RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[crochet1949]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

[Hortator]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

A liger or a tigon I imagine

[Audacity]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Yup.

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

[crochet1949]

So they're Not all in the 'cat ' family?

Okay -- what Is the correct 'structure'? Genus is 1st and then species? So It's actually genera I'm talking about?

[Audacity]

So they're Not all in the 'cat ' family?

Okay -- what Is the correct 'structure'? Genus is 1st and then species? So It's actually genera I'm talking about?

Here's how it breaks down, but first of all, keep in mind that the following represents the classification of biological organisms based on shared characteristics. (As I explain take a look at the diagram below.) Domain is the highest grouping of life forms; there are three of them, with Eukarya, as shown below, containing those life forms we're most familiar with. Then we have Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and sometimes Subspecies, all of which, including Domain, are called ranks. As we go from the rank of Domain down to the rank of Subspecies the shared characteristics of an organism become more particular. In short then, a genus (Plural: genera) is a group of closely related species whose members have more in common with each other than with those species of other genera. A family is a group of closely related genera. An order is a group of closely related families, and so on up to the rank of Domain.

So, the Phylum rank of dogs is Chordata (all animals in this rank have a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord). The order rank of dogs is Carnivora (only those animals with a notochord that are meat-eaters). The family rank of dogs is Canidae (noting those animals of the Carnivora order having particular features that set them apart from the other members of Carnivora; the cats, bears, weasels, and mongooses.) Getting down to the genus rank of dogs, they share their genus, Canis, with coyotes,(C. latrans) and several jackals,(C.adustus being one of them) among others. The last formal rank (there are quite a few intermediary ranks that are sometimes fitted within the eight major ranks) is Species. Dogs share their species designation---properly called the "specific epithet"--- lupus, with gray wolves. Thus, dogs and graywolves are regarded as constituting the species Canis lupus. But to distinguish dogs from gray wolves each is further classified in a lower rank, Subspecies; dogs being ranked as the subspecies familiaris, and gray wolves as the subspecies lupus. Thus, the proper species name for dogs is Canis lupus familiaris. Note that genus names are always capitalized and all three name are always italicized. AND when using a taxonomic designation to indicate a subspecies all three names must be used or indicated.

(Had I constructed the diagram below I'd have reversed the order of the ranks for better clarity, which is the way it's most common done. Anyway . . . .)

[abelcainsbrother]

Hi Audacity,

I think the difficulty many 'creationists' have with evolution is that they do not understand that 'macroevolution' is merely an emergent quality of 'microevolution'. Many of them have no problem with a mother fish some of whose offspring have marginally fleshier fins than she, but they think that evolutionists postulate that one day a mother fish gave birth to a duck, which they naturally deride. What they cannot bring themselves to contemplate is that although not a single offspring has ever been a different species from its mother, yet the accumulation of tiny physiological differences over thousands of generations leads to descendants of that mother being wholly different species from each other, even to the extent of being as different as a goldfish and a goldfinch.

Because of this, examples like the peppered moth, or breeds of domestic dog, are not convincing, as nobody thinks they are different species, and, since thousands of generations are required for speciation, it is difficult to come up with persuasive examples of it happening as we speak. The development of cichlid fish is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and any study of the variety of frogs endemic to particular groups of recently emerged islands, but even these are unlikely to persuade the more obdurate, since "they're still fishes". Or frogs. As both fishes and frogs are very unlike humans, creationists assume that they can almost all be clumped into a very few 'kinds', such that their staggering diversity is all "normal variation", without any consideration of the extent of the genetic alteration.

I appreciate your honesty eventhough I'm sure you disagree with me. All Audacity is doing is doing exactly like Charles Darwin did as I have already explained. He is trying to sell the idea that because there is variation amongst a population given enough time life can evolve above the species level. Then without realizing he posts a classification chart put together with this assumption life evolves. He expects us to buy into it,yet in every kind of life tested including the peppered moth they are using normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves. I think you understand the dilemna,yet I know how hard it is to break the spell evolution has over people.

It might seem reasonable to assume that because there is normal variation amongst a population given enough time life can evolve above the species level but it is an assumption that their own evidence shows never happens. It is faith science.

[Kurieuo]

I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?

[abelcainsbrother]

At least Audacity is trying to get into some evidence we can discuss though and I think that if we continue to get into the evidence I'm going to be confirmed correct about what I have been explaining. I'm not trying to be a know it all but I think this stuff is important and I'm only trying to show why I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

[Kurieuo]

Look at Genesis 1:20- 24 -- not once is there a mention of numbers only that God created them. So there's Also no way for Anyone to say how many animals existed at the time of Noah's ark. 'Recent studies estimate.....' 7,000 small or large animals? A male and female pony would be smaller than full grown horses, etc. We're not told Anything specifically. So, in reality , we - including 'Answers in Genesis' -- Don't have any real idea. Only speculation based on.....

