Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
I cannot imagine why you are surprised that I returned to my thread. I debate at several other websites. I also have a life off-line, in the real world. So I do not have the time to come here every single day.

No need for this passive aggressive tone. We've been having a great conversation in this thread while you were out. No need for that to change now.

But it seems you've made up your mind on evolution as being a "myth"

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
Are you serious? My comment that you are objecting to was clearly directed at hughfarey and not at you. He was the one who made the following statements:


PAGE 4 OF THIS THREAD:

I must say I'm sorry we seem to have lost Alter2Ego, whose interpretation of Creation is very different from that of both Philip and Ryanbouma. Forgive me if you're reading this, Alter2Ego, but I have often found that while the more extreme creationists are quite good are explaining what they don't believe, they find it much harder, at least from a scientific point of view, to explain what they do believe. In this, amusingly enough, they have a lot in common with atheists. Could I press you for a statement, I wonder?

PAGE 6 OF THIS THREAD:

Hi Alter2Ego, good of you to return to your thread!

My above response was to what he said on Page 6, about me returning to my thread.

[Alter2Ego]

I cannot imagine why you are surprised that I returned to my thread. I debate at several other websites. I also have a life off-line, in the real world. So I do not have the time to come here every single day.

I'm surprised because in my experience it's quite rare for creationists to want to discuss the science of creation. I have been delighted that both Philip, to some extent, and much more generously ryanbouma have been prepared to explain clearly what they think occurred, rather than what they think didn't occur. I noted that having 'thrown down the gauntlet', so to speak, you did not then explain your position. and say what you think occurred. Nor have you yet. I look forward to it.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
I believe the Genesis creation account, as stated in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Every creature that has ever existed was created as is, according to their kind.

[Alter2Ego]

Anybody can go to the papers that I quoted from and confirm that I quoted within context. That is not the case with pro-evolution skeptics and pro-evolution pagans. They routinely ignore context.

Being a good evolutionist I have all the "papers" you quote from and can confirm that you did not give any context, let alone the correct one.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
Where, in my above response, did I say that I gave context? I stated that I quoted within context. I also stated that anyone can go to the papers that I quoted from and confirm that what I quoted was according to the context of the rest of the paper.

For a start I would not want anybody coming to your post for the first time to think that the popular books you quote from are "papers" in the generally academically accepted meaning of the word. Not that they are any less well argued in that respect; they simply lack the more rigorous (and more technical, and less popularly appealing) detail of the scientific papers they refer to

I admire your loyalty to Gould and Eldredge. But truth be told, without evidence to prove their philosophy, it matters not that what they wrote appeared in credential papers or bound volumes. Speculations and educated guesses that are not confirmed with hard evidence is not worth the paper it's printed on. It should be taken for its entertainment value as science fiction.


I will respond to the remainder of your post later.

[SonofAletheia]

Ryanbouma, let me know if you get a chance to read my post on the geographical distribution on oceanic vs. continental islands (as possible evidence for evolution)

I'd be interested to hear your views on it

I believe the Genesis creation account, as stated in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Every creature that has ever existed was created as is, according to their kind.

It's interesting how people who hold to the literal interpretation so often read things into the text.

[hughfarey]

I believe the Genesis creation account, as stated in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Every creature that has ever existed was created as is, according to their kind.

Excellent. If I may, could I ask for further elucidation? What do you mean by a "kind"? Would that be what I would call a species? Or something a little more encompassing, like a genus or family? Or something a little more exclusive, like a subspecies or breed? Thank you so much.
And may I assume you also believe the six literal days? Or can they be interpreted as periods of time, or actual days separated by periods of time?

I also stated that anyone can go to the papers that I quoted from and confirm that what I quoted was according to the context of the rest of the paper.

You did, didn't you. And I explained that that wasn't true. Let's agree to differ, and let anybody following this discussion look up the books for themselves.

[Alter2Ego]

In fact the quotations refer to quite different evolutionary scales, which it is important not to conflate. Eldredge's quotation about the lack of a gradual sequence of fossils between major groups is from a book which describes many of the transitional fossils you deny exist. His point, as I have explained in earlier posts, is that major evolutionary niches were colonised in relatively short times, compared to the eons of relative stability that ensued. That explains the disproportion between the numbers of transitional fossils and the numbers of fossils from more stable eras. Eldredge does not deny that transitional fossils exist at all.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
All of which amounts to speculations/opinions aka science fiction, since neither Gould nor Eldredge or anybody else knows what occurred thousands of years ago. Eldredge and Gould came up with the replacement theory of punctuated equilibrium after Charles Darwin's predictions failed. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find bones to fill in the gaps in the fossil record and show how creatures evolved from one another. According to one of Darwin's failed predictions, future paleontologists would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. Guess how many bones they found to prove the aforementioned? I will give you a single guess.

