Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-20-2002, 08:52 PM

Notto, are you now admitting that Gould is indeed stating species appear fully formed in the fossil record without showing who their ancestors were?
Please answer.
By the way, noone said anything about all the different "kinds" being created on the same day.
As far as the fossil record, I am not sure if it shows any examples of what I would call microevolution, evolution within a kind, or not. I am sure it does not show macro-evolution occuring.
As far as what I adhere to, I am fairly new to different ID and creationist models and am unsure what is right. I am though convinced evolution is a lie, and am not new to evolutionary theories.
My basis for rejecting evolution is that what I and everyone else at the time was taught as evidence for evolution was either a lie, or inconclusive. An example of inconclusive evidence is claiming limited speciation, which is speciation that fits into the concept of speciation within a kind is somehow the same as everything evolving from a single-cell type of original organism that spontaneously formed from non-living matter.

RufusAtticus · 03-20-2002, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I also see a double-standard by evolutionists. They will throw out a vague term much less defiend than "kind" such as transitional, and yet offer not real definition. Heck, everything is transitional for the evolutionist.

The problem is that creationist, despite having only a vague notion of what in biology constutes a kind, claim that it is an absolute and obvious grouping of organisms. Kinds do not have fuzzy barriers, since things like macroevolution don't happen with kinds. On the other hand, species and other taxa do experience macroevolution, and thus their barriers should not be abrupt and absolute. In other words, species et al. should be a fuzzy concept. Now which one of these concepts, species et al. or kinds, is more supported by the actual evidence of living organisms and the record of past organisms?

Take for example these questions:

Is Archaeopteryx a bird or dinosaur?
Are dogs and wolves one species or two?
What about cauliflower and broccoli?
Are chimps and bonobos two species or one?
What about MrDarwin�s Hawaiian plants?

They are only the tip of the biological iceberg that demonstrates the reality of species et al. and the falsity of immutable kinds.

BTW: Transitional is well defined, but that's not what this thread is about.

-RvFvS

notto · 03-20-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Heck, everything is transitional for the evolutionist.

Now you're getting it randman. Transitional is a relative term. Every fossil is transitional relative to organisms it is related to that come before it in the fossil record and after it in the fossil record.

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 08:57 PM

Yeah, this is rich...

Quote:

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind.

Uh, ok Batten..i'm with you so far...

then he says...
[from the thumper Batten...
"On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species![/quote]

Ok..let's have our cake and eat it, too. Isn't this suppossed to be a process that leads to the development of all new species within a kind?

Why the F*** does it stop working?

Can you say "godidit"? LMAO

More BS...

Quote:

If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind.

What a frigging stretch. Evidence for? None. Evidence against. One would expect to see the rapid development of new species all of the time--we don't unless it is forced by man through breeding through isoltaion of species.

Yeah, I know your answer randman--"godidit". HE told all of the animals to quit humping other different members of the same "kind" at precisely the right moment to stop variation of within "kinds".

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:01 PM

Since kind refers to a prior original species that may not be here in it's original form, it is true that anytime you theorize about the past, you are indeed probably entering a realm that is fuzzy as far as hard science. This is true for evolution, and I admit true for any other theories about what happened when noone was around to see it happen.
If you want to agree that evolutionary theory and creationist models are thus perhaps not hard science, fine, but be honest and admit the same problems with the theories and difficulties of kind as a grouping are prevalent in evolution as a whole.
Of course, the wholphin is an example of a species that appeared to be 2, even 2 genera, and thus illustrates the difficulties of even classifying species and genus, and this also indicates that a prior form of this same species that appeared different from both modern forms is likely, and thus is evidence for a "kind" parent species there.
If you want me to say the fossil record does not prove kinds, I can agree since it doesn't prove common descent either.

notto · 03-20-2002, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Notto, are you now admitting that Gould is indeed stating species appear fully formed in the fossil record without showing who their ancestors were?
Please answer.
By the way, noone said anything about all the different "kinds" being created on the same day.
.

No, you made the assertation of what Gould said (and what you believe to be true about the fossil record).

Also, from the site you posted (indicating that the model put forth by your source requires all created kinds to be created in six literal days):

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Viti · 03-20-2002, 09:10 PM

I know shit about all of this....but even I know orcas and pseudorca are types of dolphins. They're in the same family, why is it surprising they can reproduce?

