Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[johnhanks]

I don't know enough about beetles to say, but I have no problem with new species of beetles arising from pre-existing ones.

I'm sure you know enough to realise that I chose beetles for a reason: they represent about a quarter of all known animal species. (You will probably also know JBS Haldane's reply when some clergymen patronisingly asked him what his study of creation told him about the creator: "An inordinate fondness for beetles.")

In this context, though, they sum up beautifully the creationist's dilemma over 'kinds'. If beetles are a 'kind', the creationist must straight-facedly propose that in almost no time at all one pair saved on the ark gave rise to 350 000 (+) different descendant species, ranging in form from stag beetles to weevils and beyond; if not, he must arbitrarily decide where among the intricate hierarchy of sub-orders, super-families, families, sub-families etc the 'kind' level is to be found. (He must also credit Noah with considerable entomological expertise in recognising it.)

I have known some creationists duck this issue by declaring that insects were not present on the ark, but survived the flood in some other way; if you are of this persuasion, perhaps you could explain how these exquisitely terrestrial animals - water-beetles excepted - did in fact survive such prolonged inundation.

When creationists talk about 'kinds' they invariably invoke vertebrate examples: dog-kind, cat-kind, etc; and the further these examples are from humans, the wider they get - lizard-kind, bird-kind - in direct proportion to creationists' ignorance of their diversity. I've not yet met a creationist willing to talk about invertebrate origins: most know little about them, to be sure, and I suspect prefer to nurture that ignorance and thus pretend the questions don't exist.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree that this poses problems for creationists, it is not a perfect model of the universe, and I doubt it ever will be. But just because we cannot answer ever question, or point made, doesn't negate its validity. If such were the case evolution would have been discarded a long time ago, along with a myriad of other theories in science. Something doesn't have to be perfect for it to be true, or as true as you can get in this world.

It doesn’t have to be perfect but you should have at least a coherent idea.

Let me ask you this. Do you really believe that this “model” is better than the “model” of the theory of evolution? It doesn’t have to be perfect, but if you expect any reasonable person to choose creationism over evolution you have to at least put forth an argument that your model is better. You have not done that. I have to say that so far your arguments have been disappointingly weak.

I won’t even argue that the theory of evolution is a perfect model. But it is the best model we have. It is the only scientific theory we have that explains the diversity of life on this planet. Your model on the other hand relies on concepts that you cannot define or explain. You have no explanation for how new species or new “kinds” emerge. I am sure you would tell me that “God” did it, but you have no answer to the question of how it happened, not even a suggestion much less a competing scientific theory. This is why I can’t take creationism seriously as an alternative to evolution. This idea is logically incoherent and in direct conflict with observable evidence. We may never know for sure what is “true” but we can certainly know what if false, and your idea is clearly false.



You agreed with auto’s suggestion that 41 new species of mice have evolved in the last 6000 years. Now I know someone in one of these threads has already asked you about beetles, and you may have wondered why. This is why they asked you about beetles.

There are currently around 350,000 different species of beetle known. British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane is well known for his quip that “The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Do the math. If these 350,000 species evolved from a single kind of beetle living 6000 years ago then that you mean there had to be an average of 58.3 new species evolving ever year. And that is an average meaning that some years the number would be much higher. It is ironic that those who set out to argue against evolution end up arguing that there must be a kind of hyper evolution. But there is no evidence of this kind of super fast evolution; speciation is a rare event (at least in terms of a human time frame).

And this is just known beetles. Some estimate that there may actually be around 8 million different species of beetle. And there are similar numbers for other kinds of insects (although beetles are in the lead).


(p.s. sorry, I posted this reply before reading johnhanks reply above. Forgive me for being redundant.:sorry1

 

[johnhanks]

(p.s. sorry, I posted this reply before reading johnhanks reply above. Forgive me for being redundant.:sorry1

No problem - happy to see the message reinforced.

 

[RedOne77]

I'm sure you know enough to realise that I chose beetles for a reason: they represent about a quarter of all known animal species. (You will probably also know JBS Haldane's reply when some clergymen patronisingly asked him what his study of creation told him about the creator: "An inordinate fondness for beetles.")

I knew that beetles have been prolific in creating new species and higher taxonomic levels, but I didn't know they were 1/4 of all animal species.

