[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Sparkey]

Et tu, Brute?

You interject your opinions from time to time but you have never really declared your political affiliation. Are you a theistic evolutionist, i.e., do you buy into the notion that God used the leading atheistic creation-myth to create like Barbarian does or do you march to a different drummer?

Et tu? You, sir, are no Caesar. That aside, both Barbarian and lordkalvan know my position. We've hashed it out years ago. I suspect that your only interest in me, friend, is to be better able to position yourself against me. That being the case, consider this: a fire, for want of wood, will extinquish itself.

I enjoy the science forum and like to research things but endless discussions that amount to nothing do not work to resolve questions.

 

[zeke]

I suspect that your only interest in me, friend, is to be better able to position yourself against me. That being the case, consider this: a fire, for want of wood, will extinquish itself.

Well, you certainly know how to articulate your position on this subject but you sound a wee bit paranoid. Why would I want to 'better position myself against you'? It's really not all about you - is it?

 

[Barbarian]

Genetics has demonstrated that chimps are more closely related to humans than either is related to anything else.

But that hardly proves common ancestry - does it?

It demonstrates that they do. As you know, we can check that by running the same check on organisms of known ancestry.

Chimps and humans have a common designer.

Common creator. And you're not pleased with the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
Gould was an agnostic, and there is no evidence showing he was a Marxist.

But there is

Nope. Second-hand "maybes" don't count. Gould himself admitted to being an agnostic, and nowhere does he espouse Marxism.

go back and read my posts.

Did that. They were content-free as usual.

 

[zeke]

It demonstrates that they do. As you know, we can check that by running the same check on organisms of known ancestry.

What do you think you are trying to say in that statement?

Gould was an agnostic, and there is no evidence showing he was a Marxist...Gould himself admitted to being an agnostic...

According to his friend Michael Ruse he openly admitted his was as Marxist. Ruse should know but you can believe what you will. Other than semantic word games - what is the difference between a strong atheist, a weak atheist and an agnostic - in your mind?

 

[Barbarian]

Does the Pope believe God designed the Universe?

One of his associates once used "designer" to describe God, and was disturbed to find that it had a political meaning in the U.S. that he did not intend. But it doesn't really matter, since the Pope has not made an ex cathedra statement on the issue.

Does the Pope believe God designed and created man "in God's image"

The Church believes God created man in His image. But the "image" is in His mind and being, not in physical appearance.

in the beginning" or does he agree with classical Darwinism that evolution did not have man in mind?

The Church does not attribute intentionality to natural processes. That would be like believing a hammer intends to build a chair.

Is the Pope a borderline blasphemer?

Because the Church (and the Pope) do not attribute the imperfections of a designer to God, they do not blaspheme.

Be careful how you answer - the Pope's ideas on this subject are surely on record

Well, the current Pope's position is well-known:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens...The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency†(Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God
The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

and the Magisterium is watching.

Apparently, you don't know what "Magisterium" means, either.

 

[Barbarian]

According to his friend Michael Ruse he openly admitted his was as Marxist.

Show us that. And your evidence he was an atheist.

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you suggesting that evolutionary theory proposes dogs will morph wings after a l-o-n-g period of time? Does that come under punctuated equilibria or is it the result of genetic dissimilarity caused by a multiplicity of designers?

It seems to be your rather bizarre idea that evolutionary theory proposes dogs will 'morph' wings. I am simply pointing out that evolutionary theory proposes no such thing: it does not forecast the future developmental history of organisms (except that populations will, inevitably, evolve in unforeseen but limited directions), but instead explains the history of how the variety of life developed.

Did Linnaeus believe in common ancestry or did he propose that species had "fixed limits"? Do you agree with Linnaeus when he correctly stated that "all the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand"? Do you think he was a 'creationist' - believing that God created in the beginning?

All the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand, and the number of these is now and always will be exactly the same, while every day new and different florists' species arise from the true species so-called by Botanists, and when they have arisen they finally revert to the original forms. Accordingly to the former have been assigned by Nature fixed limits, beyond which they cannot go: while the latter display without end the infinite sport of Nature. ~ Carolus Linnaeus​

Linnaeus recognised the common traits amongst the primates that led him to group H sapiens with the other great apes.

