Another challenge to Darwinists

[drddunks]

Don't mix up the mechanisms of evolution with the philosophy of atheists who use this as a worldview

I am not, there is no teaching in evolution which supports any spiritual involvement (only when people wanted to make it more enticing did they add God to the mix)

Evolution as a mechanism does nothing but POSSIBLY explain how organisms came to be

You defeat your position by using the word 'possibly'. Christians are to know not suggest.

I think too many Christians fear this uneccesarily.

Not at all. It is a 19th c. concept sprung from unbelief in God's word and all Christians are right to reject it.

AS for why God inspired to Moses to write Genesis in its style, may I respectfully offer that were God to truly explain how He did it (no matter how He did it), it would have taken a ridiculously huge amount of the scripture, would not have been appropriate given the timespan and the nature of society then AND really would not have provided any other clues as to God's majesty, glory, and power.

Now you are just trying to convince yourself. There are ways to describe the evolutionary process to Moses without doing what you list there. Again you make God how to be incompetant especially since Moses was educated by the Egyptians who were capable of building pyramids and capable of understanding what God did as He expalined it.

Genesis 1 is short, but immensely powerful. God is in control, God planned this, God accomplished what He set out to do and there was order and planning in the doing. God may not explicitly tell us how He created, yet many assume that the *absence* of such detail is proof of the mechanism.

Now you are just trying to make yourself feel better. Do you not think that God would have said what the mechanism was if it was different than the way it was written in Gen.1? You must have a very low opinion of God and His abilities to think He is so unable to tell the truth from the start.

have ever said that Genesis one is not true.

Bes you Have. Just by stating He didn't speak things into existence like He describes in Gen. 1 you have declared it untrue. By stating He used a process longer than stated in Gen. 1, you have declared it untrue. You can't have it both ways.

It is clear in Genesis that GOd is fully in control of creation. We have never said otherwise.

Yes you have as you eliminate His instruction to His creation by suggesting Gen. 1 is wrong.

Why would God choose to reveal multitude of medicinal facts to non-believers? Why would God choose to reveal His majesty of His universe to skeptical atheists looking through a telescope

How do you know they got it right? How do you know God is revealling those things to non-believers when He says 'there is no fellowship between light and darkness'. You ignore too many scriptures in your attempts to justify your belief in science and how it over-rules the bIble. All you are doing is assuming these things and you have no proof whatsoever to support such claims.

The very fact that you would suggest God would violate His own word tells a big story. Besides anyone can buy a telescope or microscope and see whatGod has doen but that doesn't mean God revealed it to them, they may draw the wrong conclusions. This is a fatal error with scientists, they think they can't be deceived or led astray and that all science is good science. How wrong they are.

Why would God wait thousands of years after Adam and Eve to reveal His Messiah? Why wait?

That is a non-issue as God always had a witness to His way of salvation, your point is moot. Let's see, we have Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchezidek, Abraham, and so on. God is fair and just and would not leave the world without obtaining the truth nor salvation. What you propose is that only the modern world gets the truth and that is just arrogant and flat out deceitful.

Secondly, your argument strikes at the fairness of God is revealing certain things throughout time, as if this is some reason to dismiss a theory. IS the fact that the mechanism of evolution didn't arrive until the 1800's a reason to dismiss this as a theory?

Yes, because it is not of God. It is a means for the devil to entice and deceive God's creation away from the truth and 'believers' are also getting caught in the snare.

YOu might as well ask why God waited until the 1800's to reveal facts about bacteria,

Do you think the ancient world was without scientists and doctors? If so then you have no idea. They may have called the diseases by other names but they were aware of them. We know that dentistry goes back 6-8,000 years and it wasn't sloppy work that was discovered.

several hundred years after the Black Plague

Dou assume they didn't know or have a clue. They could have ignored the warnings of those who told them how to do it right. The Essenes had knowledge of where to put toilets long before the black plague. The Minoans had indoor plumbing and the Romans had water flushing toilet system. Please your assumptions are your undoing.

What about all of those people who died thinking that the earth was flat?

The Bible doesn't teach the earth was flat nor does it teach evolutionary mechanisms nor does it teach about mermaids and sea serpants, but again you omit most of the details to try and make a point. Nor did God 'reveal' those things 1800+ years after the fact. Get a better argument this one is nonsense.

why reveal to Jenner about the nature of vaccines in the 1700's, after millions have died deaths due to viruses.