In this context, though, they sum up beautifully the creationist's dilemma over 'kinds'. If beetles are a 'kind', the creationist must straight-facedly propose that in almost no time at all one pair saved on the ark gave rise to 350 000 (+) different descendant species, ranging in form from stag beetles to weevils and beyond; if not, he must arbitrarily decide where among the intricate hierarchy of sub-orders, super-families, families, sub-families etc the 'kind' level is to be found. (He must also credit Noah with considerable entomological expertise in recognising it.)

I have no problem saying that beetles represent multiple kinds, but since I really don't know much about them I'm hesitant to say how many kinds and where the line is drawn.

I have known some creationists duck this issue by declaring that insects were not present on the ark, but survived the flood in some other way; if you are of this persuasion, perhaps you could explain how these exquisitely terrestrial animals - water-beetles excepted - did in fact survive such prolonged inundation.

I do believe that Noah took a selection of kinds (and possibly more than one pair per kind) on the ark, but I also think that many kinds survived via other means. The main way, I believe, is through something called floating islands. These things can be miles long and support vegetation, including tall trees, and with it, animals. Many of them are known to break away from the main land during storms such as hurricanes.

When creationists talk about 'kinds' they invariably invoke vertebrate examples: dog-kind, cat-kind, etc; and the further these examples are from humans, the wider they get - lizard-kind, bird-kind - in direct proportion to creationists' ignorance of their diversity. I've not yet met a creationist willing to talk about invertebrate origins: most know little about them, to be sure, and I suspect prefer to nurture that ignorance and thus pretend the questions don't exist.

Well, Noah did supposedly take seven pairs of birds on the Ark with him, not two . I agree that most people don't know squat about invertebrates, that's me included, and I don't think a lot of people know about vertebrates either, again I'm part of that category. While ignorance is quite bliss, I'll indulge my sinful nature and prepare to talk about invertebrate origins.

 

[johnhanks]

I do believe that Noah took a selection of kinds (and possibly more than one pair per kind) on the ark, but I also think that many kinds survived via other means. The main way, I believe, is through something called floating islands. These things can be miles long and support vegetation, including tall trees, and with it, animals. Many of them are known to break away from the main land during storms such as hurricanes.

Does that not directly contradict god's word?

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

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.

No mention of any floating island refuges here.

Seriously, it seems odd to me that people who are motivated by their belief in the literal truth of the bible to accept the literal truth of the flood myth are then prepared to subvert what the bible tells them in order to keep their flood belief, as it were, afloat.

 

[Smoke]

I do believe that Noah took a selection of kinds (and possibly more than one pair per kind) on the ark, but I also think that many kinds survived via other means. The main way, I believe, is through something called floating islands.

That theory flatly contradicts the biblical account:

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.​

 

[RedOne77]

It doesn’t have to be perfect but you should have at least a coherent idea.

Let me ask you this. Do you really believe that this “model” is better than the “model” of the theory of evolution? It doesn’t have to be perfect, but if you expect any reasonable person to choose creationism over evolution you have to at least put forth an argument that your model is better. You have not done that. I have to say that so far your arguments have been disappointingly weak.

I haven't looked at all the data, but it may very well be that "evolution" fits better with the data right now, but God doesn't leave His children completely helpless to the onslaught of His word. Do I think that everything will, or even should, support creationism? No! I have several religious reasons why, and if you want I'll go through them with you or anyone else.

You have no explanation for how new species or new “kinds” emerge. I am sure you would tell me that “God” did it, but you have no answer to the question of how it happened, not even a suggestion much less a competing scientific theory. This is why I can’t take creationism seriously as an alternative to evolution. This idea is logically incoherent and in direct conflict with observable evidence. We may never know for sure what is “true” but we can certainly know what if false, and your idea is clearly false.

You are looking for something completely different from evolution, but the fact is creationism is almost a sub-set of evolutionism! How new species emerge is the exact same as what the ToE proposes. And when it comes to kinds, we believe that each kind was created during the 6 day creation, and new ones can't emerge naturally.

I think this is a tragic part of the debate; Many evolutionists look to creationists to find something completely different than evolution, and many creationists believe in the basic principles of evolution but through conditioning refuse to admit that it is evolution. The animosity between the two camps creates a rift where true dialog can't be seen and in most cases will never occur. This is further augmented by such a difference in world views and cultural/political/religious/anti-religious propaganda for both sides which turns that rift into an unimaginably large chasm where understanding between the two is seldom.

You agreed with auto’s suggestion that 41 new species of mice have evolved in the last 6000 years. Now I know someone in one of these threads has already asked you about beetles, and you may have wondered why. This is why they asked you about beetles.

