Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

I really can't answer any more specifically than what Genesis tells me...any more than you can specifically answer about how long it took whatever the first birds were to evolve into whatever they evolved into....

Here is Genesis again...."And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."

Every winged creature would indicate to me that they were individually designed and manufactured with procreative powers in place so that they could "become many in the earth".

God doesn't make generics.....every one was a genuine original.

Sounds like Genesis is useless then. At least in this case.

 

[metis]

Sounds like Genesis is useless then. At least in this case.

Taking the creation accounts as literal, the above is true. What difference does it make if these accounts are accurate-- iow, we're here. Now, let's deal with that and move forward.

OTOH, what's far more important are the values and morals taught within these and other narratives-- that's where the real value is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Taking the creation accounts as literal, the above is true. What difference does it make if these accounts are accurate-- iow, we're here. Now, let's deal with that and move forward.

OTOH, what's far more important are the values and morals taught within these and other narratives-- that's where the real value is.

While I don't find the Bible to be brimming with moral values, I actually agree with you.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs.

I want you to look at what you just said, compare it to your claim that your religious views don't distort your views on science, and explain to me how the two statements are not completely contradictory.

I don't have to know how to perform brain surgery to know what a surgeon is doing. He will explain the procedure and what he expects the outcome to be in language understood by the patient and their family. Will understanding his medical terminology help me to understand any more than I need to? Why should science be any different?

Your consistent avoidance of directly answering the question coupled with the above gives me the impression that your view is that when it comes to the work of scientists, a person does not have to understand their terminology or even look at their work at all, in order to properly critique it.

All one needs to do is get a rough idea of what the conclusions are, and that's more than enough. Merely doing that makes one fully qualified to evaluate said conclusions.

Is that about right?

And secondly, we do not see science's position to be backed up by anything more than what they imagine "might have" happened 500,000,000 years ago and continued to happen as they produce their fossil evidence and their DNA analysis, based on what they imagine "must have" taken place. Not a single thing is provable, yet they protest so loudly when you press them for the same proof they demand from us.

And you say all that, even though you've not bothered to even look at their work, nor do you understand it. Your process is nothing more than "these conclusions conflict with my beliefs, therefore the conclusions are wrong".

No, but I can quote you lots of people who are educated in evolutionary science who say exactly that.

Go ahead then.

You are talking about adaptation......which science calls "micro-evolution"....that is not to be confused with "macro-evolution"

No. "Microevolution" is evolution below the species level (e.g., the evolution of resistance to antibiotics). "Macroevolution" is evolution above that, i.e., the evolution of new species.

But then, here I am trying to explain something to a person who's already declared they don't need to know anything about it before they can draw uncompromising conclusions about it.

Yes we can. Genesis said that all things would reproduce "according to their kind" so in nature we see what mates are chosen and we can see exactly what a "kind" is. Living things do not seek mates outside their "kind". When circumstances are produced that force animals to mate outside of their "kind" (such as when humans force interbreeding) we normally see hybrids produced within their "kind" and that is the end of that genetic line. Mules for example cannot produce other mules. Sterility is a genetic roadblock to taking an animal, bird, insect, fish or whatever, out of its "kind".

So if a population A gives rise to population B, and population B is physically unable to interbreed with population A (but population B can generate its own fertile offspring), that would be the evolution of a new "kind", correct?

Adaptation is not the issue.

You keep saying this, but you haven't been clear on what you mean. What is the difference between a population evolving and a population adapting?

Creation and the existence of a Creator who is more powerful than any force science can test.

Did you reach that conclusion about me via nothing more than that I am an "evolutionist"?

"For over a 100 years"? Science is an infant....no, an embryo compared to the Creator.
The power of suggestion is a potent force in this world. The whole of the commercial world operates by this knowledge. Political rulers know that it works too. Science has placed itself on a pedestal and when it "suggests" something, people must believe or they will be ostracized.......how is that different from a religion? You just have substitute gods and and their 'holy' writings. All are required to fall at the feet of science.

Sorry, but I worship a real God with real abilities that have been proven to me with my own senses and logic. He has guided me all my life. I'm sorry that you have never been introduced.

Again, the irony of you using a computer and the internet to express that view is noted.