Well you are like most people, you think everything started with the Greeks, sorry to burst your bubble but people were intelligent long before they sprung up and wrote a few books. Why do people die of cnacer and there is still no cure?

'It is appointed unto man once to die...' 'With Adam's fall sin entered into the world. What you keep omiting is the working, the deceiving, of the devil and that the desires of the flesh lead people to screw others. You fail to see the whole picture and think everything is the way you assume it to be.

You and some of the others may be scientists here but you all and Deem are not Theologians and you know very, very little and ignore so much because you use a tool in a manner it was not intended to be used. Science was never given the keys to theological truths, it has no business trying to be an authority on that which is not within its boundaries.

And that is why evolutionis wrong, it is based upon false ideas, coming from non-believers intruding in an area it has no right to be. As it was stated long ago, 'you can't put God in a test tube' right and science cannot determine the origins of the universe nor life. It is not geared for it.

It reveals exactly what God wants it to reveal. God did it, He is powerful, He is the one who is in control. If your argument is that because not everybody gets to have a chance to learn about evolution then God is unfair, then this criteria must be applied to all other aspects of people's ignorance

You are leaving out details because it doesn't fit your cientific beliefs and thatis wrong. It shows that God created by speaking not by using mechanisms. It shows 6 days because there is a point to that time period and so much more. But you let science blind your eyes and you only want to see what you want it to be and not what it is.

Finally, Canuckster did a fine job addressing your arguements succintly

I am going to ignore your last few sentences as they are like the rest, a justifiction to ignore that creation was a one time supernatural act which doesn't fit into a scientific model of any sort. The above quote is laughable as neither of you have presented anything credible nor even remotely close to the truth. All i have seen is justifications so you can feel good about yourselves.

[Canuckster1127]

1. I don't presume to know why God allows anything. Do you? The truth of evolution, to the extent it has been scientifically demonstrated to be true,

Bart, can you be more specific? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution here or just evolution in general?

Evolution in the narrow scope as a science.

[zoegirl]

Do you think the ancient world was without scientists and doctors? If so then you have no idea. They may have called the diseases by other names but they were aware of them. We know that dentistry goes back 6-8,000 years and it wasn't sloppy work that was discovered.

No, it is you who do not read my posts clearly enough. They may have CALLED the disease by a different name but that WASN't my point. BACTERIA and BACTERIAL transmission wasn't understood until the 1800's and 1900's. It wasn't until Lister and Koch and the invention of the microscope that they even understaood that there WERE miscroscopic organisms.

Again, YOU asked why God would have waited to reveal evolution as a model until the 1800's, as if this was somehow a reason to dismiss it. YOur argument seems to revolve around the idea that because it was so late that this was unfair. But God has chosen to reveal many things and different times to different people.

Dou assume they didn't know or have a clue. They could have ignored the warnings of those who told them how to do it right. The Essenes had knowledge of where to put toilets long before the black plague. The Minoans had indoor plumbing and the Romans had water flushing toilet system. Please your assumptions are your undoing.

The plague was caused by bacteria on a flea on a rat. Plumbing would have only gone so far. And again you miss my point. God's timing in revealing knowledge is His timing. YOur argument was "why did God wait until the 1800's and because it is silly for God to have waited we should dismiss evolution as a theory. " But God revealed plenty of things in the 1700's and 1800's that were not known prevoiusly. The TIMING of the evolution theory is NOT why we should dismiss it, rather we should dismiss it on its merits. He did not reveal the cause of the plague to those living in the plague or beforehand. Does this make God unfair? Did those who die in ignorance mean that the cause of the disease and the mechanism of disesase transmission is not to be trusted?

The Bible doesn't teach the earth was flat nor does it teach evolutionary mechanisms nor does it teach about mermaids and sea serpants, but again you omit most of the details to try and make a point. Nor did God 'reveal' those things 1800+ years after the fact. Get a better argument this one is nonsense.

Read over my posts carefully. I NEVER said the bible teaches those things. However, YOU made the arguement that God let all those people die in ignorance before the evolutionary theory was established. But there are plenty of examples of people dying in ignorance over issues that I have already presented. The Earth was flat, mermaids, sea serpents, four humours, bad air, all of these are examples of misconceptions of God's creations (as well as a young earth) some not taught by the Bible and some that people think are taught by the Bible.

