News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

There are a number of threads and posts that mention evolution on this forum, but I want to discuss what evolution is - as a process, as a theory and as a scientific field of study - in one combined thread, and what any competing ideas regarding evolution involve and how we can test concepts of evolution against reality to determine which concepts explain the evidence and which ones do it best.

We'll start with the process, where [color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color]

Where:
[color:"purple"]trait[/color] is an aspect that can be quantified, such as an allele or variation of a gene, the length of a bone, the size of a skull, the color of an eye, the thickness of hair,
[color:"purple"]change[/color] is a measurable quantifiable difference in a trait, such as the number, length or color,
[color:"purple"]hereditary[/color] means that it is passed from parent to child,
[color:"purple"]population[/color] means a group of individual organisms of the same species, and
[color:"purple"]generation[/color] is the average time it takes for a newborn to become able to reproduce.

You don't have to take my word for this, you can look these up and see how they are used, just be sure to stick to usage within the science of biology, seeing as that is what we are talking about.

Evolution is a process that is observed in everyday life: there is no species that does not change hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This process is an observed fact, and this is the objective evidential basis for the "Theory of Evolution" (ToE), and then both become the foundation of the science of Evolutionary Biology.

Astute creationists will notice that this is "just variation and adaptation within kinds" or "microevolution" which has become a well accepted fact even in these circles (as has a heliocentric solar system). That's the good news: creationists should not be concerned about evolution as defined here. The next question then is "what is the controversy all about," and how does this relate to "the rest of the story."

Darwin, Descent with Modification and Time

On 24 November 1859 Darwin published On the origin of species by mean...oured races in the struggle for life, where he first described “descent with modification” and established his theory of natural selection. He does not use the word "evolution" but he does say:

At that time geologists and other scientists had already determined that the earth was much older than was previously thought. He refers to Lyell's "the Principles of Geology" as one reference to geological age. Meanwhile, Lord Kelvin working from principles of thermodynamics shortly before Darwin's book had come to the conclusion that:

and after the book was published he

This means that at that time the minimum age of the earth from sources outside biology was 20 million years, and probably a lot older due to the addition of radioactivity into the equations.

Darwin came to his conclusions based on comparison to animal breeding and his discoveries of existing life in various parts of the world, most notably the Galapagos Islands. He based his concept on what he knew about existing life, not on the fossil record. Not on rocks, organic soup or single cell organisms, and not on the evolution of man (his book on The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex[/i] was published in 1871). He noticed that life changed (modification), that those changes were hereditary (descent), that natural selection had to be involved because there were more offspring produced than were necessary, and that this predicted that there was a mechanism for developing new traits and transferring hereditary information from one generation to the next even though he did not know what it was.

Embryology, Evolution and Genetics

In 1900 the work of Mendel (originally published in 1866) was rediscovered by scientists working on plant physiology and then it was spread to embryology by Bateson, and this led to the further developments in biology by Haeckel, de Beers and others, leading to the use of the term evolution in studying how life develops and (ultimately) to genetics and the study of how genetic hereditary traits are passed from parent to offspring. While genetics was able to show that traits were inherited through chromosomes and genes, it took until the 1950's to link this to DNA. During that time there were a lot of theories that were proposed tested and discarded on how hereditary traits where physically transferred from parent to child before the truth was finally understood.

From 1936 to 1947 the modern synthesis was developed to combine the study of genetics with Darwinism based on morphology and fossils, and they concluded that “evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection” ...

Definitions used in Science

Evolutionary Biology is taught by many universities as part of their various degree programs for biologists, culminating in Ph.D.s, so if we want to look for modern definitions of evolution as used in science then we can look to how universities that teach these programs define it.

the University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley definition is “evolution, simply put, is descent with modification”

The University of Michigan defines evolution as “changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation” and the “gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity” ...

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Population Genetics) definition is “evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within the gene pool of a population from one generation to the next”

One of the areas where evolution has seen new developments is the field of evolutionary developmental biology, "a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals and plants in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved."


This can also include the effects of environment on the development of individual genotypes into adult forms, the phenotype that is the subject of natural selection.

Conclusions

(1) The scientific definitions from universities are consistent with the definition that [color:"purple"][i]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation,[/color]

(2) That this is consistent with "variation and adaptation within kinds" or "microevolution" as used by creationists, and thus that creationists should not be concerned about evolution as defined here.

(3) This thread is long enough already.

But wait --- what's the BIG LIE?

The big lie is what creationists say about evolution, that evolution is a problem for creationist beliefs, that there is something else to evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation or that this is NOT evolution (but will they define what is?).

If nobody objects to this definition of evolution, or you just agree to it for the sake of the argument, then we can move on to what the definition of "the Theory of Evolution" (ToE) contains, and see what develops, and if that is a problem for creationism.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Ever wondered why there are so many definitions to the theory of evolution?
Creation Evidence is sought by Creationists to discredit Evolution, not to validate Special Creation…

It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver.

Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Creation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples:

* Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
* Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.
# Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.

# Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

Thank you skieslimit for taking an interest in this.

Again I question your ability to read for comprehension. I clearly stated that we were only talking about the process of evolution at this point and not the theory. We'll get to that. To review, the process of [color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

This is all off topic and irrelevant to the issue of this thread. If you want to discuss it start another thread. Just a note however:

Logic is an abstract concept that has no bearing on or control over objective reality. You cannot invent facts by logical conclusions, they always rest on assumptions.

Likewise math is just another set of abstract concepts resting on assumptions and bears no relationship to objective reality. Math "proves" nothing about objective reality.

And again this has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to discuss this further start a new topic.

Again all of this is off topic and doesn't relate to the issue. Your final list is just another copy\paste you haven't properly accredited and one full of PRATTs and a little work will tell you why they are all falsehoods. You would think creationists would clean house when concepts like this are shown to be the lies they are. Again I ask you - why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true? Perhaps you can tell me how invalidating the Big Bang could invalidate evolution? Should be fun, makes a good new topic.

I notice you absolutely failed to address the issue of what evolution, the process (not the theory) is, and whether or not you accept the concept that [color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

That's the issue. Any thing else is distraction ... designed perhaps to hide your lies?

