Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Pure assertion, no facts.

The facts were presented in the links. You are free to disagree with them but you cannot deny them.

you know nothing about my mindset.

If you are Mormon, I believe I do. There is no Creator because we were all in heaven waiting to volunteer to become humans (for some strange reason) and Adam and Eve were really heroes because if they had not disobeyed God's command, there would have been no sex, so no humans could have been born. That is how it was explained to me by one of your own. Would you like to add some clarification to that at all?

The video advises the same caution as for any other invasive medical procedure; perfectly appropriate. It does not support your assertions.

You didn't read the other links, did you? There was plenty of support.
For a procedure that was given the green light in almost every instance that a doctor might want to prescribe it, we see now that no other medical intervention carries greater risk of "morbidity and mortality" than blood transfusions....something freely admitted by the doctors in the video.

I studied with a medical student who was doing his internship some years ago. He told me that it was standard practice back then to transfuse patients so that with the color back in their faces, relatives would believe that the patients were getting well under the doctor's care. That is how sure they were that there was no harm. That is what they were led to believe.....they know better now. People lived in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them. Did you not see the cytoscope evidence?

Ah, a belated attempt to relate it to topic. If you can provide evidence that blood must have been created, it would work. Otherwise, otherwise.

I get it...you don't believe in creation because of what your own religion teaches. Mormons are Christians but Jesus was a liar? (Matthew 19:4-6) I understand completely.

 

[ArtieE]

A "kind" can be explained by using the creatures that Darwin himself observed on the Galapagos Islands...

I found an interesting article about kinds. What are the Biblical Kinds?

 

[Deeje]

This is most likely wrong though. All evidence points to life beginning in the ocean, then gradually evolving to be able to walk on land. Then, much later, certain species evolved to be able to fly. So, life did not begin in the water and the sky.

You asked a question and I provided the answer. You assume that there was a gradual progression of evolution, but I can tell you that an assumption about what "might have" or "could have" happened is not the same as saying that something "must have" happened. The truth is, no one was there to document a thing. The fossils do not speak unless science gives them a voice. They interpret evidence to fit their theory. I don't believe any of it.

 

[Deeje]

I found an interesting article about kinds. What are the Biblical Kinds?

Nothing to do with JW's. We are not affiliated with any church in Christendom. We are not "creationists" nor do we believe in "creation science"....there is just provable science and theoretical science. We support provable science and what the Bible says is the order of creation. Try reading Genesis 1.

If you do not wish to believe in creation, no one is forcing you to.

 

[ArtieE]

Nothing to do with JW's. We are not affiliated with any church in Christendom. We are not "creationists" nor do we believe in "creation science"....there is just provable science and theoretical science. We support provable science and what the Bible says is the order of creation. Try reading Genesis 1.

OK... I just read Genesis 1.
http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm
It took me two minutes. Now what?

 

[Thumper]

Genesis 1:20-25:
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 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. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

The First or Dark World, Niʼ Hodiłhił, was small and centered on an island floating in the middle of four seas. The inhabitants of the first world were the four Diyin Dineʼé, the two Coyotes, the four rulers of the four seas, mist beings and various insect and bat people, the latter being the Air-Spirit People. The supernatural beings First Woman and First Man came into existence here and met for the first time after seeing each other's fire. The various beings started fighting with one another and departed by flying out an opening in the east.

They journeyed to the Second or Blue World, Niʼ Hodootłʼizh, which was inhabited by various blue-gray furred mammals and various birds, including blue swallows. The beings from the First World offended Swallow Chief, Táshchózhii, and they were asked to leave. First Man created a wand of jet and other materials to allow the people to walk upon it up into the next world through an opening in the south.

In the Third or Yellow World, Niʼ Hałtsooí, there were two rivers that formed a cross and the Sacred Mountains but there was still no sun. More animal people lived here too. This time it was not discord among the people that drove them away but a great flood caused by Tééhoołtsódii when Coyote stole her two children.