Well you are like most people, you think everything started with the Greeks, sorry to burst your bubble but people were intelligent long before they sprung up and wrote a few books. Why do people die of cnacer and there is still no cure?

The silliness of this statement... First, about the only example I gave that was remotely Greek is the four humors. I have never stated anything like it all started with the GReeks. Of course people were intelligent back then as well. I have never said otherwise. But the intelligence doesn't equally relate to the knowledge out there. The printing press, the size of the population, the internet all have made knowledge more accessible. And yes, there were remarkable societies that also had a high level of knowledge circulating. Never disputed this, don't have a problem with this.

But bacteria and viruses and protozoans were not known until the invention of the microscope and disease transmission and vaccines were the hallmark of the 1700's to the present.

To go back to the issue of writing of Genesis 1.

1. If someone said, after you admired his car, "I made that car". Does speculating on the process mean that you doubt that statement? Does that statement absolutely mean that that person simply poofed that car into existence? We don't and the *absence* of a process mentioned in Genesis does not proove direct fiat as the method.

2. God does not reveal everything about His creation even if we take direct fiat as His method. Viruses, Bacteria, protozoans are not mentioned anywhere specifically in the account. (Which certainly would have made is easier to study and create proper hygiene rules). God not not reveal anything about how our body works (which would have made it nice when cancer did start to creep around, understanding oncogenes and tumor necrosis factor....) He doesn't explicitly address many things and yet we don't worry about this. Point is, Genesis 1 is not meant to be a science text or a "HOw I did it" book on God. It established WHo He was and His abilities and His glory, His sovereignty, His reign, His majesty. Including everything that He made, even if He made it by direct fiat, would have made it ridiculously long (and, I think, from God's madate in the Garden, He wanted and wants us to examine and research HIs creation)

You and some of the others may be scientists here but you all and Deem are not Theologians and you know very, very little and ignore so much because you use a tool in a manner it was not intended to be used. Science was never given the keys to theological truths, it has no business trying to be an authority on that which is not within its boundaries.

And that is why evolutionis wrong, it is based upon false ideas, coming from non-believers intruding in an area it has no right to be. As it was stated long ago, 'you can't put God in a test tube' right and science cannot determine the origins of the universe nor life. It is not geared for it.

Just out of curiousity, what would you deem to be criteria to be experts? YOu seem to love to criticize evolution as a theory and yet so far I have yet to see on iota of an argument addressing the mechanisms of evolution (merely trifles having to do with the timing of the theory). What is your background on science? Do you have any degrees? How many journal articles do you read per week?

The reason I ask, of course, is that you attack Deem and myself and others here and accuse us of not being theologians (I would agree with the label for myself of course, not having a theology or biblical studies degree, I have no problem with that, but then again, I have never used science to disprove God's abilities or sovereignty). But by the same token, YOU seem to want to attack and criticize a scientific theory. On what grounds? What is your degree? Where is your criteria in attacking evolution. If people may not address issues without the title of expert, you must prove now that YOU are an expert in evolution. After all, you want us to get out of theology because "we are not theologians".....may I return the same to you unless you can show that you have a degree and would be classified an expert.

[Canuckster1127]

drddunks,

Sorry you found my comments to be offensive. I was addressing your questions and not you personally. You might want to learn that skill if you wish to be taken seriously by the way.

You claim I do gymnastics avoiding the issues you raise and then claim you were asking questions and not making statements. Which is it?

1. I overstated my point with regard to knowing the Mind of God. Of course, where God reveals it in Scripture we have a basis to know it and act upon it. It is however, not the whole mind of God in every regard. God is infinite. We are finite. If you believe everything we need to know about everything is found in the Bible alone, then we're in complete disagreement. I presume you're using a computer, based on the evidence of your post here. Did you build it yourself based upon scripture alone or are you sure those people who designed and built it are Christians?

I'm rather surprised in 40 years of studying the Scripture you've never come across the concept of any knowlege outside of the Bible itself. Have you read Rom 1:18-20? You may try googling the term Natural Theology and taking a gander.

2. God is Just. What basis is there for you to believe that he is unjust in withholding evidence of Evolution as a science to believers and having them die unless you think any form of evolution, even as a science, is incompatable with or invalidates Gen 1? He also let these people die without knowledge of electrical engineering, computers and flouride in their water. Any comments on that?

Again you attack me personally by accusing me of following after what unbelievers say, (another personal attack and not a dealing with what I've said.) Why is that? Are you personally threatened by anyone disagreeing with you?