See if you can focus. Without plagiarizing.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Let me guess skies... because evilution has no place in objective reality? because life itself has no place in objective reality? because reality doesn't even seem to fit in there so wait.. what were you talking about?

speaking of spaced out zen uhh what... I used to live across the street from paradise alley in NYC... matter of unobjective fact... I watched the city demolish it. Very unobjectively I watched without any emotion whatsoever. It was an exhilarating experience watching so much non-history turn to dust.

skies, why are links not considered plagiarism? seems like a very objective definition to me.

Mostly I just wonder how a muppet continues to limp along with both feet in it's mouth but I lost count when I realized that one foot was bigger than the other.

Thanks for your valuable input SoSick

Yes, it's fascinating when we haven't even gotten to what the theory of evolution is ...

So do you have anything to say on the issue? Do you agree that this evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is usable?

Enjoy.

Why would anyone bother discussing evilution with someone who wants to define everything according to zen buddhism?

sense -to perceive...

non- without....

objective reality = nonsense.

enjoy.

you express yourself quite well with one hand clapping btw.

but only one ear is listening.

I think all other ears are tired of your subjective objectives.

No I comprehend just fine. Evolution is evolution whether it is in theory or just relitivly defined. You will never convince me that a human life can over millions of years time turn into a rock. Not possible.

It makes no difference what I say to you I am lying but the same falls true of you, to me you are lying.

Well I just learned how to cut and paste so I thought I would try it out. Worked too. I got you all Razd up huh? Now I am a liar. I am sure you are just studying links as well. I mean are you the scientist that studied how the human turned into that rock? I did not realize you were the authority on that. I stand corrected. If you are that scientist then you should have some pics you could post, you know some in slow motion we could all watch.
How many times are ya gona define it for us? You would wear an old dead horse out wouldn't you?
How bout those slo mo pics? I'm ready.

I have a movie about the Creator skies!!

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nknnqvbkek.gif">


Hey, do you want to be a movie star? lemme see what I can do with a few points...

Interesting, RAZD, how much more quickly this conversation has moved on at EvC. I see a tendency here to want to stop paying attention to facts altogether, or to do one's thinking for oneself. Cognitive dissonance definitely in operation.

facts she says.

cognitive what?

Do you mind if I sing a song?

I do enjoy the sound of my own voice so very much.

Linda I just wanted to know who died and made you and Razd the Psych gurus of the world and where are you getting your definitions at?
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.
My belief is creation no conflicting thoughts I don't believe in evolution. There is no conflicting thoughts as I believe only in creation so where do you see any cognitive dissonance. Given the fact that I only believe in creation and nothing is conflicting, how do you figure this is causing me tension?
No tension at all here, how is it in the wilderness? Just thought I would ask?

Cool movie I liked it and yes sing as loud as you want...I will sing with you!!!

that was actually kind of tongue in cheek for the long dissertation crowd. I mostly only do short songs, no long operas.

but hmmm... see how things can get misconstrued. now you would have understood that if you were standing here and heard me laughing... just like you would have thought Linda was talking about herself when she used the words fact and congnitive whatever together like that because that one made me laugh too.

and all this time I thought this was a serious discussion about evilution.

I am still waiting for some eviluiton facts. Seems they are few and far between. so few they haven't been located yet.

well Linda will keep us informed as she keeps trying I'm sure.

The movies are fun I do agree. They are for entertainment purposes. I do feel a need to balance the negativity with something more positive.

Hey So Sick
Yeah I got it and was really funny.
Well they were having such cognition problems I thought it might help them to know that I can look up definitions as well.
Evolution.... yeah where are the facts btw where did all the evolutionist go. Must be digging up some FACTS for us to ponder.

Really what gets me is... 150 years and no one has located any evidence of evolution, just a hundred thousand different theories and definitions that keep changing.

But in that same span of time, 150 years, many thousands of people have searched for God and have found him.

I think the evilutionists have some trouble with that fact but will never admit it.

maybe they went off looking for easier fish to catch. We weren't taking the bait.

can you believe the slimy old anchovies these guys are using?

Make sure it's prime rib on the hook next time fellas!!!

As posted by RAZD, in reply to one of your posts SoSick:


This is what is now occurring on this thread. Instead of a discussion of the facts that have been presented here by RAZD, focusing on the definition of evolution, there is now off-topic banter, and again a complete lack of factual information of any kind.

In that post, RAZD also discussed one of Russ' favourite statements, which defines what Russ himself does when discussing creationism:


The distraction and character assassination occuring here are more attempts to get away from the facts, which are these: plenty have been presented in evidence of evolution, and zero in evidence of creationism. Can we get back to the opening post please: are we OK with RAZD's definitions of evolution or does anyone have any objections to them? He is having a similar conversation with other creationists on another website and this is what I was referring to: it has moved on to "part two," a discussion of the theory of evolution. Have a look, and you are welcome to join in:

Evolution and the Big Lie

Thank you Linda.

That's very impressive.

what does it mean?

What, cognitive dissonance? It's an explanation of the techniques a person uses to deal with information they are uncomfortable with, information that challenges their world view. People tend to want to avoid ideas that cause dissonance because this can be a painful thing to have to synthesise. Instead they typically find ways to misinterpret, distract from, or ignore the uncomfortable information.

Very good. Now, do you think you can put it into practice?

Any prime rib on the hook today?

What it means is that [color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

What it means is a simple truth.

What it means is that (this evolution) is a fact, (this evolution) exists, (this evolution) has been observed to the extent that even creationists organisations acknowledge (this evolution):

[color:"purple"]Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

But then, that's the topic, and you don't want to talk about the topic, do you?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thanks again for your valuable input, skieslimit.

For a minute there I thought you would address the issue.

So, are you going to address the issue then?

You know, that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

In case you haven't "got it" yet.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

I would imagine RAZD, that no one will discuss it because it's just a new spin wherein evilution sucks at the teat of ancestry and adaptability to hide it's muddy face.

Which however, still begs the question, from whence did it arise?

no long soliloquies please. it's really boring. just the beef would be great. leave the gravy off.

Just to back up what RAZD is asking - and what myself and others have in the past asked without response..

