The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

no organism will ever cross the barrier into another kind.

Atomic Horror has been defeated!!!! :pac:

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Atomic Horror has been defeated!!!! :pac:

Needs more emotes.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is no such thing as macro-evolution - it is only the unwarranted extrapolation of desperate evolutionists.

Actually Creationist came up with the term macro-evolution and used it to describe a species changing into another species, something they claimed was impossible and would never happen.

Then Ark Creationists realised that they need it not only to take place, but required it to take place in decades rather than the hundreds of thousand of years

wolfsbane wrote: »

The creatures coming from the Ark 'micro-evolved' - that is, developed into many various species.

You think one species evolving into another species is a "micro" change? Fair enough, what ever term you want to label it it is nonsense that you suggest in one post that it never happens (the fruit fly was still a fruit fly right Wolfsbane) and then in another say it not only happens but it happens in such rapid time scale it can produce the diversity of life on Earth from a handful of species.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What I'm pointing out is that the supposed forces of nature that led to biological evolution must also account for the existence of the spirit, for evolutionists who belive there is a spirit.

Why exactly must that be the case? You have yet to demonstrate that the spirit has any requirement to be produced by evolution, I'm not following how you could make such a ridiculous claim

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Actually Creationist came up with the term macro-evolution and used it to describe a species changing into another species, something they claimed was impossible and would never happen.

As I said before, I never have encountered a denial of species change in Creationist literature, nor have I ever encountered them describing it as macro-evolution. Please provide the references or admit your are misrepresenting them.

Species-species change is micro-evolution. Horses, zebras, donkeys - all variations within the Biblical kind. Horses, pigs, monkeys - all from different kinds.

Then Ark Creationists realised that they need it not only to take place, but required it to take place in decades rather than the hundreds of thousand of years

As above, a total misrepresentation. All the species change was micro-evolution. Rapid micro-evolution.

You think one species evolving into another species is a "micro" change? Fair enough, what ever term you want to label it it is nonsense that you suggest in one post that it never happens (the fruit fly was still a fruit fly right Wolfsbane) and then in another say it not only happens but it happens in such rapid time scale it can produce the diversity of life on Earth from a handful of species.

The ability to change depends on the genetic information available and the enviroment. It seems that most of the speciation has already occurred, and we are in a much more fixed biosphere. That means the pairs of creatures emerging from the Ark had a broader genetic spectrum for speciation to work on than their speciated descendants now have.

That's my non-technical reading of it. See this for a better description, reading from What is Evolution? to the end of What is the Biblical creationist model?:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What I'm pointing out is that the supposed forces of nature that led to biological evolution must also account for the existence of the spirit, for evolutionists who belive there is a spirit.
Why exactly must that be the case? You have yet to demonstrate that the spirit has any requirement to be produced by evolution, I'm not following how you could make such a ridiculous claim

If I assert that God made all things, I must accept He made the stars that are invisible to the naked eye as well as the moon. I can't just say we are only to account for the moon.

Likewise, if one believes there is a spiritual dimension, and one says natural forces brought all things into existence, one cannot limit one's explanation to the material world. It must also account for the spiritual dimension.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Wickie lives in his own evolutionary dream world, completely oblivious to every reminder that species does not equate to the Biblical kinds that Noah had to take on board.

Each kind devolved into various species; and no species crossing the kind barrier.
But how could a species cross the kind barrier? By what criteria would we measure this? If a fly species loses its wings and gains an extra pair of legs and develops a fused head/thorax it will look a whole lot like a spider, but biologists will not consider it a true spider and I'm quite sure creationists will claim it is still of "kind" fly. Genetic analysis will prove to us that this "spider" is more closely related to flies than spiders but we will certainly be forced to give the organism a new species name, a new genus and perhaps even a new family. If biologists used the term "kind" they would certainly conclude that this organism is no longer a fly-kind.

It is possible for a species to come to resemble another existing species at best. But it cannot become that species. What you are asking for with regard to "kinds" is not possible in evolution (or rather, is of negligible likelihood). We can, in a manner of speaking, observe the emergence of new "kinds", but no organism will ever cross the barrier into another kind.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I don't of course mean that a species micro-evolves into an already existing species. Species micro-evolve into entirely new species.