The Bible is not wrong in Genesis. I've not stated it is. It's certainly possible that you and I are wrong in our understanding of Genesis in terms of what it teaches with regard to mechanics but then that is not a basis of salvation. It's not from my point of view anyway. You appear to believe you have it all figured out and therefore, whether you realize it or not, you've possibly elevated your understanding above the Word of God itself. Do you think that is possible?

3. I don't believe the purpose of God or Moses as he was inspired by God was by any means to make scientific statements in Genesis 1 at a 20th century level. Nor do I believe science has it all figured out. You presume far too much.

Straight question. Do you believe that a Young Earth Creationist interpretation or understanding of Genesis 1 is required for Salvation?

4. I make no assumptions as to science having everything right. That is a strawman argument of your own construction.

You finish with a final judgement with regard to me as a believer which tells me a great deal about your ability to reason and discourse.

If that element of your reasoning and beliefs speaks to what Christianity is about, I would agree with you. Thankfully, I am secure in my own salvation.

Your words are a wonderful illustration of what a YEC position taken to an extreme represents taken to its logical end. Thanks for providing that.

You may wish to read to the Board Discussion Guidelines and Purpose and determine if you wish to continue posting here.

Regards,

Bart

[Gman]

drddunks,

Perhaps this quote from Rich, (the owner of this website) will help you understand what we mean by the word evolution. Bascially, there is not much proof when it comes to macroevolution. It is NOT entirely factual... At all. Therefore God created it all not evolution (or macroevolution) itself.

It is important to first define what is meant by the word "evolution." There are actually two major theories of biological evolution:

* Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.
* Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.

Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution)

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

[drddunks]

Perhaps this quote from Rich, (the owner of this website) will help you understand what we mean by the word evolution. Bascially, there is not much proof when it comes to macroevolution. It is NOT entirely factual... At all. Therefore God created it all not evolution (or macroevolution) itself.

Don't assume i don't know anything, you are all very condescending and assume that when soemone sees through the facade of evolution that they do notknow the theory. I know it quite well and it is lacking in truth, common sense, evidence and existence.

Did you build it yourself based upon scripture alone or are you sure those people who designed and built it are Christians?

Since scripture tells us that God gave us brains, then the answer is yes it was based upon scripture alone for God gave us the ability to think, that ability did not arise on its own.

Have you read Rom 1:18-20?

That passage does not support a doctrine of on going revelation, it supports the idea that what we see is evidence of God and Hs creative act. you use it to justify your belief oin evolution and you are on the wrong track.

What basis is there for you to believe that he is unjust in withholding evidence of Evolution as a science to believers and having them die unless you think any form of evolution, even as a science, is incompatable with or invalidates Gen 1?

1. It is contrary to what God did and who He is. The ability to identify & find cures for diseases has been with us all along, that is a poor analogy to use tosupport believing in a totally secular idea and one which contradicts the Bible.

Again you attack me personally by accusing me of following after what unbelievers say,

That is not a personal attack, that is stating a fact. Darwin was an unbeliever, you follow after what he said. There is nothing insulting in that comment. Please i am not threatened by you or your beliefs.

It's certainly possible that you and I are wrong in our understanding of Genesis in terms of what it teaches with regard to mechanics but then that is not a basis of salvation

i do not see how anyone can mistake 'and God said and it was' it takes a lot of gymnastics to turn that into a slow moving process while undermining all the other Biblical passages which refer to the creation act.

I don't believe the purpose of God or Moses as he was inspired by God was by any means to make scientific statements in Genesis 1 at a 20th century level. Nor do I believe science has it all figured out. You presume far too much

there is nothing scientific, per se, in the creation act. it wasn't done naturally, it was done as God described it to Moses--a one time super-natural act to initiate a universe and life as we know it. there is nothing in that chapter that will follow human science and tring to get it to fit into a scientific model is wrong.

Do you believe that a Young Earth Creationist interpretation or understanding of Genesis 1 is required for Salvation?

I believe you cannot accept what you want the Bible to say when it appeals to you then reject it when it disagrees with what you want to believe. What you are saying is, God spoke the truth in John 3:16 but lied in Gen. 1. I am sorry but such an attitude is not christian.

You may wish to read to the Board Discussion Guidelines and Purpose and determine if you wish to continue posting here.

