins—over 10 times the required minimum rate. In fact, the fastest rate found in colonization events was 80,000 darwins, or 2500 times the required rate. Observed rates of evolution in lab experiments are even more impressive, averaging 60,000 darwins and as high as 200,000 darwins (or over 6000 times the required rate).
A more recent paper evaluating the evolutionary rate in guppies in the wild found rates ranging from 4000 to 45,000 darwins (
Reznick 1997). Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years (
Gingerich 1983).
Does what include Homo? Are you asking if the genus Homo has or can evolve? I actually suppose that’s Biblical in a sense. But we’re talking evolution (?) I suppose, in which case, the species included in Homo obviously evolve, according to my plan.
So God created the genus Homo, and the various species of hominids, including Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from that? That God did not create Man as a separate kind?
to be continued...