What they do not do, and have not been observed to do, is evolve into new kinds, creatures as unrelated as pigs and horses. All the observed changes are closely related. See the article I referred Wickie to in post 11855

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

So, a stable and reproducing population of flies without wings would still be flies? What if another change happens and they get an extra set of legs? Now they're a stable and reproducing population of, by your claim, eight-legged wingless flies. Unable to breed with winged flies. At what point will you consider them to have evolved?

They have micro-evolved, and are still basically flies. I'm not a scientist, but I would think if they developed the ability to produce a web, or developed a stinger, that would suggest they had become a new 'kind'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Of course you might say flies have reached the optimum development for their circumstances, or some such cop-out.
You could call it a cop-out or you could call it "genetic drift". I doubt very much if every species of fly is drifting though, I'd say most are undergoing natural selection. Sharks on the other hand, have done little more than change size in hundreds of millions of years. Sharks are a cop-out!

I agree on the mechanism - time has brought many organisms to an inability to significantly change. It is the appeal to that I was calling a cop out - perhaps unfairly. It is a convenient excuse for the lack of obversation of macro-evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK then, any organism changing into anything other than its fundamental nature.
What defines fundamental nature? I'd define it by genetics, in which case we've got all the proof you need. Or in a purely morphological sense, a fly without wings would be very much against it's fundamental nature in my books. We've seen that too. Give it an extra pair of legs and it no longer fits the conventional definition of "insect". What we actually have is an eight-legged fruit-walk. At what point are our new species no longer of the same "kind" as a fly?

As above regards a web or sting - or a horse developing the digestion system of a pig, or its equivalent.

You're actually asking for us to observe in the lab is a process which takes several thousand years at best. We can use the fossil record and genetic analysis to test if evolution is continuous and large scale, but you discount both.

No, I accept both, but not the interpretations usually taken from them.

See this for comment on genetic analysis:

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_FalseClaim.php

wolfsbane

Galvasean said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Which shows that Creationism is the only explanation compatible with the Biblical account.
Of course if you don't believe the Bible to be true...

Then I would be desperately looking for an alternative that would quiet my rebellious conscience. It still asserts their is a God to whom I must one day give account, for all I have done towards Him and my fellowman.

I need something that assures me there is no need for a God to explain my existence and that of the universe. That we die and cease to exist, so we can confidently say, let us eat drink and be merry.

Such an alternative would have to be credible of course, supported by complex argument, enjoying the support of the intellectual elite.

Hmm, let me think.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually Creationist came up with the term macro-evolution and used it to describe a species changing into another species, something they claimed was impossible and would never happen.

Apparently not see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, ...

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Apparently not see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Perhaps you should have continued the quote

"..he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction).
...
The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below)."

Orthogeneticism is a form of Creationism, it is the idea that a mystical guiding force directs evolution.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Orthogeneticism is a form of Creationism, it is the idea that a mystical guiding force directs evolution.

Hey, you can't just throw your rubbish in our camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis

Orthogenesis is a "Theory of Evolution"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

nor have I ever encountered them describing it as macro-evolution. Please provide the references or admit your are misrepresenting them.

Are you kidding me?

Let me get this straight. You are now changing what "macro-evolution" means because you don't like the original definition because that has been demonstrated to take place, and are now saying that all Darwinian evolutionary changes are in fact micro-evolution, which you accept takes place.

Are you freaking kidding me?

So what pray tell is macro-evolution now Wolfsbane?

This is utter nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Species-species change is micro-evolution.

No its not because if it was that would make macro-evolution a meaningless term.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Horses, zebras, donkeys - all variations within the Biblical kind. Horses, pigs, monkeys - all from different kinds.

And you know this how Wolfsbane :rolleyes:

Please list known "kinds" and how each species fits into them. Please tell me the characteristics that place a zebra in the "Horse kind"

Considering you have been asked this about 10 times already and dodged the question each time, I wait with blue cheeks.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above, a total misrepresentation. All the species change was micro-evolution. Rapid micro-evolution.