I will just continue to expose what I believe evolutionary science really is....a monumental fraud, based on no real evidence and lots of suggestion.

And you will do so from a standpoint of "it conflicts with my beliefs, therefore it is wrong" and nothing more.

That speaks for itself.

 

[savagewind]

And your problem with that is ... ?

Why would you expect to see that?

I do not expect it, but something should come out of a mother with an OBVIOUS difference sometime. Not a fashionable difference. A functional difference.

 

[gnostic]

OTOH, what's far more important are the values and morals taught within these and other narratives-- that's where the real value is.

I have said the similar things in the past.

They (creationists) want to treat Genesis as historically and scientifically true, but fail to do so.

What they do, with their claims, is put the Genesis under the spotlight, revealing the flaws, inconsistencies and errors in the text. The creationists don't see them because they are too indoctrinated to see pass the window dressing.

 

[gnostic]

A creationist expecting a cow to give birth to horse or the bird to lay eggs filled with fishes, just showed the level of ignorant stupidity within the creationist camp.

Evolution simply don't work that way.

And they don't understand that there are no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution, because they are not the terms that biologists used. Adaptation is evolution, and it is not single family (parents and offspring), but a population evolving, only a number of generations.

They simply don't understand evolutionary biology, and they never will.

That they keep repeating this propaganda BS, over and over again, only demonstrated they are unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Deeje]

They (creationists) want to treat Genesis as historically and scientifically true, but fail to do so.

What they do, with their claims, is put the Genesis under the spotlight, revealing the flaws, inconsistencies and errors in the text. The creationists don't see them because they are too indoctrinated to see pass the window dressing.

No, we don't.....because there are no flaws, inconsistencies or errors in the text. You see them because you are indoctrinated with science's impossible and unprovable theory. The language of Genesis is not wrong....it is just simple.

A creationist expecting a cow to give birth to horse or the bird to lay eggs filled with fishes, just showed the level of ignorant stupidity within the creationist camp.

Evolution simply don't work that way.

No kidding!

When has that been suggested except in jest? You really think we are that stupid?

Show us some examples of adaptations that created new "kinds" of any creature? If adaptation only demonstrates minor changes within a species, then how can you claim it went beyond what has been observed in nature or a lab? That is called conjecture. Its all you have. Science assumes that evolution took place, but they cannot prove that it ever happened.

Prove it to us gnostic.......

And they don't understand that there are no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution, because they are not the terms that biologists used.

No.....they never mention it.......

"I often observe that in discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution.

The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as "changes in allele frequencies in a population over time." An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution.

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a "grand scale," or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake ... the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Macroevolution is very different from microevolution."

Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes



Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

Translating Between Microevolutionary Process and Macroevolutionary Patterns: The Correlation Structure of Interspecific Data on JSTOR

https://www.brightstorm.com/science/biology/evolution/microevolution-macroevolution/

That they keep repeating this propaganda BS, over and over again, only demonstrated they are unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

Its true unfortunately

....you just keep repeating over and over again that evolution is an actual event with supposedly mountains of evidence to support it....so where is all this evidence that shows us that it ever took place outside of scientist's imagination? Give us your best evidence.

 

[savagewind]

A creationist expecting a cow to give birth to horse or the bird to lay eggs filled with fishes, just showed the level of ignorant stupidity within the creationist camp.

Evolution simply don't work that way.

And they don't understand that there are no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution, because they are not the terms that biologists used. Adaptation is evolution, and it is not single family (parents and offspring), but a population evolving, only a number of generations.

They simply don't understand evolutionary biology, and they never will.

That they keep repeating this propaganda BS, over and over again, only demonstrated they are unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

No, no, no, no! It is not about a completely new species being born out of another. It is about something DIFFERENT than the species having bore it. All the examples so far are babies that are the same species, but only a little different. Sometimes a baby is born that is much different, but the baby doesn't live because it is born malformed. Where is the example that the baby is not of the same species (it won't be a completely new species yet) but healthy and able to reproduce?

Little tiny changes like you want us to believe in just won't be FAST enough.
Please look at generations and at how many it would take to make a completely new life form! TOO MANY! At least please admit that something (God to us, nothing yet to you) sped it along.