Could I get an answer from any of the creationists here as to what they think about the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation? Do you not believe that this happens? Does answering the question make you feel uncomfortable?

All sarcasm aside, I'll take a wild stab in the dark here. None of you are willing to discuss this.

You see, I'm not talking about mud moulding into man over the millenia. I simply want to know if you acknowledge the existing changes within the bloodline of a species over multiple generations. Even minutiae of changes - do you deny those?

Again, I find it highly unlikely any of the creationists are willing to even talk about this but I'm going to try asking anyway.

Incidentally, I am a religious person and I don't find that evolution challenges my beliefs. Ever. Religion and evolution are not incompatible (though, admittedly, they are incompatible with literal, word-for-word belief in the christian bible).

If I were a betting man I think I'd know where I'd lay my tips right about now. No creationist will answer this question directly. You can count on that.

you are kidding right?

Of course genetic changes happen throughout generations. however, genetics and evolution are two different things. For instance, the genetic changes in a child born of a white man and a black woman, are not proof of evolution. There have not been any changes toward a new species, just inherited traits of the same species still.

Keep in mind, you are trying to prove evolution, not genetics or ancestry, to people who sincerely believe that God spoke this world into existence and created the life in it.

It's really not neccessary to endlessly reiterate your various views or definitons of what evolution is. We all know what evolution is, by various definitions as well.

the evilutionists however, have yet to show how man or cats or anything for that matter, evolved or developed from a different species of life or non-life or however they want to approach it.

and as we mentioned before, since no proof of this species change has occured in 150 years of hard searching, and yet during that time many thousands of people have found God, much to your disbelief but to them they are quite sure.... it's real important that you provide hard proof and facts to make a case. Unsubtantiated theories and ideas and personal opinions aren't going to cut it with anyone who already believes they had found the answer to life in God, even though you choose not to believe them.

you see, though you have chosen to disbelieve the experiences of other people, choose to not believe in God or that he created life, that is only your personal opinion. those who have found him have found the answers to these questions already. You cannot see God because he is spirit just as the bible says. yet somehow or another, people find him, someone somewhere, daily.

That is what you are up against if you haven't figured it out yet. You make a lot of accusations about creationists not wanting to discuss your views. I'd say, from my perspective the exact opposite is true. you have searched and searched for evidence of evilution, we have all been to school to some degree or another, we have all been exposed to these ideas, they are impossible to avoid. But, none of you has searched for God in a sincere way and found him. We have been on your side of the fence... we have gone further than that already and sought God, and we do know, He can be found. The evidence is staring you in the face daily and you refuse to see it. God is difficult to describe, there are a lot of things we don't understand people... yet, you will find that if you sincerely seek him, he can most definitely, ALWAYS be found.

You lack that experience, and as a result your opinions are generally biased with the lack of that knowledge.

That, guys, is the problem. It really is you, not the creationists. The creationists, through God, alreday have theor answer. If you want serious attention for your ideas of evolution you had better get serious about providing more proof to us than God has given each one of us. What you offer in exchange, is worthless junk, a pile of old sticky papers with scribbled notes. get real guys, it's not an offer anyone who has alreddy found God is interested in.

As long as you continue proposing ideas that are not actually evolution, such as the one above, you are seen, from this side, as skating the issue and trying to detract attention from your inadequacies. And so, we do not take you very seriously, sorry.

So... any prime rib on the hook today?

and... before you come jumping back with your inevitable... 'If God is real why can't anyone prove it...' responses...

I will say this while I still hvae a minute.

Seek him and you will find the answer to that that question. It is the best I or anyone will ever be able to do for you.

God is... so awesome... so wonderful... so magnificent... so huge... so powerful... that whether you approach him in friendship or as an enemy the first time... you are probably going to run like heck in fear because he is so completely overwhelming.

may I suggest though, at that point, while you are running in fear... that you stop and realize... he is God, you will never outrun him, you will never hide from him. You had better simply surrender.

I found my own gods a long time ago. They're just not your god. So you needn't exempt me from any spiritual discovery. I am by no means a non-theist.

Having said that, I still don't see the implausibility of the theory of evolution, considering that evolution evolution (quibble over the terminology at your leisure - a name is just a name after all) is an undeniable fact. One which you, yourself, admitted to two posts ago. Things evolve, change. A language "evolves". It changes over the course of time to adapt with the environment (people speaking it). So too does a species change over time to adapt to its environment. It should be blatantly obvious why different ethnicities have the features they do. It has to do with the climates they have spent thousands of years in. The climates they have adapted (evolved) to. Anglo-saxons, for example, do poorly in climates like Australia or Florida because of their sensitivity to sunlight, whereas they thrive in cloudier regions. Therefore, if small changes happen over thousands of years, what's to say greater changes do not occur over even longer spans of time? If you can accept the small changes, why not the POSSIBILITY of larger ones? While it's not 100% for sure, it's certainly not an unreasonable assumption to consider (note I said consider, not accept as blind faith). Even if it's dead wrong, it's not a bad theory. There is some logic to it.

Evolution and religion are not polar opposites.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you for both a) answering the question at hand and b) not insulting anyone in your reply. Cheers!

Posted this eleswheres but food for thought for those that think. Creation and evolution most specifically mentioned round about 48 minutes link no. 2
no. 1 here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765
no. 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765

Thanks Elvis for this, it tells me a lot.

So what does it mean to you? Can you summarize what this has to do with the topic? Cliff notes for the lurkers.

The issue is whether or not you agree that [color:"purple"]evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color] and whether you can actually discuss the topic.

btw - both your links are the same video.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Welcome back SoSick.

So just the word evolution is enough to set off your defense mechanisms.