Can you please demonstrate where this rapid species change has been witnessed or observed. I mean if it happens so rapidly it should be easily to observe, right?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It seems that most of the speciation has already occurred, and we are in a much more fixed biosphere.

So it did happen, but now it is stopped for some unknown reason and cannot be observed. Interesting.

Please explain again your objection to radio-meteric dating methods ... you know, that they rely on assumptions that observed physics in the present worked the same way in the past.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That means the pairs of creatures emerging from the Ark had a broader genetic spectrum for speciation to work on than their speciated descendants now have.

LOL :rolleyes:

Please define "broader genetic spectrum" if you wouldn't mind. Did they have bigger chromosomes? Were they mutating faster?

Please explain how you know this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's my non-technical reading of it. See this for a better description

Ummm, I'm betting that won't actually explain it either.

...

Yes, I was right :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Likewise, if one believes there is a spiritual dimension, and one says natural forces brought all things into existence, one cannot limit one's explanation to the material world. It must also account for the spiritual dimension.

True, but then most Christians, including theistic evolutionists, don't claim that natural forces brought all things into existence, so that is just a weak straw man Wolfsbane.

What? do you think they believe the natural forces that brought heaven or God or angels into existence? If not then why the spirit?

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Hey, you can't just throw your rubbish in our camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis

It is a theory of evolution, it says that a mystical force guides evolution. That is what JC and Wolfsbane believe as well. Ask them about micro-evolution (though be prepared for a headache as they seem to change what that word means ever few mintues)

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I don't of course mean that a species micro-evolves into an already existing species. Species micro-evolve into entirely new species.

What they do not do, and have not been observed to do, is evolve into new kinds, creatures as unrelated as pigs and horses. All the observed changes are closely related. See the article I referred Wickie to in post 11855

But you've already accepted that new species may form. And so new species may arise from that second species. Each time the differences from the originator species, which may still exist, are greater. At what point would you accept that enough differences have accrued to indicate a new "kind"?

If we have not directly observed changes on the scale you desire within the 150 years we have been watching, well that is entirely expected.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They have micro-evolved, and are still basically flies. I'm not a scientist, but I would think if they developed the ability to produce a web, or developed a stinger, that would suggest they had become a new 'kind'.

But this only requires that the process I have described merely continue. A stinger is more complex than an extra pair of legs, but might be generated in on the order of 10 mutations, perhaps less. Abdomen terminal growths could come about as a mutation of the terminal segment. Or through duplication of the genitals and further mutation. Indeed I believe I read somewhere that this was identified as the source of the wasp stinger. By this means, the plumbing needed might be duplicated and then modified too. All that is needed is time and sufficient numbers of the organism in question.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree on the mechanism - time has brought many organisms to an inability to significantly change. It is the appeal to that I was calling a cop out - perhaps unfairly. It is a convenient excuse for the lack of obversation of macro-evolution.

Well, species are either undergoing natural selection (or human selection) or they are undergoing genetic drift. Both are mechanisms of evolution. We've yet to observe a species undergoing neither. Or one that is not undergoing mutation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above regards a web or sting - or a horse developing the digestion system of a pig, or its equivalent.

Again, can you not imagine how such features could arise by duplication of current features followed by modification? Examples of such mutations are very common indeed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I accept both, but not the interpretations usually taken from them.

See this for comment on genetic analysis:

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_FalseClaim.php

Forgive me Wolfsbane, but that article is very vague and does not provide any working source. What does it mean? The notion that similar parts of the genetic code could be translated into different proteins is not new at all. It is incredibly common and is a result either of mutation in the gene itself or of mutation in genes which regulate it. Both vital elements of evolution.

There is nothing convincing or controversial in the article at all, just the word of two Discovery Institute men. Neither is saying anything we don't already know and both are implying it means something that it simply does not.

Where are the references, the data, the word of anyone other than ID men?

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Hey, you can't just throw your rubbish in our camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis

Orthogenesis is not an accepted part of evolution. It is a function commonly ascribed to it by non-scientists who have misunderstood evolution. We don't see evolution as having a goal or purpose. Creationists view variation, as most phenomena, as being a part of an objective purpose. That would qualify as orthogenesis.