When the people arrived in the Fourth or White World, Niʼ Hodisxǫs, it was covered in water and there were monsters (naayééʼ) living here. The Sacred Mountains were re-formed from soil taken from the original mountains in the Second World. First Man, First Woman, and the Holy People created the sun, moon, seasons, and stars. It was here that true death came into existence via Coyote tossing a stone into a lake and declaring that if it sank then the dead would go back to the previous world.

(Navajo creation myth)

 

[stevevw]

So which organisms did he create when and how many?

I would not know as I was not there and did not see God doing this. Whether it is a single life form or a number I do not know. All I know is God created life.

 

[Sapiens]

I would not know as I was not there and did not see God doing this. Whether it is a single life form or a number I do not know. All I know is God created life.

Actually you do not know that, you believe that, and that belief is entirely devoid of objective evidence.

 

[stevevw]

I always find the use of the term 'accident' to be interesting. What is an 'accident'? Typically, it is something done by an intelligent agent that is not paying attention, thereby producing unintended consequences.

This isn't what happens in evolution!

There is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process. So, the results are NOT an accident. They *are*, however, results of mutation and natural selection, possibly with genetic drift.

We wouldn't say that the results of natural laws are accidental. They don't have a conscious agent involved, so the category simply doesn't apply.

And, yes, mutation with natural selection *can* produce incredible levels of complexity. Since that seems to be the main point where disbelief enters, it might be helpful for those who don't think the two powerful enough to produce what is seen to perform some simple experiments allowing mutation and selection and see how rapidly solutions to problems are obtained that are close to optimal. The whole process is now called 'genetic programming'. And it works.

Not according to these papers. Natural selection is given more ability than it has. There are other forces that are more responsible for complex life. In fact, natural selection can be a spanner in the complex works of life. Along with mutations, they introduce destabilising changes to what is already working good and a delicate and complex structure that needs to maintain its integrity. If selection does not know what is needed to contribute positive integrated change then there is going to be a lot of trial and error to find that piece of the complex jigsaw puzzle to will add benefit. That seems like an unnecessary and backwards way of creating something better for life. It would make more sense that an organism was able to tap into an array of genetic info and there was a program that was able to select or construct what was needed that had preset combinations that work well with the existing genetic structures.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms (Natural selection my emphasis). This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organisation.

where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? (Natural selection my emphasis). No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

Thus, although the idea that regulatory modules with functional significance in today's organisms can only have arisen via natural selection is seductive, it remains to be determined how the stepwise alterations necessary for the construction of genetic pathways come about.

Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximise the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.

Four of the major buzzwords in biology today are complexity, modularity, evolvability, and robustness, and it is often claimed that ill-defined mechanisms not previously appreciated by evolutionary biologists must be invoked to explain the existence of emergent properties that putatively enhance the long-term success of extant taxa. This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not according to these papers. Natural selection is given more ability than it has. There are other forces that are more responsible for complex life. In fact, natural selection can be a spanner in the complex works of life. Along with mutations, they introduce destabilising changes to what is already working good and a delicate and complex structure that needs to maintain its integrity. If selection does not know what is needed to contribute positive integrated change then there is going to be a lot of trial and error to find that piece of the complex jigsaw puzzle to will add benefit. That seems like an unnecessary and backwards way of creating something better for life. It would make more sense that an organism was able to tap into an array of genetic info and there was a program that was able to select or construct what was needed that had preset combinations that work well with the existing genetic structures.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms (Natural selection my emphasis). This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organisation.

where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? (Natural selection my emphasis). No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

Thus, although the idea that regulatory modules with functional significance in today's organisms can only have arisen via natural selection is seductive, it remains to be determined how the stepwise alterations necessary for the construction of genetic pathways come about.

Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximise the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.