Ahhh yes. Bring out the threats. So you are threatened by someone who disagrees with you and points out the errors in your thinking. What a hypocrite. This isn't a christian forum but a cult avenue of expression. In my signature is a website address run by an old 'friend' of yours, archaeologist, let's see if you have the cahonnies to register there and defend your point of view. (that is if you are not threatened), and that is so i do not have not worry about being banned because i expose your lies or disagree with your thinking.

Your words are a wonderful illustration of what a YEC position taken to an extreme represents taken to its logical end. Thanks for providing that.

I am neither a YEC nor a OEC, if you read Gen. 1:1 you will see that no dates were given. The only time frame we have is 'evening and morning...' which is translated as a 24 hour day despite your twisting of linquistics.

BACTERIA and BACTERIAL transmission wasn't understood until the 1800's and 1900's.

Don't make your hole any deeper. You are arrogant and assume only the modern world understood such things, did you know that the Minoans had glass shaped to fit telescopes? You do not have a clue about the ancient world nor of life.

YOur argument seems to revolve around the idea that because it was so late that this was unfair

It is not onlyunfair but unjust and contradictory to whom God is and its late arrival proves the scripture where God says in the New Test. that He will send a powerful delusion for people to believe. (paraphrased) Guess what evolution is--a delusion.

The plague was caused by bacteria on a flea on a rat

If whatyou said in that whole paragraph were true, then we would be suffering from the plague every year. It isn't and it wasn't from a flea, please read credible books on history.

But there are plenty of examples of people dying in ignorance over issues that I have already presented

Your analogy is wrong for those idea didn't try to re-write the Bible and present God as a liar, sadist, unjust nor do they undermine the teaching of the Bible. Plus those people who believed such things had an opportunity to choose to dismiss them whereas with those dying wthout knowing about the theory of evolution (if true, which it isn't) had no such opportunity to choose and that contradicts what God teaches and makes evolution WRONG.

Here is a Bible verse: 'Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...' God lets us have a choice with opportunity and does not withhold important facts and details for thousands of years. Yes evolution is wrong based merely on it slate arrival to the scene.

The silliness of this statement

The more you squirm and try to get out of what you said the deeper your hole gets. You did say it and implied it.

If someone said, after you admired his car, "I made that car". Does speculating on the process mean that you doubt that statement? Does that statement absolutely mean that that person simply poofed that car into existence? We don't and the *absence* of a process mentioned in Genesis does not proove direct fiat as the method

In Gen. 1 God does not say 'I made it' it says 'and God said let there be..and it was..." a big difference. no implication of a process, no process being used at all.

God does not reveal everything about His creation even if we take direct fiat as His method. Viruses, Bacteria, protozoans are not mentioned anywhere specifically in the account

Yes He did. If you look at His words you will see that all was good and the english word 'good' has the meaning as being perfect (oxford english dict.) we know that creation was perfect and that sin and disease came into the world at the fall of man. He revealed everything, you just can't see it.

Just out of curiousity, what would you deem to be criteria to be experts

First off, i do not follow unbelievers, they give credit to anything other than God. They are not of God (1 John, 1 or 2 Tim) and do not think with God's regenrated work.

Second, It has to fall in line with the Biblical message. If it doesn't then there is an error in the science not God's word.

What is your background on science? Do you have any degrees? How many journal articles do you read per week?

Ahhh yes, going after the qualifications so you can dismiss the words. God doesn't work that way. Obviously I am qualified or i wouldn't be objecting to your nonsense.

is that you attack Deem and myself and others here and accuse us of not being theologians

Your are not theologians, i looked at Deem's biography, not one christian degree not one theological degree. Sorry none of you are theologians and that is a statement of fact not a personal attack. You may be scientists but that is it.

After all, you want us to get out of theology because "we are not theologians".....may I return the same to you unless you can show that you have a degree and would be classified an expert

Sorry i will meddle in science when it usurps the theological field and claims to be the final authority when it bases its conclusions on incomplete data, conjecture and teachings of unbelievers. Science can tell us how photosynthesis or orbits works but it cannot make any claims to what God did or didn't do. If it does do that then it has gone far beyond its scope and limitations and is interferring with the teaching of the truth.

Science is only a minority aid, nothing more and it is sin which tries to put it where it doesn't belong.

Again i invite you to come to [removed spam] where i am not threatened wth banning just because i disagree with your point of view. Such threats show you are not interested in the truth but seek to hide your heads in the sand and look only to reinforce your sinful teachings.