Are you an atheist

Are you a YEC?

I have already stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design and I asked you what genetic dissimilarity you are referring to, exactly.

I know that you have 'stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design'. What you haven't done, however, despite repeated requests, is explain how and why 'genetic similarity supports common design'. You simply seem content to assert it and expect us to take your word for it.

I am referring to the genetic dissimilarity that places organisms in different taxonomic ranks depending on the remoteness of ancestral relationships amongst them. You have declared genetic similarity to be evidence of common design, so perhaps I should ask you to what genetic similarity you are referring, exactly?

Do you think there could be a multiplicity of designers? I don't. Where do you get that notion?

Whether you or I believe in 'a multiplicity of designers' or not is irrelevant. What I am asking is, if genetic 'nearness' of organisms is evidence of a common designer, whether genetic 'distance' is evidence of a multiplicity of designers and, if not, why not? You seem very reluctant to address this question with anything other than evasion.

You may be confused - you are repeating yourself. Again, I ask --to what genetic dissimilarity are referring to, exactly. The ones you think may be caused by a multiplicity of designers or some other singular genetic dissimilarity.

Evasiveness and reliance on rhetoric noted again.

You are once again confusing biological evolution with Darwinian mythology. Darwinian mythology is cartoonish - biological evolution is science.

Please define 'biological evolution', 'Darwinian mythology', 'real science' and 'pseudoscience'. You throw these terms around as if they have obvious meaning and that all you have to do is use them to provide an irrefutable argument.

Flying dogs and reptilians sprouting wings where there were no wings is magical.

Your continued assertions concerning 'magic' are not evidential. Explain your reasoning as to why the things you assert as 'magical' are 'magical', why the tenets of evolutionary theory are wrong and what altnative explanation you can offer that better accounts for the observed evidence and why it better accounts for it.

I think you have it backwards my friend. The burden of proof is yours - you are the one making the extraordinary claim that dinos magically changed into birds. Where is the extraordinary evidence required to show where this new genetic information came from. No evolution of the gaps please --just some science. If you do not have the evidence just say you don't and we will understand your dilemma.

You are prejudging the discussion already. You have decided that the evolutionary hypothesis that modern birds descended from theropod dinosaurs amounts to 'magic' and you have failed to define what you mean by 'science' and the evidence that supports it. Given this context, I doubt there is any evidence that you will not dismiss as 'pseudoscience', 'Darwinian mythology' and 'magic'.

Genetic change in populations that is inherited over many generations.

So what drives that genetic change such that it is inherited in populations over many generations? Does this inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events? If no, why not?

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, any way you wish to spin it...

Clearly this is not a matter of spin, or do you want to agree that you simply wish to spin it in a different direction?

...some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist - why would they misrepresent him?

You have offered one such contemporary in evidence. Perhaps that contemporary misunderstood Gould or chooses to misrepresent him to make a particular point about his evolutionary theories with which he strongly disagrees. Clearly Prindle has researched the subject extensively and has come to a different conclusion and Gould himself has stated that he separated from his father's Marxist views.

And his evolutionary ideas were tainted by his left-wing political radicalism. Marxism is atheism and atheism loves evolutionism for the obvious reasons.

You imply that Gould's ideas must inevitably be rendered dubious because of his political views. This is nonsense; his evolutionary ideas stand on and should be countered on their own merits.

Again - some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist for the obvious reasons.

What they 'felt' carries more weight than what Gould said and Prindle concludes why, exactly?

One more time - anyway you wish to spin it some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist. Lol - are you suggesting Gould was a follower of the Society of the Catholic Commonwealth? Surely you jest - yes?

Do you work at missing the point, or does this come naturally? The point is that Marxism and Christianity are not incompatible and that holding Marxist political ideas is not incompatible with a Christian belief.

"Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his Marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs." ~ Michael Ruse​

And yet this seems to be hearsay as all you offer is a second-hand account of what Gould allegedly admitted and lauded.

