The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Danmac]

Like I've said many many times.... if they can provide any scientific evidence that supports their point. (not pop-sci books, magazine or web opinion pieces... actual scientific experimental evidence) Then I will consider ID to be worth considering.

However ID is built on misrepresentations, outright lies and lazy thinking. For now I can't support ID let alone "believe" in it.

wa:do

So you believe in a creator, which means someone or something created with purpose, but you don't believe he, she, it has intelligence? So what was this creator doing when he, she, or it created, rolling the dice? How in the world can you believe in a creator and random processes at the same time?

 

[Danmac]

Trying heroically to focus the thread on the subject of evidence, despite Danmac's strenuous efforts to talk about anything but:

So, to recap, Danmac accepts everything about ToE, except that he believes it is restricted to sets he calls "kinds," which he cannot define or identify. That is, and try to remember this, Danmac, you accept that there are mutations that create changes in successive populations of any breeding group ("Species") of organism, and that natural selection results in these species changing over time, until new species arise. (In fact, we will see as we go on that you assert this happens rapidly and constantly.) But you assert, if I understand correctly, that God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence around 6000 years ago, and these "kinds" have been proliferating into various different species ever since. Is that correct?

While ToE says that this process explains the introduction of every species, that each and every species now or ever in existence arose from this process, so that every organism on earth can trace its ancestry back via this process, back up the twig, branch, and limb of the great tree of life, to a common ancestor.

To reiterate with the same metaphor, ToE says we have one tree, and Danmac says we have an orchard with an unspecified number of unrelated trees, each one created separately.

Does that capture where we agree and disagree?

Auto you have hit the nail on the head. Yes an orchard, not a tree. I don't know about poofed though. btw. Could you and your cohorts stop with the rock throwing. My ego has taken a severe bruising.:help: I see some people never stop the school yard taunting.

 

[Autodidact]

So you believe in a creator, which means someone or something created with purpose, but you don't believe he, she, it has intelligence? So what was this creator doing when he, she, or it created, rolling the dice?

I don't think you know what Intelligent Design "theory" is, Danmac. It is not about whether the creator is intelligent or not.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto you have hit the nail on the head. Yes an orchard, not a tree. I don't know about poofed though. btw. Could you and your cohorts stop with the rock throwing. My ego has taken a severe bruising.:help: I see some people never stop the school yard taunting.

O.K., by what mechanism do you claim God created the first "kinds," whatever they may be? If not poofing, then what?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, Danmac, at this point it becomes difficult to investigate your hypothesis, without specifying it a little more. Science depends on math a lot. Here, let's try an example. Are all beetles a single kind, or is each beetle species its own kind, or something in between? In other words, about how many beetles did Noah load on to the ark, 2, or 900,000?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so if we have an orchard, rather than a tree, what would we expect to see? Conversely, if it's a tree, what would we expect to see?

For example, under your hypothesis, what should be the most logical, objective way to classify living organisms? I would think each kind would be completely discrete, separate, unrelated categories, with nothing in particular in common. Like separate file drawers, not files in files.

ToE predicts that all organisms should be classified in a nested heirarchy--each species a file in a file in a file, going back to the common ancestor. Do you see why, or would you like me to explain it?

Guess what we see?

 

[painted wolf]

So you believe in a creator, which means someone or something created with purpose, but you don't believe he, she, it has intelligence? So what was this creator doing when he, she, or it created, rolling the dice?

Sigh.....

Natural selection is not random... like physics, the quanta my be random, but the
results form and follow certain rules, ie. mutual attraction... leading to measurable phenomena, ie. Gravitation.

Mutations are the quanta... natural selection is the rule and evolution is the phenomena.

I see wisdom in the system... but that does not mean I then agree with the tenants of ID which is a pseudo-scientific glaze slathered on creationism to try to make it seem like something it isn't. Again, when they do some science I will consider them... until then I can not trust that philosophy as it is built on lies and deceit.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Well, Danmac, at this point it becomes difficult to investigate your hypothesis, without specifying it a little more. Science depends on math a lot. Here, let's try an example. Are all beetles a single kind, or is each beetle species its own kind, or something in between? In other words, about how many beetles did Noah load on to the ark, 2, or 900,000?

2 each of the parent kind.

 

[Danmac]

I see wisdom in the system... but that does not mean I then agree with the tenants of ID which is a pseudo-scientific glaze slathered on creationism to try to make it seem like something it isn't. Again, when they do some science I will consider them... until then I can not trust that philosophy as it is built on lies and deceit.

wa:do

Whose wisdom do you see? Wisdom is the application of knowledge.

 

[Danmac]

O.K., so if we have an orchard, rather than a tree, what would we expect to see? Conversely, if it's a tree, what would we expect to see?

Orchard vs. Tree

The evolutionary “tree” (above right) postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from nonliving chemicals). The creationist “orchard” (above left) shows that diversity has occurred within the original Genesis kinds over time.1
Baraminology is the study of the biblical created kinds. The term baraminology is derived from the Hebrew words bara, which means “to create,” and min, which means “kind.” This field of study shows, for example, that the many dog species that we find throughout the world today—including the coyote, the wolf, the fox, the border collie, and the jackal—may all descend from one original created kind, created by God on Day 6 of Creation Week.