And I agree. AiG's estimate is ludicrous, particularly in light of the fact that Noah and his small family would have had to provided food and water, and care for this many animals for a year; however, I offered it up as the most favorable estimate to the creationist position I could. Realistically, the number of animals taken aboard would have had to be much, much smaller. The ark simply wasn't that big of a boat.

I don't really believe that Any evolution had to be going on since then. If our definition of evolution is the same.
If you mean that in the process of .....that animals were able to cross boundaries from one kind to another, then, no.

What are these boundaries you have in mind? Put as simply as I can, evolution is a very slow change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Eventually such changes result in characteristics of a population of organisms so different from the originating population that they can no longer be considered to be the same species.

Gotta ask: If evolution wasn't responsible for the vast number of species we now have on earth, just how did they come from the few that were aboard the ark? What was the mechanism? How did the cat kind produce so many different species?

Lions
Jaguars
Leopards
Tigers
Bay cats
Caracels
Servals
Ocelots
Margays
Pampas cats
Lynxs
Bobcats
Cheetahs
Cougars
Domestic cats
European wild cats

Just to name a few

I stick by my thought that a 'horse' will Not change to become a 'whatever else' that is discovered to exist centuries later.

Not centuries, but many, many millennia.

There Are a lot more of the same kinds because they Have reproduced generation by generation. And People have gotten into the picture and experimented with animals.

Honestly, I don't think you have any idea of what a kind is.

Hummingbirds and those really big birds -- are all in the bird family -- but they certainly Won't mate much less reproduce anything. Pelicans, etc.

Your point being . . . . . . what?

Crochet, I believe Audacity does have a point here. YECs who believe only "kinds" were taken on board the ark, which then diversified to represent all present day animals on Earth, such need to postulate a rate of evolutionary change much more rapid than even most staunch evolutionary scientists would be comfortable with.

Unless, God again created after rest (and by all accounts, on a spiritual level we are told to enter into God's Sabbath rest cf. Psalm 95:7-11; Hebrews 4:1–11) Note, while "Sabbath" (Shabbat) is often translated "rest", another valid translation is actually "ceasing" (i.e. from work).

To argue then, that God only saved "kinds" of animals on the Ark, one must either argue: 1) God again worked, or 2) the diversity of life we see today naturally evolved over 4000 years.

As to the first, Scripturally and theologically, such isn't an option. As to the second, such is a scientific question, and as I understand matters, even evolutionary scientists would dismiss such as being naturally possible. There is an article on the main website by Greg Moore that is here relevant: Rapid Post-Flood Speciation

Given what we do know, which it seems quite improbable we'd be wrong about, one must based upon what we do know be intellectually honest in either: 1) accepting that the Noah story isn't entirely true; or 2) re-read it again with fresh eyes being open to alternative positions that might better fit.

[abelcainsbrother]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Yup.

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

What happens whether they can or cannot breed though? My point has been that speciation is a myth built on the belief life evolves,but explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to? Only more cats with what they can breed with amongst the population of cats. Just like I said using Great Danes and Chihauhauhs that cannot breed as an example yet you still get dogs with what they can breed with amongst their population of dogs. So now I have both cats and dogs for evidence. There is a limit to how much variation can be had amongst a population that can be had and all of the different shapes,colors,sizes,etc of the different dog breeds are a great example,which is why I use them for an example because eventhough it was not a natural process to produce all of the different breeds of dogs it is a great example of the limits of how much variation can be had amongst that population.

[Audacity]

I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?

I assume you're talking about god plunking down various forms of organisms without any consideration as to what any of the others "look" like. I have absolutely no idea. None at all; although, it is an interesting question. In fact, it gives rise to the question of why he would bother making so many similar species. According to the Reptile Database there are more than 1,650 species of geckos in the world. Why? Why did god feel the world needed such an enormous, certainly excessive, variety? Wouldn't two or three geckos have been enough? The evolutionary forces of natural selection, which has no regard for such variety seems to be a far more sensible explanation than god plunking. I can't imagine god thinking, "Okay, just five more gecko species and then that's it . . . . . . what the heck, while I'm at it I may as well make a hundred more. . . . . or maybe two hundred. "

[Audacity]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Yup.

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

What happens whether they can or cannot breed though?

If you're talking about species from different genera successfully interbreeding, then taxonomists would be taking a very serious look at reclassifying them into the same genus. If they can't interbreed, which is the expected outcome, then they cant. *shrug*

My point has been that speciation is a myth built on the belief life evolves,but explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?

A pleasurable encounter for both I suspect.

Only more cats with what they can breed with amongst the population of cats.

?

Just like I said using Great Danes and Chihuahuas that cannot breed as an example yet you still get dogs with what they can breed with amongst their population of dogs.

Just to be clear here, the only reason they can't mate is strictly physical; the St. Bernard being simply too big to fit together with a tiny Chihuahua. Other than that, their sperm and ova are quite compatible.

So now I have both cats and dogs for evidence. There is a limit to how much variation can be had amongst a population that can be had and all of the different shapes,colors,sizes,etc of the different dog breeds are a great example,which is why I use them for an example because eventhough it was not a natural process to produce all of the different breeds of dogs it is a great example of the limits of how much variation can be had amongst that population.

