[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Asyncritus]

"Evolution is thus seen as a series of 'Blind Alleys'. Some are extremely short - those leading to new genera and species that either remain stable or become extinct.

Others are longer - the lines of adaptive isolation within a group such as a class or subclass, which run for tens of millions of years before coming up against their terminal blank wall.

Others are still longer - the links that in the past led to the development of the major phyla and their highest representatives; their course is to be reckoned not in tens but in hundreds of millions of years. But all in the long run have terminated blindly.

That of the echinoderms, for instance, reached its climax before the end of the Mesozoic.

For arthropods, represented by their highest group, the insects, the full stop seems to have come in the early Cenozoic.

Even the ants and bees have made no advance since the Oligocene. For the birds the Miocene marked the end; for the mammals, the Pliocene"(HUXLEY 1963). http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html

Robert Broom:

"In Eocene times - say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago - small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different orders - hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats, and monkeys. And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.

There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders.

What is equally remarkable, no new types of birds appear to have evolved in the last 30,000,000 years.

And most remarkable of all no new family of plants appears to have been evolved since the Eocene.

All major evolution has apparently come to an end. No new types of fishes, no new groups of molluscs, or worms or starfishes, no new groups even of insects appear to have been evolved in these latter 30,000,000 years" (BROOM 1951).


"There is, however, no doubt that evolution, so far as new groups are concerned, is at an end.

That a line of small generalized animals should have continued on till in Eocene times the Primates originated and then ceased, and that except for specialisations of Eocene types there has been no evolution in the last forty million years,

and that the evolutionary clock has so completely run down that it is very doubtful if a single new genus has appeared on earth in the last two million years, ..." (BROOM 1933)

Can somebody please fix this wretched formatting? Thanks.

 

[spartakis]

Stevebolts becarful someone stated something about my theology I responded about his and my post got deleted .

So the change between me and my parents is evolution

Evolution states all animals came from a commom ancestor was in my deleted post.
and many changes between kinds. You are giving an example of a change in a kind which is not proof of evolution.

There is a picture on this link which will help you understand what I am looking for. Not variations in groups but what evolution states happen. The article will also explain after my last post it is getting tiring to keep asking for this evidence and getting something else. Maybe this link can explain it better. If the best excuse is the niche is filled then sounds like the end.
Y
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind

Asyncritus looks like evolution has stopped after billions of years. Without any observations science proof of evolution we can come to the conclusion that evolution is a hypothesis of the past with nothing to stand on besides similarities between species which I stated before why similarities can not be used to prove evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

At what level of taxonomy would you consider a new "kind" to have evolved?

Let's make it as easy as possible -- show any "kind" that is mentioned in the bible producing any other "kind".

Do so without billions of unobservable years to explain why you can't. Do so without extrapolation. ie., "we see these small changes so we grab that and stretch it out to explain the impossible as possible through an imagined non-intelligent device."

 

[lordkalvan]

Let's make it as easy as possible -- show any "kind" that is mentioned in the bible producing any other "kind".

Do so without billions of unobservable years to explain why you can't. Do so without extrapolation. ie., "we see these small changes so we grab that and stretch it out to explain the impossible as possible through an imagined non-intelligent device."

What are those 'kinds'?

 

[Sparkey]

What are those 'kinds'?

The bible uses the word מִין (miyn), and describes different "kinds" of life (plant, fish, animal) whose seed is in itself.

Strong's Number H4327 matches the Hebrew מִין (miyn), which occurs 31 times in 18 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV

Gen 1:11 And God said , Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth , which the waters brought forth abundantly , after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 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.

Gen 1:25 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.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive .

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

All told, there are fewer than 100 different "kinds" mentioned in the bible so we can see that it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list or a taxonomic guide or reference book.

The word "kind" is also used when delineating clean vs. unclean meats in the book of Leviticus and from this we can see that the various "kinds" mentioned were not intended as a classification system. For instance, locusts and bald locusts are mentioned as different kinds that are clean and could be eaten. Vultures, kites and ravens are unclean "kinds". Lev 11:16 "And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind"

Still, we can see that God did create different "kinds" and that He created in such a manner that their seed was in them. Showing one "kind" whose seed could produce another is the kind of thing that would force me to re-examine my understanding of what God has said and conclude that evolution from a single common ancestor might be considered.

This would have to be done without extrapolation, without pointing to an imaginary process and supporting its existence by grabbing onto observed small changes in order to imaginatively extend that process (or unintelligent force) universally to all life. I believe that God built reproductive limits into each kind and referenced those limits when He said "after their kind" and "whose seed is within them".

 

[lordkalvan]

The bible uses the word מִין (miyn), and describes different "kinds" of life (plant, fish, animal) whose seed is in itself.

Strong's Number H4327 matches the Hebrew מִין (miyn), which occurs 31 times in 18 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV


All told, there are fewer than 100 different "kinds" mentioned in the bible so we can see that it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list or a taxonomic guide or reference book.

The word "kind" is also used when delineating clean vs. unclean meats in the book of Leviticus and from this we can see that the various "kinds" mentioned were not intended as a classification system. For instance, locusts and bald locusts are mentioned as different kinds that are clean and could be eaten. Vultures, kites and ravens are unclean "kinds". Lev 11:16 "And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind"

Still, we can see that God did create different "kinds" and that He created in such a manner that their seed was in them. Showing one "kind" whose seed could produce another is the kind of thing that would force me to re-examine my understanding of what God has said and conclude that evolution from a single common ancestor might be considered.

This would have to be done without extrapolation, without pointing to an imaginary process and supporting its existence by grabbing onto observed small changes in order to imaginatively extend that process (or unintelligent force) universally to all life. I believe that God built reproductive limits into each kind and referenced those limits when He said "after their kind" and "whose seed is within them".

Thanks for that summary. A careful and thoughtful post, as always. I think your request is one that is inherently because it is essentially a parody of evolutionary theory, if I am reading what you have written as I am meant to. Whatever the definition of a kind is - and as you have pointed out, it has little or no taxonomic value - evolutionary theory does not suppose that an individual member of one subspecies, species, genus, family or whatever will give birth to an individual that is so different as to be classified as a member of another subspecies, species, genus, family or whatever. Insofar as the boundaries we establish amongst these various groupings are, to a certain extent, a product of our tendency to compartmentalise things anyway, it remains the case that in order for evolutionary events of the type you are describing to occur, the evolving 'kinds' need to be reproductively isolated from others of the same kind to the pint where interbreeding is no longer possible because of genetic incompatibility. This isolation can occur through geographical separation or because of extinction events.

I hope this brief summary of my understanding does not depend on a miscomprehension of the points you were making. I also hope it makes some sense in the context of those points.

 

[Sparkey]

I appreciate your willingness to hear what I'm trying to say.

Although there are some evolutionary scientists who believe that saltation (single-step speciation) is indicated between domains of bacteria, archaea and eukarya because they don't see continuity in the RNA signatures, Darwin was careful to introduct Natura non facit saltus (nature does not make jumps) into his theory and postulate that all species develop from earlier species through gradual and minute changes rather than through the sudden emergence of new forms.

Just as science does not expect to prove or disprove the existence of God, believers can have no expectation that non-believers will rely on any "God given truth". The two points-of-view simply do not mix.

...Suffice it to say that there are two different methods but just because we come to the table from different houses doesn't mean that we can not dine together and agree.

Neither Evolution nor Biblical Understanding of creation involve observation of the start-point. Both are top-down assumptions of theories, one theor (stated as fact) is that God created, the other theory (stated as fact) is that there was an original ancestor --both explanations attempt to prove a "given truth" that was not originally observed.

 

[lordkalvan]

I appreciate your willingness to hear what I'm trying to say.

Although there are some evolutionary scientists who believe that saltation (single-step speciation) is indicated between domains of bacteria, archaea and eukarya because they don't see continuity in the RNA signatures, Darwin was careful to introduct Natura non facit saltus (nature does not make jumps) into his theory and postulate that all species develop from earlier species through gradual and minute changes rather than through the sudden emergence of new forms.

Thanks. I am glad that we can exchange our differing viewpoints like this.

One of the more interesting debates in the field of evolutionary theory, of course, is that surrounding Gould and Eldredge's idea of punctuated equilibrium. Interestingly, some recent (2004)research into the evolution of bats gives some support to punk-eek. A relatively minor developmental change in the BMP2 gene influences digit length significantly and, when the relevant protein is introduced to mice embryos, they too produce greatly elongated digits. This offers a possible explanation as to how and why bats appear in the fossil record so abruptly. More information at:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6647-rogue-finger-gene-got-bats-airborne.html

 

[Asyncritus]

Stevebolts becarful someone stated something about my theology I responded about his and my post got deleted .

So the change between me and my parents is evolution

The eminent botanist Joseph Hooker wrote to Darwin in 1862 wrote to Darwin in the following manner:

I am still very strong in holding to impotence of crossing with respect to origin of species .

You must remember that it is neither crossing nor natural selection that has made so many divergent human individuals, but simply Variation[Hooker's emphasis]... but given a pair of individuals with power to propagate, and infinite time span to procreate in, so that not one be lost, or that, in short, Natural Selection is not called upon to play a part at all, and I maintain that after n generations you will have extreme individuals as totally unlike one another as if Natural Selection had extinguished itself.

...Your eight children are really all totally unlike one another: they agree exactly in no one property.

He goes on a bit on the subject, but it is striking that the enormous variation in humans has never produced a new species.

Indeed, in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl, despite the ferocity of the irradiation and its attack on the genetic make up of the people involved, with the innumerable mutations that must have taken place, no new species of human, or of the local animals, was ever produced - merely gross deformities and increased disease proneness of the victims.

Evolution is incapable of producing anything new and beneficial, far less new species. I would myself say that 'kinds' in scripture probably refers to the family taxon, and not necessarily to the species taxon.

I think it was GG Simpson who said that is you go looking for proof of evolution above the family level, you will look in vain. I'll look it up if you wish.

I must also make the point that there is such a thing as a species barrier. It is not wholly inflexible, but largely so. The thousands of generations of irradiated Drosophilas, and the 30,000 or so generations of Escherischia coli bred by Lenski, have produced no new species, or anything new of any significance. Thus, the evolutionist's perpetual bleat that A descended from B via n other species, is nearly pure nonsense.

I say 'nearly' because there have been some examples of observed speciation. But a 'species' is, as my old Zoology professor used to say, defined as what a competent taxonomist defines as a species, so there is considerable room for foolishness here.

The definition of a species as a group of organisms that cannot breed in the wild with any other species, is a good one - and immediately finishes off any idea of evolving by crossing species.

But speciation is not what is needed to support the theory. For a fish, to turn into an amphibian requires that an entirely new genus or family or even higher taxa, be produced from the parent fish, the starting point..

And if 30,000 generations has produced zero new species, then how long would it take to produce new families or superfamilies?

Forever, I suggest.

 

[Barbarian]

The eminent botanist Joseph Hooker wrote to Darwin in 1862 wrote to Darwin in the following manner:

I am still very strong in holding to impotence of crossing with respect to origin of species .

Hooker's opposition falls in the face of demonstrated examples...

Natural hybridization generates mammalian lineage with species characteristics
Peter A. Larsen1, María R. Marchán-Rivadeneira, and Robert J. Baker
Here, we show a Caribbean species of bat (Artibeus schwartzi) has a nuclear genome derived from two nonsister but congeneric species (A. jamaicensis and A. planirostris) and a mitochondrial genome that is from a third extinct or uncharacterized congener. Artibeus schwartzi is self-sustaining, morphologically distinct, and exists in near geographic isolation of its known parent species. Island effects (i.e., area, reduced habitat variability, and geographic isolation) likely have restricted gene flow from parental species into the Caribbean populations of this hybrid lineage, thus contributing to local adaptation and isolation of this newly produced taxon.

Indeed, in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl, despite the ferocity of the irradiation and its attack on the genetic make up of the people involved, with the innumerable mutations that must have taken place, no new species of human, or of the local animals, was ever produced - merely gross deformities and increased disease proneness of the victims.

Common misconception. Increasing the mutation rate will not make evolution work faster any more than adding more oil to your car will increase the engine's horsepower.

Evolution is incapable of producing anything new and beneficial

One of the more interesting examples, is the evolution of a new blood protein that gives almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. The specific individual to which this mutation happened is known, and his descendants share that evolutionary change.

I would myself say that 'kinds' in scripture probably refers to the family taxon, and not necessarily to the species taxon.

The Institute for Creation Research has endorsed the idea that evolution can produce new species, genera, and families, but they offer no evidence that there is any sort of barrier to the evolution of higher taxa.

I think it was GG Simpson who said that is you go looking for proof of evolution above the family level, you will look in vain. I'll look it up if you wish.

That would be a quote-mining effort worth reviewing. Show us.

I must also make the point that there is such a thing as a species barrier. It is not wholly inflexible, but largely so. The thousands of generations of irradiated Drosophilas, and the 30,000 or so generations of Escherischia coli bred by Lenski, have produced no new species, or anything new of any significance.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733.
PMCID: PMC224220
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky


Surprise.

The definition of a species as a group of organisms that cannot breed in the wild with any other species, is a good one - and immediately finishes off any idea of evolving by crossing species.

That's incorrect. You are probably thinking of Mayr's biological species concept, in which species are populations that do not ordinarily interbreed in the wild. Hence, an occasional error can produce a new species if the resulting offspring do not interbreed with either parent species. Hence, the new species of bat, noted above.

But speciation is not what is needed to support the theory. For a fish, to turn into an amphibian requires that an entirely new genus or family or even higher taxa, be produced from the parent fish, the starting point..

Well, let's test that belief. Do you consider Icthyostega and Acanthostega to be in different families?

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Hooker's opposition falls in the face of demonstrated examples...

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Natural hybridization generates mammalian lineage with species characteristics
Peter A. Larsen1, María R. Marchán-Rivadeneira, and Robert J. Baker[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Here, we show a Caribbean species of bat (Artibeus schwartzi) has a nuclear genome derived from two nonsister but congeneric species (A. jamaicensis and A. planirostris) and a mitochondrial genome that is from a third extinct or uncharacterized congener. Artibeus schwartzi is self-sustaining, morphologically distinct, and exists in near geographic isolation of its known parent species. Island effects (i.e., area, reduced habitat variability, and geographic isolation) likely have restricted gene flow from parental species into the Caribbean populations of this hybrid lineage, thus contributing to local adaptation and isolation of this newly produced taxon. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I couldn't comment on this wthout reading the details, but one or two points strike me immediately.

1 We have the reproductive isolation present. That is highly conducive to inbreeding, which produces curious effects, and may result in some limited speciation.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 Gould pinned a great deal of his hopes in the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, on this isolation. Unfortunately for him, it has been recently shown that isolation is not necessary for speciation to occur. Neither, for that matter does natural selection seem to work.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

Common misconception. Increasing the mutation rate will not make evolution work faster any more than adding more oil to your car will increase the engine's horsepower.

Silly comment, B. The drivers of evolution as you well know, are alleged to be mutation (which produces the raw material) and natural selection which 'selects' from the said raw material.

It is therefore obvious that the more mutation there is,the faster (in theory anyway) evolution should proceed. As the 3 cases above show quite clearly, the increased mutation rate only produced considerable amounts of damage.

Not good for evolution theory!

One of the more interesting examples, is the evolution of a new blood protein that gives almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. The specific individual to which this mutation happened is known, and his descendants share that evolutionary change.

Assuming this to be correct (where is it documented, by the way?) how does that affect speciation and the forwarding of evolution?

Can't you see that these trivial examples are totally incapable of driving evolution, which must account for simply gigantic changes? I again cite the Cambrian explosion with the origin of it's almost infinite number of new species etc etc etc. Surely you are capable of seeing that blood protein improvement cannot even begin to generate a new species of any kind?

The Institute for Creation Research has endorsed the idea that evolution can produce new species, genera, and families, but they offer no evidence that there is any sort of barrier to the evolution of higher taxa.

I'm not a representative of CR, but they may well be correct. I disagree with the families bit, but certainly the higher taxa are totally impossible. I don't think they need to produce evidence that the higher taxa simply don't happen. That is self evident.

A fruitful line of research which I may begin to pursue is the origin of the insects and the fishes. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the question yourself?

That would be a quote-mining effort worth reviewing. Show us.

Interesting that before you've seen it, you've already decided that it's a 'quote-mining' effort. Does that tell us something about how you form your opinions?

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733.
PMCID: PMC224220
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky

Surprise.

You'e got to be joking if you presenting this single, miserable specimen, as support for the theory of evolution.

Here's a quote from the final page but one:

'Llanos-A is a new race or an incipient species having arisen in the laboratory at some time between 1958 and 1963.'

1 It is not a new species - but an incipient new species.

2 It was produced in the laboratory: where they do unspeakable things to these poor creatures.

How you dare present this pathetic example as a means of generation of the vast number of the species extant in the natural world, is beyond me, and is a serious example of the cross-eyed blinkering suffered by all supporters of evolution theory. Pathetic is the only description I can attach to your example.

That's incorrect. You are probably thinking of Mayr's biological species concept, in which species are populations that do not ordinarily interbreed in the wild. Hence, an occasional error can produce a new species if the resulting offspring do not interbreed with either parent species. Hence, the new species of bat, noted above.

The vagueness of the species concept allows evolutionists to talk about the production of new species in the quantities required to account for any evolutionary progress. Here's wiki:

and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[9] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[8][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Mayr's can't really be bettered for our purposes, since labs weren't present in the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian for that matter. So I conclude that any claims that new species have been generated, are some kind of biologist's joke, especially as they are most likely to have been produced in a genetics lab of some kind and not in the wild.

You have also overlooked, or failed to mention the phenomenon of hybrid sterility. If 2 species are crossed (which does not happen in the wild normally), then the offspring are nearly always sterile. The mule is the best example I know. Evolution cannot progress very far along those lines of inter-specific crosses.

Well, let's test that belief. Do you consider Icthyostega and Acanthostega to be in different families?

I couldn't really say. But since they are such large planks in the evolutionary platform of the transition from fish to amphibians, reptiles etc, then I am immediately suspicious, because of the law of Asynctropy which I have presented.

It says roughly: In the absence of a powering instinct, any organ is useless, however perfect it may be.

And as we're currently debating in the other thread on instinct, major instinct modifications are required to take a fish from water on to land. That cannot happen by the usual suspects method: mutation and natural selection, since instincts are immaterial.

I also remind you of Henry Gee's Jan 2010 statement:

A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight.

In other words, it's all wrong and has to be replaced. Twenty years of conning the gullible and the willing-to-be-deceived, wiped out overnight.

I wonder what they're dreaming up now.

[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

I couldn't comment on this wthout reading the details, but one or two points strike me immediately.

1 We have the reproductive isolation present. That is highly conducive to inbreeding, which produces curious effects, and may result in some limited speciation.

In fact, the record shows that most speciation happens that way.

Gould pinned a great deal of his hopes in the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, on this isolation. Unfortunately for him, it has been recently shown that isolation is not necessary for speciation to occur.

You've been misled about that. Gould never said that it couldn't. In fact, he mentions some examples. If you'd actually read some things Gould wrote, instead of depending on bits of quote-mined stuff other people give you, you'd do a lot better.

Neither, for that matter does natural selection seem to work.

It's been directly observed to work. Would you like to learn about some of those?

Barbarian, regarding the notion that lots of mutagen will make evolution faster:
Common misconception. Increasing the mutation rate will not make evolution work faster any more than adding more oil to your car will increase the engine's horsepower.

Silly comment, B.

It's consistent with observation. Mutation only provides variation. But natural selection sorts it out. Like adding more oil to your car to make it go faster, mutating more individuals won't help. Indeed, beyond a certain level, it can be damaging to a population.

The drivers of evolution as you well know, are alleged to be mutation (which produces the raw material) and natural selection which 'selects' from the said raw material.

That's what we observe happening.

It is therefore obvious that the more mutation there is,the faster (in theory anyway) evolution should proceed.

Nope. Here's a hint: a well-adapted population in a stable environment will be kept from evolving by natural selection. Think about it. You're trusting people who are taking advantage of your trust.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that there are no favorable mutations:
One of the more interesting examples, is the evolution of a new blood protein that gives almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. The specific individual to which this mutation happened is known, and his descendants share that evolutionary change.

Assuming this to be correct (where is it documented, by the way?) how does that affect speciation and the forwarding of evolution?

Just means individuals stay healthy and reproductive longer. And yes, it's documented.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-Milano-Bielicki.html

Can't you see that these trivial examples are totally incapable of driving evolution, which must account for simply gigantic changes?

I'm pleased you've condeded that favorable mutations happen. But you surely understand that over thousands and millions of years, changes add up. And we see in the fossil record that it happens. And we can check that by DNA analysis. And we know that works, because we can check the method by comparing individuals of known descent.

I again cite the Cambrian explosion with the origin of it's almost infinite number of new species etc etc etc.

Many of which had antecedents in the Precambrian. Turns out there were lots of complex animals before the Cambrian. The "explosion" turns out to coincide with the evolution complete body scleritization, which opened up all sorts of niches that didn't exist before. We see something like that happening at the K-T boundary when the number of mammalian species exploded. In just a few million years, we have seen a similar explosion by fruit flies in Hawaii.

All this for the same reason. It's called "disruptive selection", and it's been part of the theory since Darwin. Surprise.

Surely you are capable of seeing that blood protein improvement cannot even begin to generate a new species of any kind?

As you learned, speciation is a fact. And sometimes it only takes a single mutation. Would you like an example of that?

Barbarian observes:
The Institute for Creation Research has endorsed the idea that evolution can produce new species, genera, and families, but they offer no evidence that there is any sort of barrier to the evolution of higher taxa.

I'm not a representative of CR, but they may well be correct.

I've discussed it with them. Every time I bring it up, they change the subject, so I'm pretty sure they don't have any data to back up their beliefs.

A fruitful line of research which I may begin to pursue is the origin of the insects and the fishes. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the question yourself?

What would you like to know? Let's start with insects. What do you define as an insect?

That would be a quote-mining effort worth reviewing. Show us.
Interesting that before you've seen it, you've already decided that it's a 'quote-mining' effort.

You have a history here.

Does that tell us something about how you form your opinions?

Yes, prior evidence does mean quite a bit to me.

(Barbarian demonstrates that speciation is a fact)

You'e got to be joking if you presenting this single, miserable specimen, as support for the theory of evolution.

One bit of many, many.

Here's a quote from the final page but one:

Sorry, no quote-mining in this thread.

It was produced in the laboratory: where they do unspeakable things to these poor creatures.

What unspeakable things do you think they did? You didn't read the report, did you?

How you dare present this pathetic example as a means of generation of the vast number of the species extant in the natural world, is beyond me, and is a serious example of the cross-eyed blinkering suffered by all supporters of evolution theory.

Temper, temper. You were wrong. Just learn from it and go on.

Barbarian corrects Async:
That's incorrect. You are probably thinking of Mayr's biological species concept, in which species are populations that do not ordinarily interbreed in the wild. Hence, an occasional error can produce a new species if the resulting offspring do not interbreed with either parent species. Hence, the new species of bat, noted above.

Here's wiki:

Give us something from the literature.

You have also overlooked, or failed to mention the phenomenon of hybrid sterility. If 2 species are crossed (which does not happen in the wild normally), then the offspring are nearly always sterile.

Most birds can successfully produce fertile offspring by mating with closely-related species. We know bears can do this, and apparently some cetaceans can also. Many plants can.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test that belief. Do you consider Icthyostega and Acanthostega to be in different families?

I couldn't really say.

If you don't know what you're talking about, how do you know you're right?

And as we're currently debating in the other thread on instinct, major instinct modifications are required to take a fish from water on to land.

Fish do that, today. Some even climb trees. Acanthostega, for example, never left the water, but walked on the bottom of ponds, using legs. If a pond dried out, it likely tried to get to another body of water in desperation. Given that it had lungs, that wouldn't be such a great struggle.

Icthyostega was clearly strong enough to haul itself out on land. A considerable advantage open to stronger legged fish.

That cannot happen by the usual suspects method: mutation and natural selection, since instincts are immaterial.

As you learned before, evolution never does anything de novo; it merely modifies what was already there.

I also remind you of Henry Gee's Jan 2010 statement:

Given your history, you'll have to provide evidence. No quotes for you.

 

[Asyncritus]

You've been misled about that. Gould never said that it couldn't. In fact, he mentions some examples. If you'd actually read some things Gould wrote, instead of depending on bits of quote-mined stuff other people give you, you'd do a lot better.

I don't want to accuse you of being a liar, but you're driving me there, since you don't know what I've read and not read. MODERATORS PLEASE NOTE THIS FALSE ACCUSATION.

Common misconception. Increasing the mutation rate will not make evolution work faster any more than adding more oil to your car will increase the engine's horsepower.

I can't believe you said that. Do you mean that NO mutation means that evolution will proceed at a fantastic rate? Sounds like it.

But since there hasn't been any evolution and production of genera or anything like it in the last n million years, the point is moot. I note you haven't commented on Broom's remarks above. Conveniently. No, let me guess: OOO-HHHMMM 'QUOTE MINE'! How's that?

It's consistent with observation. Mutation only provides variation. But natural selection sorts it out. Like adding more oil to your car to make it go faster, mutating more individuals won't help. Indeed, beyond a certain level, it can be damaging to a population.

You don't say! Like Hiroshima, huh? No new species, genera, other taxa.

That's what we observe happening.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. Where are all these new genera, families etc etc then, if that's what you OBSERVE happening? Let me guess. Blood protein improvement. Kettlewell's (crooked) evidence. Nylon eating bacteria.

Where did you say these things have been OBSERVED? That one miserable bat incipient species?

Nope. Here's a hint: a well-adapted population in a stable environment will be kept from evolving by natural selection. Think about it. You're trusting people who are taking advantage of your trust.

We're not looking for hints. We're looking for big, nasty, ugly OBSERVED and OBSERVABLE facts.

AND AGAIN, I CALL THE MODERATORS TO NOTE THIS FALSE ACCUSATION.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that there are no favorable mutations:
One of the more interesting examples, is the evolution of a new blood protein that gives almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. The specific individual to which this mutation happened is known, and his descendants share that evolutionary change.

Oh yes. This is observable production of new species, genera, and higher taxa. Is that your contention? Well, if it is, then you're somewhat misguided.

Just means individuals stay healthy and reproductive longer. And yes, it's documented.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-Milano-Bielicki.html

How strange. The title (or quote mine if you prefer, as you obviously do), says 'A RARE protein mutation...' Did you miss that - it's the largest type at the top of the article?

If it's rare, then do you agree that the contribution it makes to the production of new species, genera, and higher taxa must be minimal or zero?

I'm pleased you've condeded that favorable mutations happen.

I've never denied that they do - but they are so RARE, that they make headlines whenever they occur! And if they are so insignificant in numbers and effects, then how can you decently claim that they drive the evolution process which has to account for such enormous things - like sequoias from seaweeds?

But you surely understand that over thousands and millions of years, changes add up. And we see in the fossil record that it happens. And we can check that by DNA analysis. And we know that works, because we can check the method by comparing individuals of known descent.

You can check whatever you like - but as for accounting for sequoias from seaweeds, or whales from hippos and fox-like creatures: I think that qualifies as a No no, don't you?

Many of which had antecedents in the Precambrian. Turns out there were lots of complex animals before the Cambrian.

You really should change those lenses, you know. That pink tint really wrecks the clarity of your vision.

Suppose that there were 'antecedents in the pre-Cambrian'. What have you succeeded in doing? Npthing really except to attempt to push your problems back a few million years. But however far you push, you're still stuck with the problem of the origin of the zillion or so antecedents you require for the Cambrian.

The "explosion" turns out to coincide with the evolution complete body scleritization, which opened up all sorts of niches that didn't exist before.

And what do you suppose drove the evolution of this 'scleritization'? Did it just happen? Did those amazingly complex trilobite eyes, the segmentaion of body morphology which characterises the arthropods, just happen? The proteins necessary for scleritization, those incredibly complex moleciles, did they 'just happen' too?

Did some unicell or coelenterate (yes, there are fossils of those!) think to itself, hey, a suit of body armour would be a very good thing to have - and Bingo! it appeared? Is that what you really think?

Why don't you as a good catholic give up this hopeless cause and simply say, God did it? Seems to me a lot of your fancy footwork would become unnecessary, and a lot less, dubious, shall we say?

We see something like that happening at the K-T boundary when the number of mammalian species exploded. In just a few million years, we have seen a similar explosion by fruit flies in Hawaii.

Tut tut. Shakes head sadly.2

As you learned, speciation is a fact. And sometimes it only takes a single mutation. Would you like an example of that?

Yes, let's have a hundred or so, to account for the production of an entirely new genus, or better yet, a family. With documentation, please.

What would you like to know? Let's start with insects. What do you define as an insect?

No, no. Before we go there, lem me have your comments please, on the origin of the behaviour of the golden plovers which never see their parents actually going to Hawaii, but still manage to go there by themselves.

You have a history here.

So do you. Of palming off tripe with a wave of the hand.

One bit of many, many.

Let's see this new genus or family then.

Sorry, no quote-mining in this thread.

I don't know what you mean. The paper said quite clearly that this was an INCIPIENT species, a race, if you will. Your quotation of it missed out that quite important fact. Quote mining, did you say?

What unspeakable things do you think they did? You didn't read the report, did you?

I'm really referring to the obscenities of irradiating those poor fruit flies with lethal radiation. You're not trying to say that that is a 'speakable' procedure, are you? They treat the poor subjects with mutagens, which can't really do them any good, can they? They force animals from different species to mate. They compel continued inbreeding, with the deformities they induce.

All that in the name of science.

Barbarian corrects Async:
That's incorrect. You are probably thinking of Mayr's biological species concept, in which species are populations that do not ordinarily interbreed in the wild. Hence, an occasional error can produce a new species if the resulting offspring do not interbreed with either parent species. Hence, the new species of bat, noted above.

Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself. 'AN OCCASIONAL ERROR' you say. What does 'occasional' mean? Do you know? I'm not sure you do, if you can claim that this sort of thing can produce and did produce the millions of species we see on the planet. Can it? And if you claim that it can, where's your proof?

Give us something from the literature.

Hybrid zygotes sometimes develop into adults, such as mules (hybrids between female horses and male donkeys), but the adults fail to develop functional gametes and are sterile. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/278030/hybrid-sterility

Normally, hybrids between two different species, even if offering beneficial traits, are sterile. And in many cases, hybrids are not viable at all.

A mule (photo), the result of the mating of a horse and a donkey, is sterile. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Hybrids-Are-Sterile-42118.shtml

Hybrid male sterility (HMS) is a usual outcome of hybridization between closely related animal species.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/385

Most birds can successfully produce fertile offspring by mating with closely-related species. We know bears can do this, and apparently some cetaceans can also. Many plants can.

The question before us, remember, is, can hybridisation advance evolution? Your scratching around demonstrates, as in your previous examples, that the answer is no. There are species barriers, that are crossed only rarely, deliberately by 'researchers', or not at all. Thqat 3rd qute above refers to an article where they claim to have found out why.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test that belief. Do you consider Icthyostega and Acanthostega to be in different families?

As I said before, this is a purely hypothetical construction by blinkered evolutionists.

Ich. possessed lungs. How did they arise, from what, and why?

Acanth. :'One of the best-known of all the Devonian tetrapods--the first fish that climbed up out of the water and onto dry land-'

That's precisely what I mean. I wish they'd tie these donkeys up and not permit them to pollute the intellectual atmosphere.

If you don't know what you're talking about, how do you know you're right?

Because I'm intelligent, and can recognise nonsense when I hear it (see above). You obviously can't.

Fish do that, today. Some even climb trees. Acanthostega, for example, never left the water, but walked on the bottom of ponds, using legs.

And where did the legs come from? And why, if it's ancestors hadn't left the water before because they couldn't? And if it did have legs, where did the powering instincts come from?

If a pond dried out, it likely tried to get to another body of water in desperation. Given that it had lungs, that wouldn't be such a great struggle.

Ha ha haaaaah! A fish with lungs! You're not thinking of the lungfish are you? They're still here, and haven't changed for over 215 million years.

And if it had proper lungs, like ours, say, then it would have drowned. But if it had lungs like ours, (I presume that's what you're talking about?), then it couldn't have gills. Therefore, by definition, it couldn't be a fish. And a fin can never be a leg. The anatomy is entirely different. See my blog.

But in the absence of the soft tissues in the fossils, how do they know this? Remember Latimeria's 'lungs'? Turns out they were fat bladders. So how can you make such a foolish claim? Don't you guys ever learn?

Icthyostega was clearly strong enough to haul itself out on land. A considerable advantage open to stronger legged fish.

A 'legged fish'? A fish that has legs doesn't exist, because by definition, fishes don't have legs. They have fins.

As you learned before, evolution never does anything de novo; it merely modifies what was already there.

More tripe. Evolution doesn''t exist, can do, and has done nothing.

Given your history, you'll have to provide evidence. No quotes for you.

You got it. Go look on my blog.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that. Gould never said that it couldn't. In fact, he mentions some examples. If you'd actually read some things Gould wrote, instead of depending on bits of quote-mined stuff other people give you, you'd do a lot better.

I don't want to accuse you of being a liar, but you're driving me there, since you don't know what I've read and not read. MODERATORS PLEASE NOTE THIS FALSE ACCUSATION.

As you know, you've put up Gould quotes here, that were edited the same way as several notorious quote-mining sites. I suggested that you not use those sites, and only quote from works you had actually read yourself.

Barbarian observes:
Common misconception. Increasing the mutation rate will not make evolution work faster any more than adding more oil to your car will increase the engine's horsepower.

I can't believe you said that. Do you mean that NO mutation means that evolution will proceed at a fantastic rate? Sounds like it.

Sort of like saying "NO oil means that cars will go at fantastic rates." C'mon. People are watching you.

But since there hasn't been any evolution and production of genera or anything like it in the last n million years, the point is moot.

The Institute for Creation Research says your wrong. They think all the modern genera evolved in a burst of hyperevolution a few thousand years ago. You guys can't keep your story straight. Science shows that the evolution of new genera takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Do you think humans are in the same genus as H. erectus?

It's consistent with observation. Mutation only provides variation. But natural selection sorts it out. Like adding more oil to your car to make it go faster, mutating more individuals won't help. Indeed, beyond a certain level, it can be damaging to a population.

You don't say!

Yep. Observably true. And predicted by evolutionary theory. That's what we observe happening.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it not so.

Where are all these new genera, families etc etc then, if that's what you OBSERVE happening? Let me guess. Blood protein improvement. Kettlewell's (crooked) evidence. Nylon eating bacteria.

Occasionally, a new species. Which is about the right pace, according to evolutionary theory.

Where did you say these things have been OBSERVED? That one miserable bat incipient species?

Insect. You see, reading the entire article and taking the time to understand what it says, can help.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Here's a hint: a well-adapted population in a stable environment will be kept from evolving by natural selection. Think about it. You're trusting people who are taking advantage of your trust.

We're not looking for hints. We're looking for big, nasty, ugly OBSERVED and OBSERVABLE facts.

That's directly observed, too.

AND AGAIN, I CALL THE MODERATORS TO NOTE THIS FALSE ACCUSATION.

Notice the evidence from the article I linked to you. And I'd be pleased to show where your snippets of "quotes" match those of well-known quote-mining sites.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that there are no favorable mutations:
One of the more interesting examples, is the evolution of a new blood protein that gives almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. The specific individual to which this mutation happened is known, and his descendants share that evolutionary change.

Oh yes. This is observable production of new species, genera, and higher taxa. Is that your contention? Well, if it is, then you're somewhat misguided.

Just means individuals stay healthy and reproductive longer. And yes, it's documented.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-Bielicki.html

How strange. The title (or quote mine if you prefer, as you obviously do), says 'A RARE protein mutation...' Did you miss that - it's the largest type at the top of the article?

Yep. It's only in the descendants of one man who lived about a century ago. Rare. But a nice demonstration of how favorable mutations appear and then spread in a population.

If it's rare, then do you agree that the contribution it makes to the production of new species, genera, and higher taxa must be minimal or zero?

Don't see how. I don't think you've given that much thought.

Barbarian observes:
I'm pleased you've condeded that favorable mutations happen.

I've never denied that they do - but they are so RARE, that they make headlines whenever they occur!

Scoping the literature, I found many of them, none of which made headlines.

Barbarian observes:
But you surely understand that over thousands and millions of years, changes add up. And we see in the fossil record that it happens. And we can check that by DNA analysis. And we know that works, because we can check the method by comparing individuals of known descent.

You can check whatever you like - but as for accounting for sequoias from seaweeds,

Sequoias didn't evolve from seaweed. You've been given another bit of bad information there.

or whales from hippos and fox-like creatures:

Ditto there. You would do better if you'd actually read what scientists have found about these things.

I think that qualifies as a No no, don't you?

It means Async is still trusting the wrong people.

Barbarian observes:
Many of which had antecedents in the Precambrian. Turns out there were lots of complex animals before the Cambrian.

You really should change those lenses, you know. That pink tint really wrecks the clarity of your vision.

Facts are what they are. You've been misled about that.

Suppose that there were 'antecedents in the pre-Cambrian'. What have you succeeded in doing? Npthing really except to attempt to push your problems back a few million years.

Just pointing out that the Cambrian explosion is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.

But however far you push, you're still stuck with the problem of the origin of the zillion or so antecedents you require for the Cambrian.

So far, everytime we find one, it's in the right place, and the right kind. So it's not a problem for science. Big problem for YE creationism, which can't explain the order of fossils in the rocks.

Barbarian observes:
The "explosion" turns out to coincide with the evolution complete body scleritization, which opened up all sorts of niches that didn't exist before.
And what do you suppose drove the evolution of this 'scleritization'?

Predation. We see, in the Precambrian, bits of armored sclerites and pointy bits that show a need for defense. By the Cambrian, they had evolved to whole-body armor. And that opened up a lot of different possible ways of life.

Did those amazingly complex trilobite eyes, the segmentaion of body morphology which characterises the arthropods, just happen?

Nope. As you learned earlier, the evidence shows that those gradually evolved, too.

The proteins necessary for scleritization, those incredibly complex moleciles, did they 'just happen' too?

Beta-1, 4 linked polysaccharide of N-acetylglucosamine (chitin) is a rather ancient molecule. It is found in the multicellular eukaryotes, a rather ancient group. It appears to have a role in signalling in plant and animal development.

Did some unicell or coelenterate (yes, there are fossils of those!) think to itself, hey, a suit of body armour would be a very good thing to have - and Bingo! it appeared? Is that what you really think?

Turns out it was more interesting than that. Want to learn about it?

Why don't you as a good catholic give up this hopeless cause and simply say, God did it?

I know God did it. Your problem is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Barbarian continues:
We see something like that happening at the K-T boundary when the number of mammalian species exploded. In just a few million years, we have seen a similar explosion by fruit flies in Hawaii.

Tut tut. Shakes head sadly.

(Asks about the origin of insects)

Barbarian asks:
What would you like to know? Let's start with insects. What do you define as an insect?

(decides he doesn't want to know after all)

More later.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's make it as easy as possible -- show any "kind" that is mentioned in the bible producing any other "kind".

Sure. Fish to tetrapods. Reptiles to birds.

Do so without billions of unobservable years to explain why you can't.

Fortunately, there's abundant evidence. We can observe what happened in the past by many different methods. Would you like to see some of it?

Do so without extrapolation. ie., "we see these small changes so we grab that and stretch it out to explain the impossible as possible through an imagined non-intelligent device."

That is also seen in the fossil record, although millions of years of fossils with no gaps is pretty unlikely. It's unusual, but we do have some instances where gradual change is documented for the entire lineage.

Horses, for example.

 

[Sparkey]

Question from Barbarian: At what level of taxonomy would you consider a new "kind" to have evolved?

Sparrow's reply: Let's make it as easy as possible -- show any "kind" that is mentioned in the bible producing any other "kind".

Sure. Fish to tetrapods. Reptiles to birds.

My, but wasn't that easy. Silly of me to not have noticed fish hatching four-footed land animals, right? You've sure shut me up on that one. No way God could have created both fish and tetrapods, and the way you "showed me" -- astonishing!


Oh, wait! I asked that you show me without unobserved billions of years. Barbarian, have you done that? Can you show me (without restorting to billions of unobserved years) that fish breed tetrapods?

Fortunately, there's abundant evidence. We can observe what happened in the past by many different methods. Would you like to see some of it?

No, I think you are purposefully misunderstanding me and offering to "show" or "teach" me according to what you accept as evidence. I'd like proof. Your theory is stated as fact (as is mine) and based on a "given" (as is mine). Both say, "It is this way because that's the way it is." You've not responded to my first request, that you show one example of an observed violation of the limitation that I believe God was in reference to when He used the word "kind" in Genesis and said that their "seed was within them". Your theory believes that God did not create their seed and cause them to reproduce "after their kind".

I'm asking for evidence that is persuasive enough to show me reason that you don't believe the simple truth of the bible. I'm not saying that you don't believe the bible, I know you do, but there is a simple truth there and we don't see eye to eye on it. Giving me evidence (so called) that involves billions of unobserved years and various assumptions that go behind it will not convince. You already know this, probably better than I do.

Sparrow's qualifier: Do so [show me] without billions (or millions) of unobservable years...

That is also seen in the fossil record, although millions of years of fossils with no gaps is pretty unlikely. It's unusual, but we do have some instances where gradual change is documented for the entire lineage.

Horses, for example.

Horses what? Horses can be shown to have produced another kind, a kind other than a horse? Okay, I'll let up on the, "do so without guesses based on billions of unobserved years requirement if you can show me evidence of a horse (for example) having reproduced any other "kind". A cow, for example, or a night hawk or a fish. Any other kind.

 

[Barbarian]

Question from Barbarian: At what level of taxonomy would you consider a new "kind" to have evolved?

Sparrow's reply: Let's make it as easy as possible -- show any "kind" that is mentioned in the bible producing any other "kind".

Barbarian observes:
Sure. Fish to tetrapods. Reptiles to birds.

My, but wasn't that easy.

Evidence is a wonderful thing.

Silly of me to not have noticed fish hatching four-footed land animals, right?

The notion that we can't know about anything we didn't see happen is philosophically untenable. For example, we have evidence in the form of fish with lungs and fins containing femurs, tibias and fibulas, and even more distal bones. A bit later we have fish with usable legs (for walking about underwater; still too lightly built to walk on land). Later, we have fish that have the skeletal connections to haul out of the water. And a bit later, we can't call them fish because the lungs have taken on the entire job of respiration, and the internal gills are gone, along with fish tails and the lateral line system.

And we see that their distant relatives, the lungfish are genetically closer to us than they are to other fish. Lungfish also have a number of other anatomical features that are exclusive to tetrapods, such as internal nares, which gave Owen such fits. (turns out that one other fish evolved intenal nares, but they don't work quite like ours)

So we have anatomy, fossil record, genetic analysis, and the ongoing discovery of many transitional forms. Oh, and the issue of one other line of fish now making the same journey, even to the point of climbing trees.

Pretty solid, no?

You've sure shut me up on that one. No way God could have created both fish and tetrapods

He did. He just did it a little more elegantly than people thought He could.

Oh, wait! I asked that you show me without unobserved billions of years.

As you see, we can observe such things by the evidence left behind. When I was younger, I had to learn fire investigation for a specific need of my employer. And it was fascinating to learn how a good fire investigator could find so much evidence in the charred ruins of a fire.

Barbarian, have you done that?

Yep. If you're going to deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed because no one has ever seen that happen with his own eyes, then we leave science and enter the realm of faith. And faith can tell us nothing about science, except Paul's observation that His power and divine grace have been apparent in His works of nature from the beginning.

Can you show me (without restorting to billions of unobserved years) that fish breed tetrapods?

Just did.

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately, there's abundant evidence. We can observe what happened in the past by many different methods. Would you like to see some of it?

No, I think you are purposefully misunderstanding me and offering to "show" or "teach" me according to what you accept as evidence. I'd like proof.

Science is not about proof. Galileo did not prove the heliocentric theory. He merely established that the evidence supported his theory, and not that of Ptolemy.

Your theory is stated as fact (as is mine) and based on a "given" (as is mine). Both say, "It is this way because that's the way it is."

No. Mine depends on the evidence. And to deny that giant redwoods grow from seeds takes a lot more faith than accepting the evidence.

You've not responded to my first request, that you show one example of an observed violation of the limitation that I believe God was in reference to when He used the word "kind" in Genesis and said that their "seed was within them".

Since the evidence shows that took hundreds of thousands or millions of years, the request would normally be interpreted as a way of avoiding the evidence.

Your theory believes that God did not create their seed and cause them to reproduce "after their kind".

Since the Bible doesn't say organisms reproduce after their kind, that's not such a problem.

I'm asking for evidence that is persuasive enough to show me reason that you don't believe the simple truth of the bible.

I'm just willing to accept it as it is.

I'm not saying that you don't believe the bible, I know you do, but there is a simple truth there and we don't see eye to eye on it. Giving me evidence (so called) that involves billions of unobserved years and various assumptions that go behind it will not convince. You already know this, probably better than I do.

Yeah, the giant redwood problem.

Barbarian mentions one example of many millions of years of gradual change in the fossil record:
Horses, for example.

Horses what? Horses can be shown to have produced another kind, a kind other than a horse? Okay, I'll let up on the, "do so without guesses based on billions of unobserved years requirement if you can show me evidence of a horse (for example) having reproduced any other "kind". A cow, for example, or a night hawk or a fish. Any other kind.

Didn't start with horses. Something called "Hyracotherium." Not actually related to hyraxes, (small rodent-like animals related to elephants), but the skeleton had some resemblances.

Hyracotherium evolved when the world was wetter, and covered with forest. It was small, had multiple toes, a flexible body and legs, teeth that stopped growing as it matured, short head, and was fitted to running about in the underbrush and browsing on leaves.

An entirely different "kind."

 

[Sparkey]

What you call evidence I see as the thinking behind your assumptions. Kindly stop pretending that you don't know what I'm saying. The Redwood seed for instance, you speculate (contrary to what you know of me) that I might say giant redwoods can't grow from seeds. "If you're going to deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed..." What? Where did you get that idea? Why would I say such a thing?? Your suggestion that a person of faith doesn't believe in the unseen is completely contrary to the actual case. But saying that since I believe in unseen things, I MUST believe that your assumptions are necessarily true, even if they go contrary to what I read in the bible, is false. Saying that a tree comes from its seed is a biblical truth that doesn't support evolution of trees and night hawks and fish and insects from a single ancestor. God is not our "ancestor". He is our creator. But you are absolutely correct when you say that giant redwoods come from giant redwood seeds. God created trees "after their kind" and He created them with their seed in itself. What does "after his kind" mean? What does "whose seed [was] in itself" mean? What do those two phrases, taken together mean? Does this add up to a common ancestor that is different from its kind or whose seed was not in itself? No. Can you show me an apple seed or an orange seed that when planted will grow up to become a giant redwood tree? The very idea is preposterous because God made things in the way He said He did, with their seed within. If planting an apple seed can not produce a giant redwood, how can doing it trillions of times over billions of years change what God has done?

By the way, your statement about the origin of horses does not constitute proof. Strip away the assumptions and show one "kind" reproducing any other "kind" and you will have answered my first challenge. Your speculation about an unknown process and extrapolation to support the existence of that process does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" any more than if I went to a junk yard and said that what was found there was "evidence" of a progression that pleased me to think exists. Were these two parts produced in the same factory? They are both rusty, so it must be the case is like saying, "They have skeletal similarities so that must be the case." Finding "evidence" that other kinds existed does not mean that there is a direct ancestral lineage. Time does not change fact. No tree can produce anything but a tree. Fruit-bearing trees don't produce redwoods.

God created Adam. I am physically related to him, as are you. Jesus was born of a virgin and I am spiritually (through faith) related to him, as are you. Relating me to a "single ancestor" other than Adam doesn't align with what God said and what Jesus believed.

"... from the beginning ( ἀρχή // archē) of the creation God made them male and female."(Mark 10:6)








ἀρχή // archē

1. Beginning, Origin
2. The person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. That by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4. The extremity of a thing

 

[Barbarian]

What you call evidence I see as the thinking behind your assumptions.

Even if I didn't accept it, it would still be here. That's the difference between evidence and assumptions.

Kindly stop pretending that you don't know what I'm saying. The Redwood seed for instance, you speculate (contrary to what you know of me) that I might say giant redwoods can't grow from seeds. "If you're going to deny that giant redwoods can grow from a seed..." What? Where did you get that idea? Why would I say such a thing??

Same reasoning. We can't actually observe it, but we do have abundant other evidence to believe it's true.

Your suggestion that a person of faith doesn't believe in the unseen is completely contrary to the actual case.

I'm a person of faith, for example, and I do accept that we can know many things without directly observing them.

But saying that since I believe in unseen things, I MUST believe that your assumptions are necessarily true, even if they go contrary to what I read in the bible, is false. Saying that a tree comes from its seed is a biblical truth that doesn't support evolution of trees and night hawks and fish and insects from a single ancestor.

It is also a Biblical truth that the earth brought forth living things.

God is not our "ancestor". He is our creator. But you are absolutely correct when you say that giant redwoods come from giant redwood seeds. God created trees "after their kind" and He created them with their seed in itself. What does "after his kind" mean? What does "whose seed [was] in itself" mean?

It meant that they could reproduce. But since we observe that every living thing on Earth is more or less different from it's parents, we can see that His word is entirely consistent with the evidence.

What do those two phrases, taken together mean? Does this add up to a common ancestor that is different from its kind or whose seed was not in itself? No. Can you show me an apple seed or an orange seed that when planted will grow up to become a giant redwood tree?

In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

The very idea is preposterous because God made things in the way He said He did, with their seed within. If planting an apple seed can not produce a giant redwood, how can doing it trillions of times over billions of years change what God has done?

What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

By the way, your statement about the origin of horses does not constitute proof.

It merely shows that evolution works that way.

Strip away the assumptions and show one "kind" reproducing any other "kind" and you will have answered my first challenge.

Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

Your speculation about an unknown process

It is very well-known. Darwin wrote about it, and undergraduates demonstrate it every year.

and extrapolation to support the existence of that process does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" any more than if I went to a junk yard and said that what was found there was "evidence" of a progression that pleased me to think exists. Were these two parts produced in the same factory? They are both rusty, so it must be the case is like saying, "They have skeletal similarities so that must be the case."

That would be confusing analogous organs with homologous ones. Do you see how we can distinguish between the two?

Finding "evidence" that other kinds existed does not mean that there is a direct ancestral lineage.

It's just evidence that it happened. When there's this much evidence from independent sorts of evidence, it becomes compelling.

Time does not change fact. No tree can produce anything but a tree. Fruit-bearing trees don't produce redwoods.

They do, however, have a common ancestor. Do you see how we know?

God created Adam.

And both of us. God does most things by nature in this world.

I am physically related to him, as are you. Jesus was born of a virgin and I am spiritually (through faith) related to him, as are you. Relating me to a "single ancestor" other than Adam doesn't align with what God said and what Jesus believed.

Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

"... from the beginning ( ἀρχή // archē) of the creation God made them male and female."(Mark 10:6)

I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm a person of faith, for example, and I do accept that we can know many things without directly observing them.

So why do you keep bringing up the fact that we can't see a redwood growing from its seed?

Just BTW, you questioned my statement that sequoias evolved from seaweeds. The reasoning is simple. Life (evolutionarily speaking) began in the sea. Therefore, the first plants were the algae or seaweeds, which are the biggest ones.

These then 'invaded the land', and ultimately became sequoias or cabbages, or the whole lot.

Which is about the most stupid thing imaginable, but that's what evolution states or implies.

In fact, every seed will produce a tree slightly different than the parent. That's how it works.

Yup. Called variation. Not evolution.

What God did, was make variation the way things are. And over time, variation and natural selection produce the diversity of life.

So I've got 10,000 apple trees, each different from the other. Now are you saying that by 'natural selection' etc one day I'll have some pear trees descended from my apple trees?

It merely shows that evolution works that way.

Evolution clearly doesn't work at all, if that's the sort of thing you mean.

Horses are a recent example, as are birds from reptiles and tetrapods from fish.

All three of these are highly dubious, but you should know that by now.

It is very well-known. Darwin wrote about it, and undergraduates demonstrate it every year.

So do we now rely on Darwin (who has been replaced by 'the new synthesis') and undergraduates to establish the theory?

It's just evidence that it happened. When there's this much evidence from independent sorts of evidence, it becomes compelling.

:biglol

They do, however, have a common ancestor. Do you see how we know?

Oh Yeah. Let's see a fossil of it!

Evolutionary theory is consistent with our descent from a single pair of humans.

But not from a single 'common ancestor'. Is this some kind of joke B?

I think that it's a mistake to take that too far. God makes it very clear in Genesis what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans. Which species, I do not know, nor does it matter.

You're perfectly right when you say: Jesus meant "from the beginning of the human race" which began with two humans.

'Which species' is a silly question. If He was talking about Adam and Eve, which He clearly was, then Homo sapiens is the obvious one. Not Amoeba proteus.