I don't think he found the evidence compelling - that is why is was always in trouble with his fellow travelers. He could not accept a Creator-God for the obvious reasons. Do you need it spelled out?

Yes, preferably with some reasoned argument to support it.

Sure - see his remarks in Natural History, January 1987. It was on the internet in the past - may still be.

I can find no such remarks on the Internet. As you appear familiar with them and presumably have the relevant article to hand, perhaps you can quote them and their context here?

The truth that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry is a fact...

Asserting that this is a fact does not make it a fact. Can you present your reasoning and account of the evidence that explains why homology supports common design?

...even Francis Collins understands that a common designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again" and Gould accepted what you can’t quite digest – he had no problem admitting that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry because it is true.

Can you (a) cite the full comments where these understandings and acceptances were made and provide the relevant contexts, and (b) show us how it is, indeed, true that homology supports common design?

Amateur Darwinists always have trouble with this concept - why?

Well, this amateur Modern Synthesist has trouble with it because all you seem to do is assert this without actually offering any reasoned, evidenced argument to support your assertion.

Are you an amateur Darwinist?

Are you an amateur anti-Darwinist?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

Please explain why I should value Davis and Kenyon's opinion on this and can you show how they are supporting their claim that 'Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as common ancestry'? Given the alacrity with which creationist sources quote mine Gould, this seems to be a reasonable request.

 

[lordkalvan]

What proof (scientifically) is Glenfiddich 12 Year Old or do you not know? Are we still in agreement – genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry? For theI record hasn't science 'proven' a number of things in the history of mankind? Hasn't science proven the earth is not flat? Are you sure science can't prove anything? What is your definition of “proof”?

Sparrow has offered you a comprehensive explanation, so I will simply refer you to that.

Depends on who you choose to place your faith in - doesn't it?

Assertion without substance, that conclusions based on evidence are a matter of faith rather than reasoned analysis.

Those who believe via faith in naturalistic atheism will certainly agree with your statement but what choice do they have?

More assertion without substance, that an understanding that naturalistic explanations for phenomena are correct means those who hold to this understanding are atheistic. Tell me, do you think faith in naturalistic atheism is required to understand that rainfall does not require a supernatural explanation?

Theists on the other hand have a choice because genetic similarity, morphology, vestigial structures, etc work as well for common design as they do for common ancestry.

You continue to assert this, but have failed to demonstrate it.

Remember you and I have already agreed that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry...

Your continued efforts to maintain this fiction in spite of my repeated explanations of why you are wrong to do so are unacceptable.

...Stephen Gould and Francis Collins agree with us...

You have failed to show that they agree with you in the sense that you are wishing to imply. I certainly don't, so please stop trying to imply that I do.

...in fact the only one who chokes on that truth is Barbarian but his learning curve is improving – I think.

Several implications without any obvious merit: that what you assert is the truth simply because you assert it and that Barbarian has failed to offer evidenced arguments against your point of view that you have been quite unable to refute.

But I am not trying to falsify common ancestry...

So you agree that common ancestry is a viable explanation for the observed evidence?

There are bigger fish to fry.

What fish are those, then?

If you choose to believe in that Darwinian fairytale via faith then so be it.

More assertions without obvious merit: that there is such a thing as a 'Darwinian fairytale' and that I 'choose to believe in [it]...via faith.'

And you have already agreed with me that genetic similarity does not 'prove' common ancestry. Are you now recanting?

See above. You really should desist from continuing to co-opt my comments in a way that blatantly misrepresents my views.

I have read your posts already – which argument do you think you supported in the past that you think you may no longer support. Please be specific. Thanks.

It appears to be case that simply reading my posts does not necessarily mean that you understand them. This may be my fault for not explaining myself clearly enough. Please explain where you are having difficulty and I will do my best to clarify my position.

Are you referring to his silly argument that those who believe God 'designed in the beginning' are borderline blasphemers? You don't buy into that knee-jerk theory – do you? I think he is now embarrassed by that odd comment.

Yet more assertions without obvious merit: that Barbarian's argument is 'silly', that it is a 'knee-jerk theory', that it is an 'odd comment' and that 'he is now embarrassed' by it.