So to make it less "scary" for you lets instead talk about variation, adaptation and the heredity of traits from parent to offspring. We'll start by talking about the process of "variation and adaptation":

[color:"purple"]"Variation and adaptation" is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

This still applies from the Opening Topic Message then:

[color:"blue"](2) "Variation and adaptation" is consistent with "variation and adaptation within kinds" or "microevolution" as used by creationists, and thus that creationists should not be concerned about "variation and adaptation" as defined here.[/color]

As does:

[color:"blue"]If nobody objects to this definition of "variation and adaptation", or you just agree to it for the sake of the argument, then we can move on to what the definition of "the Theory of Variation and Adaptation" would involve, and see what develops, and see if that is a problem for creationism. [/color]

So shall we continue or not? Are you afraid of words or reality?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Welp, my time is limited, too .If ya wanna give it a look-see then y' all can write your own cliff notes, lil buddy.
TFB I got the urls wrong, duh, the first one is part 1, nobody'll get past that so no biggie to work out ya gotta go to part 2.
Looks like y'all got time enough to get involved in this vortex, anaways.
Subject is DNA ,what all it is, how it's activated and what all it ain't.
As they say in Blighty, suck it and see, not as rude as it sounds, neither.

"Enjoy " what? Sounds like a command.

Thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule to share this, Elvis.

This is how it breaks down so far:

Number of replies to date = 31
Number of "creationist" replies = 20

Of those one (1) briefly mentioned the issue before running away from it, and that was only after a comment by a non-creationist asking here to deal with the issue. She posted "Of course genetic changes happen throughout generations. however, genetics and evolution are two different things. ... There have not been any changes toward a new species, just inherited traits of the same species still." Running to denial of the issue is not discussing the issue.

Can you tell me why out of 20 posts not one (1) by a creationist can actually address the issue without fear and denial? It is a simple concept - it's what happens.

Now in my world a whelp is a young dog that can't deal with the issue, and thinks that posting ~2 hours of video of which maybe one minute might veer near the subject of this thread, is an appropriate way to show his understanding of the issue. Nor can he say how the video addresses the issue.

So can you address the issue or is it too difficult for you?

And there were also some blatant bits of misinformation at the start that makes it rather ridiculous. Now you may think it's valid, that's your concern. Do you remember the "Russ Tanner Manifesto" (often duplicated) on how to tell if someone is lying to you?

Meanwhile we here in the real world have evolution on-going around us: there is not a single population of organisms that is not changing hereditary traits from generation to generation.

If that scares you, I can't help that: reality does not play favorites to childish beliefs, it does not play favorites with ignorant beliefs, it plays no favorites at all. But the objective world is only scary to those who don't understand it. Learning is fun, I recommend it.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I choose threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

oh yes, it's very scary. makes me shiver to me loins. welp.

when are you going to get to it? after you impress us with your wondrous definitions of inherited traits within species?

what I really want, is to see your monkey ancestors in transition. the ones with their tails hanging from trees... picking lice from each other.

I have a book you would like a lot. It's called 'The Frog Prince'. It's about this frog that marries a pretty lady and turns into a prince. I think it would really help you on your mission, whatever that is.

Whoa, wish I had your debatin skills, Razd, it's been a displeasure, an I see all your comments on the film are based on other folks comments. What a time savin method! Wish I had some a the time y' all are wastin.
What all are ya gettin from it? Yep, y' all are prolly right, it's just too darn difficult for me, so I'm gonna leave ya to it.

Russ, ya know , ya might just be inerested in that film. It may not be ezactly on topic, but it sure is dang empowerin and oughta be worth a viewin, prolly belongs eleswheres, kinda like me.
Adios

Thanks again for the insight you provide, Elvis.
Yes, all the ones between you posting the link and this one that discuss the videos. This = 0. Making up facts to base your argument on is fantasy Elvis.

Actually I looked at the video, long enough to see that he was saying Newtonian physics controlled molecular behavior, at which point (~1 minute in) I knew he was a quack selling shinola. Then I did a google on his name and found out that he IS a quack selling shinola. At this point anything he says suddenly became irrelevant to objective reality, as he is not concerned with objective reality, but with convincing sufficient gullible and ignorant people with his scam into buying his shinola. For selling shinola he doesn't need to discuss truth, he just needs to sound convincing. This is something that skeptical thinking people understand.

It's amazing that people that can be so skeptical about the worth of even thinking of discussing the truth that evolution - the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation - is true (see SoSick comment before yours), can just roll over and play brain-dead for people like Bruce Lipton and the other con-artists in the world.

Are you saying Elvis has left the building?

Yeah, Russ would probably like it. Right down his alley.

We are now at 22 out of 34 messages being from creationists, and not one of them willing to discuss the issue, while Non-creatinists don't seem to have that problem. Any idea what the difference is?

The issue comes down to how do you tell truth from fiction, and scams from reason. One way is to apply the "Russ Tanner Manifesto" test:


Another way is to see if you can find independent objective evidence for or against the claim. This, particularly finding invalidating evidence, can be effective in many cases.

A third way is to compare it against what you believe to be true, however here you are limited by the truth of your beliefs, and this will never test your beliefs for validity.

The second way is typical of the scientists or the naturalist philosopher's way, while the third way, in my experience, is typical of the people that don't have a scientific bent (regardless of whether they are creationist or not), sometimes to the exclusion of all other ways.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time is limited, so I choose threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Elvis, I hope you're still hanging around.

I watched about half an hour of the video. Can't quite make out where Lipton is driving, but it sounds interesting. I don't really have the time to watch all of the rest, and the relentless energy of his delivery makes me feel exhausted. Do you have a link which would encapsulate what his ideas are, and what the evidence is for them? Thanks.

Sorry for the momentary distraction RAZD. I do agree, it would be nice to have a discussion here with some substance.

Glad you see it, SoSick.

As we noted previously you can find reference to "variation and adaptation" on virtually any creationist website that tries to downplay the reality of evolution, as does this article.

So we'll stay in the "safe zone" and use "variation and adaptation" instead of "evolution," and we'll even further limit it to being hereditary within a population, and we'll look at changes from generation to generation for trends in adaptation.

In other words we will discuss the process where [color:"purple"]'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation[/color] (not just any variation or any adaptation).

We note that every generation, of every population, of every species, observed to date has shown plentiful variation, both in their basic physical hereditary traits (size, color, proportions, etc) and in their relative adaptation to a variable ecology (some years dry some years wet for example, and some better adapted to dry and some better adapted to wet due to those variations within the population).

This is a fact of life.

We note further that the amount of variation exceeds that necessary to adapt the species to the average ecology, so that they can be adapted to survive extreme conditions common in long term trends (seasons, droughts, floods, etc).