It is because the fossils record consistently presents gaps aka missing links between every creature, that Gould and Eldridge decided to compensate by dreaming up punctuated equilibrium THEORY. And that's theory as in: "an attempt at explaining why a phenomena occurred" aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."


According to punctuated equilibrium theory, species supposedly remained stable for a time, and then they simply jump from, for example, Creature A to Creature D with no requirement for transitional fossils of
Creature B and Creature C (the gaps or missing links in the fossil record).


You are arguing for the vivid imaginations of Gould and Eldredge who are speculating something occurred with no way of proving that it happened, because they were not there. Without transitional fossils to show where one creature linked up to another creature, we are talking science fiction.

[Alter2Ego]

I've listed numerous fossils (many of which have been found within the past 10 years). All of which fit perfectly with what evolution has to say. The dating, the attributes/forms of the transitional fossils, and more.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
The fossils you listed are of creatures that are entirely different from one another. You quoted from pro-evolution scientists who looked at similarities in fossils, despite the fact they have no way of connecting the various creatures with one another. They consistently whine about gaps in the fossils record. Gaps mean there are no bones to connect one creature with the other, despite the similarities in their fossilized bones.

[SonofAletheia]

I've listed numerous fossils (many of which have been found within the past 10 years). All of which fit perfectly with what evolution has to say. The dating, the attributes/forms of the transitional fossils, and more.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
The fossils you listed are of creatures that are entirely different from one another. You quoted from pro-evolution scientists who looked at similarities in fossils, despite the fact they have no way of connecting the various creatures with one another. They consistently whine about gaps in the fossils record. Gaps mean there are no bones to connect one creature with the other, despite the similarities in their fossilized bones.

I'm curious as to what exactly you're looking for in a transitional fossil? Perhaps you could define this.

entirely different from one another

That's hardly the case. They are exactly what a transitional fossil would look like: They share a number of traits/attributes with the prior and future species. And the dating always lines up perfectly. In other words, the transitional fossils is almost always dated between the prior and future evolutionary species. Fits perfectly with the theory of evolution

Consider it from the non-evolutionist point of view. God has created and then destroyed thousands of species (for whatever reason). And for some reason they are all simpler the earlier they are and more complex the more recent they are. And for some reason all the species that are created close together share a huge amount of similar traits. And for some reason the history of life looks like a tree of life.
You have to twist and turn to come up with some complex view on how God did this while avoiding evolution. In other words, it's a perfect example of the ad hoc fallacy.

Why not just accept that God used evolution? The vast majority of the empirical evidence backs it up and there is no problem with reading Genesis in an allegorical way (many non-evolutionist do this already)

But like I've said, it seems you've already made up your mind

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
The fossils you listed are of creatures that are entirely different from one another. You quoted from pro-evolution scientists who looked at similarities in fossils, despite the fact they have no way of connecting the various creatures with one another. They consistently whine about gaps in the fossils record. Gaps mean there are no bones to connect one creature with the other, despite the similarities in their fossilized bones.

I'm curious as to what exactly you're looking for in a transitional fossil? Perhaps you could define this.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
See my post to hughfarey on page 7, where I spoke of a hypothetical Creature A supposedly evolving into a hypothetical Creature D.

entirely different from one another

That's hardly the case. They are exactly what a transitional fossil would look like: They share a number of traits/attributes with the prior and future species. And the dating always lines up perfectly. In other words, the transitional fossils is almost always dated between the prior and future evolutionary species. Fits perfectly with the theory of evolution

You are again telling me about speculations that you read from publications by pro-evolution scientists. In one of your previous posts from page 2 of this thread, you stated the following:

But regardless, the transitional forms are abundant. For the transition from fish to amphibians we have the lobe-finned fish, Eusthenopteron foordi (dated around 385 million years ago) to a land-dwelling tetrapod, Acanthostega Gunnari (dated around 365 million years ago). And the recently found Tiktaalik Roseae which is a perfect example of a transitional form (dated around 375 million years ago). Notice the dating even fits perfectly. This transitional form is exactly what we'd expect to see: The Tikaalik has amphibian features (flat heads and bodies, a distinct neck, well-developed legs and limb girdles etc) and also had fish-like features (scales, limb bones, head bones etc).

Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back. But that's the least of your problems. You stated above that the transition from fish to amphibians is Eusthenopteron foordi. Let's go back to the example that I gave hughfarey regarding the hypothetical creatures.

In this example, we will use Creature A to represent Eusthenopteron foordi fish, and we will use Creature C to represent amphibians (four-legged vertebrates which includes frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, mudpuppies, and caecilians). Although the extinct Eusthenopteron foordi fish might share similarities with present-day amphibians, one cannot conclude that amphibians (Creature C) evolved from Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A). Here's why: There are no bones showing how Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A) evolved and became Creature B, and no bones showing how Creature B then evolved into amphibians (Creature C). Why not? Because the bones of Creature C do not exist. That is what the paleontologists refer to as gaps in the fossils record or missing links. In other words, they are speculating aka giving their personal opinion when they claim Eusthenopteron foordi fish is the predecessor of amphibians.

Eusthenopteron foordi was a fish and confined to the ocean. Amphibians are land animals and do not live underwater after they have gone through the aquatic larval stage (and some of them do not even go through the aquatic larval stage). Fish are in the exact opposite position: they cannot survive out of the water for very long.


QUOTED FROM PARAGRAPH 1, WHEN YOU CLICK THE WEBLINK THAT FOLLOWS.

Amphibians (class Amphibia) are cold-blooded tetrapods (four-legged vertebrates) whose eggs lack a tough protective membrane around the embryo. The term "amphibian" comes from the Greek amphi meaning "both" and bios meaning "life," hence, "double life." This reflects the fact that most amphibians are biphasic, having an aquatic stage where they spend part of their time, as well as a terrestrial stage. Many, but by no means all amphibians, undergo a change from an aquatic larval stage in which they acquire oxygen from water and lack limbs, to a four-legged, air-breathing adult form adapted for living on the land. There are about six thousand distinct living species of amphibians. Examples include frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, mudpuppies, and caecilians.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amphibian


QUOTED FROM PARAGRAPH 3, WHEN YOU CLICK THE WEBLINK THAT FOLLOWS.
Additionally, amphibians have smooth and naked skin, while fish are covered with scales. Of the six types of amphibians, only Caecilians has dermal scales. But whereas Eusthenopteron foordi fish lived in the ocean, Caecilians lives underground.

The name caecilian means "blind," but most have small eyes. They mostly live hidden in the ground, which makes them the least explored order of amphibians. There are about 200 known caecilian species. Their habitat is in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Maternal care in caecilians is common.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Caecilian

[neo-x]

Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

[hughfarey]

Eldredge and Gould came up with the replacement theory of punctuated equilibrium after Charles Darwin's predictions failed. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find bones to fill in the gaps in the fossil record and show how creatures evolved from one another. According to one of Darwin's failed predictions, future paleontologists would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. Guess how many bones they found to prove the aforementioned? I will give you a single guess.

Dear me. From some of your earlier posts I gained the impression that you had read a little about evolution, but I'm not sure now if that's the case. Bears are not evolved from whales, which is why there are no transitional fossils showing "a whale on its way to becoming a bear." Whales are evolved from creatures not unlike a modern hippopotamus, and there are a great many fossils showing "a hippo on its way to becoming a whale." Luckily, both hippos and whales are quite large animals, and their bones are relatively easy both to fossilise and to detect. Bats are small and delicate, and their fossils are indeed scarce. However a few transitional forms have been found, such as Onychonycteris finnyi, which show both bat-like characteristics (long thin fingers) and shrew like characteristics (claws on each finger).

Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back. But that's the least of your problems. You stated above that the transition from fish to amphibians is Eusthenopteron foordi. Let's go back to the example that I gave hughfarey regarding the hypothetical creatures. It is because the fossils record consistently presents gaps aka missing links between every creature, that Gould and Eldridge decided to compensate by dreaming up punctuated equilibrium THEORY. And that's theory as in: "an attempt at explaining why a phenomena occurred" aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."

No. Gould and Eldredge's theory predicts long series of fossils in a relatively unchanged state, followed by short series of fossils showing successive small differences, and then more long series. Their theory was of course based on what had been found before, but it has been confirmed by what has been found since, and although in 1980 their ideas were considered speculative by mainstream biologists, the last thirty years have borne out their predictions.

According to punctuated equilibrium theory, species supposedly remained stable for a time, and then they simply jump from, for example, Creature A to Creature D with no requirement for transitional fossils of Creature B and Creature C (the gaps or missing links in the fossil record).