I think scientists would be wise to find out the element which drives evolution. There has to be something else. Something is missing in the equation.

 

[savagewind]

The origin of Earth's species.

The materials plus force plus the right conditions PLUS X.

Find out what X is and then come back and make fun of us God believers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not expect it, but something should come out of a mother with an OBVIOUS difference sometime. Not a fashionable difference. A functional difference.

You mean like, a birth defect? Chromosomal abnormality?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, no, no, no! It is not about a completely new species being born out of another. It is about something DIFFERENT than the species having bore it. All the examples so far are babies that are the same species, but only a little different. Sometimes a baby is born that is much different, but the baby doesn't live because it is born malformed. Where is the example that the baby is not of the same species (it won't be a completely new species yet) but healthy and able to reproduce?

I've already posted multiple examples of the observed evolution of new species. Should I do so again?

 

[savagewind]

I've already posted multiple examples of the observed evolution of new species. Should I do so again?

First of all, one species someone posted as "new" did not seem to have evolved in this present world, but was newly discovered. Am I assuming correctly that newly evolved is not the same as newly discovered?

Secondly, the new species are still the same type of animal. Correct? There is no evidence of a new type, or did I miss that post?

 

[savagewind]

A "new type" of animal is something that was born that people who are not biologists would think it a new animal and not just a variation of its parents.

 

[Jose Fly]

Am I assuming correctly that newly evolved is not the same as newly discovered?

Yep. They are examples of the observed evolution, not discovery, of new species.

Secondly, the new species are still the same type of animal. Correct? There is no evidence of a new type, or did I miss that post?

Impossible to say until you tell us what you mean by "new type".

 

[savagewind]

Yep. They are examples of the observed evolution, not discovery, of new species.



Impossible to say until you tell us what you mean by "new type".

OMG. A new type is a living thing that does NOT look like its parents. I understand that a biologist might think that a birth of an offspring is a new species because she knows what she is looking at. I am taking about a birth that a LAYMAN would be impressed with and declare, "something new!"......
....an offspring that looks almost nothing like its parents. The examples which have been shown to a dummy like me and I am like, "so?" I would not see a difference in the parent and the offspring unless they were side by side. I need to see a profound change which is NOT a birth defect but the opposite of a birth defect. Something which makes the new life better than its parents, not worse off than they are.

 

[savagewind]

Put a new species next to its mother or its father and I can see that it is different. Separate them and to me, there is nothing different about them.

Give us an example that looks different so that even the least educated here would not say, "Sparrow" or "frog". It's too much to ask for, I know.

 

[Jose Fly]

OMG. A new type is a living thing that does NOT look like its parents.

At all? So even a "dog giving birth to a cat" wouldn't be a "new type" since they both have fur, four legs, two eyes, etc.?

I understand that a biologist might think that a birth of an offspring is a new species because she knows what she is looking at. I am taking about a birth that a LAYMAN would be impressed with and declare, "something new!"......

Got news for ya.....scientists don't do their work to try and impress creationists.

....an offspring that looks almost nothing like its parents.

Again, far too vague to be of any use at all.

The examples which have been shown to a dummy like me and I am like, "so?" I would not see a difference in the parent and the offspring unless they were side by side. I need to see a profound change which is NOT a birth defect but the opposite of a birth defect. Something which makes the new life better than its parents, not worse off than they are.

I get the feeling that this is little more than a defense mechanism. You won't get specific because you're afraid that as soon as you do, someone will post an example that meets the criteria and you'll have no choice but to acknowledge reality. Far safer to hide behind undefined nebulous terms.

 

[savagewind]

At all? So even a "dog giving birth to a cat" wouldn't be a "new type" since they both have fur, four legs, two eyes, etc.?



Got news for ya.....scientists don't do their work to try and impress creationists.



Again, far too vague to be of any use at all.



I get the feeling that this is little more than a defense mechanism. You won't get specific because you're afraid that as soon as you do, someone will post an example that meets the criteria and you'll have no choice but to acknowledge reality. Far safer to hide behind undefined nebulous terms.

I can actually see that every word there is bull.

 

[Jose Fly]

I can actually see that every word there is bull.

You're just dodging. This is exactly what I was talking about....you demand we meet criteria that you refuse to define.