This too is a fact of life.

The better adapted individuals in every generation -- the living, healthy and well-fed ones --will make up the majority of those who succeed in breeding and having offspring, and thus be better at passing on their hereditary variations and adaptations to the next generation - especially compared to the dead, sick and malnourished individuals.

This is another fact of life.

Maybe we'll get there -- if you stick around for it.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

It's ok, I'll save you the trouble of long boring speeches that cover simple theory.

..and the fish lost his fins because he didn't need them out of water... the monkey lost his tail because he didn't need it once he was walking upright and not swinging from trees, he put on his monkey suit instead and gave his stuffed shirt to you.

right, I made it through 6th grade. I can see it made an unforgettable impression on you. It's all very boring by now though. Theory is fun stuff, but it's only applicable in real life when it's no longer theory. You need to provide examples if you intend to make anyone jump out of their chair. And nooo, not examples of adaptation like a cat's fur gets thicker in the winter or skin gets darker in very sunny climates. And btw, if you want to say species actually deviate from a 'norm' you have to first prove the 'norm' and then prove the new trait isnot inherent to begin with. Like fur gets thicker or skin gets darker, those are inherent traits, they are not changes to genetics. Adaptation and variation are mostly just examples of already inherent abilitiies.

Adaption and variation are only temporary within species. The original DNA of the species is never actually lost and all species revert to the original traits when the new adaptive traits are no longer neccessary. That is not theory btw. Try to take a leap over it. You can make all the hybrid tomato plants you want but next season, their seed will always germinate genetically identical to either one parent or the other. Hybrids only exist within one generation and then return to the parent species. That is not theory either. Try to take a leap over it.


<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/sqnanikzzu.jpg"> <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jedavhjzaz.gif">

Thanks, SoSick for providing us with the benefits of your education.

Yet this is contradicted by some well known creationists:

Giving you ~8,000 kinds,

or creationist organizations like AiG:

Giving you ~1,000 kinds.

This requires a lot of rapid and continual adaptation and variation since the theoretical "flood date" and can hardly be only "temporary within species" as it requires avast amount of division of populations into new species to account for the diversity of life today:

Even using 1.5 million known species and 8,000 "original kinds" means each on average resulted in 1,500,000/8,000 = 187.5 species per kind and increasing, a rather permanent result.

This brings up the issue of "speciation" which occurs when one population divides into two (or more) populations that no longer interbreed, and they are considered different species. This too is an accepted process in creationism:

This gives us variation and adaptation within species and the division of populations by speciation, both as common and accepted processes within the world of creationism:

• [color:"purple"]'variation and adaptation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation [/color]
• [color:"purple"]'speciation' is the division of a single species into two or more species.[/color]

That should be enough for now.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Using creation theory to try try to run circles around the holes in evilution theory won't help you very much.

Is there any specific point are you trying to make?

Thank you SoSick, for your open minded approach.
No end run necessary to discuss "creation theory" with "creation theory" ...

Yes there is a point (of course), and that is that from these two processes we can make a theory that must apply to the current diversity of life for creationism to be true:
Using those definitions we can say in general that:

[color:"purple"]The diversity of life at time t2 is explained by (1) the 'variation and adaptation' within species and (2) speciation, from the diversity of life at time t1.[/color] where t2 = t1 + some positive integer of time

and that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life from the (supposed) flood event to the present day.

Now we can test this theory.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

have fun.

Thanks SoSick for your sincere and open invitation.

Using neutral language we can say that:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

This process can be measured and documented, it can be observed in all living species and thus is an observed fact, part of the evidence of objective reality.

There are several mechanisms that cause this process to occur, and these include:

[color:"white"]...[/color] 1. genetic mutation,
[color:"white"]......[/color] a. insertions\deletions\inversions during replication
[color:"white"]......[/color] b. point mutations,
[color:"white"]......[/color] c. etc.
[color:"white"]...[/color] 2. epigenetic effects on the development of phenotypes,
[color:"white"]......[/color] a. nutrition effects,
[color:"white"]......[/color] b. chemical effects,
[color:"white"]......[/color] c. climate effects,
[color:"white"]......[/color] d. etc.
[color:"white"]...[/color] 3. various selection processes,
[color:"white"]......[/color] a. sexual selection,
[color:"white"]......[/color] b. ecological selection,
[color:"white"]......[/color] c. intentional selection,
[color:"white"]......[/color] d. survival selection,
[color:"white"]......[/color] e. etc.
[color:"white"]...[/color] 4. neutral trait drift,
[color:"white"]......[/color] a. etc.
[color:"white"]...[/color] 5. etc.

Each of these mechanisms can be tested and observed in various species at various times, but it should be noted that several don't need to be continual mechanisms. Nor is their any "hierarchy" in action of the mechanisms and their relative importance can change (neutral trait drift could be more important during static than rapid periods of change, for instance).

It would be interesting to list all the mechanisms that are involved, but this would be a good topic on it's own, if not needing a thread topic on each mechanism, as we see continued debate about the mechanism of mimicry spanning several threads. It's also a good topic for individual study in depth (say by taking a university course in biology ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />).

Discussing all the different mechanisms involved in the process should not be necessary to this thread, other than to mention some in passing as necessary, and thus we should be able to start with the most basic process that anyone can validate with their own observations:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.

Included in the creationist model of biological change ("variation and adaptation within kinds") -- especially following the hypothetical flood event -- is speciation. The definition of species is also covered in an existing open thread - the "Definition of Species" thread - so we don't need to pursue that particular definitional\philosophical\semantic rathole here either. Going back to message 248207:


Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process, with an emphasis on the hereditary relationship (to ensure the creationist position of "within a kind" is included):

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

Again there are several known and observed mechanisms involved, each of which could become a new thread. Speciation occurs by:

[color:"white"]...[/color] 1. allopatric mechanisms,
[color:"white"]...[/color] 2. peripatric mechanisms (including "founder effect"),
[color:"white"]...[/color] 3. parapatric mechanisms (including "ring species"),
[color:"white"]...[/color] 4. sympatric mechanisms (including "cryptic species"),
[color:"white"]...[/color] 5. artificially, through animal husbandry or
[color:"white"]...[/color] 6. artificially in laboratory experiments,
[color:"white"]...[/color] 7. etc.

