[_ Old Earth _] The degrees of seperation

[Featherbop]

For those who believe in evolution, how far varied can the products of evolution be? for instance, would evolution accept that it could be possible for a chimp to evovle into a cow? Or a lizard into a bird? Or a turtle into a horse? Anythings like that?

Or does "evolution" only accept things like: A ape into human for instance? Something so called related by genes?

So, does an evolutionist also have the belief that certain kinds will never be violated by evolveing into unlike kinds?

So maybe there is agreement between creationism and evolution there? I know there is still lots of other disagreements, I'm wondering just how far is the gap.

I know evolution without God still goes wrong in most places , but it like maybe a robbery from creationism to say its evolution happening.

So how much "wiggle room" does evolution have for "kinds" to change?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolution just happens, but those traits an animal has at the outset tend to stay with the species that branch off of it. For instance the bone structure of ancient reptiles is seen partially in birds. Cats and dogs share traits of their common anscestor.
It also depends on what you mean by kinds. Modern evolutionary history holds that manatees are distant cousins of elephants, though biblical taxonomists might not group them in the same "kind" whatever that means.

 

[Featherbop]

So then "evolution" is believed to have a limit then?

I need to find a suitable definition of kind. And then need to think how far a kind could be diversified.

But if nothing changes its kind then its not evolution. If something is a variation of the same kind, that doesn't indicate evolution.

.....the bone structure of ancient reptiles is seen partially in birds.

Is that meant to imply that birds and reptiles are related through evoltion?

Evolution just happens....

:-?

 

[Barbarian]

For those who believe in evolution,

"Believing in" evolution is not a good idea. You should accept it or reject it on the evidence alone.

how far varied can the products of evolution be? for instance, would evolution accept that it could be possible for a chimp to evovle into a cow? Or a lizard into a bird? Or a turtle into a horse? Anythings like that?

Keep in mind that populations evolve, not individuals. Evolution is stuck with modifying what is already present. And that means that (for example) a chimp losing extensive frontal lobes in the brain is rather improbable. On the other hand, over a very long period of time, it's not outside of possibility that a primiate might become a grazing animal, adapted to running and rumination.

Or does "evolution" only accept things like: A ape into human for instance? Something so called related by genes?

A sudden conversion of an ape to an ungulate would be pretty hard to understand.

So, does an evolutionist also have the belief that certain kinds will never be violated by evolveing into unlike kinds?

Before Ambulocetus, a biologist at the time might have laughed at mammals becoming legless ocean organisms. But it happened.

So maybe there is agreement between creationism and evolution there? I know there is still lots of other disagreements, I'm wondering just how far is the gap.

Most scientists who are creationists allow a certain amount of evolution. They seem to think that the limit is new families of organisms.

I know evolution without God still goes wrong in most places , but it like maybe a robbery from creationism to say its evolution happening.

It's like saying plumbing without God is wrong. Even if plumbers know God, they don't use him to solve plumbing problems.

So how much "wiggle room" does evolution have for "kinds" to change?

 

[Barbarian]

Right. We know birds evolved from reptiles for a number of reasons. Would you like to talk about them?

 

[Featherbop]

We know birds evolved from reptiles for a number of reasons. Would you like to talk about them.

You mean you believe that. But I'm sure you're going to tell me how you "know" anyway.

"Believing in" evolution is not a good idea.

I agree.

You should accept it based on the evidence alone.

Ok, sounds good. I see no evidence of evolution, I reject it based on the evidence. Simple enough.

_____

Ok, the message I'm getting is that noone knows anything.

 

[Barbarian]

Invincible ignorance.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

To quote Shakespeare:
"I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee."

 

[Featherbop]

Invincible ignorance

Evolutionist motto.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Featherbop, it seems to me you are being arrogantly short-stated. If you would like to debate the issue, then that is fine, but it is not productive to make one sentence answers to very complicated issues.

You've got plenty of time to learn though. (Just for clarification, yes, I am a creationist, and yes, the discovery of dinosaur bones in Antarctica does have me puzzled).

BL

 

[Barbarian]

BL, you might do a search on "Hydroplate theory", Walt Brown's explanation for how we could have tropical plants and dinosaurs in Anarctica.

I think it's obviously hooey, but it's an attempt by a (IMO) sincere creationist to solve the problem.

Check it out. I think talk.origins has a discussion from the con side.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Nah... I'm aware of tectonic shifts and continental drift. But that doesn't seem to fit into a 10,000-6,000 year range no matter how you scramble it. And I'm willing to bet that said Dino didn't dawn fur and hop on down to the land of Penguins for a good snack either.

I've thought about the pre-flood atmosphere... but it's all guesswork. ;)

BL

 

[Barbarian]

That's the point. Brown thinks he has a way to explain rapid continental drift. Some creationists look on this as supporting scripture:

Genesis 10:25 "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."

 

[Gary]

A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus)

... seems like many are fooled by the "tale"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp?vPrint=1

.
.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, maybe a photograph would be better...

Which one of your diagrams do you think is the most accurate representation?

It's hard to accept that people who profess Christianity will try to mislead you, but some of them will.

BTW, the non-speckled sections of the diagram are used to show parts not actually found, but inferred from the evidence. This is how people honestly represent such information.