Four of the major buzzwords in biology today are complexity, modularity, evolvability, and robustness, and it is often claimed that ill-defined mechanisms not previously appreciated by evolutionary biologists must be invoked to explain the existence of emergent properties that putatively enhance the long-term success of extant taxa. This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

This argument makes basically no sense. Do you actually understand how and why natural selection works? It's really very simple:

If a particular organism stands a better chance at surviving and producing offspring, then it stands a better chance at surviving and producing fertile offspring.

What about that is a "spanner in the works" of living systems? It's an inevitable result of living systems that naturally produce diversity in environments that produce attrition. The rest of your argument is baseless and nonsensical at best.

 

[Sapiens]

Not according to these papers. Natural selection is given more ability than it has. There are other forces that are more responsible for complex life. In fact, natural selection can be a spanner in the complex works of life. Along with mutations, they introduce destabilising changes to what is already working good and a delicate and complex structure that needs to maintain its integrity.

The fly in the ointment of Lynch's (and your) view is that y'all are backing a case that would hold up only in a completely stable niche. No variation whatever, no seasons, no nights, no temperature fluctuation, an environment that is totally stable and homogeneous and that does not change one iota across all resource states, even in response to the organisms in it. Rather an impossibility, yes?

But that's not the way things are, every resource state is in constant flux, some minor and some major and the fluxes are not independent of each other or of genomic and phenotypic and epigenetic changes. The process occurs in two spaces: a "genotypic space" and a "phenotypic space". A complete theory of evolution approaches impossibility at the limit since it requires, for each and every resource state that the defines the niche (composed as it is of an infinite number of resource states), a complete theory of population genetics. Each of these theories, in turn requires a set of laws that flawlessly takes you from a genotype to a unique phenotypic space which is where natural selection takes place. But feedback is also important, so yet another, similarly infinite set of laws that lead from the resulting population phenotypic space back to its genotype space is needed. This is because that is where Mendelian genetics predicts the next generation of genotypes, and round and round we go.

Lynch goes astray by oversimplifying the issue to the point of assuming virtual stasis in order to attempt to isolate the block effect of each niche resource state. This is understandable since the infinite number of resource states and the presence of both negative and positive feed back loops dictate that the error of the infinite quantity of third (and above) order interactive terms must simply be summed into a single error term. Since you have an infinite number of resource states, even if each were infinitely small, their interactive terms will sum to infinity and you will be left with an error term that is, by definition, of greater magnitude than the signal that is of interest.

The bottom line: Lynch raises some interesting points but his need to simplify forces the acceptance of totally unrealistic initial assumptions that cascade throughout his analysis,

If selection does not know what is needed to contribute positive integrated change then there is going to be a lot of trial and error to find that piece of the complex jigsaw puzzle to will add benefit. That seems like an unnecessary and backwards way of creating something better for life. It would make more sense that an organism was able to tap into an array of genetic info and there was a program that was able to select or construct what was needed that had preset combinations that work well with the existing genetic structures.

Selection does not "know" anything. It just is. You need to imagine the n-dimensional hyper-volume's surface vibrating at a different frequency in each dimension and then constantly changing voulme. It's like the surface of the ocean, only infinitely more complex. Peaks and valleys sometimes cancel each other out and other times are additives sometimes to the detriment of some phenotype and sometimes to it's advantage and sometimes both at the same time. Sometimes an organism gets squeezed out niche space, sometimes there's a void the organism can fill. An organism's ability to increase it's fitness has to do with how much niche volume it can stake out and defend against the effects of both deterministic and stochastic change as well as against other species and conspecifics. Allopatry removes conspecifics from the model and provides a firmer "base." Sweepstakes bridges, such as removal to an island removes other species from the model and further strengthens the base. Overlayed on all this is founder effect and genetic drift.

 

[Olinda]

The facts were presented in the links. You are free to disagree with them but you cannot deny them.

