Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs?

[neo-x]

And the failure of science to produce a brand new species from selective breeding experiments shows that dogs aren't the only area where this fact has been established. But remember, evolution has no such guiding of selective/artificial/geographically manipulative breeding. Supposedly, species have managed this ability to mutate/pass on mutations via advantages they supposedly bring, RANDOMLY, UNGUIDED (I'm not addressing theistic evolution). But we've not been able to scientifically plan, calculate and breed any new species. And cross-species offspring are typically sterile. And yet millions of species supposedly were able to do this through random chance? Random chance has a better shot at creating new species than the boys in the genetics lab? Huh? Ah, but evolutionists add in the magic word, using the word millions (much like our politicians do when referencing vast sums of money) - as if there was virtually unlimited amounts of time for evolution to produce so many new species. But is that really true?

really?

[PaulSacramento]

That would depend on ones understanding of what "macro-evolution" means.

I would say macro evolution is evolution above species level. One species evolving into another species. At least that's what seems to be the accepted definition nowadays.

Yep but what does that mean to YOU?

To most biologists and geneticist it means something like this:
EXAMPLE:
A group of white wolves ( Group B) splits off from the pack ( Group A).
They migrate away.
Over generations ( many, many generations - 1000's or 10'000s of years or more) through random mutations, they "evolve" to a point that, if they were introduced back to the original pack, they would NOT be able to mate succesfully.
Thus they are now a new species of white wolf.

This is a rough and tumble example but in layman terms it explains how most biologists view "macro-evolution" as occurring.

[hughfarey]

I sometimes tease my students by drawing a 1m line on the whiteboard, and labelling its length as 1,000000,000000,000000 attometres. I then ask them to draw another line, freehand, which is approximately 1, 000000, 000000, 000000, 000000 attometres long. Invariably, and I do mean I have never had a different outcome, they draw a line about 1.3m long, confusing the length of the written number with its meaning.

Philip illustrates a variation of this in his statement that after "centuries" of dog-breeding, no new species of dog has been created. I would go further than that, and say that although there seem to be distinct genetic differences between them dating from up to 10, 000 years ago, domestic dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and so, even after 10, 000 years of genetic segregation, the dog and the wolf are still the same species. Well so what? Large animals can take at least a million years and often more. The last canid speciation event was probably the separation of the wolf from the coyote, which probably occurred roughly 2 million years ago, and the one before that the separation of the wolf/coyote from the jackal, maybe a million years before that. So, although dogs and wolves are still the same species today, I strongly suspect that by the year 900 000 AD, give or take 50, 000 years, they will be wholly distinct.

What about the Cambrian explosion? There are a number of theories about what set it off, none exclusive and none wholly established yet, but the principal factors which controlling its speed would be a) generation time (how quickly an organism grows to reproductive ability), b) number of offspring (increasing genetic diversity), and c) genetic segregation. As with most marine organisms, the Cambrian fauna probably reproduced quickly, and in their thousands. What possibilities there were for genetic segregation we don't know, but some of the factors which set the explosion off may have increased the number of available ecological niches, which would have encouraged rapid speciation. These almost certainly include the development of hard parts, an increase in atmospheric oxygen and even a previous mass-extiction which made previously occupied niches available for new colonisation. Given any reasonable selection of these, 20 million years or so is not too short a time to generate the wide diversity or organisms we observe.

Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the subsequent extinction of many of the phyla which evolved is poor evidence for random evolution. Can you be suggesting that the arbitrary creation and destruction of nearly a quarter of the possible ways of managing life is good evidence for special creation or some kind of intelligent design? On the contrary, we evolutionists would expect that, when new conditions arrived that enabled rapid diversification, life would initially proliferate exuberantly and extravagantly, and then later, when the exploitable world was fully exploited, environmental pressures of population and competition would concentrate the variety into those few which managed most successfully.

[PaulSacramento]

IF the sole cause of evolution is random mutation and natural selection of those mutations that are most beneficial, one would expect that it takes 100,000 or years or more, baring an unforeseen event that may accelerate the process, for one to see "macro-evolution" and the emergence of a distinct species.

