[_ Old Earth _] evolution or creation?

[Paloma]

Given the abundance of transitional forms in higher taxa, and the relative scarcity of such forms between species, punctuated equilibrium is the most sensible conclusion. We know speciation is a fact; even "answers in Genesis" admits that much. And as you know, the abundance of transitionals between higher taxa make it clear that common descent is a fact.
.

Could you kindly provide me some examples of these "transitions" that you mention... I am curious...try and keep post on the "laymen side of town" as I am not a scientist of any sort

P

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. And the evidence in His creation shows evolution.

On the other hand, creationism...

WFTH-I

The problem with generic attacks is that they often backfire.

Backfire indeed, you didn't listen to Richard Dawkins testimony either did you now?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Sure. Let's take a look at horses.

 

[Corn Pop]

It comes down to evidence. And the evidence in His creation shows evolution.

So you believe there is 100% evidence to claim evolution is 100% hard fact.?

How do you interpret the verse God made everything after its own kind?

 

[Barbarian]

Now, horse evolution is more of a bush than a tree. I've only traced one branch out to the surviving twig, but there were others as well. Note that things like length of head, teeth, flexibility of spine, number of toes, length of legs, and so on, gradually changed over many genera and species. And these nicely sort out by age. (yes, some of them lived on after new species appeared, but they all appear in order)

This is one of the lines in which Gould admitted, species-to-species transitions are found. It's mostly because horses were so numerous, and lived where fossilization was relatively likely. So the transitions are more obvious. There are others. Would you like to see some of them?

 

[Barbarian]

So you believe there is 100% evidence to claim evolution is 100% hard fact.?

Speciation is directly observed. So you can't do better than that. Evolution is slightly more certain than gravity. You see, we can observed both of these phenomena, but we also know why evolution works.

We still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

Do you think emotions evolved?.

Since we see emotions in other animals, it seems to be so. Why not?

 

[turnorburn]

It's always a bad idea to add new idea to scripture.

Like adding the doctrine of evolution, mankind already has a passionate hatred for God without adding that godless doctrine, this is how we treated him when he came in person..

Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Tore the beard from his face as he walked/crawled to that cross..

tob

 

[Stan1953]

It's always a bad idea to add new idea to scripture.

I totally agree, especially when it is a literal historical account according to the vast majority of Hebrew Scholars.

 

[Paloma]

Thanks for the examples, but sorry bar, all I see are horse skeletons. Perhaps some are minorly different in a few aspects, which is completely expected under our model. By no means do I see macro EV in those pictures. They are all horses. Probably many differnt kinds of horses, but still just horses. Completely consistant with KINDS as spoken in Genesis. Perhaps you could explain a little further what your seeing here. Thanks.

Paloma.

Edit: I used to own horses. We had 3. But been around many more. I can tell you that there are tons of different shapes and sizes of horses which is consistent with our model. I can see what your seeing ... All these little changes add up to big changes down the road. That's an assumption, and one not support by Genesis or the fossil record or what we see today.

 

[Corn Pop]

Speciation is directly observed. So you can't do better than that. Evolution is slightly more certain than gravity. You see, we can observed both of these phenomena, but we also know why evolution works.

We still aren't quite sure why gravity works.



Since we see emotions in other animals, it seems to be so. Why not?

Did you study that mussel?. Im not sure the name of it but you have probably heard of it since your into all this type of stuff.

From what i remember from watching a science scholar was it was impossible for this specific mussel to have evolved. Was something to do with reproduction. I should try find the video clip so i can show you.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for the examples, but sorry bar, all I see are horse skeletons.

The first one is a browsing animal, without hooves, grazing teeth, rigid backbone, long head, reduced digits, etc. It's quite small, and very unlike a horse. As you see, there was a very gradual change over many species until you get to today's highly evolved horse. Huge changes over time, and yet rather small changes from one step to the next.

Perhaps some are minorly different in a few aspects, which is completely expected under our model. By no means do I see macro EV in those pictures. They are all horses.

No. In fact, the first one lacks almost everything that marks a mammal as a horse.

Completely consistant with KINDS as spoken in Genesis.

If so, elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind. That seems a bit unlikely. These are huge changes. The first, Hyracotherium, is no closer to a horse than it is to a rhino.

The reconstruction of Hyracotherium has stripes, because genetic evidence suggests that most of early relatives of the horse had stripes or bars.