There's a graphic that shows the four basic types of speciation at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Speciation_modes.svg

I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.[/color]

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" processes, so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Hi RAZD,

I've been reading your contributions, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. As I've only completed rudimentary study in biology they can push the boundaries of my understanding at times. If you have a spare moment, could you help fill in the blanks with regard to sympatric speciation?

I can understand the application of this particular theory to plants, as they are more prone to polyploidism, but I can't get my head around it's application to the animal kingdom. How, within a population, could a big enough subset of individuals evolve so differently to the extent that they form their own species, when they share the same environment and pressures, etc?

Perhaps my view of speciation is too linear. Is this model initially niche-driven (for the animal kingdom) rather than gene-driven? And if so, does this show us that there can be more than one niche within a population?

Or is this model the product of a variance of phenotype and niche, i.e. the variance in phenotype open up a new niche? In which case this would explain why it is so rare in the animal kingdom?

I don't want to derail this thread and so if you think this takes more than one or two replies I'll start a new one.

I look forward to your next installment.

Thanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Kakariki

Hello kakariki, and welcome to the forum, thanks for the kind comments.


The space occupied by any population must necessarily be at least slightly different for each organism - they can't occupy the same space, and the ecology is not constant.

Do a google on "cryptic species" -- when they were initially researching malaria and the transmission by mosquitos they were perplexed by the fact some populations of the suspected species were not linked to outbreaks. Then they discovered that they had not one but three morphologically identical species, one of which was the carrier while the other two were non-carriers.

What is frequently theorized is that while the sub-populations occupy the same ecology, they have different behavior that leads to breeding isolation. In this case the three species of mosquito were found to breed at different times of the day.

One can also theorize that sexual selection for a variation of a trait can cause different members of the same population to prefer different mates ("gentlemen men prefer blonds"?), and that this could over time result in breeding isolation even though they occupy the same ecology.

You need to think of the ecology as multi-dimensional -- 3 space dimensions, 1 time dimension, and 1 (or more) behavioral dimension/s, so that when you map sympatric speciation the daughter populations cover different 5(+)D-spaces.

Some biologists think that all speciation mechanisms are really allopatric speciation and it just differs on how you define the geography (topology).

Hope that helps, it's off the cuff, and if you are interested in more I can suggest another site with genetic biologists on board.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thank you, RAZD...


...especially for that. My problem was that I wasn't thinking beyond the linear.

Back to the regular program. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

kakariki

Thanks again kakariki,


We seem to have general agreement then that we have two processes (even though they may overlap) that occur in modern everyday biological life as we know it:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

We observe instances of these processes happening by various mechanisms as previously noted, and thus these are facts in today's world.

The question is whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:

[color:"blue"]Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

Stated simply: we posit that Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life today from the records of previous generations of species.

We start with today and work backwards, generation by generation, species by species (in theory). Where we do not have sufficiently complete information to show Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the descent of daughter species from parent species, we will have to say that we don't know for sure.

This is essentially the creationist model, using (1) variation and adaptation, plus (2) speciation, to explain the diversity of life today back to the hypothetical biblical flood event and a point where we started with known kinds.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap. To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge.

From Two of Every Kind (see box at bottom):



So we should see the effect of the orchard vs tree arrangement in the fossil and genetic record. If creationism were true we should see the orchard, and further, it should be repeated after the flood event, which should also show up as an extinction event that winnows species down to the original kinds again, with the same kinds before and after the flood:

[color:"red"]Theory #1b (a corollary of theory #1 if creationism is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their parent "original kinds" at the same time and in one general location ... once for the hypothetical flood event and once again for creation.[/color]

ie - there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, and we should not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships:

<img src="http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/AiG-orchard-orchard.jpg">

However if evolution\geology were true then there should be no repeated period of species before and after an extinction event and the record should continue as far as there is evidence.

[color:"blue"]Theory #1c (a corollary of theory #1 if evolution\geology is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their individual parent species at different times and different places ... in a fairly continuous process that forms a tree-like pattern of relationships.[/color]

And then, if all life is related to some original population of life, we should find evidence that forms a tree (if not a bush) showing the relationships:

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Phylogenetic_tree.svg/340px-Phylogenetic_tree.svg.png">

If we can agree on this and the tests for the different corollaries then we can move on to the evidence for descent from parent species or kinds and see if

(1) the theory #1 can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(2) the theory #1b can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(3) the theory #1c can, or cannot, explain the evidence.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

[color:"brown"]The information presented above is based on vast speculation.[/color]


"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."

—Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.



"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].



"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

—Charles Darwin: In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology



"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179


Evolution Disproved in 50 Arguments

Creation/Evolution Debate - Dr. Kent Hovind vs Dr. Ben Waggoner

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Thanks Russ, it's nice to hear from you again, but you seem to miss the point.

Actually it is based on observations made in the present day, observations you can make and validate.

What's interesting is that they are based on creationist concepts and speculation -- things creationists need to use to explain current day biology. Let me repeat them for your benefit:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. [/color]

Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
" ... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ... "

Creationists are in agreement with these processes.

Then we move on to the question of whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:

[color:"blue"]Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species. [/color]

Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap. To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge.

The disagreement is about the time and number of the first common ancestor/s, not about the process that happens from that time to now. Therefore the test to differentiate them is to determine the limits of common ancestry. This is pointed out in the AnswersInGenesis article

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind

[color:"red"]If creationism were true then there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, one for the flood and one for creation and we should not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships[/color]

We should see not one orchard but two, one after the other, and not a tree ... IF creationism is true.

If you disagree with this test feel free to suggest your modification/s.

The next thing to do is look at evidence and see which one works, which one doesn't. That is not speculation of any kind.

What I see, sadly, appears to be a knee-jerk response that is not based on the material in the post.

Nor do your quotes address the issue/s raised in the thread. One day you will realize that quotes are not an argument, especially when they are non sequiturs. In this case none of the material in this thread depends on a single item in your quotes.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

You Are Confusing the Program with the Data.

Being within the kind means that genetic information was not gained. In other words, you cannot, through chance, cross the line between change within the allotted kind and the addition of more information that would be required to form a specified change beyond the original design capabilities (racehorse breeding for example).