[hughfarey]

There are a number of factors affecting speciation speed, which can be extremely variable. The length of time between successive generations is one of them. Big dogs and horses start breeding at 2 to 3 years, elephants more like 20 to 30, so other things being equal evolution would take about 10 times longer in elephants than in dogs (and, pro rata, about 10 times quicker in mice!). After two groups of the same species become genetically isolated, it might take 50 000 generations (I wild guess, I admit) for them to become sufficiently genetically distinct for them not to be able to interbreed. That's your 100 000 years for dogs, 1 000 000 years for elephants, and 10 000 years for mice!

[Philip]

Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the subsequent extinction of many of the phyla which evolved is poor evidence for random evolution.

No, I'm suggesting that the supposed random/uncaused mechanisms that supposedly caused evolution up to the incredible and sudden appearance and proliferation of higher species during the Cambrian suddenly stopped - right when conditions were more optimum and conducive to the proliferation of most species. But why, as this would seem in contradiction to the various evolutionary scenarios as frequently described.

On the contrary, we evolutionists would expect that, when new conditions arrived that enabled rapid diversification, life would initially proliferate exuberantly and extravagantly, and then later, when the exploitable world was fully exploited, environmental pressures of population and competition would concentrate the variety into those few which managed most successfully.

So, why then, across all remaining and successful species across the world did evolution not continue to progress? We certainly know that large areas of the earth still were able to support the abundance of remaining species. And so what turned it off? And many millions of years since the Cambrian, why no new species (meaning, new KINDS, not mere ranges within, say, birds or canines, etc)?

[hughfarey]

Thanks, philip; I'm not completely sure that you understood my last post, or perhaps that I understand yours. The fundamental cause of speciation is indeed genetic mutation, and there is no reason to suppose that the principal cause of that (cosmic radiation) is any less now than it ever was. However, whether that radiation actually results in the development of new species depends on several other factors. If, for example, a species is perfectly adapted to its environment, then genetic change can only make it less adapted, and so is unlikely to take hold. If a new habitat becomes available (as probably happened in the Cambrian explosion) then any group diverging from the original, perhaps as a result of over-population, is likely to evolve to adapt to the new habitat. It is entirely reasonable that whatever new condition appeared in the Cambrian it resulted in the relatively sudden appearance of a range of new habitats, and a range of new life styles evolved to occupy them. Some, as I described previously, did not stand the test of time and became extinct by competition from other forms. Once the available lifestyles (phyla) had been established, there is no reason why any new ones would form. Having said that, evolutionary progress has continued to open up new environments (such as the possibility of living on dry land, for example), and minor changes to the Cambrian environments have resulted in the evolution of new species, such that none of the originals is still extant.

Now, I'm worried about the creationist use of the word 'kind' which is seriously anthropocentric. You yourself give 'birds' and 'canines' as examples of 'kinds' without perhaps realising that these words describe completely different levels of taxonomy. Creationists are often willing to admit of evolution within a 'kind,' but do not accept that one kind can evolve into another, but often don't realise that genetic diversity among, say, 'spiders' is orders of magnitude greater than, say, 'cats.' In the absurd film 'Evolution vs God,' Ray Comfort is perfectly happy to accept visible speciation among bacteria as acceptable because: "a bacterium becomes a bacterium; there's no change of kind." He clearly doesn't realise that if you can accept evolution in bacteria, which constitute an entire living kingdom, that it is wholly illogical to reject it in, say, mammals, which constitute no more than one class of one phylum of one kingdom. Are you yourself really content to accept that eagles and wrens evolved from a common ancestor because 'they're all birds; there's no change of kind,' while at the same time rejecting the evolution of dogs and bears from a common ancestor simply because you choose to define 'dogs' and 'bears' as 'kinds'?

[Philip]

Are you yourself really content to accept that eagles and wrens evolved from a common ancestor because 'they're all birds; there's no change of kind,' while at the same time rejecting the evolution of dogs and bears from a common ancestor simply because you choose to define 'dogs' and 'bears' as 'kinds'?

Hugh, you know that you have no absolute proof of transition forms or of animals of one type becoming entirely another one. What you have is conjecture and theory, but you certainly have no proof. What the fossil record shows is similarities between types and ranges within types. Not to mention a fossil record that should be teaming with countless and obvious transition forms - but that is not the case.