Have we agreed that Stephen Gould was an atheistic evolutionist who had a great fondness for Marxism or are we still discussing that one?

Oh dear.

 

[lordkalvan]

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proofâ€

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.†Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.



Kanazawa concludes his article by comparing liklihoods and giving his opinion that creationists are wrong and evolution has a very small chance of being wrong. It's an amusing comment but not really appropriate for this forum. Those interested can read it here: Common Misconceptions About Science

Many thanks for that cogent and easy-to-follow explanation, Sparrow.

 

[zeke]

The Church believes God created man in His image. But the "image" is in His mind and being, not in physical appearance.

So when the “LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” there was no physical design involved? Does man have a physical body? Was man imperfect at his creation or was he the “crowning glory of His creation”? Your Magisterium is confused – on many matters of faith. You have been misinformed by the misinformed. Try thinking for yourself.

de·sign - to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan​

To create is to design. God created/designed man as spirit, soul and body. I believe God designed man - am I a blasphemer - in your mind?

 

[Sparkey]

So what drives that genetic change such that it is inherited in populations over many generations? Does this inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events? If no, why not?

I think we've come to the crux of the discussion here. Does inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?

In a previous post I was asked to weigh in with my opinion on the matter of "Darwinian Evolution" and at that time I thought it would not serve any purpose but this question is, in my view, worthy of due consideration. Semantics are part of the problem because biblical terms, such as "after their kind" differ from terms uses by taxonomists and biologists, while attempting to classify creatures.

The word "kind" from Scripture is Magisterium :toofunny
Wait, no... that's not it. It is miyn. The Bible doesn't try to be exhaustive here at all but there are specific boundaries implied by the use of this term. We see the first us of the term in Genesis (on the third day/yom, but let's not go there) when God created Grass, Herb yielding plants, and Fruit yielding Trees. I would conclude then that grass can not reproduce with fruit yielding trees as their offspring.

The reason that I conclude this (of course) is that I am persuaded that what God did tell us about how He created things should be considered when we discuss such matters. Of course, I'm neither alone in this, nor do all believe such. Still, we are told, "God said, "Let the eretz put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the eretz," and it was so. - (Gen 1:11 HNV)

I chose the Hebrew Names Version to quote here because of the relationship that is rightly expressed, not to further cloud the subject, which, being one of semantics, is muddied up by technical terminology already. For instance, if a given population of squirrels were to be separated by a physical boundary and after many generations one (population A) were to change their appearance from brown to black, it is conceivable that the other population would no longer mate with them. This is even more apparent for birds. If birds were to evolve difference in their beaks in order to better adapt to different kinds of seeds - those with harder shells, for instance, where a portion of the bird population (and I'm thinking of Darwin's finch studies here) evolved larger beaks, and others (from the same population after many generations) were to develop smaller beaks the consumption of smaller or softer seeds) -- their birdsong would be changed as well. Such change in complex mating selection criteria could cause what is called a "speciation event".

Pardon my amateurish descriptions, and please do read what I'm saying here for my intent -- because it serves our purpose and it is my hope that we might be able to clarify the issue here. If we could incorporate the expanded definition of "species" to that of "miyn" or "kind," we would observe that a new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

I think that the real problem that we have yet to grapple with is the question about where "new information" in the genetic pool comes from. Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained.

Respectively, I'd like to modify lordkalvan's question then. Instead of asking, "Does this inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?" I'd like to ask, "Does inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to changes in "kind"? Do we have evidence of this?

It is my assertion that no only did God create each "kind," He also created their seed in them.

 

[zeke]

It seems to be your rather bizarre idea that evolutionary theory proposes dogs will 'morph' wings.

You may have confused yourself – biological evolution does not propose dogs will 'morph' wings but Darwinian mythology proposes reptilians evolved into canaries via blind chance.

Linnaeus recognised the common traits amongst the primates that led him to group H sapiens with the other great apes.