There are currently around 350,000 different species of beetle known. British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane is well known for his quip that “The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Do the math. If these 350,000 species evolved from a single kind of beetle living 6000 years ago then that you mean there had to be an average of 58.3 new species evolving ever year. And that is an average meaning that some years the number would be much higher. It is ironic that those who set out to argue against evolution end up arguing that there must be a kind of hyper evolution. But there is no evidence of this kind of super fast evolution; speciation is a rare event (at least in terms of a human time frame).

I do think, for whatever reason, speciation was more common in the past than the present. But the question still remains at how exactly did this all happen. While I don't know everything, I do have a few ideas. Firstly, it has been shown that speciation can occur (not just the beginning of incipient speciation) with as little as 10 mutations! While I highly doubt this is a standard number, it does lend credence to the idea that populations can rapidly speciate. And with beetles having a life span of a few weeks to a few months, if living in several populations world wide via floating islands (see my previous post if you haven't already) than I would think it is conceivable that beetles and other kinds could diversify somewhat sharply if aided by God. Another thing I would like to point out is gene expression. As we all know we have DNA and that DNA has segments on it called genes that relate specific functions regarding the organisms biochemistry and phenotype. But there has been studies that show envirnment can regulate these gene expressions through DNA methylation and modifying the histone proteins surrounding genes, and these new traits can be passed on to the next generation. So you don't even need mutations to drive "evolution". We creationists like to call it built-in adaptation, although I've only heard that phrase used on forums like these. An interesting twist to Darwinian evolution to say the least. Perhaps Lamarck wasn't completely wrong after all.

(p.s. sorry, I posted this reply before reading johnhanks reply above. Forgive me for being redundant.:sorry1

No problem, I tried to talk about different things in each; I didn't see this post until I responded to Johnhanks.

 

[RedOne77]

That theory flatly contradicts the biblical account:

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.​

In this case you have to look back at the Hebrew. In the Hebrew the word "earth" better translates into "land", suggesting that in Noah's vicinity everything died except him and the Ark. But it says nothing of the life outside of Noah's horizon. If you recall Noah returned to land once a dove brought back a fresh olive branch/leaf, this further suggests that life outside the Ark is not only compatible, but necessary.

 

[Smoke]

In this case you have to look back at the Hebrew. In the Hebrew the word "earth" better translates into "land", suggesting that in Noah's vicinity everything died except him and the Ark. But it says nothing of the life outside of Noah's horizon. If you recall Noah returned to land once a dove brought back a fresh olive branch/leaf, this further suggests that life outside the Ark is not only compatible, but necessary.

Translating it "land" doesn't overcome the difficulty. But if you're suggesting a local flood that doesn't kill anything outside of Noah's horizon, then why was it necessary to take any animals at all into the ark?

As for the olive tree, that's a pretty strong clue that the biblical account isn't factual.

 

[gnostic]

Translating it "land" doesn't overcome the difficulty. But if you're suggesting a local flood that doesn't kill anything outside of Noah's horizon, then why was it necessary to take any animals at all into the ark?

Which make the story irrational.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I don't know enough about beetles to say, but I have no problem with new species of beetles arising from pre-existing ones.

But you consider yourself to have enough information about Evolution to deny Evolutionary Facts, things that the Scientific community in their respected fields have studied and worked hard to get it recognized? You do see the contradiction in this, do you not?

"Kind" is a little more tricky. And there is no good definition of kind that I'm aware of. This is an the end of my explanation of kind in another thread, in case someone hasn't come across it yet:

This is amazing, you claim that it is impossible that one "kind" becomes another "kind", and yet you do not know what "kind" is, this is just ridiculous. Exactly why do you use a word that you have no knowledge of what it means? Why not say "wfdssd" or "btygf" or perhaps "bbdf", why do you spell the word "kind" as kind and claim its properties to be impossible without knowing what it is? Do you even realize how strange this is, do you see the words I am typing, I am using them because I want you to know what I want to say, why do You use words that mean nothing and you cannot yourself define?

 

[Gabethewiking]

I haven't looked at all the data,

But you deny it. That is amazing stuff... You know, I wonder if even simile examples if useful here.
Say that I claim there is no way that X could happen, then fantome or monkey or whoever tells me there is a Theory that recently got confirmed by scientific evidence, my answer to this would be "I never heard of it", and therefore X could never have happened, When monkey or fantome tells me to read about the study and theory, give me direct links to it, I tell them I do not have time and it doesn't matter, at it were, X can not happen because I never seen anything that could prove it to happen ad infinitum..

