Dorothy Mae
Member
- May 23, 2020
- 7,282
- 1,799
I just want to add that evolution won’t touch the origin of life with a ten foot pole. They have no scientific answer, just faith in nothing creating everything.
[__ Science __ ] Can Creationists Accept Evolution?
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
Turns out, the evidence clearly indicates millions of years of evolution. Genetics shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. And we know this method works, because we can check it on organisms of known descent. It's much more than genetics, though. The fossil record, as even informed creationists admit, shows common descent. Would you like me to show you that?
Sure. Science was never the subject that spoke to me when I was in school. I just wanted to pass and be done with it.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,389
- 4,689
Barbarian, I'm not even an "informed Creationist," yet what little I knew was apparently more than what you could respond to. I hate to put it so bluntly, but whoever your sources are, I doubt they're actually all that informed either.
Last edited:
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
I was responding to Riven, but if you have something to contribute, by all means, show us what you have, and we'll take a look at it. I do have some knowledge of the evidence, so maybe we can work that out.
Well, let's talk about a couple of them:
Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) is an American young Earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard University.[1] He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
Kurt Wise - Wikipedia
Wise writes:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence formacroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Todd C. Wood has a formal education that consists of a B.S. in Biology from Liberty University in Virginia (1994) and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, 1999). Todd's Ph.D. advisor was the famous Dr. William Pearson, the original developer of the widely popular FASTA suite of computer programs used for DNA analyses. When providing a reference for Todd in his subsequent academic position application, Dr. Pearson stated "he was the best graduate student I ever had". Immediately following his Ph.D. work at Virginia, Dr. Wood accepted a position as the Director of Bioinformatics at the Clemson University Genomics Institute (Clemson, SC) which at that time, was directed by Dr. Rod Wing, a world famous scientist in the field of plant genomics. After working for about two years at Clemson University, Dr. Wood accepted a faculty position at Bryan College (Dayton, TN) in 2002, where he now serves as the Director of the Center for Origins Research and Associate Professor of Science.
Todd Wood is best known in the creationist research community for his involvement in the development of baraminology, a creationist system of biological study and classification.
Todd Wood - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Dr. Wood writes:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
The truth about evolution
A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.
toddcwood.blogspot.com
I think they do know what they're talking about. But let's talk about your knowlege and information. And we'll discuss that. What do you have?
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,389
- 4,689
No, they don't.
Because creationist palaeontology is not in the state necessary to properly address the traditional transitional forms issue, the traditional transitional forms issue is not of the highest priority in creationist palaeontology. Since proper evaluation of the traditional transitional forms issue would divert substantial resources away from other tasks, it is not an efficient use of creationist resources to address the traditional transitional forms issue at this point in time. To allow the evolutionist to determine creationists’ priorities/ allocation of resources (in this case, the traditional transitional forms issue) will thwart attempts to build a creation model. The traditional transitional forms issue should, at this time, not be a concern to the creationist.
Barbarian, Scientific Creationists don't invest resources and time into investigating transitional forms because they don't buy it. That's a different thing from saying it's simply not a priority to them. It's like saying they're not investing heavily in the theory that the moon is made out of cheese because it doesn't fit their narrative. It took me all of three minutes to find bad reasoning like that in his piece, and it would have taken an actual Scientific Creationist even less.
Here's what I want you to do. Go get the answer to my original question: What is the justification for a theory that still rests soundly on punctuated equilibrium. More specifically, I want statements regarding what percentage of the theory rests on actual fossil evidence of transitional forms, and what percentage still has to be made up for with imaginary dots.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,389
- 4,689
You believe in Modern Synthesis? The question is going to be the same.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
Actually not. You see, there was one thing that kept Darwnism from being universally accepted by scientists. Darwin was unable to explain how a new character could spread through a population. Darwin, like other scientists of his time, supposed that inheritance was in the blood. If so, a new character would be erases like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.
When Mendel's work was rediscovered, it became clear why evolution works as it does, and the vast majority of scientists then accepted Darwin's theory.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
I think they do know what they're talking about.
It's true that most fossil evidence shows fairly rapid evolution, followed by long periods of stasis when a species changes very little. Darwin predicted that, BTW, noting that natural selection would prevent much change in a well-fitted population in a constant environment.
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence formacroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
The key is that none of these transitions were known in Darwin's time. Even when I was starting out as a student, we didn't have transitional fossils for:
Land animals/whales
Reptiles/mammals
Lizards/snakes
Forest apes/humans
Anapsids/turtles
Salamanders/frogs
Theropod dinosarus/birds
(long list)
Today,we have all those predicted fossil transitionals. Which as Dr. Wise says, is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
But perhaps even more compelling is the DNA data, showing genetic relationships that confirm fossil transitional data. And we know this works, because we can compare DNA of organisms of known descent.
Using DNA analyses, we get the same phylogeny for living things that was first noted by Linnaeus in the 1700s, and by the huge number of fossil transitionals in the rocks. How would you go about establishing percentages? I figure the DNA data is more persuasive than the fossil transitionals which agree with the DNA evidence.
Manifestly, they do. Dr. Wise, for example, is honest enough to admit that Darwin's predictions about the nature of fossil evidence have been repeatedly verified by "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And he also admits that the evidence is not consistent with creationist beliefs.
If so, it's hard to understand how Dr. Wise would know all that paleontological data that he says supports Darwin's theory. Clearly he did a lot of investigation. For the obvious reason. He suggests that eventually a creationist explanation for the facts will be possible.
