Major transitions in evolution

[RedOne77]

Trouble with that one is that it makes god a liar or it proves the bible is not inerrant or it shows that the Noah story was not meant to be taken literally.

Genesis 7 (KJV)
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

If the bible is true and literal no animal could have lived on those "floating islands".

My creationist response to such claims would come from the word "earth" in Genesis. In the Bible there are two earths; "earth" and "Earth". Capitalized it means the entire world, uncapitalized it means the local land, so I'd just respond saying that the world was flooded but not everything died, only those in the area near and around Noah. Unfortunately for creationists Genesis uses "earth" throughout the flood story, but I would sort of omit that part from my response.

Noaidi
That's okay. :yes: The zoology professor that taught me evolution at university often used to come in with a dog collar on - not for effect, but becuase he was also an Anglican minister who had to leave quickly after the lecture to conduct a marriage or some such service.

There should be no incompatibility between being a believer in god and accepting evolution.

I fully agree. One of the things that really makes me mad about the creationist movement is their use of such practices (it's either God or evolution), not only on adults, but tiny kids too!

PW
A significant portion of my biology professors... (more than 50% of those who's religious affiliation I know) are Christians.

I find that interesting. I only know one of my science professors religion (Christian), and it only came up when one of the students was a Muslim creationist and very vocal about it. There may have been more, but it just never comes up.

 

[painted wolf]

I find that interesting. I only know one of my science professors religion (Christian), and it only came up when one of the students was a Muslim creationist and very vocal about it. There may have been more, but it just never comes up.

Well... I had a very vocal creationist (though, partially out of "devils advocacy") in my classes... we had several interesting, if off-topic discussions.

wa:do

 

[David M]

My creationist response to such claims would come from the word "earth" in Genesis. In the Bible there are two earths; "earth" and "Earth". Capitalized it means the entire world, uncapitalized it means the local land, so I'd just respond saying that the world was flooded but not everything died, only those in the area near and around Noah. Unfortunately for creationists Genesis uses "earth" throughout the flood story, but I would sort of omit that part from my response.

Thats always been my view, eretz being used in the sense of a region rather than the whole planet.

But whatever the scope of eretz animals surviving by floating on vegetation is a no-no. If they were where the flood was the bible is clear that they died if you are a literalist when it comes to the flood.

 

[painted wolf]

bump

wa:do

 

[evolved yet?]

Same here.

Bump.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm sorry but fossils aren't evidence of macro-evolution. There are no fossils in the whole world that show an ancestor / descendent relationship to any other fossil. They only show a mosaic of features to other fossils. That's all a transitional fossil is, one that shows a mosaic of features to another one. How can people still fall for this hoax?

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm sorry but fossils aren't evidence of macro-evolution. There are no fossils in the whole world that show an ancestor / descendent relationship to any other fossil. They only show a mosaic of features to other fossils. That's all a transitional fossil is, one that shows a mosaic of features to another one. How can people still fall for this hoax?

What else would you expect? The appearance of features being passed on, modified, and used for different purposes is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts and exactly what the fossil record shows. What properties would you expect a transitional fossil to have?

 

[Man of Faith]

What else would you expect? The appearance of features being passed on, modified, and used for different purposes is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts and exactly what the fossil record shows. What properties would you expect a transitional fossil to have?

They don't appear to be passed on, they appear to be similar. The assumption is they are passed on, not the appearance.

 

[Skwim]

My creationist response to such claims would come from the word "earth" in Genesis. In the Bible there are two earths; "earth" and "Earth". Capitalized it means the entire world, uncapitalized it means the local land, so I'd just respond saying that the world was flooded but not everything died, only those in the area near and around Noah. Unfortunately for creationists Genesis uses "earth" throughout the flood story, but I would sort of omit that part from my response.

Seems you have it backward.

THE CREATION

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

NOAH
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.​

 

[Gunfingers]

They don't appear to be passed on, they appear to be similar. The assumption is they are passed on, not the appearance.

So when we see fossils of sequential generations showing a trend of slight variations from the previous generation and greater variation from older generations, with the difference becoming greater as the generations become more separate, what conclusion should we reach?

 

[Man of Faith]

So when we see fossils of sequential generations showing a trend of slight variations from the previous generation and greater variation from older generations, with the difference becoming greater as the generations become more separate, what conclusion should we reach?

You don't see that. What you see are fossils with a mosaic of features to other fossils.

 

[Gunfingers]

You don't see that. What you see are fossils with a mosaic of features to other fossils.

I dunno, man, this looks an awful lot like what i described.

 

[Man of Faith]

I dunno, man, this looks an awful lot like what i described.

It looks like human and ape fossils to me stuck side by side.

 

[DeitySlayer]

It looks like human and ape fossils to me stuck side by side.

Would you be kind enough (pardon the pun) to indicate which fossils are 'ape-kind' and which are 'human-kind'?

 

[LuisDantas]

It looks like human and ape fossils to me stuck side by side.

They are (at least, if you decide to call all hominids either "apes" or "humans").

And the frontier is quite arbitrary, because the fossils show a gradual transition. That is the point. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[fantome profane]

My creationist response to such claims would come from the word "earth" in Genesis. In the Bible there are two earths; "earth" and "Earth". Capitalized it means the entire world, uncapitalized it means the local land,

The problem with this is that there are no capital letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

 

[RedOne77]

The problem with this is that there are no capital letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

I think the earth and Earth are two separate words in Hebrew and that is just an accurate way of translating them. I could be wrong though, never studied Hebrew.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here is another group I adore... Synapsids.
wa:do

Paint man, get a life, go out once in a while. Watch a popular movie even.:yes:

 

[Sunstone]

Here is another group I adore... Synapsids.

Have I mentioned I love you?

 

[newhope101]

It looks like human and ape fossils to me stuck side by side.

Yes, many researchers are unable to reach a consensus on the classification of fossils, particularly those in the human line. This find below demonstrates that modern human features do not necessarily indicate human ancestry. The representation in the article is obviously not human yet shares some features. There is much research available illustrating that morphology, particularly facial morphology, is linked to diet and environment. If the creature spoken to below was dated more recently, it also would have gone into the homo line because of it's 'modern' features. However, modern features do not illustrate ancestry at all and they date back 12 million years.


So I agree with you in that the 'homo' line of fossils could well be illustrating nothing more than the diversification and adaptation of non-human primates.

New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) — Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one. The finding sheds important new light on the evolutionary development of hominids, including orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans.

Anoiapithecus displays a very modern facial morphology, with a muzzle prognathism (i.e., protrusion of the jaw) so reduced that, within the family Hominidae, scientists can only find comparable values within the genus Homo, whereas the remaining great apes are notoriously more prognathic (i.e., having jaws that project forward markedly). The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo, the researchers note. However, the similarity might be a case of evolutionary convergence, where two species evolving separately share common features