[Canuckster1127]

You are incorrect with regard to your statements regarding the education and degrees of me at least. However, it is moot as your actions in this regard demonstrate you are unwilling or incapable of interacting on the level of common courtesty and discourse that we maintain here.

Your post will remain as a testimony to the reasons you have been banned.

Should you change your mind in terms of your behavior in this regard, you may e-mail me for reconsideration.

Bart

[Gman]

Don't assume i don't know anything, you are all very condescending and assume that when soemone sees through the facade of evolution that they do notknow the theory. I know it quite well and it is lacking in truth, common sense, evidence and existence.

Who is being condescending here? No one here claims they know "HOW" God created the earth, only that it was created by HIM. Common sense would allow us to use our observational sciences to argue the point either way. Perhaps, and what I believe, it is more condescending to state we know the exact "HOW" on the way he created things. We just don't know...

[zoegirl]

1. Please provide ANY source that shows knowledge of bacteria or viruses before the invention of a microscope.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf

2. Please provide your sources for a cause of the black plague other than bacterial or viral. There are three known models that I am aware of. The most common model out there is that of the bacterai borne of fleas living on rats, Yersina pestis bacteria. Another model proposes that anthrax could have been the mode of transmission. Another possibility is that an unknown virus was the cause. Yersinia remains the most popular. Here are my sources....where are yours?

http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic428.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qaojnr ... m-3results


AS to your "I don't listen to unbelievers", may I ask whether you take analgesics? Medication? Do you follow the advice of a doctor? Antibiotics? Cholesterol medication? Chances are you are trusting in an unbelievers knowledge. Unless, of course, you reject any modern medical advance in your tirade against knowledge from science and research. Anything else smacks of hypocrisy, rejecting knowledge from non-believers except when it benefits you or your family.

[zoegirl]

Whoops, guess not....oh well

[the sleep of reason]

wow. all that, wow.

i just saw a lot of people going from arguing againts evolution as anti-christian to arguing it's not necessarily antichristian, which is kind of all i've been trying to say. well, that, and that i think it's silly to deny evolution as a mechanism in nature (macro or micro or bbq flavored).

to answer zoe girl from way back when about cancer: cancer is rapid evolution of cells that mutates (evolves) in order to keep itself going. so to say 'the cancer spread from his colon to his liver" is to say cancer has evolved across the continents (called organs here) and evolved into new species (called colon cancer or liver cancer.) here the word 'cancer' is more inline with the word "animal", an umbrella of a word covering many types of this species.

and my source was a doctorate level lecture by a cancer expert (i can get the name if you want, i dont know off my head) to speak of the enormous complications of curing cancer--because cancer is an evolving creature, sometimes isolated to just a single human environment, turbo charged in it's evolution to the point we cant keep up with making cures as fast as it evolves. sometimes a specific type of cancer exists in one person, dies out, and ceases to exist anymore. it's hard to keep up with this fast-track evolution.

about cats and bats, rats and pogo sticks:
analogies are neat. but they are what they are. rats v bats isnt like rockets v pogo sticks. it's more like...uh rats v bats. furthermore, if you insist on the analogy, then OK a rocket IS a pogostick with various parts altered to suit new needs. but then an ANYTHING is an ANYTHING if you want to get into the semantics. that's why i was talking about something specific, such as bone structures of these creatures.
you argue about the 'insurmountable complexity in physiological change for a rat to become a bat" but turn around and say evolution across a specie is rational and logical to you.

so then i'll say ok: lizards. how can you look at the spectrum of lizards and not see the variances in physiological structure, et al, and say it's LESS complex than a bat v rat? look at worm lizards v geckos, or serpantines v water dragons. live birth v egg reproduction, pit glands, eye sight, venom (mexican vemon lizards like the whatchoomacallit....gila monster...) flat lizards, chameleons, and on and etc. i dont see how you can argue these variances are more or less complicated for evolution to achieve than a bat v rat. others specie(s) have enormously complex variances across their single species, like frogs or salamanders or birds or mammals, too.

