Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Barbarian]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Sun actually wasn't created the first day. Check Genesis and see for yourself. And of course, "Morning" means "when the sun appears." This is another reason why we know Genesis is not a literal history.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What do you mean no sun

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Wow, a creationist like you doesn't even know this.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.[1]

The sun is not created until this section, v.14-19, the fourth day. One day after vegetation sprouts, which we now know is absolutely absurd, because plants require photons from the sun in order to survive.

[1] Genesis 1:14-19 (ESV)

 

[TOG]

Also, how would this apply to groups taht can not interbreed with each other, but can both interbreed with the same different group. I.e. A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A can not interbreed with C. Would A and C then be different species, or would their common connection with B make them the same species.

Those are called "clines" or "ring species." An example a bit farther on the road to speciation are the Larus gulls:

Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls cannot interbreed. But the adjacent populations in the rest of the ring can. So genes can still flow between them, and they are still just very barely a species. Not for long, probably.

I must admit this is not quite what I expected. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull are the same species (even if just barely), because of their connection and genetic flow through the various other gulls?

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

And of course, "Morning" means "when the sun appears." This is another reason why we know Genesis is not a literal history.

It's often cloudy where I live. We still have morning and evening, even though we might not see the sun for days at a time. Morning isn't when the sun appears. It's when it gets light outside. If the light were coming from a single direction, there would be morning and evening, even without the sun. There is also the possibility that the creation narrative was written from the point of view of the earth, and that the sun had been obstructed in some way, for example by cloud cover, until the 4th day. Nothing here indicates that it's not literal.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It's often cloudy where I live. We still have morning and evening, even though we might not see the sun for days at a time. Morning isn't when the sun appears. It's when it gets light outside. If the light were coming from a single direction, there would be morning and evening, even without the sun. There is also the possibility that the creation narrative was written from the point of view of the earth, and that the sun had been obstructed in some way, for example by cloud cover, until the 4th day. Nothing here indicates that it's not literal.

The TOG​

Read the text. It said that God made the two lights on the fourth day, not that he created them on the 1st day and obstructed them by cloud cover. Your attempt at reasoning this little bit of detail away is rather entertaining though.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

This is another reason why we know Genesis is not a literal history.

Who is we..

The bible says

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This is an age old story that Satan started in the garden with Eve and it still remains to this day "Hath God Said"

tob

 

[Milk-Drops]

I must admit this is not quite what I expected. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull are the same species (even if just barely), because of their connection and genetic flow through the various other gulls?

The TOG​

Hey TOG, I think I'll just go ahead and help out here. A ring species is a good example of how Species divergence works during the process of evolution. Species is a sticky word because the boundaries are drawn by us purely for the sake of classification. The 2 gulls would technically be different species due to their inability to mate with each other. The Cline is showing that due to specific habitats and locations after the founder effect, these 2 sub species are genetically to different to mate with each other. The intermediate species are similar enough to mate with others close by, but given enough natural isolation, we should see either some go extinct ( which would close the breeding bridge), and/or each of the groups diverging into new lines in phylogeny for several new species.

I hope that helped.

 

[Barbarian]

I must admit this is not quite what I expected. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull are the same species (even if just barely), because of their connection and genetic flow through the various other gulls?

Milk-Drops has it right. So long as there is gene flow between the different populations, there is one species. If there should be reproductive isolation, that flow ends, and the two populations will then increasingly diverge.

That's the key.

 

[Barbarian]

This is an age old story that Satan started in the garden with Eve and it still remains to this day "Hath God Said"

You just did, for example. But we know, from the text itself that it was never meant to be a literal history. That's not a new finding. It was understood by St. Augustine a long, long time before evolution was understood, or people realized the age of the Earth.

 

[turnorburn]

I'm thinking you listen too much to the wisdom of this world Barbarian why not try this instead

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, andthat he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as ina strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

tob

Before its too late..

 

[Barbarian]

I'm thinking you listen too much to the wisdom of this world Barbarian

Those who add new doctrines, thinking themselves wise, probably are more like that. I'm just accepting Genesis as it is.

why not try this instead

Shotgunning random Bible verses? No thanks. I'm not so smart that I can afford to degrade people's estimation of my intelligence.