Certainly I can. Discounting the links to the JW supported site and the obvious JW press releases, all your links show is that prescribing allogeneic blood transfusions is being evaluated more carefully than in earlier years. This has all been covered before. It doesn't support the JW belief-based refusal of all blood transfusions.

If you are Mormon, I believe I do....... That is how it was explained to me by one of your own. Would you like to add some clarification to that at all?

I'm impressed by your willingness to dodge the topic, but unfortunately your belief is wrong. I'm not Mormon and cannot imagine why you would think I am.

You didn't read the other links, did you? There was plenty of support.

I read them and responded in the appropriate thread.

we see now that no other medical intervention carries greater risk of "morbidity and mortality" than blood transfusions....something freely admitted by the doctors in the video.

Your memory lapses are becoming a concern.
Here is the correct transcription again:
"I think you meant to refer to where Prof. James Ibister says at 4.36 ". . .allogeneic blood transfusion has the potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes than probably any other clinical intervention". (my underlining).

Yet what you said was "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors."

You do see that this is the second time you have misquoted the video, don't you? Each time making the risks sound worse. I'm still confident that it is unintentional; but it's really important to be accurate where health decisions can be affected."

People lived in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them. Did you not see the cytoscope evidence?

I responded in my previous post on this thread. Sorry, repetition is not refutation. Please read more carefully.

The rest of your post is just another off-topic anti-Mormon ramble. . . irrelevant, as you now see.

 

[Sapiens]

The facts were presented in the links. You are free to disagree with them but you cannot deny them.



If you are Mormon, I believe I do. There is no Creator because we were all in heaven waiting to volunteer to become humans (for some strange reason) and Adam and Eve were really heroes because if they had not disobeyed God's command, there would have been no sex, so no humans could have been born. That is how it was explained to me by one of your own. Would you like to add some clarification to that at all?



You didn't read the other links, did you? There was plenty of support.
For a procedure that was given the green light in almost every instance that a doctor might want to prescribe it, we see now that no other medical intervention carries greater risk of "morbidity and mortality" than blood transfusions....something freely admitted by the doctors in the video.

I studied with a medical student who was doing his internship some years ago. He told me that it was standard practice back then to transfuse patients so that with the color back in their faces, relatives would believe that the patients were getting well under the doctor's care. That is how sure they were that there was no harm. That is what they were led to believe.....they know better now. People lived in spite of blood transfusions, not because of them. Did you not see the cytoscope evidence?


I get it...you don't believe in creation because of what your own religion teaches. Mormons are Christians but Jesus was a liar? (Matthew 19:4-6) I understand completely.

As usual you are quote mining and cherry picking.

Allogeneic blood transfusions: benefit, risks and clinical indications in countries with a low or high human development index
Carlos Marcucci

Abstract
The risks associated with allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions differ significantly between countries with low and high human development indexes (HDIs). In countries with a low HDI, the risk of infection (HIV, HBV, HCV and malaria) is elevated. In contrast, in countries with a high HDI, immunological reactions (haemolytic transfusion reactions, alloimmunization and immunosuppression) are predominant. Therefore the overall risk associated with RBC transfusions in low HDI countries is much more significant than that in high HDI countries. In view of these risks, the limited efficacy of RBC transfusion and its high costs, this procedure should be used sparingly and rationally. Therefore RBC transfusion protocols adapted to the local situation are essential. Such protocols should distinguish between physiological and haemoglobin-based transfusion triggers. In countries with a high HDI, relative tachycardia and hypotension, despite normovolaemia, ST-segment changes suggestive of myocardial ischaemia and an Hb level <6 g/dl can serve as general guidelines for transfusion. Higher haemoglobin transfusion triggers should be used for patients aged >80 years and those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. In countries with a low HDI, clinical signs of circulatory failure or myocardial ischaemia and an Hb level <5 g/dl can serve as transfusion guidelines.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand perfectly well what a species is. I also understand that "speciation" means different species of a specific "kind" of creature. Adaptation produces variety within a species. It does not turn one "kind" into another "kind" of creature altogether. There is no proof for that.