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:13 PM

LOL. You guys crack me up. Creationists theorize about a form of limited common descent, that all creatures decended from a set of created kinds. Ya'll lambast the lack of evidence for this idea yet you advocate an even grnader scheme with less evidence, namely common descent from one tiny organism.
LOL.
Lemme see. The creationist find groups of creatures that can interbreed, some fertile, and some infertile, and also considers that some perhaps could interbreed in the past, and theorizes these similarities indicate each grouping has a common ancestor, and you guys have the gall to ask where's the evidence this happened.
Yet, on far less evidence, you claim not only did these groups share common ancestors, but everything has a common ancestor, a tiny microbe or something.
Puulleeeeazzzeeee, gimme a break.
I guess it's Ok for evolutionists to theorize but not creationists, eh?

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 09:14 PM

More garbage inn randman's article..
[quote]Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates �evolution happening�, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.[/b]

(bolding above is my addition)

Well, it's obvious that Batten understands zilch.

"get's rid of information"? Ever hear of gene/chromosome duplication, Mr Batten? Adaptation of genes or domains within genes to gain new functions?

I could go on and on about the above, but I won't as you aren't worth the effort, randman.

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:19 PM

"They're in the same family, why is it surprising they can reproduce?"

Uh, Lady Shea, the ability to reproduce fertile offspring means they are in the same species.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 08:52 PM	#21
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Notto, are you now admitting that Gould is indeed stating species appear fully formed in the fossil record without showing who their ancestors were? Please answer. By the way, noone said anything about all the different "kinds" being created on the same day. As far as the fossil record, I am not sure if it shows any examples of what I would call microevolution, evolution within a kind, or not. I am sure it does not show macro-evolution occuring. As far as what I adhere to, I am fairly new to different ID and creationist models and am unsure what is right. I am though convinced evolution is a lie, and am not new to evolutionary theories. My basis for rejecting evolution is that what I and everyone else at the time was taught as evidence for evolution was either a lie, or inconclusive. An example of inconclusive evidence is claiming limited speciation, which is speciation that fits into the concept of speciation within a kind is somehow the same as everything evolving from a single-cell type of original organism that spontaneously formed from non-living matter.

03-20-2002, 09:01 PM	#25
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Since kind refers to a prior original species that may not be here in it's original form, it is true that anytime you theorize about the past, you are indeed probably entering a realm that is fuzzy as far as hard science. This is true for evolution, and I admit true for any other theories about what happened when noone was around to see it happen. If you want to agree that evolutionary theory and creationist models are thus perhaps not hard science, fine, but be honest and admit the same problems with the theories and difficulties of kind as a grouping are prevalent in evolution as a whole. Of course, the wholphin is an example of a species that appeared to be 2, even 2 genera, and thus illustrates the difficulties of even classifying species and genus, and this also indicates that a prior form of this same species that appeared different from both modern forms is likely, and thus is evidence for a "kind" parent species there. If you want me to say the fossil record does not prove kinds, I can agree since it doesn't prove common descent either.

03-20-2002, 09:10 PM	#27
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I know shit about all of this....but even I know orcas and pseudorca are types of dolphins. They're in the same family, why is it surprising they can reproduce?

03-20-2002, 09:13 PM	#28
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	LOL. You guys crack me up. Creationists theorize about a form of limited common descent, that all creatures decended from a set of created kinds. Ya'll lambast the lack of evidence for this idea yet you advocate an even grnader scheme with less evidence, namely common descent from one tiny organism. LOL. Lemme see. The creationist find groups of creatures that can interbreed, some fertile, and some infertile, and also considers that some perhaps could interbreed in the past, and theorizes these similarities indicate each grouping has a common ancestor, and you guys have the gall to ask where's the evidence this happened. Yet, on far less evidence, you claim not only did these groups share common ancestors, but everything has a common ancestor, a tiny microbe or something. Puulleeeeazzzeeee, gimme a break. I guess it's Ok for evolutionists to theorize but not creationists, eh?

03-20-2002, 09:14 PM	#29
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	More garbage inn randman's article.. [quote]Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates �evolution happening�, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.[/b] (bolding above is my addition) Well, it's obvious that Batten understands zilch. "get's rid of information"? Ever hear of gene/chromosome duplication, Mr Batten? Adaptation of genes or domains within genes to gain new functions? I could go on and on about the above, but I won't as you aren't worth the effort, randman.

03-20-2002, 09:19 PM	#30
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"They're in the same family, why is it surprising they can reproduce?" Uh, Lady Shea, the ability to reproduce fertile offspring means they are in the same species.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.