To boil this down to layman's terms, the original kinds have the ability to diversify already designed into them, but this diversification takes place only within the originally designed limits ("kind").

To use a model, it's like a computer program and a computer program's working data.

You can configure a program to change the way it works within it's predesigned limitations by changing the (genetic) data you provide to it, bur you absolute cannot set a computer in a office for 6 billion years and expect the program itself to change in any advantageous way. It will only statistically deteriorate.

It is easy to confuse these two aspects of diversification and so it (this easily induced confusion) is used as a false premise to induce people into believing a particular change is actually an evolutionary process when it is actually the expression of a predesigned parameter.

As ironic as it is, the additional complexity required by a self-adapting system (such as we now clearly see and agree upon) dramatically increases initial design complexity and therefore decreases the already astronomically low (impossible really) chances of evolutionary processes being a viable explanation.

Hopefully this makes sense to everyone.

Thanks again Russ, but I think you are still missing the issue here

All this says is that the result of the testing with evidence should show an orchard, just as AiG proposes.

There should be one for creation up to the flood (when there was massive extinction to account for all those fossils eh?) followed by a winnowing back to the original kinds (one\seven pair representing each kind) followed by another orchard of variation and adaptation to the present day.

Not only that, but the basal organisms at the beginning of one orchard should be similar (identical not needed) with representatives of the same kinds as the basal organisms at the beginning of the other orchard.

We can discuss these issues later, but the point here is that we are dealing with tracing the evidence backwards from the present day to see if we end up with a single tree, two trees, a small number of trees or an orchard of trees.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Your argument is illogical RAZD.

Because you already use this statement (and similar related others):



...and state that it is true, and it is true, ... you cannot then in the next breath state:



Furthermore, your seeming assumption that the earth is static and all things that have ever died should be found in perfect ordered layers within the earth is idealistic and unfounded. The earth is not static. A flood of major proportions would disturb and mix layers of sediment beyond recognition. Earthquakes or other disturbances in places would further raise or lower or bury or expose old layers while burying new layers. And since there are not any dating methods truly perfect to the year to date layers or items that might be only 100 or 1000 years older or younger than one another, because environmental inconsistencies exist which make such dating accuracy impossible, and since you (should) alreadly know this, your statements and assumptions are completely illogical and even misleading.

Your use of the word species is also misleading in this context, you should use the word 'genus' instead., since 'daughter' species are not truly new species in the context you seem to want to make them appear to be. either or, you are not aware of the variations within a genus that are referred to as different species but are actually different variations of the same genus. What you are doing is equivalent to saying that within the human race, asians and caucasions are two different species. Essentially, it is merely rhetoric which human beings find offensive when applied to themselves but freely apply to animals, fish, insects etc.

Your argument and way of presenting it assumes the reader is ignorant of the facts and you carry on with the argument in deceptive ways that continue to assume the reader is ignorant of the facts and will easily accept your notions.

it's probably not true though.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/bokcdfbhiw.jpg">

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xprcpexdwv.jpg">
.

Yes, assuming only two of each kind was taken.

The Book says:

[color:"brown"]"...And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."[/color]
—Genesis 6:19

Stong's says concerning "every (sort)":

[color:"brown"]"From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever)."[/color]

So, we have to figure out what a "sort" is.

Taken together, it seems that there was minimal variety at the time of the ark because of the relatively short time between organic creation and the flood. After the hydrorecession, much more time was available to allow the expression of the designed existing genetic variation.

Of course, this variation is possible in these periods because no genetic mutations need to occur, only expressions of existing information.



With all due respect, it's pretty hard to trace this type of distribution this long after a catastrophe of this type.

---

[color:"brown"]"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."[/color]

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.


[color:"brown"]"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."[/color]

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306

Thank you SoSick for your help in understanding this topic

No theory is "true" - you can have a valid premises and sound conclusions, but that's as close as you can get. You can invalidate theories but never prove them true.

What I said was known, was that the two processes previously discussed were observed to have occurred, and therefore they are fact, they do happen:

[color:"purple"] Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

They are both processes recognized in creationist articles as processes that occur and that are therefore observed facts. Then I said:

We don't know if this is true for the whole natural history record of life on earth, so we have to test it. Through testing it we can either invalidate it or find that it is sound in being able to explain the evidence we know and test it with.

Why not? This follows the AiG article strictly in it's interpretation.

If you have trouble with this conclusion, then maybe you should take it up with AiG, that is where the orchard concept came from. Each orchard starts with the kinds that were at the start of each growth period, one at creation and the other at the flood. Each branches out from the original kinds, one is "pruned" by the flood event and the other ends with the diversity of life we see today.

What I don't see, SoSick, is where the illogic is -- you have not shown any in the argument.

Not at all. We know that is not the case (see discussion of La Brea tar pits), but what we do assume is that the fossils that we do find are evidence of previous life. We assume that the evidence we are able to find is a true representation of life that did exist.

But it would not be able to do that after the flood, so the record after the flood should be clear. In addition, if what you say is true, then there should be evidence of that mixing, a level below which everything is fairly homogeneous in distributions of material and fossils, and it should be then easy to determine the upper level of flood deposits. We can discuss this issue later if you wish.

Landslides, mudslides and the like, could also distribute old material over new material at lower elevations (in eroded valleys for instance). These would only occur in isolated locations, not universally, and so could be identified by studying adjacent strata and by what the strata look like. You may also be able to find where the old material came from. Curiously this is what geologists do actually do and have been doing for centuries. Relative dating of strata based on superposition has been around since the 17th century.

All we need to show the descent of daughter populations from parent populations is relative age. Certainly we don't need it accurate to an actual individual year, and thus methods that are accurate +/-10% can still be useful -- if specimen {A} dates to 1000 BCE +/-10% (900 to 1100 BCE) and specimen {B} dates to 2000 BCE+/-10% (1800 to 2200 BCE) we can be pretty sure that specimen {B} is actually in fact older than specimen {A} -- the relative relationship is what is important, not the actual age for determining lineage.

