The Ultimate Explanation

[Nada]

Ok.. I won't say what is being explained just yet But I nevertheless want to ask two questions:

Assuming for a moment that you lived in a city where you have not much access to what's going on in other parts of the world. Then, you travelled to a remote part of some remote forest on an expedition trip and, while there, you suddenly saw a population of approximately 100,000 "things" looking like this:


View attachment 10222
Again, lets assume (for the moment) that you seeing "them" for the first time and had never heard bout anything this large having 8 limps. My two questions are these:

1) Would you had classified/called the 100,000 6-legged "things" human beings? - a "yes" or " no" answer would be desired.

2) If you would, on what basis would you classified them as "human beings"?

I do have another two questions but they will stem from the response to these first two

It makes you wonder if some got the idea that these were gods.

 

[Big_TJ]

I am only vaguely aware of this photo, and I am not an anthropologist. (Is that the right field of study?) But going on the photo alone and what is generally found in the world around me to looks like how it is labeled - 2 conjoined twins whereby one never fully developed. Does it match what is the norm for humans after reason dictates to ignore the undeveloped twin? Or does the skeleton have more in harmony with another bipedal kind of flesh? I am not qualified to answer that. But lets say that those that study bones say that, yes, this matches what is common for humans. Then I would probably except that evaluation because I would have no reason not to.

If 10 examples of these was found in fossils, I would probably be searching for ways in which the environment was severely out of balance in that area, before even considering that this was just a variation of the norm. It does not look particularly viable to me.

Understand and agreed: one fossil could likely be explained away with the "twin" thing, but 10 or even 100 fossils would demand a bit more explanation.

Now this was (and the purpose of this thread was) to show how evolution would work without resorting to "the original." The same environmental pressures and the sorts that both you and Pegg correctly highlighted, is some of the mechanisms that could cause a population to look/act/behave vastly different from the generation before.

So, if 10 or 100 or 1000 fossils of a peculiar bone structure was to be found, there would be no need to explain how THEIR predecessors were created/made/born in the first place in order to try to understand why those structures are how they are, and to acknowledge that the structures are different.

So, as the so-called "evolutionist" have been saying, there is no need to understand the "origin" of man or beast before understanding how/why/when they have changed, or to understand that the changes took place. This discredits a claim usually made by JWs that Evolution (or the Theory of Evolution) is concerned with the origin of any species.

 

[Kolibri]

So, as the so-called "evolutionist" have been saying, there is no need to understand the "origin" of man or beast before understanding how/why/when they have changed, or to understand that the changes took place. This discredits a claim usually made by JWs that Evolution (or the Theory of Evolution) is concerned with the origin of any species.

In some ways I am still very much not a scholar. What I recall is Darwins' book on evolution was called "The Origin of Species". That would be where the claim would, I think, had came from.

From my reading besides, and discussions here on RF, the refinement is that micro-evolution does not go against scripture. But it is the theory that over-time these micro-adjustments would ever become a new reproductively contained kind of flesh that the Bible countermands. A housecat may be bred with other housecats to produce new species of housecats, but none of these new species will get so far away from the mean that they could no longer be interbred with other species of housecats.

 

[Big_TJ]

In some ways I am still very much not a scholar. What I recall is Darwins' book on evolution was called "The Origin of Species". That would be where the claim would, I think, had came from.

Actually that's not the name of Darwin's book; that's just a part of the book's name. I won't comment much on the book itself since you have not read it so it would be a bit unfair. However, it would be a bit odd to base a claim simply by how one book is titled (even though the book contains zero information supporting the stated claim).

From my reading besides, and discussions here on RF, the refinement is that micro-evolution does not go against scripture. But it is the theory that over-time these micro-adjustments would ever become a new reproductively contained kind of flesh that the Bible countermands. A housecat may be bred with other housecats to produce new species of housecats,

Well, that would depends very much how you define a "housecat"; wouldn't it? I would never call a lion or a tiger a "housecat"; ; not sure if you would. So, even if there were 2 "housecats" on Noah's ark, then it would be obvious that there would be small changes that went on that makes us have lions and tigers (which are radically different from "housecats.") in certain ways.

I also think that the bible has never defined what constitute a "kind"; it only gives guidance and examples. Biblically, I do not think you could consider a tiger and a housecat the same "kind" simply because they are cats. The bible specifically makes it clear that 'vultures' and 'falcons' are not the same kind, even though they are "birds" (in fact, a 'carrion vulture' and a 'vulture' seems to be different 'kinds' according to Leviticus, even though they are both 'vulture').