Footnotes

1. Illustration used with permission from Dr. Kurt Wise and Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh from the 1990 ICC Proceedings, Bob Walsh, editor, vol. 2, p. 358. Back

 

[Danmac]

O.K., by what mechanism do you claim God created the first "kinds," whatever they may be? If not poofing, then what?

theistic evolution of each parent kind. With intelligent design at the controls of course.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Naturally.

 

[painted wolf]

Whose wisdom do you see? Wisdom is the application of knowledge.

Intelligent Design is a specific hypothesis... it shows no signs of ever growing beyond guesswork and feel good pablum.

Take your orchard. How do you propose that this hypothesis be tested?
For example: It should be simple enough to look at the genetics of the "dog kind" and trace them all back to a single common ancestor that has no relation to any other common ancestor of any other "kind".

The fact that Intelligent Design "scientists" refuse to do so is very telling. Don't you think?

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

I will attempt to get back on track


2:7 Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot, Matthews, www.answersingenesis.org/go/sciam-sore

The old paradigm of bird evolution is admittedly flawed, according to writers of an article in Scientific American. The authors admit that evolution does not provide a valid mechanism for creating the amazingly strong, yet lightweight, structures found in birds but not in their close dinosaur cousins. Archaeopteryx is discounted as shedding no light on the subject since its feathers look just like modern feathers. There is no fossil evidence of the transition from simple reptilian scales to complex feathers with their many interlocking parts. Evolution cannot explain why feathers would have developed from scales for flight and then developed a new developmental pathway to form them. To explain this, the authors suggest that feathers evolved before theropod dinosaurs or birds. There is no fossil evidence to support this claim, and the possible reasons for the development of feathers includes camouflage, insulation, protection, and other hypotheses that are not supported by the fossil evidence.
Challenging evolution is not an option, so the evidence just gets reevaluated. The new mode of interpretation is called evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo” for short. According to evo-devo, “the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy.” In other words, by looking at the stages of feather development in a bird today, we can look for “ancient” dinosaur feathers at the early stages of development. The new concept is based on many assumptions that limit its scientific validity, but it has become popular nonetheless. Challenges to the idea of dino-to-bird evolution continue to plague the proposal, and leading evolutionary biologists cannot even agree on the big picture, let alone the details.
​

 

[Danmac]

2:8 The demise of mitochondrial Eve, Harrub and Thompson, www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Evolutionary scientists believe that all humans on the earth originated from a small group in Africa over 200,000 years ago. This group included “mitochondrial Eve.” Researchers of human origins believe that the ancestry of humans can be traced by analyzing mutations of the DNA contained in the mitochondria of every cell. This mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is assumed to be transferred only from mother to offspring in the egg cell. The mitochondria in the sperm do not enter the egg, so they don’t become a part of the offspring’s cells.
Assuming that the mtDNA sequence of two females should be more similar the farther back in time you go, researchers calculated how long ago the different people groups separated from each other. The African group had more differences from the other groups, so it is assumed that they have had more time to accumulate the mutations. The date was also calibrated by using the assumed divergence of chimps and humans to calculate the rate of mutation.
The mitochondrial Eve idea is only valid if humans receive mtDNA only from the mother and if the rate of mutation is constant and known. Since none of these assumptions are known, the dating method may be invalid. Since recent research indicates that there is mixing of paternal and maternal mtDNA, no conclusion about the rate or origin is reliable—mitochondrial Eve appears to be dead.
The idea that mutation rates are constant and can be used as a “molecular clock” has also been called into question. The dates arrived at by molecular analysis are much older than the dates given when paleontologists interpret the fossil evidence. Many studies have shown that there are different rates of mutation in different populations and in different sections of the mtDNA. This makes the dating very speculative.
​

 

[tumbleweed41]

I will attempt to get back on track


2:7 Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot, Matthews, www.answersingenesis.org/go/sciam-sore

For those who would like the entire article, rather than the quote-mined portions. (A dishonest trait among the Creationist sites), the entire text is available in PDF form HERE.

 

[painted wolf]

LOL... opinion pieces... poorly researched btw... are hardly scientific evidence.
Not to mention they are filled with half-truths, misrepresentation and bald faced lies.

Just a few of many papers on the evolution of feathers:
http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/30.pdf
Plumage Color Patterns of an Extinct Dinosaur -- Li et al. 327 (5971): 1369 -- Science
Access : Exceptional dinosaur fossils show ontogenetic development of early feathers : Nature
Access : A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers : Nature

As for the mtDNA... sure, if you don't mind the human being sterile... hardly conducive to leaving descendants though. Again, they peddle lies as truth.
NEJM -- Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA

Surely those defending god have no need for lies?

wa:do

 

[darkendless]

Surely those defending god have no need for lies?

wa:do

That depends on whether or not it suites them to lie or not?

When it comes to these narrow-minded fundamentalists, they will talk out of their backside for as long as it takes for the logical person to give up in frustration.

 

[tumbleweed41]

2:8 The demise of mitochondrial Eve, Harrub and Thompson, www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

The only debate in mtDNA dating is in whether it was homo erectus or homo sapiens that first emigrated from Africa and at exactly what time. The range is 90,000 to 180,000 years ago.
But I guess if the writers at true origin were actually honest in their articles, they would have nothing to write about.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Hahahaha LOL did you just quote from Answers in Genesis, Danmac? Do you seriously count that as a reliable scientific source? And for the record, feathers did not suddenly appear; several dinosaurs, including Velociraptor and Deinosuchus had primitive feathers, despite the scaly appearance given in Jurassic Park. But I guess that AiG don't go much further than pop-science films when researching their articles.