You didn't demonstrate that you know what a species is. And your definition of "kind" is probably somewhere between what biologists call a genus (Chimps, orangutans) and a family (great apes). These are higher taxa than species. And having to offer such a large spread as from genus to family means that you still haven't clearly defined what "kind" means.

I think it's obvious what it means - nothing. It has no distinct meaning. It's a religious concept and therefore not only need not be precise, but benefits from being indistinct, just like "macroevolution." Look how useful it has been for you given that nobody can contradict you when they don't know exactly what you are claiming.

The suggestion that we are descended from bananas (as one poster claimed) is as ludicrous as asserting that amoebas eventually became dinosaurs. I see evolutionists accusing us of believing in fantasy....but you seriously don't see a bigger one in your own beliefs?

We didn't descend from bananas or amoebae. Nor a rib. We have no use for ludicrous suggestions. You've already been corrected regarding the difference between an ancestral cell and an amoeba. Vertebrates didn't descend from amoeba.

You don't really care if you ever get that right, do you? You don't care if it's wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have explained several times. No dodges or evasion.....sorry you missed them....

A "kind" can be explained by using the creatures that Darwin himself observed on the Galapagos Islands....the very ones that gave him the idea of evolution in the first place.
What did Darwin see? He saw finches with different shaped beaks, but he did not observe these birds morphing into other species of birds or other creatures at all. Variety within a species is what he saw. Same with the iguanas....they were still clearly iguanas, but adapted to a marine environment.

Still vague.

Finches comprise family Fringillidae.

The Carduelinae subfamily of finches contains 183 species divided into 49 genera Finch - Wikipedia

You can review that list here: Carduelinae - Wikipedia

Another branch of the family of finches is the smaller subfamily Fringillinae, which contains four species of finches: Fringilla coelebs, Fringilla polatzeki, Fringilla teydea, Fringilla montifringilla.

The last subfamily, the Euphoniinae, contains over thirty species of finches arranged into two extant genuses.

I'm going to define "kind" for you. It is family in the biological taxonomy schema. Families are made of groups f subfamilies, which are collections of tribes, which in turn are collections of subtribes, which are made of related genuses, which are collections of related species.

You are correct that biological families do not evolve into other families. Populations within a species evolve first within the species, and ultimately, to the point of speciation.

The last common ancestor of the family of finches was a population that bifurcated from it's cousins, that were the ancestors of other avian families.

As you can see, there is no need or place for the concept of "kinds" there. Biological family works fine, if that is the level at which you wish to partition the tree of life. But you make an observation that biologist could have already told you: Evolution occurs at the level of the population of a species, not at higher taxa.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am beginning to wonder about you 'evolutionary science believers' and how readily you accept the notions that science promotes with no real evidence that a slow process of evolution ever took place.

The evidence is there. You don't need to look at it if you don't want to or can't..

The evidence 'suggests' to us deliberate acts of creation that appear suddenly in the fossil record.

Of course it does. Everything you look at confirms your faith based belief that it is the creation of God - ducks, butterflies, etc.. That's expected.

There are no "intermediate" creatures linking the ones found (or should I say bits of them) even though millions of years are supposed to have elapsed.

Yes there are. That is part of the evidence you won't look at.

You would think with all those species that have come and gone that we would see a clear evolutionary process....but it just isn't there.

No, one wouldn't. One would expect the problem of sorting that out to be a huge undertaking that has to wait for discoveries to make progress. Nobody knows where the next discovery of significance will come from, or in how long. Many intermediate forms are likely lost forever. I'm sure that scientists would love to have a complete lineage of a human ancestral line dating over the last 8 million years or so, with at least one of two parents from every generation forming the chain between our last common chimp-human ancestor to somebody living today.