I believe in progressive creationism - which postulates the very same ages of the universe as does mainstream science (non-theistic naturalism). But what you see as connected forms having evolved from previous ones can in fact be viewed quite differently, AND that matches up well with Scripture. Meaning that the Creator utilized well-designed templates for animals that functioned well across multiple species. This accounts for the similarities without them having evolved. I'll use the automobile as an example. The basic templates for a car are actually quite ancient. Buggies, carts, carriages of horse-drawn vehicles all have been used for countless centuries and all have in common axles and opposing wheels. And these basic templates were carried forward by various designers of the first cars - as they were essentially motorized buggies, as the basic templates hark back to ancient horse-drawn carts, carriages, etc. Today, the very same basic template of cars and buggies/carriages are still used, but the designs often look vastly different. We have everything from a Mini Cooper to Indy cars to Rolls Royces to giant earth-moving bulldozers, many of which have are radically different-looking as to shape, size and abilities/adaptations, but they still all are built around the very same ancient templates. Why? Because the templates offer optimum functionality across multiple designs via tweaked differences. The mistake is to believe the various forms in the fossil record are related/connected/ that they evolved.

What I believe to be true (per Progressive Creationism) is that God used basic templates for locomotion, flight and propulsion across many, many species and that this accounts for their similarities, whilst also designing similar-looking species as well as ones of radically different looks, adaptations and sizes. He designed various species for specific periods, orchestrated various periods in which certain creatures proliferated, and also periods of extinctions followed/interspersed with new species. Who knows how many times this happened, but all the while God was readying the planet for human beings. Those who find this too miraculous must remember God spoke a universe into being, and the New Testament tells us of a new/restored heaven and earth which will come together as one. Therefore, this would account for the similarities between older and younger species in which evolution between species has occurred.

Of course, one obvious thing about theistic evolution believers is they must necessarily view key portions of Scripture as mere allegory - which means such portions are not truly understandable and can be interpreted in countless but mostly useless ways. Especially the stories of Adam and Eve's creations and their fall, if merely allegorical, and as t heir story is foundational to understanding the rest of Scripture, this would seem to make the rest of Scripture make little sense, especially the need for a savior, etc. And let's not forget, the New Testament views Adam as a real person and his and Eve's stories as being historical fact.

Theistic evolutionists all seem to solve evolution contradictions and seeming critical problems by saying, "Of course, but God was guiding that evolutionary process."

[neo-x]

Instead of addressing hugh's points you completely derailed it to why you fear evolution. The truth is for someone bent on denying evolution no amount of evidence is enough. There's plenty of evidence you just don't like it. Anyway the only one without evidence is you, what evidence do you have except conjecture and 'theory'. Ironically this also highlights my previous post which dealt with the improper use of the word theory as you just did it.

[hughfarey]

Thanks, philip, again. However...
"No absolute proof of transition forms or of animals of one type becoming entirely another one." Have you deliberately switched from the vague and anthropomorphic word 'kind' to the equally vague and anthropomorphic word 'type,' or was it inadvertent? I ask because the range of genetic diversity which constitutes a 'kind' or 'type' seems to vary wildly and often indiscriminately. I'm guessing, but if I were to ask a creationist to list some 'types,' within which there is permitted variation but no evolution, I think it would include 'bacteria' (a kingdom), 'starfish' (a phylum), 'birds' (a class), 'whales' (an order), 'cats' (a family), 'baboons' (a genus), and 'chimpanzees' (a species). In other words the closer an organism resembles people, the narrower the definition of the word 'type'.

"A fossil record that should be teaming with countless and obvious transition forms - but that is not the case." Not necessarily. If transition happens very gradually, in line with gradual environmental changes, then we would expect, and find, a good range of representatives of all forms. But if it happens quickly, as the result of sudden environmental change, then there may have been relatively few transitional forms, even fewer of which were preserved as fossils. This is exactly what we observe.