No, again. Creature B evolves over several thousand years from Creature A, and we both require, and find, transitional fossils demonstrating the case. You must remember that, to a geologist, several thousand years can be represented by a very thin layer indeed in the strata, which is why these transitional fossils are sparse compared to the millions of years worth of layers representing greater stability.

Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back.

Wrong again. Of course I understand that if a person is locked in a particular paradigm, then all contrary opinion is 'incredible,' but I think that to a dispassionate observer, the Uranium-Lead radiometric dating method, for example, is highly credible.

In this example, we will use Creature A to represent Eusthenopteron foordi fish, and we will use Creature C to represent amphibians (four-legged vertebrates which includes frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, mudpuppies, and caecilians). Although the extinct Eusthenopteron foordi fish might share similarities with present-day amphibians, one cannot conclude that amphibians (Creature C) evolved from Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A). Here's why: There are no bones showing how Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A) evolved and became Creature B, and no bones showing how Creature B then evolved into amphibians (Creature C). Why not? Because the bones of Creature C do not exist. That is what the paleontologists refer to as gaps in the fossils record or missing links. In other words, they are speculating aka giving their personal opinion when they claim Eusthenopteron foordi fish is the predecessor of amphibians.

Wikipedia is an excellent first step to exploring unfamiliar territory, but one must be careful to read more deeply into each subject before being able to use its information authoritatively. Eusthenopteron foordii is an interesting fish, with some amphibian characteristics, but is not generally considered to be an amphibian ancestor. Curiously, the problem with amphibian evolution is that in some ways we have too many transitional types, not too few. It seems that several different varieties of fish evolved air-breathing, land-walking characteristics, of which probably only one line evolved into the amphibians we see today. A great many of them have more or fewer than five digits on each foot, so finding a transitional fossil which looks like a fish but has pentadactyl legs would be a good intermediate. Luckily, we have Pederpes, which fits the bill rather well. Another characteristic of amphibians is their smooth skin. This seems to have been more recently developed than limbs, and it comes as a delightful confirmation of the transition between fish and amphibians to discover fossil amphibians with scales, such as Eogyrinus.

As you can see, evolutionary scientists have studied their subject in some detail, and are able to discuss minutiae, convincingly or not. To balance the discussion, I wonder if we can have a little more about creation. Even if it were literally true, Genesis 1 does not go into God's achievements at all thoroughly, and would not be accepted for publication as a scientific paper. As an abstract, or opening statement, it's fine, but we need a little more in the context of this forum, and this thread, if that's possible. So can you help us here? Were there six literal days? Were fruit trees created before the sun came out, and what did the first mosquito eat? What are 'kinds' of creatures? Creation scientists seem to differ quite drastically on some of these, so I would be most interested to hear your views. And if I disagree with them, I will explain carefully where, rather than announcing arbitrarily that they are impossible.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Hugh

I am curious, you are a Christian yet you don't believe in creation?

I find this to be quite oxymoronic, how as a Christian can you not believe that God created the universe?

I know we can differ with exactly how this happened and how we interpret Genesis but I don't get how you can bypass the unmoved mover.

For the record I sit between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, recently I have been leaning more towards Theistic Evolution. The more I read, the more I am convinced of the evidence for evolution. The more I read the Bible, the more I am convinced that our understanding and interpretation is wrong and that it really doesn't matter.

Maybe our definition of the word Creation is different, creation to me just means the process God initiated to make what we have today.

God bless

Dan

[neo-x]

hughfarey » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:27 pm

Alter2Ego wrote:
Eldredge and Gould came up with the replacement theory of punctuated equilibrium after Charles Darwin's predictions failed. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find bones to fill in the gaps in the fossil record and show how creatures evolved from one another. According to one of Darwin's failed predictions, future paleontologists would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. Guess how many bones they found to prove the aforementioned? I will give you a single guess.
Dear me. From some of your earlier posts I gained the impression that you had read a little about evolution, but I'm not sure now if that's the case. Bears are not evolved from whales, which is why there are no transitional fossils showing "a whale on its way to becoming a bear." Whales are evolved from creatures not unlike a modern hippopotamus, and there are a great many fossils showing "a hippo on its way to becoming a whale." Luckily, both hippos and whales are quite large animals, and their bones are relatively easy both to fossilise and to detect. Bats are small and delicate, and their fossils are indeed scarce. However a few transitional forms have been found, such as Onychonycteris finnyi, which show both bat-like characteristics (long thin fingers) and shrew like characteristics (claws on each finger).

Huh! sad, someone criticizing evolution without reading it. Its normally the usual case.