 

[turnorburn]

Shotgunning verses? its the 11th chapter of Hebrews what are you talking about? degrade peoples estimation of your intelligence? on second thought its already too late sorry you got yourself into this jam I'll be praying for you..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Shotgunning verses?

Yep. And it's completely inappropriate here. It is talking about faith in God, not faith in men's new doctrine of creationism.

its the 11th chapter of Hebrews

Yep.

what are you talking about?

Shotgunning verses. A Christian might very well say that it is a criticism of creationists who are not willing to accept God's creation of life as He presents it in Genesis.

degrade peoples estimation of your intelligence?

It would, if I was inclined to toss out verses with little or no relevance as a means of argument.

on second thought its already too late sorry you got yourself into this jam I'll be praying for you..

Well, thank you. I can always use people praying for me. But praying for one ought not to be a sharp stick.

 

[TOG]

Milk-Drops has it right. So long as there is gene flow between the different populations, there is one species. If there should be reproductive isolation, that flow ends, and the two populations will then increasingly diverge.

That's the key.

After you gave me your definition of the word "species", I asked for some clarification. More specifically, I asked two questions. The first question was:

What exactly do you mean by "interbreeding organisms"? Does that mean only a group of individuals that actually do interbreed with each other, or does it also include groups of individuals that could interbreed with each other, if certain hindrances, such as geography were removed?

And the second was:

Also, how would this apply to groups taht can not interbreed with each other, but can both interbreed with the same different group. I.e. A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A can not interbreed with C. Would A and C then be different species, or would their common connection with B make them the same species.

You've answered the second question, but your answer to the first question (using the example of leopard frogs) also seems to address the second question rather than the first. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I meant, so I'll rephrase it using a hypothetical example.

Imagine that there is a plant that grows exclusively in South America, and another, different looking plant of the same genus that grows exclusively in Africa. Because they are separated by the Atlantic ocean, there is no possibility of them ever cross fertilizing each other in nature. But it so happens that both of these plants have beautiful flowers, and some florist decides to import them into the United States and sell them. He is not trying to cross breed them or meddle with them in any way. A customer buys one of each and puts them next to each other in his flower garden. He's not trying to cross breed them either. He just thinks they look good together. Even though nobody specifically intends for it to happen, the two plants do cross fertilize each other and produce viable and fertile offspring, which can be bred amongst themselves as well as with both parent plants. In other words, there is a hindrance (the Atlantic ocean) to them cross breeding, but when that hindrance is removed, the both can and do reproduce with each other. Now for two questions:

1. Given the above scenario, how many species are there?
   
2. Would it change the number of species if the florist had never imported them and they had stayed completely separate and never been cross bred?

The TOG​

 

[Milk-Drops]

You've answered the second question, but your answer to the first question (using the example of leopard frogs) also seems to address the second question rather than the first. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I meant, so I'll rephrase it using a hypothetical example.

Imagine that there is a plant that grows exclusively in South America, and another, different looking plant of the same genus that grows exclusively in Africa. Because they are separated by the Atlantic ocean, there is no possibility of them ever cross fertilizing each other in nature. But it so happens that both of these plants have beautiful flowers, and some florist decides to import them into the United States and sell them. He is not trying to cross breed them or meddle with them in any way. A customer buys one of each and puts them next to each other in his flower garden. He's not trying to cross breed them either. He just thinks they look good together. Even though nobody specifically intends for it to happen, the two plants do cross fertilize each other and produce viable and fertile offspring, which can be bred amongst themselves as well as with both parent plants. In other words, there is a hindrance (the Atlantic ocean) to them cross breeding, but when that hindrance is removed, the both can and do reproduce with each other. Now for two questions:

1. Given the above scenario, how many species are there?
   
2. Would it change the number of species if the florist had never imported them and they had stayed completely separate and never been cross bred?

The TOG​

This is a hard question to answer since all of it is hypothetical. I'll try though. Depending on where the plants diverged, it is possible that they can interbreed, unless they have developed different ways of pollination or have different chromosomal links. There are a ton of factors. Also, since plants don't reproduce through sexual selection or sexual reproduction, those factors aren't a factor to their divergence. Plants are easier to crossbreed due to this factor. The plants would probably be considered different species all on their own due to flower color, bud, root system, stem color, how they reproduce.