We saw in the age dating thread that the accuracy of tree ring dating was +/-0.5% over 8,000 years of tree ring data. We also saw that carbon-14 dating was less accurate than tree rings due to the annual variation in atmospheric carbon-14, but that you could still correlate one set of dates with the other and have consistent relative age results.

To assume that we can know nothing is illogical as it ignores the wealth of information that we can and do know. To say that because we can't know a date to the exact year (month? day? minute?) that dating methods are completely useless is false and misleading in the extreme.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue of daughter populations descending from parent populations. Whether we use biological varieties (human race for example), species (dogs and foxes), genus (canine and feline), etc. doesn't matter, what matters is the evidence of the division of a 'parent' population into two (or more) 'daughter' populations. I used species because that is what was used in the AiG articles:

If you have a problem with this terminology, maybe you should take it up with AiG.

Thanks for showing me how to post pictures with forum extras, it is always good to know how to prevent deep links to other websites (saves their bandwidth) and that may up and disappear (annoying). It's also a way to get around those sites that try to protect their copyright images with a deep link detector that then posts "this image stolen from messybeast com" and the like eh?

Don't you think those pictures show the hereditary relationship of the two crossed populations to a parent population? Don't you think this means that lions and jaguars (and tigers and leopards and cheetahs etc) are related by descent from a common ancestor population and that donkeys and zebras (and horses and onagers etc) are related by descent from a common ancestor population?

Do you think we can organize all existing life by their ability to form viable hybrids (even if we have to do it artificially)?

http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
Do you think this shows that camels and llamas are related by descent from a common ancestor population?

Actually I assume that skeptical people will challenge every notion, and thus they will need to see substantiation for any and all claims made in an argument. It is not assuming ignorance (which itself is not a bad thing - it can be cured by gaining knowledge), rather it is making sure we are talking about the same thing.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thank you Russ for your help in defining the issue.

Several different things in different places. Whether you are talking two of every {whatever} or two pair of every {whatever} and then seven of every clean {whatever} or seven pair of every clean {whatever} ...

But these are all functionally the same thing: a small (undefined) number of initial breeding populations that diversifies into the life we see today by variation and adaptation and by speciation.

Certainly the evidence will be missing for some, however there should be some evidence that can be followed back far enough. We should also be able to mark the flood event by (1) evidence of a flood boundary (all jumbled below -- see SoSick above), (2) mass extinction (in the flood), (3) bottle-neck populations (severely reduced numbers initially) in all life forms after the extinction event and (4) evidence of parent populations for types of life currently living that are recognized as kinds -- humans, dogs and horses for example.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Stating that something is fact, unequivocally true, then adding an if to the statement in an attempt to disprove it is illogical.

Your arguments are merely vain and self-satisfying at that point.

Any animal that can successfully breed with another shares the common DNA of it's genus family, it is in essence, the same species. No brainer for most people.

You can take up your own arguments with the comprehensive conclusiveness and literalness of AIG information yourself since you appear to be the only one relying on it.

Likewise, since you probably cannot even trace the bones of your own ancestors back 8, 10 or 20 generations, it's highly unlikely you or anyone else will successfully trace the bones of dogs, sheep. snakes or snails or anything else for that matter back to a, THE, parent ancestor 5000, 10,000 generations and more.

It's highly unlikely anyone is interested in jumping through hoops to entertain you.

I have no idea where the pics came from, they are quite numerous on the net, take a look yourself. I don't think they came from the same website. It really doesn't matter since it's common knowledge.

The earth is not static. Your presumptions are numerous, especially considering the hundreds of millions of years timeline you would like to label them with. The bones of people washed to sea from Katrina or the Indonesian tsunamis cannot even all be found a mere few months after the occurrence. The Mississippi river alone is dumping enough sediment into the sea annually to bury the entire earth more than 10 times over within a hundred million year timeline, which leaves the majority of your presumptions in a very precarious position to begin with.

Thanks again SoSick, your post is very telling.

You should know where you found it, and you should provide that information, it is not just polite, it is how you tell the truth. Some pictures are copyrighted as are the text material on some sites, and credit should be given. Common knowledge doesn't take the picture.

Except that (1) genus and family are different taxon levels, and (2) some cases involve relations higher than genus ... to family or higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama
So the Cama shows that these genera are "[color:"red"]in essence, the same species[/color]" yes? Would you agree that Camilidae could be considered the parent population (ancestor species) that divided into two daughter populations, Camelus and Lama, and that both of these became parent populations (ancestor species) for their daughter populations that represent the four species we see today?

What do you think the limits are for artificial insemination?

Yet there are still some left to provide evidence of the life that did live there. The fact that there are fossils of previous life means we have evidence of that previous life. We don't need to look at the evidence that is NOT there when we can look at the evidence that IS there.

Yet you did not need this criteria to say that [color:"red"]"Any animal that can successfully breed with another shares the common DNA of it's genus family, it is in essence, the same species. No brainer for most people."[/color] This is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, requiring different standards of evidence based on what you want to believe.

We can also use DNA to compare hereditary lineages, as has been done with Thomas Jefferson's children, among others. What do you think the limits of DNA analysis are?

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

What is this 20 questions?

No I actually do not recall where those photos were from. But since there are 20,000 variations of the same thing on the net I don;t see what difference it makes except to satisfy your picciuny ego.

What animal breeding on any given day under any given circumstance has to do with you tracing the bones of your ancestors is beyond the level of my imagination.

There are a thousand different points that can be made on any given day about a thousand different areas of science. Fly yourself to the moon and back. Knock yourself out. Makes no difference at all. Let us know when you stumble upon the ape or snail in Thomas Jefferson's lineage.

Jump through your own hoops, ringmaster wannabe. Your special pleading has gone beyond the limits of rationale thinking. You are a nut job with endless meaningless nut job arguments and a control freak ego to match.

It really doesn't matter RAZD. 20 questions or 20,000 presumptions still won't change world history a hoot and you still cannot make babies with bears. But go ahead, knock yourself out trying.

The royal families of europe or the caesers would have been a better choice btw. But it still would not even begin to come close to helping you make your original point seem feasible, especially since we haven't even located the recorded ancestry of the frogs and snails yet. And you know how it was between them, all clamouring to get to the top of the toadstool, every one saying they were there first.