[the sleep of reason]

furthermore, and i feel this is pretty big:

uh the whole SPECIES deal is arbitrary and MADE UP. the only reason rats and bats are 'different species" is because scientists arbitrarily drew lines about what physiological this or thats will be called this or that. it's not like some RULE that nature adheres to. a zebra and a horse dont know they are different species, because species is a made up classification system. so evolution doesnt have to overcome a made up,
'difficult' nor arbitrary barrier of inter-specie developement because it works under the umbrella of NATURE. evolution exists in nature, which includes all living things. 'species' were just created by men. animals are just being animals. i mean how far does MICRO evolution have to go before we decide 'ok, this is so different than 'animal square one' that we have to say it's a new specie?" it's like the evolotution between a hirax and an elephant. they are related. do you deny that?

i see this the same as saying birds cant fly to canada from america because it's a different country. and that's difficult, to go cross-country. like birds care we call it something different.

so to say evolution can be micro but not macro implies the character Evolution has a logical understanding of Linnaean classification and stops at it's made up borders. that it is conscious of what a specie is and consciously decides not to transcend it. just because we box things in for our understanding doesnt mean that's naturally where the cutoff line occurs.
i see the mircro/macro debate the same as geographical boundaries. you can say "ok this northern hemisphere is ALL new england." then you say 'ok it's too big, this part will be america" then you say "ok this part is different because it's sunny and warm, so it's california, but this part is cold and snowy, so it's alaska.' now you've created species. but it's arbitrary, you've just created lines to box in small areas for your brain to better comprehend.

animals are bigger than that. they dont care what arbitrary lines or names we put on them, they still just evolve.

[Canuckster1127]

Sleep,

Few but the most radical young earth creationists deny the fact of evolution insofar as it has been observed which is a precious short time in comparison to the time it is surmised it would take to sustain changes such as those you note changing from one species to another. Ironically, some Young Earth Creationists even argue for an extremely accelerated form of evolution to explain the differentiation and distribution of species world wide based upon their belief in a world wide flood which would require such rapidity to explain the current state of affairs.

Yes species per se are an assigned assortment but it is based upon the organism's ability to reproduce and certain elements of physiogamy which relate directly to the nature of the organism and as such the categorization is reflective of the same types of things that play into the entire study and understanding of the field.

The issue within creationism vs. evolution is one of cause and means.

Creationists, Old Earth and Young Earth, believe the Genesis account is literal and not a myth or metaphore. As such a significant factor is that the influence and work of a creator is not something that is purely scientifically observable and provable (although the ID movement of late is questioning that and looking for ways to measure, extrapolate or infer evidence that on its own would indicate something more than just natural processes at work.)

Science is limited by definition and nature to that which is material and physical. Therefore, it really can only move in that realm and it can only predict or analyze in that realm. Once you introduce that which is supernatural or spiritual, science dramatically reduces in form.

That is where the argument comes in with regard to evolution on the larger scale.

Among the many variants that exist there are a few main options:

1. Some argue that God created the universe, established the natural processes and then by means of those processes evolved life in exactly the way science observes presently and then infers back on the basis of fossil records and other evidences. This in a nut shell is theistic evolution. Most here would not argue that God "could have" supernaturally created things in another matter, but for them the evidence is that God "did not" do so outside those natural processes.

2. Some argue that God entirely in 24 hour days or over the process of a variable time frame, supernaturally intervened above natural processes. These creationists, Old and Young, give varying credibility to science's ability to see these things but in the end don't rely primarily upon science but rather upon their interpretation of the Genesis account and related passages.

This is simplified to an extreme of course.

Within the creationist camp there are varying levels of respect for science from great to little.

Some look at mainstream evolutionary science which continues to grow and upon which a great deal of medical advances in many areas rest and recognize its practical impact while denying or questioning the purely materialistic elements which when extended beyond science into the realm of philosophy and religion leads to atheism or agnosticism. They see the practical results and attribute the plausibility of evolution and development not as evidence of an evolutionary process with common ancestors, but rather evidence of a common creator who utilized similar modus operandi which allows for the plausibilty of some natural process.

It gets more complicated moving forward.

So in a nut shell, evolution in particular is a very loaded terms because people use it to mean a whole spectrum of things ranging from that which is scientifically indisputable and has been observed and recorded to that which is highly theorhetical and carries philisophical ramifications that are not purely spiritual.

Yes, the micro-macro construct is somewhat artificial but it is a useful description that categorizes the levels of change that we are talking about. It is one things to talk about a speciation change over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to where independent populations become identified and cease to reproduce with on another. It is entirely another things to speak of millions of years and changes within phylum or kingdoms and to have to explain how these accumulated small changes over great periods of times maintained positive impact to sustain the progress.