 

[Paloma]

The first one is a browsing animal, without hooves, grazing teeth, rigid backbone, long head, reduced digits, etc. It's quite small, and very unlike a horse. As you see, there was a very gradual change over many species until you get to today's highly evolved horse. Huge changes over time, and yet rather small changes from one step to the next.



No. In fact, the first one lacks almost everything that marks a mammal as a horse.



If so, elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind. That seems a bit unlikely. These are huge changes. The first, Hyracotherium, is no closer to a horse than it is to a rhino.

The reconstruction of Hyracotherium has stripes, because genetic evidence suggests that most of early relatives of the horse had stripes or bars.

Thanks barbarian for the info. Very interesting. I now can see what your seeing. But I don't agree. You see transition, we see a completely different creature or a variation of a kind. That first picture, just simply shows a completely different creature or a variant that your not aware of. There must be lots in the fossil record. Perhaps one that looked like this:

The Okapi-a living fossil...

Perhaps that first skeleton is nothing more than horse like variation that has gone extint. Or perhaps a creature that looked essentially like a horse, but in fact, was not a horse like the Okapi?

I can conceed, that I can see what you see, can you see what I see ?

 

[turnorburn]

The first one is a browsing animal, without hooves, grazing teeth, rigid backbone, long head, reduced digits, etc. It's quite small, and very unlike a horse. As you see, there was a very gradual change over many species until you get to today's highly evolved horse. Huge changes over time, and yet rather small changes from one step to the next.



No. In fact, the first one lacks almost everything that marks a mammal as a horse.



If so, elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind. That seems a bit unlikely. These are huge changes. The first, Hyracotherium, is no closer to a horse than it is to a rhino.

The reconstruction of Hyracotherium has stripes, because genetic evidence suggests that most of early relatives of the horse had stripes or bars.

No matter how much you like to twist it Gods word makes things abundantly clear "each after its kind" there are kinds that have gone extinct but that doesn't speak to evolution it speaks to extinction..

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Why teach the doctrines of humanism communism and atheism when we have Gods word for truth?

Then there's Richard Dawkins testimony..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks barbarian for the info. Very interesting. I now can see what your seeing. But I don't agree. You see transition, we see a completely different creature or a variation of a kind.

That would work, if there weren't all those intermediate forms. But as you see, there is a huge difference between the first and last examples, but no two adjacent examples differ by as much as can be found with many mammalian species.

That first picture, just simply shows a completely different creature or a variant that your not aware of.

It's just the simplest known ancestor of horses. The earliest one. But as you see, the details obviously connect it to Orohippus, the next one. And Orohippus nicely connects to the next. And so on. So, as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is strong evidence for macroevolution in such transitional forms.

There must be lots in the fossil record. Perhaps one that looked like this:

The Okapi-a living fossil...

Indeed. There is also considerable evidence in that line, for macroevolution, as well. The giraffoids show a particular form of evolutionary change, known as "allometry." That is, the relative size of some body part changes with the absolute size of the organism. The smallest modern member of the group is the pronghorn antelope (not really an antelope, but a giraffoid). It's about the size of a deer, and has a neck only a little longer than a deer would have. The Okapi is a little bigger, and has a relatively longer neck. Fossil giraffoids (such as sivatherium) were even bigger and had even longer necks. The modern giraffes are the largest known members of the group and have extremely long necks. So that's an entirely different line, and a different mode of evolution. By the time modern giraffes evolved, the longer neck had become functional. Not for chomping on trees, but for fighting between males, and for better observation of the surroundings.

Perhaps that first skeleton is nothing more than horse like variation that has gone extint.

Except that it wasn't at all horselike. That evolved somewhat later. As the climate became cooler and drier, the forests receded, and grasslands spread. And so browsing gave way to grazing, and size and speed became more useful than agility and ability to hide.

Or perhaps a creature that looked essentially like a horse, but in fact, was not a horse like the Okapi?

And Okapi doesn't look remotely like a horse. It looks like a short-necked giraffe, or maybe a long-necked pronghorn.

I can conceed, that I can see what you see, can you see what I see ?

Perhaps it's a matter of how much one knows about anatomy. No, I don't see that Hyracotherium is at all horselike.

 

[Paloma]

The first one is a browsing animal, without hooves, grazing teeth, rigid backbone, long head, reduced digits, etc. It's quite small, and very unlike a horse. As you see, there was a very gradual change over many species until you get to today's highly evolved horse. Huge changes over time, and yet rather small changes from one step to the next.



No. In fact, the first one lacks almost everything that marks a mammal as a horse.