Do you see the... oh never mind. Creationist never care about facts anyway why should I take my time to help you out you will never listen anyway.

 

[Gunfingers]

So from what i'm reading, RedOne's issue isn't so much with genetic drift, but with common ancestry. He follows a somewhat Lamarckian view of common ancestry, where every horse originated from one horse, every worm from one worm, and so on.
[youtube]5MXTBGcyNuc[/youtube]
this video makes a good explanation of nested hierarchies, and how they demonstrate that all life as we know it (with the possible exception of at the domain level)

Here is a transcript of the video. The guy talks kinda fast. Basically, this is the data that you said you hadn't looked at yet.

 

[Autodidact]

So your hypothesis is that there are kinds, and evolution only takes place within, or is limited to, kinds. You can't say what a kind is, how to identify one, or how many there are. You have no evidence that there is such a thing. It fails to explain the current data.

Would you agree with that summary?

Do you see why scientists don't accept that hypothesis?

Now let's examine the hypothesis scientifically, and put it against the competing hypothesis, which is the classical ToE, or as I call it the Grand ToE (GToE), which is the hypothesis that every living thing on earth descends from a single common ancestor. Can you think of any predictions you can make to test your hypothesis? If the Hypothesis of Kinds (HoK) is correct, and ToE incorrect, what should we expect to observe in living creatures and fossil remnants of extinct creatures? Can you make any predictions at all?

 

[McBell]

Now let's examine the hypothesis scientifically, and put it against the competing hypothesis, which is the classical ToE, or as I call it the Grand ToE (GToE), which is the hypothesis that every living thing on earth descends from a single common ancestor. Can you think of any predictions you can make to test your hypothesis? If the Hypothesis of Kinds (HoK) is correct, and ToE incorrect, what should we expect to observe in living creatures and fossil remnants of extinct creatures? Can you make any predictions at all?

um...
would you not at the very least have a definition of "kind" first?

 

[Autodidact]

That is a rather cynical way to look at it.

It's accurate, is it not? You say that you accept ToE, except that it is limited to kinds. You can't define a kind, tell us how to recognize one, or say how many they are. The only definition you offer has something vague to do with common ancestry, which is to say: Evolution is limited to species with common ancestry. That doesn't do anything to tell us how you disagree with ToE, does it, since ToE asserts that all creatures have common ancestry.

I never said that it wasn't. I repeatedly said I accept speciation, doesn't that imply that I also accept that part of evolution too?

But the fact that you cannot define "kind" is fatal to your hypothesis, which is premised on the assertion that there is a bright line dividing the "kinds."

An enigma for the ages.

And there you see what YEC does. Instead of adding to our knowledge, it subtracts from it. Puzzles that evolution has solved become puzzles again under your hypothesis. It explains less rather than more.

I'm not a professional so of course I can't defend it from every angle. But I haven't seen a shred of evidence on this forum that shows the validity of evolution the way evolutionists would have everyone believe.

I haven't begun to present any yet. I would be happy to present the evidence that supports GToE. It will take many pages and many posts and a big time commitment. I will make that commitment, if you will. (It takes so long because there is so much of it.)

Edit:


Yes.[/quote] A few minutes on Google found me another 21 known extinct species of mouse, so let's say that there have been at least 60 different species of the mouse "kind." If you are saying they have all arisen in the last 6000 years (are you?), that would mean a new species of mouse every century. Is that what we've observed? Have we seen new species of mice coming into existence in the last few centuries? Isn't that what your hypothesis predicts?

 

[Dware]

So where's all these intermediate fossils at, should be billions around.

 

[johnhanks]

So where's all these intermediate fossils at, should be billions around.

Fossilisation being a rare event, fossils don't tend to come in billions; but as a proportion of the fossils that exist, intermediate forms are well represented.

 

[Dware]

Fossilisation being a rare event, fossils don't tend to come in billions; but as a proportion of the fossils that exist, intermediate forms are well represented.

Ya well they are NOT, sorry bud.

There has never been a "single" intermediate fossil found. Ever.

 

[Gunfingers]

Ya well they are NOT, sorry bud.

There has never been a "single" intermediate fossil found. Ever.

Jose Fly should use this post as an example in his primer. It's perfect. He plays the "No transitional fossils card" while quoting a post that shows examples of transitional fossils! Classic!