Hope this summary helps to frame the issue better.

Let me know.

Bart

[jenna]

I haven't been involved in this before, but I wanted to say a few things. Sleep, zebras and horses actually DO "know" that they are different species. Almost any animal knows the difference between its own kind and another kind, within the same type. For instance, horses and zebras are basically both "horses". But you will never see them naturally interbreed with one another. The same thing applies with lions and tigers. They are both a species of cat, but they know their boundaries. It isn't "natural" for them to interbreed. Microevolution, however, can and does exist. Just look at bacteria and viruses. For a long time, we were able to get rid of harmful ones with medicines. But eventually they "evolved" to become resistant. Is this not a type of evolution? As I said before, I haven't been involved in this before, so anyone can jump in and correct me if they think I'm wrong.

[zoegirl]

I haven't been involved in this before, but I wanted to say a few things. Sleep, zebras and horses actually DO "know" that they are different species. Almost any animal knows the difference between its own kind and another kind, within the same type. For instance, horses and zebras are basically both "horses". But you will never see them naturally interbreed with one another. The same thing applies with lions and tigers. They are both a species of cat, but they know their boundaries. It isn't "natural" for them to interbreed. Microevolution, however, can and does exist. Just look at bacteria and viruses. For a long time, we were able to get rid of harmful ones with medicines. But eventually they "evolved" to become resistant. Is this not a type of evolution? As I said before, I haven't been involved in this before, so anyone can jump in and correct me if they think I'm wrong.

Actually, sleep and you both have valid points. There are natural biological mating barriers, mating preferences, prezygotic and postzygotic barriers that define species. There are reasons you see color patterns, song patterns in birds and frogs, and behavioral patterns like courtship behavior that signal specific breeds. And in areas where multiple species coexist, you see VERY defined behaviors and colors that signal species identity. For instance, in coral reefs, you see brilliant color patterns for different species of fish that identify individual species that allow courting fish to recognize their own species.

In North American ponds, you see multiple species of waterfowl that have very distinctive courtship displays that allow birds to recognize each other. In fact, raising a male hatchling with a mother of a different species will *really* mess him up. He will imprint upon the female mother's color pattern and learn to recognize her. He will then try to court females that look like dear old mom My favorite has to be the courtship displays of the blue-footed booby (not kidding ) Do a google video or youtube search for their courtship displays for an amusing and bizarre display. Point is, it does take a LOT to disrupt these signaling displays and songs. And far more do you see the problems when they are messed up, versus any benefits from changes in courtship displays.


That being said, there are abilities to interbreed, like the tiger and lion, to produce fertile hybrids. Dogs and wolve are also good examples of this. They are considered separate species even though they can produce fertile offspring. Darwin's finches are another good example. Many of them can still interbreed. Sleep is correct is his accounting of some of the confusion of defining species. All along the eastern United States there are cute little frogs called Spring Peepers. (LOVE, love, love the sound of them in April, where in Maryland they start courting), however, if you were to take some of these Maryland spring peepers and take them up to New York in April, they would not interbreed with the peepers there because the environment hasn't signalled the courting there yet. Different species? No, but according to the species definition, they are not interbreeding. same thing with the peepers in south carolina and maryland.

Sleep, while few of us here object to microevoltuion and even limited speciation, there has yet to be experimental evidence of the power of speciation to produce the *historical* accounts. what I mean by this is that while we have very clear evidence of microevolution and hints at speciation, any extrapolation of what happened in the past is still an extrapolation. What are the limits of this speciation? Even in the textbooks out there, you see few pages given to that mysterious transition between microevolution and macroevolution. (case in point, while the AP bio book I use, a VERY common college text, dedicates three chapters to microevolution and speciation, there are only three to four pages to the suspected mechanisms of micro to macro evolution. Then the book jumps to the historical account, again using circumstantial evidence of DNA and fossil homologies.)

Take home message? It IS fascinating to study this part of microevolution, but we musn't forget that the situations out there are a lot more complex than what has been presented. We DO see VERY distinct species barriers, Animals and plants (if we can be anthropomorphic) DO care what they mate with. There are very well-established patterns of cellular recognition in gametes (sperm and egg cells), reproductive capability, hybrid vigor, hybrid fertility, and mating preferences. I think it is too presumptious to quick conclusions about the power of mutations when we really have only begun to understand the cellular and genetic machinery out there. we are at the tip of the iceberg still.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=6

for fun