If so, elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind. That seems a bit unlikely. These are huge changes. The first, Hyracotherium, is no closer to a horse than it is to a rhino.

Who the heck told you that elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind? Do you have a Creationist link for this ? I agree with you if someYEC says that this is all one "kind"... Links?

You know what Barbarian .. I think I just might agree with what your saying upon re-reading this. Let's say God created a "horse kind".... Wayyyyyy back....say .. .6,000 -10,000 years ago... Today, we see a refined version of this "horse kind" There have been incredible changes in the "horse kind" since day one, yes... I can meet you here. This would make sense from both our models.

From then, and from after the flood, this "kind" has gone through much transformation. So much so, that it would "appear" to be "macro evolution " but in fact, it's nothing more than reproduction after a kind with in strict limits....

This is our model. And we have as much a right to develop it, as you do. Yes?

 

[Barbarian]

Who the heck told you that elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind?

If you think Hyracotherium is a horse, that means all of those would be the same kind. You see, that fossil is as closely related to Rhinos, for example, as it is to horses. It has the common traits of all perisodactyls, but none of the apomorphic characters of any of them.

You know what Barbarian .. I think I just might agree with what your saying upon re-reading this. Let's say God created a "horse kind".... Wayyyyyy back....say .. .6,000 -10,000 years ago... Today, we see a refined version of this "horse kind" There have been incredible changes in the "horse kind" since day one, yes... I can meet you here. This would make sense from both our models.

As I pointed out, that would put almost all ungulates in one kind.

From then, and from after the flood, this "kind" has gone through much transformation. So much so, that it would "appear" to be "macro evolution " but in fact, it's nothing more than reproduction after a kind with in strict limits....

Which would put all apes and humans into the same "kind." The differences between Hyracotherium and Equus, are much greater than those between H. Sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

This is our model. And we have as much a right to develop it, as you do.

Religious beliefs are whatever people want them to be. Biology has a somewhat more restricted character; it has to follow evidence.

 

[turnorburn]

If you think Hyracotherium is a horse, that means all of those would be the same kind. You see, that fossil is as closely related to Rhinos, for example, as it is to horses. It has the common traits of all perisodactyls, but none of the apomorphic characters of any of them.



As I pointed out, that would put almost all ungulates in one kind.



Which would put all apes and humans into the same "kind." The differences between Hyracotherium and Equus, are much greater than those between H. Sapiens and Pan troglodytes.



Religious beliefs are whatever people want them to be. Biology has a somewhat more restricted character; it has to follow evidence.

"Which would put all apes and humans into the same kind"

There you go again apes and humans are Not of the same kind..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

"Religious beliefs are whatever people want them to be"

Religious ideas yes Gods word No..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

The first one is a browsing animal, without hooves, grazing teeth, rigid backbone, long head, reduced digits, etc. It's quite small, and very unlike a horse. As you see, there was a very gradual change over many species until you get to today's highly evolved horse. Huge changes over time, and yet rather small changes from one step to the next.



No. In fact, the first one lacks almost everything that marks a mammal as a horse.



If so, elephants, rhinos, horses, cattle, sheep, and camels are all one kind. That seems a bit unlikely. These are huge changes. The first, Hyracotherium, is no closer to a horse than it is to a rhino.

The reconstruction of Hyracotherium has stripes, because genetic evidence suggests that most of early relatives of the horse had stripes or bars.

What evidence can determine external topical characteristics by bones of stone...and don't we all agree with the production of variety?

 

[Barbarian]

What evidence can determine external topical characteristics by bones of stone...

Body shape, diet, range of motion of limbs and backbone, how active it was, if it was warm-blooded or not, size, mass, walking speed, whether an aquatic animal was a freshwater or marine species... list is pretty extensive. People excavating Pompeii can tell the profession of many of the people they have found by various traces of activity on skeletons. Faces are accurately constructed by looking at muscle insertions, scars where cartilage formed, and so on. It's quite a science.

Would you like to know how we can determine what a fast walk was for these animals? It's pretty interesting, actually borrowing concepts used in ship design.

and don't we all agree with the production of variety?

But of course some of you don't agree with the way He does it. The numerous transitional forms between little browsing Hyracotherium and large, grazing Equus, many with less differences than we see in many mammalian species, makes it clear that horses evolved from a small multitoed herbivore, that lived in forests and browsed on bushes.

 

[Paloma]

What evidence can determine external topical characteristics by bones of stone...and don't we all agree with the production of variety?

Good point. That could very easily be be just another creature. No problem.

Assumptions are a bugger.