"He designed various species for specific periods, orchestrated various periods in which certain creatures proliferated, and also periods of extinctions followed/interspersed with new species. Who knows how many times this happened, but all the while God was readying the planet for human beings." To me, although it is a theological rather than scientific point, this is a more unreasonable tenet than special creation itself. What a wasteful, uncreative way of preparing the universe for human beings, making and annihilating millions upon millions of living organisms, using them as tools to modify the environment for a billion years, just to give us the planet as we have it today. It is, I agree, an article of faith, but I simply cannot accept that this modus operandi characterises God as I understand Him.

"Theistic evolution believers ... must necessarily view key portions of Scripture as mere allegory - which means such portions are not truly understandable and can be interpreted in countless but mostly useless ways. Especially the stories of Adam and Eve's creations and their fall, if merely allegorical, and as their story is foundational to understanding the rest of Scripture, this would seem to make the rest of Scripture make little sense, especially the need for a savior, etc." On the contrary, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, that the sins of the fathers were visited upon their sons for countless generations on the basis of a single act of disobedience by a single individual, sounds petty and vindictive. Seen as an allegory for the development of self-awareness within a particular group of hominids, the ability not only to judge right from wrong but also to choose one or the other, and the propensity of humans not always to choose right, Genesis becomes a more penetrating analysis of the whole human condition.

"The New Testament views Adam as a real person and his and Eve's stories as being historical fact." So it does. Jesus, of course, knew better.

[Philip]

Guys, all I'm saying is that the very same fossil evidences can be looked at with another explanation - one that fits both Scripture and the fossil record, yet that does not require evolution. My analogy of the diverse designs of automobile, all manner of wheeled devices and ancient carts, chariots and buggies - ALL being variations on basic templates but created independently - makes perfect sense.

"... a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, that the sins of the fathers were visited upon their sons for countless generations on the basis of a single act of disobedience by a single individual, sounds petty and vindictive."

You misunderstand Scripture. We are not all condemned and in need of a Savior because of Adam's sins, nor due to those of anyone else's - except our OWN: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because ALL sinned--"(Romans 5:12). See Rich Deem's explanation here on this site: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... l-sin.html

Seen as an allegory for the development of self-awareness within a particular group of hominids, the ability not only to judge right from wrong but also to choose one or the other, and the propensity of humans not always to choose right, Genesis becomes a more penetrating analysis of the whole human condition.

So God needs to make up nonsensical fairy tales for us to understand that we have a choice between sinning and not, and to better understand the human condition? But the rest of the Bible doesn't view Adam and Eve's story as being allegorical.

"The New Testament views Adam as a real person and his and Eve's stories as being historical fact." So it does. Jesus, of course, knew better."

To say this tells me that you clearly do not accept Scripture as being "God Breathed," which means that the ultimate Author of All Scripture is God. "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) When Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished," He was including ALL of what was considered the Law (The Books of Moses) of which Genesis is a part. So clearly He considered it to be God-given in its entirety and part of the canon of Scripture. And we know precisely what the Old Testament consisted of in Jesus' day due to the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts.

And if you are picking and choosing which parts of Scripture are God given and when are merely man-made creative writings, then it is worthless to you - as you have no way of knowing which parts are true and which are not. And, believe me, you'll conveniently only accept portions as true that sync up with your only personal opinions and carnal desires.

We also know that Adam has to be a real man because he is in the lineage leading up to Christ, given in Luke 3:23-38.

Jude 1:14 references Adam: "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying ..."

Jesus refers to Genesis 1:26-27 for the male-female element in marriage, and Genesis 2:24 to show that the leaving of parents and cleaving together to become an item are central to God’s intentions for permanent, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. He clearly believed that Genesis was Scripture.

The Apostle Paul references Adam in Romans 5:12. 1 Corinthians 15:45 references Adam having become a "living being." And again in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

And, finally, in Matthew 5, Jesus stated, "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished," the reference to "the Law" means the books of Moses (of which Genesis is a part). This passage means that: 1) Jesus was viewing the Books of Moses as one complete and Scriptural whole, of not which ANY part, even the smallest portions ("iota/dot") would pass until all He came to accomplish had been. And we know precisely what was in the New Testament of Jesus' day due to the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts' confirmations. And Jesus to the Old Testament ("The Law and the Prophets") so seriously that He says He came to die to fulfill it's meanings - THAT is how seriously He viewed the Old Testament as being "God-breathed."