The Mad Hatter

As a favour to the creationists on this thread, I will list 'kinds' as they come up. First we have the 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind, which Wolfsbane mentioned above. This kind includes horses, zebras and donkeys. Probably also zeedonks.

Then there's the 'Rhinocerops' kind, which includes the Rhinoceros and the Triceratops.*

*In answer to any of those who joined the thread more recently, yes. It was J C.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I need something that assures me there is no need for a God to explain my existence and that of the universe. That we die and cease to exist, so we can confidently say, let us eat drink and be merry.

Such an alternative would have to be credible of course, supported by complex argument, enjoying the support of the intellectual elite.

Hmm, let me think.

Im pretty sure I saw such an argument... Cant for the life of think what it's called...

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Then there's the 'Rhinocerops' kind, which includes the Rhinoceros and the Triceratops.*

ROFL :pac::pac::pac:

Forgot about that, thanks that made my day

pH

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Then there's the 'Rhinocerops' kind, which includes the Rhinoceros and the Triceratops.*

Didn't we have "Small furry brown things living in water" kind as well at some stage?

Galvasean

Dont forget the eel/sea snake kind. Thats a very diverse kind.

AtomicHorror

Gaviscon wrote: »

Dont forget the eel/sea snake kind. Thats a very diverse kind.

Dolphins: Fish Kind?

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Dolphins: Fish Kind?

Well, they look like fish. I guess so!

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Dolphins: Fish Kind?

And don't forget whales and sharks!

I wonder what "kind" the duck-billed platypus is? The "some-kind-of-kind" kind?

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

I wonder what "kind" the duck-billed platypus is? The "some-kind-of-kind" kind?

Kind Chimera. They're in there with griffins and cameleopards.

The Mad Hatter

pH wrote: »

Didn't we have "Small furry brown things living in water" kind as well at some stage?

Ooh, really? That sounds fascinating! What kinds types of animals did it include?

Gaviscon wrote: »

Dont forget the eel/sea snake kind. Thats a very diverse kind.

Forgot about that one alright.

There's also the fly/fishing fly kind.

Flamed Diving

This is priceless!

pH

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ooh, really? That sounds fascinating! What kinds types of animals did it include?

As I recall beaver and otter .... yes indeed it did*

J C wrote: »

Baraminology is a brand new science that is less than 20 years old!!!

The Beaver and the Otter are the same Created Kind ....... while the Dog and the Pussy Cat are different Kinds!!!:eek::D

* However, a later breakthrough in the brand new and fast moving science of Baraminology has since overturned this classification.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

But you've already accepted that new species may form. And so new species may arise from that second species. Each time the differences from the originator species, which may still exist, are greater. At what point would you accept that enough differences have accrued to indicate a new "kind"?

Never, because there is no unending process. Micro-evolution operates within the boundaries of the kind.

If we have not directly observed changes on the scale you desire within the 150 years we have been watching, well that is entirely expected.

Could we not have expected something from bacteria?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They have micro-evolved, and are still basically flies. I'm not a scientist, but I would think if they developed the ability to produce a web, or developed a stinger, that would suggest they had become a new 'kind'.
But this only requires that the process I have described merely continue. A stinger is more complex than an extra pair of legs, but might be generated in on the order of 10 mutations, perhaps less. Abdomen terminal growths could come about as a mutation of the terminal segment. Or through duplication of the genitals and further mutation. Indeed I believe I read somewhere that this was identified as the source of the wasp stinger. By this means, the plumbing needed might be duplicated and then modified too. All that is needed is time and sufficient numbers of the organism in question.

10 steps??? Surely the stinger is much more complex than that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree on the mechanism - time has brought many organisms to an inability to significantly change. It is the appeal to that I was calling a cop out - perhaps unfairly. It is a convenient excuse for the lack of obversation of macro-evolution.
Well, species are either undergoing natural selection (or human selection) or they are undergoing genetic drift. Both are mechanisms of evolution. We've yet to observe a species undergoing neither. Or one that is not undergoing mutation.