[hughfarey]

Hi Hugh

I am curious, you are a Christian yet you don't believe in creation?

I find this to be quite oxymoronic, how as a Christian can you not believe that God created the universe?

I know we can differ with exactly how this happened and how we interpret Genesis but I don't get how you can bypass the unmoved mover.

For the record I sit between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, recently I have been leaning more towards Theistic Evolution. The more I read, the more I am convinced of the evidence for evolution. The more I read the Bible, the more I am convinced that our understanding and interpretation is wrong and that it really doesn't matter.

Maybe our definition of the word Creation is different, creation to me just means the process God initiated to make what we have today.

God bless

Dan

Hi Daniel, good to hear from you. I'm assuming here that Evolution includes the origin and development of the universe as well as biological evolution. Sometimes it can be important to make a distinction. After all biological evolution seems to have occurred only once in a vanishingly small part of the universe, and only made much progress in the last billion years or so of a 15 billion year old process.
Anyway, don't fall into the trap of thinking that evolution and creation are mutually antagonistic. You wouldn't say to someone: "Ah, I see you drive a car; you obviously dislike bicycles!" Evolution is the way scientists who are also Christian believe that God creates the universe. There are all sorts of aspects to this, mostly to do with conditions 'before' the Big Bang, which are hotly debated by cosmologists. Note the inverted commas around 'before.' It sometimes bothers Christians that in merely biological terms God appears simply as a firework maker, who assembled the chemicals, lit the touchpaper and has since done nothing but watch his handiwork unfold. This is to wholly misunderstand the very limited nature of time, and what it is to be 'outside' rather than 'before' or 'after' it. Sadly I doubt if I could make an important contributions to a debate about that, although I think I would understand enough to enjoy reading one!
Keep reading the thread. If you have an open mind about the meaning of Creation, you will certainly find a lot of interesting details about the evolutionary position. Sadly, the more literal interpreters of Genesis rarely give you anything except a rather sketchy outline, but I live in hope.

[ryanbouma]

Ryanbouma, let me know if you get a chance to read my post on the geographical distribution on oceanic vs. continental islands (as possible evidence for evolution)

I'd be interested to hear your views on it

Hi SonofAletheia,

Sorry for the slow reply. Busy weekend. Saw your post on my phone, but hadn't sat down to type a response until now.

I see what you mean now by geographical distribution. It fits the evolutionary model very well. I think you jumped the gun to say:

In my humble opinion, this entire picture screams the truth of evolution. And it seems if you want to deny this (as well as the other arguments/evidence for evolution) you have to bend over backwards to disregard it.
In short, the other views (day-age creation, progressive creation, young-earth etc) seem to be ad hoc. That's just my opinion of course

I think all of those views, even young-earth, can account for the geographical separations.

The question is why?

Simple really. I'll explain my view again first. I'm old earth and I think God likely (not totally sure of the details) created pairs at a time. I obviously think some speciation occured. So back again to tigers. Perhaps he created a pair of tigers. Then Siberian tigers may have "evolved" from that family of tigers. But God would have put those tigers on the continents, not on the oceanic islands. Take your bats for example (and birds, and various plants). God created bats. They populate. A very small group makes it's way to an oceanic island. They then "evolve" into a species of bats not seen on the continents due to genetic and environmental pressure. Again, this fits the evolutionary model very well, but doesn't conflict with a day age or even young earth view.

There is a RTB science news flash that just came out about scientists who selected certain traits in foxes to yield houshold friendly foxes who had flappy ears. No doubt a small group of any animal that is naturally selected upon can yield a new variety of that type of animal, and that is exactly what evolution predicts. Where I have a problem, and this is scientifically based IMO, is the evolutionary prediction that says the foxes could eventually evolve into something more than a canine. I agree with the OP that the fossils are telling us this doesn't happen.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that SonofAletheia. I haven't heard anyone like RTB address this topic before. So perhaps there's a better explanation than mine. Or perhaps I've missed something altogether and I'm wrong.

PS. A quick question. Do you know if the bats you mentioned are able to reproduce with sister species of bats? It may be that's never been examined. It would be interesting to know. The bats may not want to either though. If they could not reproduce it would make for a stronger evolutionary case. If they could it would make the day age view no different really. I wonder how much bats and birds can be breed like dogs to produce varieties?

ETA - Just one more thing for clarification. I have no problem with God creating a tiger and a siberian tiger (I really don't know biology well), but I also don't have a problem with some varieties coming from one dominant species. But something like a leopard versus a tiger. I think they were individually created. I hope that makes sense. My biology background is grade 12