... but none of these new species will get so far away from the mean that they could no longer be interbred with other species of housecats.

Interesting thought. Incidentally, what's your thoughts on "Ring Species"? If interbreeding is important when trying to determine a "kind" would these all be the same 'Kind':

1) Species A interbred with Species B to produce Species C (micro-evolution)
2) Species B can interbred with Species C (which suggest they are the same 'Kind')
3) However, Species C cannot interbreed with Species A (suggesting that Species A and C are not the same 'Kind')

An example of this is the Salamanders. Certain species can interbreed but they can't interbreed with some other species of Salamanders. This is even though they are all "salamanders" and they are all "lizards."

Wouldn't this nullify what you stated above?

 

[Kolibri]

I edited in the suffix "house-" because my expectation w/o checking, is that not all 'cats' are of the same 'kind'. When we consider that speciesization can occur after the many kinds were preserved on the ark, I am not sure that the listing of vultures in Leviticus implies that those mentioned are necessarily of different kinds though they were obviously of different species - that is if we are even identifying these specific animals listed in ancient Hebrew correctly.

"Ring Species" sounds interesting. It seems that the term "ring" has a duel meaning. One is that of a circular location of habitats. Such as that of different species of gulls around the Arctic circle. The other is the idea that once species are so far apart they cannot hybridize. However, the Wikipedia article says there are only 4 known forms of life that may fit the definition of ring species. Regarding the Larus gulls mentioned already, there are 4 species and that 2 of them do not normally hybridize. It did not say that they cannot, just that the do not normally.

The Greenish warbler and the Euphorbia tithymaloides are two other potential rings species, but the statements are hedged away from a statement of absoluteness by the use of the term "apparently". Nothing is said about the viability of interbreeding among the ring of song sparrows mentioned.

To me this says the idea of a ring species proving macro-evolution is still in the realm of theory.

Regarding the use of the term "kind" as used in the Genesis account. I will leave you with this link as I am reaching the limit of my intended stay here at RF: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273255

 

[Big_TJ]

I edited in the suffix "house-" because my expectation w/o checking, is that not all 'cats' are of the same 'kind'. When we consider that speciesization can occur after the many kinds were preserved on the ark, I am not sure that the listing of vultures in Leviticus implies that those mentioned are necessarily of different kinds though they were obviously of different species - that is if we are even identifying these specific animals listed in ancient Hebrew correctly.

But that's what Leviticus stated. It stated "vultures after their kinds" and "carrion vultures after their kinds." Looking on the scriptures, it is clear that the bible was showing two different "kinds." The Leviticus chapter start by saying "And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds" and then start talking about the "kinds." This clearly show that, biblically, "bird" is not a "kind." And since the bible had not spoken about a "cat" kind, on what basis would you classify "cat" as a "kind"?

"Ring Species" sounds interesting. It seems that the term "ring" has a duel meaning. One is that of a circular location of habitats. Such as that of different species of gulls around the Arctic circle. The other is the idea that once species are so far apart they cannot hybridize. However, the Wikipedia article says there are only 4 known forms of life that may fit the definition of ring species. Regarding the Larus gulls mentioned already, there are 4 species and that 2 of them do not normally hybridize. It did not say that they cannot, just that the do not normally.

The Greenish warbler and the Euphorbia tithymaloides are two other potential rings species, but the statements are hedged away from a statement of absoluteness by the use of the term "apparently". Nothing is said about the viability of interbreeding among the ring of song sparrows mentioned.

To me this says the idea of a ring species proving macro-evolution is still in the realm of theory.

Again, it would depend on what you call "theory." Scientists who are doing the research does not speak in absolute. There are very few things, if anything, that can be correctly stated as absolutes. So, if scientist stated that they "apparently" is doesn't suggest that they are guessing. I also see that you fail to reply regarding the salamanders; these have been studied over a 25 year period before they were seen to be ring species.

And even if we have one or four cases of "ring species," it would still nullify your claim that one "kind" would never be far from the original in a way that they wont interbreed.

Regarding the use of the term "kind" as used in the Genesis account. I will leave you with this link as I am reaching the limit of my intended stay here at RF: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273255

Would you say that a "kind" is "still in the realm of theory?" Because, as you say above, the ring theory uses terms like "apparently" which is not absolute. The article in your link states "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms ...." Note that "seem to" is not an absolute either, so, it would follow, that the information in the link would be likewise in the realm of theory.

I was just enjoying our (very respectable) discussion; I hope you hand around for a while.