I said many organisms and significant change. Of course some micro-evolution is occurring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As above regards a web or sting - or a horse developing the digestion system of a pig, or its equivalent.
Again, can you not imagine how such features could arise by duplication of current features followed by modification? Examples of such mutations are very common indeed.

I would like an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I accept both, but not the interpretations usually taken from them.

See this for comment on genetic analysis:

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press...FalseClaim.php
Forgive me Wolfsbane, but that article is very vague and does not provide any working source. What does it mean? The notion that similar parts of the genetic code could be translated into different proteins is not new at all. It is incredibly common and is a result either of mutation in the gene itself or of mutation in genes which regulate it. Both vital elements of evolution.

There is nothing convincing or controversial in the article at all, just the word of two Discovery Institute men. Neither is saying anything we don't already know and both are implying it means something that it simply does not.

Where are the references, the data, the word of anyone other than ID men?

Here's a bit more from a Creationist, rather than ID perspective:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3271

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Never, because there is no unending process. Micro-evolution operates within the boundaries of the kind.

So you say that the number of new species that may be generated in series is limited. By what? Also, show an example of an existing species which has hit this limit.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Could we not have expected something from bacteria?

How would we translate the pig-to-horse scale to a single celled species? Tell me what criteria you are looking for and I can probably tell you if we have observed it. On the time scale of current lab experiments, we might expect to see a few new genes here and there, but not much more. Lenski et al 2008 (PNAS), would be the current largest scale example of bacterial evolution observed in a laboratory setting. Acquisition of several new genes and new function within 20 years.

wolfsbane wrote: »

10 steps??? Surely the stinger is much more complex than that?

Duplication of the organ including vasculature and genital plumbing at an adjacent location. Follow that with chitin coating of the organ. If the organ is in an inconvenient location, ie blocking the genitals, then this is going to be very severely selected against. If not, it should persist with milder selection, or perhaps positive selection if the chitinated organ can be used as-is for competitive purposes. Degeneration of sex cell production in the duplicated glands. Acquisition of of venom-production function within the glands. Relative minor changes to control of extant muscles to allow conscious control, or reflex arc control. Done. The actual number of mutations involved would be a great many, so I expect the process would take on the order of 1x10^5-1x10^6 years but that is speculative.

The likelihood of such a series of mutations producing a stinger is evidenced by how often we have seen divergent species produce stingers with very similar function, yet from different duplicated, or merely adapted, source organs. In wasps, the organ is the female ovipositor, a possible transitional form between ovipositor and stinger being the hardened ovipositor of various parasitoid wasp species.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I said many organisms and significant change. Of course some micro-evolution is occurring.

If you can show me a species in which evolution has stopped, and has given a stable-sized population despite continuing environmental pressures, then you may have a case for some barrier.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would like an example.

On a molecular level: The genes which code for your haemoglobin-F proteins are a duplication and modification of haemoglobin-A. They have divergent structure and function. More extreme examples are highly numerous and can be provided if you'd like. On a cellular level: B-cells and T-cells are essentially duplicated and modified versions of cells called NK-cells. Again, this is a model followed by a great many cell types through an organism. On an organ/gross morphology level: The aforementioned stingers. Also the multiple leg sets of insects are a result of duplication and minor modification. The formation of mandibles is a more significant example of duplication and modification. The segments of segmented worms are another example of duplication/modification and one which would later leave evidence of its existence in the traces of segmentation in animal musculature, including that of humans.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a bit more from a Creationist, rather than ID perspective:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3271

Thanks, I'll read this and comment later. However it would be very refreshing if you could for once find a source that is not either an ID or creationist commentary.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Never, because there is no unending process. Micro-evolution operates within the boundaries of the kind.

What does that actually mean?

How does evolution know that it is currently at a kind barrier, and that to mutate the foot or the ears or the eyes etc would cause a species to jump into a different kind grouping, and therefore it doesn't do this?

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that actually mean?

How does evolution know that it is currently at a kind barrier, and that to mutate the foot or the ears or the eyes etc would cause a species to jump into a different kind grouping, and therefore it doesn't do this?

Because jumping to a different kind is like jumping from Shannon to New York. (I rather take the plane)