Its a very hard question to answer purely due to its hypothetical nature. As I mentioned, the definition of species is very sticky because it was invented well before we even understood genetics and evolution. So the definition is a combination of new and old tinkering.

 

[turnorburn]

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where isthe place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

One final shotgun blast..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Milk-Drops has it right. So long as there is gene flow between the different populations, there is one species. If there should be reproductive isolation, that flow ends, and the two populations will then increasingly diverge.

That's the key.
'

After you gave me your definition of the word "species", I asked for some clarification. More specifically, I asked two questions. The first question was:

TOG said: ↑
What exactly do you mean by "interbreeding organisms"? Does that mean only a group of individuals that actually do interbreed with each other, or does it also include groups of individuals that could interbreed with each other, if certain hindrances, such as geography were removed?

Geographic isolation can produce speciation, but it is not in itself speciation. Hence, a giraffe in the Berlin Zoo is still a giraffe, and the same species as its fellows in Africa. However, if a population becomes divided by geographical isolation, speciation will normally follow. A recent example are the Abert and Kaibab squirrels. The two very similar species live on opposite rims of the Grand Canyon. They can't cross the Canyon, and so don't interbreed. They have become genetically different, although there's a good chance that they might still be interfertile in the way the great cats are generally interfertile across species. But hybrids, as in the case of the occasional brown bear/polar beard mix, would likely not be very fit, and not survive long enough to reproduce.

You've answered the second question, but your answer to the first question (using the example of leopard frogs) also seems to address the second question rather than the first. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I meant, so I'll rephrase it using a hypothetical example.

I've given you a second example, that is not a ring species.

Imagine that there is a plant that grows exclusively in South America, and another, different looking plant of the same genus that grows exclusively in Africa. Because they are separated by the Atlantic ocean, there is no possibility of them ever cross fertilizing each other in nature. But it so happens that both of these plants have beautiful flowers, and some florist decides to import them into the United States and sell them. He is not trying to cross breed them or meddle with them in any way. A customer buys one of each and puts them next to each other in his flower garden. He's not trying to cross breed them either. He just thinks they look good together. Even though nobody specifically intends for it to happen, the two plants do cross fertilize each other and produce viable and fertile offspring, which can be bred amongst themselves as well as with both parent plants. In other words, there is a hindrance (the Atlantic ocean) to them cross breeding, but when that hindrance is removed, the both can and do reproduce with each other. Now for two questions:

Given the above scenario, how many species are there?

In this case, there are likely two species. Just as many species can interbreed with closely-related species, the key is whether or not the offspring can survive as a population in their environment. Polar bears and brown bears are considered separate species, because their offspring, while fertile and capable of breeding with each other or the two pure species, will not survive in either environment..

There are also cases where hybridization produces fertile offspring which can interbreed with each other, but not either parent species. In this case, assuming the hybrids were capable of surviving in their normal environment, there would be three species.

Brassicoraphanus is the name for all the intergeneric hybrids between the genera Brassica (cabbages, etc.) and Raphanus (radish). The name comes from the combination of the genus names. Both diploid hybrids and allopolyploid hybrids are known and share this name.

Early experimental crosses between species of these two genera had been sterile or nearly sterile, but large-scale experiments by Soviet agronomist Georgi Dmitrievich Karpechenko using Raphanus sativus and Brassica oleracea were remarkable because some of the plants produced hundreds of seeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphanobrassica

The hybrids are interfetile with each other, but not with either parent species. In this case, the two parents are of different genera, so this is an example of the evolution of a new genus.

Would it change the number of species if the florist had never imported them and they had stayed completely separate and never been cross bred?

Maybe. It depends on the interbreeding and the survivability.

 

[Barbarian]

God asks Job a number of questions, as a rhetorical device. But in fact, it's O.K. if man has perceived the breadth of the Earth (as we have); it wasn't some kind of purposeful limit God set on us. He gave us intelligence and curiosity for a purpose. We can't know everything, but we can know many thingss, some of which Job did not know.

This is the great risk of shotgunning random Bible verses. They may have a lesson in them that you never expected. God is a lot smarter than many people think He is.

 

[turnorburn]

and rightly so...

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

All the more reason that you should let God do it His way, rather than accept man's YE doctrines.