Such information would also tell us by default which hominans (the latest term for the line breaking off from the line terminating in the last common man-chimp ancestor leading to man - hominin has apparently changed meaning) were not ancestral, but were cousings branching from our line that went extinct.

But that's not realistic, is it? Every missing generation is a gap in the chain. We expect such gaps to exist forever.

The gaps are huge. All I see is the suggestion that it "may have" or "could have" happened. Well, creation "may have" or "could have" just as easily taken place. I believe that we have more actual evidence for our beliefs than you do. How many times would you like me to say it?

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. What you see in the evidence isn't important to anybody but you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I found an interesting article about kinds. What are the Biblical Kinds?

Thanks for that. The source remains vague about what a "kind is." From the link.

"It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family"”

and

“One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis."

It also adds,

"In contrast to the earlier views, today most creation scientists see the reverse comparison to Morris; equating the "family" level as most often identical to the kinds of the Bible, sometimes the "genus," and only possibly once in a while with the "species," which is more or less what I just guessed based on Dejee's use of finches as a kind.

Can we assume that this is the division between micro- and macro-evolution, another undefined or ill-defined distinction?

I think we can agree with the "baramiologists" that evolution occurs at a level far below "kind."

They still haven't given a reason for all of the families not descending from a last common ancestral cell. Nor an example of a kind that was created. The link you provided claims that existing animals evolved from the created kinds:

"Due to an improved understanding of speciation, it is now widely recognized by creationists that the process has been a regular part of the development of the created kinds."

 

[Deeje]

I'm not Mormon and cannot imagine why you would think I am.

I apologise, I was mixing you up with a poster who had the same or a similar avatar.

 

[leibowde84]

You asked a question and I provided the answer. You assume that there was a gradual progression of evolution, but I can tell you that an assumption about what "might have" or "could have" happened is not the same as saying that something "must have" happened. The truth is, no one was there to document a thing. The fossils do not speak unless science gives them a voice. They interpret evidence to fit their theory. I don't believe any of it.

That's not true. Every piece of evidence discovered thus far supports the theory of evolution. People have tried, unsuccessfully, for many years to produce evidence that contradicts it. Even the Cambrian Explosion, which lasted between 20-30 million years, fits into the theory.

If you only accept things that you can see happen for yourself, why do you break that rule with your belief in God and the Bible?

 

[gnostic]

Nothing to do with JW's. We are not affiliated with any church in Christendom. We are not "creationists" nor do we believe in "creation science"....there is just provable science and theoretical science. We support provable science and what the Bible says is the order of creation. Try reading Genesis 1.

If you do not wish to believe in creation, no one is forcing you to.

That's a load of BS.

If you accept the bible's Creation and Flood stories, as the literal truth, then YOU are by definition, a "creationist".

To accept the Genesis myths as literal truth, but to deny yourself being a creationist, is just another one of your weird need to misrepresent terminology with your own versions of terms.

And you don't accept science. You never have.

You think you know the truth, but no one who disagree with you do, which would really make laugh if you weren't serious about it.

Sorry, but there are theists who also accept evolutionary biology to be fact. Evolution has nothing to do with people being atheists and theists, it is all about biology.

The bible has nothing to do with science. Creationism has nothing to do with science. Jehovah's Witnesses have nothing to do with science. And you, what little you have learned from school and what you think you know about science, you have no authority to say what isn't biology.

All you have shown is your ability to quote mine and misrepresent not only science, but also the scriptures you hold dear, no one here see you as a honest person. You have also shown that when seriously questioned and back into a corner (often from your own making), you would try to distract with pictures and emoticons, or evade by ignoring the questions or changing the subject.

Olinda may want to give you the "benefit of doubt" for taking the video out of context, but for most of us, that boat has long sailed, because you are notorious for taking out of context what science or the bible have to say.

Do you not believe in Genesis 1 & 2, and 6 to 8, as literal, historical or scientific?

• If yes, then you are a creationist.
• If no, then what are you?