Remember, if God can create a universe, then He can obviously protect and control His word (or, where necessary, provide us with the information and techniques necessary for us to determine where it may have been altered, and as to what was in the originals - via textual criticism techniques, etc).

[PaulSacramento]

Life being be designed needs to address the issue of "natural evil" in the animal world.
Things such as viruses and parasites that act in "cruel" ways, if they were designed by a Creator may put in doubt how loving He is.
Issues like appendicitis for example, must be addressed if the appendices was designed, issues like genetic deformities, different blood types and their incompatibility in procreation, pretty much any issues that seems like a "problem with the design" must be addressed.

[PaulSacramento]

To say this tells me that you clearly do not accept Scripture as being "God Breathed," which means that the ultimate Author of All Scripture is God. "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) When Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished," He was including ALL of what was considered the Law (The Books of Moses) of which Genesis is a part. So clearly He considered it to be God-given in its entirety and part of the canon of Scripture. And we know precisely what the Old Testament consisted of in Jesus' day due to the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts.

That is a WHOLE NEW thread ( again).
Our view of "god breathed" and ancient man's may not have been the same AND "God breathed" doesn't mean perfect or without error, does it?
I mean Adam was "God breathed" and so was creation and, at best, they were just "good".

[hughfarey]

Guys, all I'm saying is that the very same fossil evidences can be looked at with another explanation - one that fits both Scripture and the fossil record, yet that does not require evolution.

That's fine, but it doesn't address my point about the character of God. You went so far as to suggest that God was preparing the world for humans, and I couldn't agree more, but to suggest that it was done by successive waves of irrelevant creation and slaughter before finally coming up with the assemblage we have today does not correspond with my interpretation of his character. To see the world developing like a flower or a baby, every moment of whose existence is an extension and development of the moment before - that fits with my idea of God.

You misunderstand Scripture. We are not all condemned and in need of a Savior because of Adam's sins, nor due to those of anyone else's - except our OWN: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because ALL sinned--"(Romans 5:12).

This only makes sense allegorically. Why should sin and death spread to all men because of one man? It's a different interpretation of the allegory, but allegorical none the less.

So God needs to make up nonsensical fairy tales for us to understand that we have a choice between sinning and not, and to better understand the human condition?

Making up fairy tales, like the one about the rich man who stored up all his goods in his barn? or the man who spread cornseed on stony ground? or the one about the man who sold all his goods to buy a field with a jewel in it? Yes indeed, making up fairy tales is one of the few things that absolutely characterise God.

To say this tells me that you clearly do not accept Scripture as being "God Breathed," which means that the ultimate Author of All Scripture is God.

There is nothing at all in the concept of divine inspiration that demands the scientific truth of every sentence.

And if you are picking and choosing which parts of Scripture are God given and when are merely man-made creative writings, then it is worthless to you

Luckily for me then, I'm not doing anything of the sort. What I am doing is trying to understand how each part of the bible represents truth. Some parts may be utterly literal, some wholly allegorical, and a huge amount as a human moderated attempt to express divine inspiration as best can be.

You have no way of knowing which parts are [literally] true and which are not. And, believe me, you'll conveniently only accept portions as true that sync up with your only personal opinions and carnal desires.

I guess I'll just have to do my best, supported by a couple of thousands years of Christian biblical exegesis.

Finally, I don't dispute that first century Jews (and first century Christians, and nineteenth century Christians for that matter) understood Genesis literally. They had very little in the way of scientific knowledge to compare it with. Nevertheless they, like me, relied heavily on their own biblical scholars for the interpretation of difficult passages, and the people who understood it best were, of course, the Pharisees, whose scholarly interpretation of various passages enabled them to denounce Jesus as a law-breaker. By showing that they were completely missing the spirit and intent of the laws they were interpreting, Jesus was able to show how wrong they were.

[PaulSacramento]

We ALL pick n choose which scriptures to view as literal, which to view as literal and concrete, which to view as allegory and so forth.
There is NO ONE that takes 100% of the bible as literal and concrete.