Linnaeus correctly understood that via the “Almighty Creator's hand” God designed man and chimp genetically similar. Francis Collins correctly stated - genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor” because a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over again”. Do you agree with Linnaeus' comment regard the Almighty's hand in creation? In your mind could God have “used successful design principles over and over again”? If not, why not? Are we still on the same page - do we agree with Collins that genetic similarity does not prove a common ancestor?

I know that you have 'stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design'. What you haven't done, however, despite repeated requests, is explain how and why 'genetic similarity supports common design'.

It is self-evident of course - a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over again”. Stephen Gould said homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Was he mistaken?

You have declared genetic similarity to be evidence of common design, so perhaps I should ask you to what genetic similarity you are referring, exactly?

The genetic similarity between man and chimp, exactly. Do you not see that similarity?

Whether you or I believe in 'a multiplicity of designers' or not is irrelevant.

But it is relevant – I believe there is but one Designer. Do you have polytheistic beliefs of some kind?

What I am asking is, if genetic 'nearness' of organisms is evidence of a common designer, whether genetic 'distance' is evidence of a multiplicity of designers and, if not, why not? You seem very reluctant to address this question with anything other than evasion.

I am not evading anything – your statement makes little sense. You have provided no evidence for multiple designers and God was not limited on how He designed 'in the beginning'.

You are prejudging the discussion already.

Lol - are you saying you are above 'prejudging'?

So what drives that genetic change such that it is inherited in populations over many generations?

Mechanisms that allow an organism to adapt to an environment in a fallen world.

Does this inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?

Sure – in England there is an annoying species of mosquito (Culex) that resides in the London subway system that are thought to have evolved from an above ground species (Culex pipiens). Of course this 'speciation' supports a common designer using already-existing genes. These species no longer interbreed due to isolation but that hardly supports your religious statement that dinos evolved into birds - right?.

It would be helpful if you can provide your definition of 'species'?

 

[Barbarian]

So when the “LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground†there was no physical design involved?

God has no need to figure things out. So no, He had no need to design a human.

Does man have a physical body?

That's not what God means by "in his image." We are like God in our minds, and in our understanding of good and evil.

Was man imperfect at his creation or was he the “crowning glory of His creation�

Only God is perfect. All other beings fall short of perfection. To deny this is to worship man as perfect.

Your Magisterium is confused – on many matters of faith.

If you think that man was perfect (neither Bible nor Christian tradition says so), then you might think Christianity is confused. I'll just have to differ with you on that.

You have been misinformed by the misinformed. Try thinking for yourself.

Funny how people never realize that applies to themselves, um?

de·sign - to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

God had no need to plan. He is omnipotent, and therefore does not have to figure things out.

To create is to design.

No. We flatter ourselves when we suppose we can create. Only God can truly create.

God created/designed man as spirit, soul and body.

I know you want to believe that, but design and creation do not happen together.

I believe God designed man - am I a blasphemer - in your mind?

It is disrespectful of God to attribute limitations to Him. If you truly believe so, it is an insult to God.

 

[Barbarian]

I think we've come to the crux of the discussion here. Does inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?

Every now and then, we happen to be watching when one happens. The first documented example was the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polypoloidy event. Polyploidy happens in one generation, so it's an immediate speciation, and therefore easy to observe.

We've also seen more gradual ones:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2406506

It should be noted that the Institute for Creation Research has confirmed that speciation occurs. They have endorsed the work of John Woodmorappe, who claims that the present set of species evolved from a much smaller set of "kinds" that were aboard the Ark.

 

[Barbarian]

You may have confused yourself – biological evolution does propose dogs will 'morph' wings

Show us that. I would really like to see that one.

but Darwinian mythology proposes reptilians evolved into canaries via blind chance.

Someone's taken advantage of you on that, too. Darwin's discovery was that it didn't happen by chance.

Linnaeus recognised the common traits amongst the primates that led him to group H sapiens with the other great apes.
Linnaeus correctly understood that via the “Almighty Creator's hand†God designed man and chimp genetically similar.

Horsefeathers. Linneaus knew nothing about genetics. You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

Francis Collins correctly stated - genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor†because a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over againâ€.

But, as Collins says, other information, such as the fusion of a pair of primate chromosomes to make one human chromosome, does demonstrate the fact of human descent.