That's a misconception many creationists have. Eldredge and Gould did not deny slow and gradual evolution. They merely noted that punctuated equilibrium is the norm. But Gould noted that (for example) forams, horses, and ammonites show gradual evolution rather than punctuated equilibrium.
It's true that most fossil evidence shows fairly rapid evolution, followed by long periods of stasis when a species changes very little. Darwin predicted that, BTW, noting that natural selection would prevent much change in a well-fitted population in a constant environment.
Well, let's ask Dr. Wise...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence formacroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
The key is that none of these transitions were known in Darwin's time. Even when I was starting out as a student, we didn't have transitional fossils for:
Land animals/whales
Reptiles/mammals
Lizards/snakes
Forest apes/humans
Anapsids/turtles
Salamanders/frogs
Theropod dinosarus/birds
(long list)
Today,we have all those predicted fossil transitionals. Which as Dr. Wise says, is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
But perhaps even more compelling is the DNA data, showing genetic relationships that confirm fossil transitional data. And we know this works, because we can compare DNA of organisms of known descent.
Using DNA analyses, we get the same phylogeny for living things that was first noted by Linnaeus in the 1700s, and by the huge number of fossil transitionals in the rocks. How would you go about establishing percentages? I figure the DNA data is more persuasive than the fossil transitionals which agree with the DNA evidence.
Well, let's test that issue. Name me two major groups of organisms, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's DNA data and/or transitional fossils for that connection. There are still some for which we don't have fossil data at least, so you might be able to fine one. Name them, and we'll see.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,389
- 4,689
No we don't, Lol.
Find one?! Oh come on... (chuckling).
Barbarian, I appreciate the work you put into the last few posts, so I don't want to sound dismissive, but it doesn't hold water. If you want to respond, I'm asking for hard evidence in the fossil record, across all spectrums, strata, supposedly "missing" strata, the entire geological column. We've got hard evidence for all sorts of species, very well-defined, and all over the planet, and then suddenly little bits and pieces of what is believed to be transitionary forms that nowhere near account for themselves and essentially have to be fabricated from little to nothing...
I'm not into debate for debate's sake, so you're going to have to forgive me if I bow out again, but if this were a court of law, you're not proving your case to me. It's sounds more like you are just towing the party line, despite however well-intended and sincere you might be.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
The key is that none of these transitions were known in Darwin's time. Even when I was starting out as a student, we didn't have transitional fossils for:
Land animals/whales
Reptiles/mammals
Lizards/snakes
Forest apes/humans
Anapsids/turtles
Salamanders/frogs
Theropod dinosarus/birds
(long list)
Now we have all of those, and more.
I'll open this up to any creationist who would like to answer. Name me two major groups of organisms, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's DNA data and/or transitional fossils for that connection.
Anyone?
Land animals/whales
Reptiles/mammals
Lizards/snakes
Forest apes/humans
Anapsids/turtles
Salamanders/frogs
Theropod dinosarus/birds
(long list)
Now we have all of those, and more.
Well, let's test that issue. Name me two major groups of organisms, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's DNA data and/or transitional fossils for that connection. There are still some for which we don't have fossil data at least, so you might be able to fine one. Name them, and we'll see.
No other creationist can answer this, either. That's very telling, isn't it?
Your fellow creationists showed us much of that. But we're talking about your failure to find even one case where two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, do not have evidence for that connection. If you can't even do that, why would anyone believe what you want us to believe?
If so, it should be very easy for you to answer my question. Yet, you seem completely unable to do that? Why is that?
As you see, your fellow creationists have already conceded that there is very good evidence for evolution. Right now, you've been asked to show us that related major groups don't have evidence for an evolutionary connection. And you've been unable to give us even one. It's sounds more like you are just toeing the creationist party line, despite however well-intended and sincere you might be.
I'll open this up to any creationist who would like to answer. Name me two major groups of organisms, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's DNA data and/or transitional fossils for that connection.
Anyone?
Highway54
Member
- Feb 23, 2023
- 1,493
- 340
One thing is for certain Dot, if God doesn't exist, then we are just a spontaneous freak of nature.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
Technically, birds are dinosaurs, in the same sense that humans are primates. Can you name even one feature of birds that cannot be found in other dinosaurs?
Feathers, flight, pneumatized bones and "avian" lung system, furcula, reduced digits,... (long list) We have a huge number of transitionals from theropod dinosaurs to birds.
Frontiers | Paravian Phylogeny and the Dinosaur-Bird Transition: An Overview
Recent years witnessed the discovery of a great diversity of early birds as well as closely related non-avian theropods, which modified previous conceptions ...
www.frontiersin.org
BTW, I know of one characteristic of birds not found in other dinosaurs, but I doubt if very many people outside the discipline would know what it is. You could get lucky. What do you think?
BTW, the only dinosaurs still living are birds, so we don't yet have other dinosaur DNA to check. But not long ago, scientists did find a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecule) from a T-rex. When checked against that of other animals, it was more like the heme of a turkey than like any other living reptile tested.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
But God does exist. And evolution is His creation.
Dorothy Mae
Member
- May 23, 2020
- 7,282
- 1,799
True but the mathematical odds render that impossible.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,310
- 2,547
Actually, given the laws that work in this universe, the evolution of complex organisms is pretty much a given. The ID creationists call it "front loading." Most Christians suppose that God made this universe so as to produce us.
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny
