[_ Old Earth _] Hows this for logic

[Barbarian]

I'm sorry Barb, I haven't been reading along but this is so interesting and can't go back and read all.
Please just answer this:
Are you just saying that there is mutation within a species
OR
Are you saying that, because of continuing mutation, one species could change into another?

That's an observed fact. Even many creationists now admit that much. They now say that the evolution of a new species isn't really "evolution." That's some higher taxa, (usually at the order level, according to most YE creationists). The argument is that yes, new species and genera and families evolved, but that's it. Everything higher is forbidden by some unobserved law that prevents it.

Incidentally, this is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory; he didn't know whether all living things had a common ancestor or there were a few separate common ancestors. However, evidence from genetics indicates a single common ancestor. It makes sense, since the most primitive known life is able to swap genes around by plasmids, so that horizontal gene transfer is extremely common.

I'm not sure that's worded right, but I think you'll understand what I mean.

Yes. I get it. I've spent a good deal of time, discussing this with various leaders of the creationist movement, and it seems that they generally draw the line at families evolving. There are some technical problems with that; I believe that Kurt Wise and William Coffin have addressed them.

I spent a lot of time arguing with Thomas Woodward about that point (and others). His book Doubts about Darwin, reflects some of our conversations regarding questions we discussed.. He was kind enough to send me an autographed copy, he's a gentleman and his book is worth reading, if you want to see a rational approach to creationism.

Like, could a fish become a monkey given enough time and mutations?

A fish wouldn't. Organisms don't evolve. Populations do. So yes,populations can indeed evolve into new things, with new genes and functions. There is no detectable limit to variation, although specific organisms are constrained by the fact that evolution can only do changes that arise in a step-by-step fashion. So wings for us are not a realistic possibility, but undreamed of things certainly are.

(I don't believe so).

Comes down to evidence. And the evidence says that common ancestry is a fact. And so far, no barrier to such changes has been found.

 

[turnorburn]

barb said: "Comes down to evidence. And the evidence says that common ancestry is a fact. And so far, no barrier to such changes has been found."

No barrier you say.. here's that evidence your always talking about.. No better evidence than Gods word...

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's an observed fact. Even many creationists now admit that much. They now say that the evolution of a new species isn't really "evolution." That's some higher taxa, (usually at the order level, according to most YE creationists). The argument is that yes, new species and genera and families evolved, but that's it. Everything higher is forbidden by some unobserved law that prevents it.

Incidentally, this is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory; he didn't know whether all living things had a common ancestor or there were a few separate common ancestors. However, evidence from genetics indicates a single common ancestor. It makes sense, since the most primitive known life is able to swap genes around by plasmids, so that horizontal gene transfer is extremely common.

Yes. I get it. I've spent a good deal of time, discussing this with various leaders of the creationist movement, and it seems that they generally draw the line at families evolving. There are some technical problems with that; I believe that Kurt Wise and William Coffin have addressed them.

I spent a lot of time arguing with Thomas Woodward about that point (and others). His book Doubts about Darwin, reflects some of our conversations regarding questions we discussed.. He was kind enough to send me an autographed copy, he's a gentleman and his book is worth reading, if you want to see a rational approach to creationism.

A fish wouldn't. Organisms don't evolve. Populations do. So yes,populations can indeed evolve into new things, with new genes and functions. There is no detectable limit to variation, although specific organisms are constrained by the fact that evolution can only do changes that arise in a step-by-step fashion. So wings for us are not a realistic possibility, but undreamed of things certainly are.

Comes down to evidence. And the evidence says that common ancestry is a fact. And so far, no barrier to such changes has been found.

Thanks Barb.
I'm going to try and get the book - I'm not sure I can, we'll see.
Also, re your last sentence about a common ancestry. Do you mean that we come from the same First Person (can't remember what it's called) or that we come from the origin of life - which was in the water to start (with the amoeba).

IOW, What exactly does the evidence show? That we have the same ancestry? I could agree with this.
If it means that we come from amoeba and fish-like creatures that then crawled up on the earth and evolved into humans - this I cannot agree with.

But please answer re the evidence. Slow down in your scientific language please - not good at this!

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

barb said: "Comes down to evidence. And the evidence says that common ancestry is a fact. And so far, no barrier to such changes has been found."

No barrier you say.. here's that evidence your always talking about.. No better evidence than Gods word...

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.

Even Genesis says that each species will reproduce its own. Example: Genesis 1:24-25

But I'd like to understand better. It has been pretty much proven that we all come from one source, or person. And, if I remember this person was found to originate in Africa, but I'm not sure.

This would be compatible with scripture. At some point, God decided to breath His spirit into man and give him God-like qualities.

Wondering

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks Barb.
I'm going to try and get the book - I'm not sure I can, we'll see.
Also, re your last sentence about a common ancestry. Do you mean that we come from the same First Person (can't remember what it's called) or that we come from the origin of life - which was in the water to start (with the amoeba).

The evidence shows that all living things on Earth had a common ancestor.

If it means that we come from amoeba

It does not. Amoebae are far too evolved in their own way to have been human ancestors.

and fish-like creatures

We are fish-like creatures. We (and all other vertebrates) have far more things in common with fish things by which we differ.

But please answer re the evidence. Slow down in your scientific language please - not good at this!

The evidence comes from several independent forms, most notable of which include:

1. First (and this was initially identified by someone who had no idea of evolution) all living things on Earth fit nicely into a family tree. Such nested hierarchies only happen in cases of common descent.

2. Genetic and molecular evidence. This shows the same family tree to a very high degree of precision. And we can check this by looking at DNA of organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

3. Numerous transitional forms. When I was young, there were still a good number of gaps where we didn't know what the transitional form looked like between various groups. With time, we found more and more of them, to the point now, that there aren't many gaps left between major groups. And even more compelling, we never see a transitional form where there shouldn't be on. No mammals with feathers. No insects with bones, etc. Why this is so, is a complete mystery to creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

4. Observed speciation, and the failure to identify the creationist-predicted barrier preventing the evolution of higher taxa. Numerous useful mutations, and repeated demonstrations of natural selection as the force increasing fitness in populations also verifies the theory.

 

[Corn Pop]

Barbarian, im sorry but, im not a fish like creature. You can call me fish all day long if you like, but im not related to a fish, or a lettuce leaf, or a monkey, or a loaf of bread ok.

 

[Barbarian]

Even Genesis says that each species will reproduce its own. Example: Genesis 1:24-25

http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen 1.24-25

Actually, it doesn't say that. It says each living thing was created as to it's kind, but no information as to whether each was just poofed into existence or if God used evolution to create them according to their kinds. There is nothing whatever about reproducing according to kind. Creationists often read things like that into scripture, but it's a bad idea, I think.

But I'd like to understand better. It has been pretty much proven that we all come from one source, or person.

There is fairly good evidence that the last woman from which all humans living today lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. There is similar evidence that the last man from who all living humans are descended, lived somewhat more recently. Neither of these are Adam and Eve; those two, almost certainly lived a long time before "mitochondrial Eve."

And, if I remember this person was found to originate in Africa,

As Darwn predicted.

This would be compatible with scripture. At some point, God decided to breath His spirit into man and give him God-like qualities.

Yep. But a long time before this, I think. I doubt if Adam and Eve were of our own modern species.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, im sorry but, im not a fish like creature.

You have jaws formed from brachial arches as fish do. you have ribs and limbs from the same two specific myotomes as many fish do. You have a heart, a brain, nares, kidneys, lungs (yes lungs existed in fish long before land animals) a backbone, the same skull bones albeit modified, ... (huge list)

Genetically you are much closer to fish than any organism of a different phylum. You are remarkably fish-like in your genetics, physiology, anatomy, and development. That's just a fact.

You can call me fish all day long if you like, but im not related to a fish,

Comes down to evidence. Reality trumps denial.

 

[Corn Pop]

Just because God created animals with similar make ups like eyes and ears and bone and blood and arms and legs and fins and wings, does not mean they are related as family or have a common ancestor.

 

[Barbarian]

Just because God created animals with similar make ups

No, you're missing the point. Similar things like eyes evolve from time to time. But all vertebrate eyes develop the same way, by the same genes, from the same embryonic tissues. Very similar eyes in mollusks turn out to be mediated by different genes, and develop by very differnt pathways, from different embyronic tissue. The genetic relationship is much tighter than you imagine it to be.

This is why scientists accept the fact of evolution.

 

[Corn Pop]

No, you're missing the point. Similar things like eyes evolve from time to time. But all vertebrate eyes develop the same way, by the same genes, from the same embryonic tissues. Very similar eyes in mollusks turn out to be mediated by different genes, and develop by very differnt pathways, from different embyronic tissue. The genetic relationship is much tighter than you imagine it to be.

This is why scientists accept the fact of evolution.

How did it go from one that could reproduce and evolve by itself, to suddenly needing two to reproduce and evolve?. Like most species would go extinct if there was no male or female as they need each other.

 

[Barbarian]

How did it go from one that could reproduce and evolve by itself, to suddenly needing two to reproduce and evolve?

No such "suddenly" happened. For many organisms, sex is not necessary, for others it's not necessary, but is an option. And for some, it's become a necessary thing to reproduce. So not a problem.

 

[turnorburn]

Your still twisting Gods word..

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.

 

[Cygnus]

Perhaps it would be better to deal with the facts. As you learned, not only do most classes not appear in the Cambrian, we can show that many of the organisms in the Cambrian appear before the Cambrian. And we can show them evolving and diversifying during the Cambrian.

So what exactly was your point, if not what you said?

"And we can show them evolving and diversifying during the Cambrian."...no you can't.

 

[Barbarian]

"And we can show them evolving and diversifying during the Cambrian."...no you can't.

Well, let's take a look...
The first, relatively simple trilobites had holochroral eyes:

In cross section...

Schizochroal eyes followed:

Increase in complexity and visual acuity.

And Abatochroal:

The primitive form:

gave rise to all sorts of other types, later in the Cambrian:

Free-swimming open water types:

Perforated cephalon filter feeders:

Benthic bottom-dwelling trilobites:

As you see, a remarkable diversification as trilobites evolved into forms capable of colonizing a variety of habitats.

 

[GodsGrace]

The evidence shows that all living things on Earth had a common ancestor.

It does not. Amoebae are far too evolved in their own way to have been human ancestors.

We are fish-like creatures. We (and all other vertebrates) have far more things in common with fish things by which we differ.

The evidence comes from several independent forms, most notable of which include:

1. First (and this was initially identified by someone who had no idea of evolution) all living things on Earth fit nicely into a family tree. Such nested hierarchies only happen in cases of common descent.

2. Genetic and molecular evidence. This shows the same family tree to a very high degree of precision. And we can check this by looking at DNA of organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

3. Numerous transitional forms. When I was young, there were still a good number of gaps where we didn't know what the transitional form looked like between various groups. With time, we found more and more of them, to the point now, that there aren't many gaps left between major groups. And even more compelling, we never see a transitional form where there shouldn't be on. No mammals with feathers. No insects with bones, etc. Why this is so, is a complete mystery to creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

4. Observed speciation, and the failure to identify the creationist-predicted barrier preventing the evolution of higher taxa. Numerous useful mutations, and repeated demonstrations of natural selection as the force increasing fitness in populations also verifies the theory.

So it seems that you're saying that we ALL come from a COMMON source. This goes beyond what is biblically acceptable and, if you're intellectually honest, you'll have to agree that many scientists are abandoning this theory also. I do not have enough knowledge to go further into this, it's just what I've read.

Doesn't no. 3 show that the life forms ARE distinct? No feathers on mammels, no insects with bones, etc. ??
How does this help YOUR held belief that we're from one common source? I don't understand how this is a mystery to creationists. It seem to me that it should be a mystery to evolutionists -- ??

I agree with no. 4. (I think!)

I'd just like to add what Carl Sagan used to say regarding how we're all made from the same basic ingredients:
"We're all made of the same star stuff."

Now, Kiwidan is having a difficult time with this, but actually it makes a lot of sense.
If God made everything, He very well may have used the same "material" to make it all.
This does not present a problem to me.

Thanks for your replies. I can be really dense on this stuff.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, it doesn't say that. It says each living thing was created as to it's kind, but no information as to whether each was just poofed into existence or if God used evolution to create them according to their kinds. There is nothing whatever about reproducing according to kind. Creationists often read things like that into scripture, but it's a bad idea, I think.

You're right about creationists "reading things like that into scripture." They certainly do.
This is from Adam Clarke's Commentary:
Genesis 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, etc. - Every thing both in the animal and vegetable world was made so according to its kind, both in genus and species, as to produce its own kind through endless generations. Thus the several races of animals and plants have been kept distinct from the foundation of the world to the present day. This is a proof that all future generations of plants and animals have been seminally included in those which God formed in the beginning.

This is taught in catechism classes. Every animal reproduces itself. As you must know, Catholicism does not make affirmation as to creation or evolution. One may choose to believe what one believes. Every other Christian religion believes in creationism. The big difference being in the Young Earth theory - which I don't hold to BTW.
It's obvious even to the non-scientific as myself that the earth is billions of years old.

There is fairly good evidence that the last woman from which all humans living today lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. There is similar evidence that the last man from who all living humans are descended, lived somewhat more recently. Neither of these are Adam and Eve; those two, almost certainly lived a long time before "mitochondrial Eve."

As Darwn predicted.

Yep. But a long time before this, I think. I doubt if Adam and Eve were of our own modern species.

Could it be the opposite of what you believe?
There existed eons ago a primitive man. A cave man?
And then one day God decided to make this man in HIS image.
And so He breathed the breath of life (the Spirit of God) into them. Genesis 2:7
And so He created Adam and Eve.

Would this not make sense?

Wondering
(nice to talk about science with you)

 

[Cygnus]

Well, let's take a look...
The first, relatively simple trilobites had holochroral eyes:

In cross section...

Schizochroal eyes followed:

Increase in complexity and visual acuity.

And Abatochroal:

The primitive form:

gave rise to all sorts of other types, later in the Cambrian:

Free-swimming open water types:

Perforated cephalon filter feeders:

Benthic bottom-dwelling trilobites:

As you see, a remarkable diversification as trilobites evolved into forms capable of colonizing a variety of habitats.

Big deal. All that was done is someone lined them up in what they think is increasing morphological elements.
I can do the same thing with dogs.

 

[Cygnus]

snipped

Could it be the opposite of what you believe?
There existed eons ago a primitive man. A cave man?
And then one day God decided to make this man in HIS image.
And so He breathed the breath of life (the Spirit of God) into them. Genesis 2:7
And so He created Adam and Eve.

Would this not make sense?

Wondering
(nice to talk about science with you)

Nope,. That would go contrary to the bible. It opens up way to many bible verses and themes to extreme contradiction where twisting of scripture through evo-interpretations is required.

As you see, you have already began to fill in the blanks...a cave man and then God decided...The bible doesn't say such a thing.

 

[Barbarian]

Big deal. All that was done is someone lined them up in what they think is increasing morphological elements.

We see, over time, a gradual change in trilobites from simple arthropods, to some of the most evolved organisms. There's no point in denying the facts. If they weren't organized in chronological order, you might have had a point. But you're merely denying reality.

[/quote]I can do the same thing with dogs.[/QUOTE]

No you can't. Show me a dog that's a filter feeder, or one that lives in the open sea. Dogs have a tiny amount of variation, mostly changes in size and proportions in bones. Things that are easily changed by careful breeding.