Okay

[Kurieuo]

I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?

I assume you're talking about god plunking down various forms of organisms without any consideration as to what any of the others "look" like. I have absolutely no idea. None at all; although, it is an interesting question. In fact, it gives rise to the question of why he would bother making so many similar species. According to the Reptile Database there are more than 1,650 species of geckos in the world. Why? Why did god feel the world needed such an enormous, certainly excessive, variety? Wouldn't two or three geckos have been enough? The evolutionary forces of natural selection, which has no regard for such variety seems to be a far more sensible explanation than god plunking. I can't imagine god thinking, "Okay, just five more gecko species and then that's it . . . . . . what the heck, while I'm at it I may as well make a hundred more. . . . . or maybe two hundred. "

Well, I wouldn't say "plunking down" without "any consideration as to what any others 'look' like"... given, the person creating, if creation be true, would know what they created; they wouldn't necessarily be able to ignore previous morphological structures and the like since they know them intimately. Rather, if God created many different lifeforms, it seems to me that morphological similarities, bone structures, that there is no reason why lifeforms wouldn't look similar and possess shared characteristics.

As to the diversity of similar species like geckos, well I'd think interbreeding can account for some diversity on the tips (e.g., wolf and coyote) -- although as you note there are limits. So then, not all we see, would be as the original "pure-blooded" seeded forms of life. All hypothetically of course, since I know you don't believe in any creation -- but if God created I also see no reason why God couldn't created numerous similar species with slightly different features, skins and like. Do you? So for me, being fully open as I am to creation, evidence of biological similarities doesn't really point one way or the other.

Also, no need to stop at geckos, there's also butterflies, all the hundreds of varieties of fish, birds and like. In fact, such beauty and diversity when watching nature shows often leaves me in awe at God's design (which is how I see it). All such might not be "pure blood" i.e., created original species, yet if God did create, then you just move the question to whether there is any reason why God shouldn't or couldn't create variations of geckos, fish, birds, etc? Must there only be one or limited diversity within similar species if creation were true?

It seems to me, the answer is there are no real reasons. In fact, to the contrary, I personally see if creation is true, such points to one common designer throughout it all. And given, this designer has a creative spark within them (to be creating in the first place) I see diversity of similar species would be likely. If any one being has the power to create, the plethora of lifeforms and variety within similar species, for me just points to their enormous creativity and power.

[neo-x]

It seems to me, the answer is there are no real reasons. In fact, to the contrary, I personally see if creation is true, such points to one common designer throughout it all. And given, this designer has a creative spark within them (to be creating in the first place) I see diversity of similar species would be likely. If any one being has the power to create, the plethora of lifeforms and variety within similar species, for me just points to their enormous creativity and power.

K, just a small remark but I think it's the worst point in favor of a designer with a creative spark since all of it the mostly the same, there is no creativity. At its heart, it is the same DNA molecule with variations here and there. What's creative about that?

Edit:
E.g. being born of a virgin is creative, dividing the sea is creative, getting 1600 geckos from small variations here and there from the same DNA, isn't. IOW, from the scriptures atleast, that's not how God rolls.

[Kurieuo]

It seems to me, the answer is there are no real reasons. In fact, to the contrary, I personally see if creation is true, such points to one common designer throughout it all. And given, this designer has a creative spark within them (to be creating in the first place) I see diversity of similar species would be likely. If any one being has the power to create, the plethora of lifeforms and variety within similar species, for me just points to their enormous creativity and power.

K, just a small remark but I think it's the worst point in favor of a designer with a creative spark since all of it the mostly the same, there is no creativity. At its heart, it is the same DNA molecule with variations here and there. What's creative about that?

Well, then, either there is lots of variety or there isn't. I see lots of variety, like Audacity pointed out with geckos.

Obviously, there is a structure to it, and a certain framework and boundaries based upon the system in existence. If you have certain building blocks, then you can arrange those blocks in certain orders to create diversity, though the building blocks themselves might be limited. Using carbon-based building blocks, well, I think we have an amazingly diverse arrangement of those blocks.

Perhaps you'd like to see silicon life or the like, but certainly not the best building blocks in our physical world system to work with (given their limited arrangements). Or perhaps you'd like to see creativity that extends beyond the physical world, well -- being bound as we are to the physical world perhaps it doesn't extend. Such is really a question from silence, since we don't know either way.

What we are familiar with is our own world, and based upon the physical boundaries we see, there certainly seems to me a very large diversity of life. And much seems to appear in bursts through the geological record. There does seem to be a punctuation of sorts throughout, where there was no prior forms life, new forms of life are had and abundantly so, some with new characteristics some not.

Finally, the question isn't whether if creation is true, we ought to see diversity or similarity, rather whether one or the other must necessarily be the case should there have been some creator. Going back to my original question Audacity responded to:

• "I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?"

While I am often in awe by the diversity of life, forms of life, their design, and you know, seeing nature documentaries the beauty of it all, what we subjectively feel about whether or not this creator was creative has no real relevancy to my question here.