Do you agree with Linnaeus' comment regard the Almighty's hand in creation?

I do. It's just that you don't approve of the way He did it.

In your mind could God have “used successful design principles over and over again�

God could have done it any way He liked. The evidence says variation in living things came about by evolution.

If not, why not? Are we still on the same page - do we agree with Collins that genetic similarity does not prove a common ancestor?

As you learned, "proof" is not part of science. Science merely gathers enough evidence to confirm the fact. This is why Collins agrees that common descent is a fact. Read and learn.

Francis Collins:
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx#ixzz1mqtcDTf7

He's talking to you, Zeke. Learn from him.

 

[Sparkey]

Every now and then, we happen to be watching when one happens. The first documented example was the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polypoloidy event. Polyploidy happens in one generation, so it's an immediate speciation, and therefore easy to observe.

We've also seen more gradual ones:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2406506

It should be noted that the Institute for Creation Research has confirmed that speciation occurs. They have endorsed the work of John Woodmorappe, who claims that the present set of species evolved from a much smaller set of "kinds" that were aboard the Ark.

As far as I know, we have not observed plants crossing the borders of "kind" as you suggest. Your example of Oenothera lamarckiana producing the Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) is in nowise similar to grass producing trees.

 

[zeke]

God has no need to figure things out. So no, He had no need to design a human.

Then who designed man "from the dust of the earth" - theropods maybe?.

God had no need to plan.

God didn't have a plan before the foundation of the world to save man through the once-for-all-time sacrifice of His only begotten Son? You may be confused - scientifically and theologically - yes?

Only God can truly create.

And He created and designed man.

I know you want to believe that, but design and creation do not happen together.

Only in your mind.

It is disrespectful of God to attribute limitations to Him.

You didn't answer my question - I believe God designed man - am I therefore a blasphemer - in your mind?

 

[Sparkey]

The regularly scheduled transmission is interrupted.
And now, please stay tuned for a message from our sponsor:
____________________________________
Semantics guys... semantics.

Barbarian makes a distinction between "design" and "creation" where design implies an imperfect plan and elevates what God did in His act of creation to more than simple design (flaws included) to that of a divine act.

zeke enters with criticism and asks, do you conclude that I am a blasphemer when I say that God had a plan (for salvation) and ignores the thrust of Barbarians statements, that all that God has done reflects His perfection.

Ultimately, both of you guys agree on the crucial matter under discussion. Word games won't win arguments. Come'on.
________________________________________

May I propose that all members of this conversation resolve to set aside phrases that are designed to inflame and/or stir the pot and settle down to presenting evidence of each side (or sides) in a more respectful manner. zeke, I know this may require effort on your part but for the sake of the conversation here, please attempt it. All will see the effort and I, for one, will very much appreciate it. Nothing that you do for the Lord will go without notice by your Father in heaven.

To Christians: kindly recall to mind what James has said about the usefulness of religion if it is not allowed to harness the tongue. This is indeed a discussion of Science, but it is hosted on a Christian site. To me, the burden of religion goes beyond defense of the statements of our Lord, and the urgency of putting His lessons and commands to use is not to be ignored.

Kindly accept my admonishment in the spirit that is given, with the hope that the Prince of Peace will rule our hearts and be reflected in our speech.

__________________________

We now return to the broadcast...

 

[Barbarian]

As far as I know, we have not observed plants crossing the borders of "kind" as you suggest.

"Kind" is a religious idea. Speciation is all that really happens in evolution. Reproductive isolation means that particular population is separated reproductively and will most likely diverge farther and farther. The higher taxa are just convenient categories, and if we include fossil examples, it becomes very hard to maintain them; Archaeopteryx, for example, is mostly a dinosaur, but has many avian characteristics as well. Hard to say where it belongs.

Your example of Oenothera lamarckiana producing the Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) is in nowise similar to grass producing trees.

Grass, of course, did not give rise to trees, but we can demonstrate a common ancestor. Evolution of higher taxa takes considerably longer than speciation. But as in the evolution of horses, we can trace that process, showing much greater changes.