Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arikay · 03-19-2003, 01:24 AM

I Posted this on the Christian Forums, and thought it was funny so I figured I would post it here too.
Yeah, I know even AIG doesnt take Dr. Dino seriously, but then again, why should they? He is an evolution supporter.

For your amusement.

While looking through Dr Dino,s FAQ section, I came across this:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=29

Its about how fresh water animals survived the flood (lets ignore the part where the flood should have killed all salt water animals

)

In it he says:

"Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor."

(please ignore the bad science)

So not only does Dr. Dino say that the crocodile became two species (Macro Evolution). But that it took less than 4400 years to happen.

keyser_soze · 03-19-2003, 01:52 AM

Ouch. Has anyone told him that he is a supporter?

Oolon Colluphid · 03-19-2003, 01:59 AM

It's only micro-evolution (

at DD

). It's not macro, because that'd be evolution from one 'kind' to another, which is of course impossible...

Dr Dino is only catching up with the 'baraminologists' such as Wise, who by allowing a 'baramin' to roughly equate to the Linnaean grouping of Family (

) are allowing for some pretty radical evolution from a common ancestor. Never mind the other illogicalities of this; I wonder how many of the 'grass roots' believers consider yaks and dik-diks, goats and antelope to be the same kind?

Cheers, DT

Quetzal · 03-19-2003, 02:20 AM

Nope DT. You misunderstand our good "doctor". He can still claim evolution is false. After all, they're still crocodiles. After all, you never see crocodiles turning into chickens...

Doubting Didymus · 03-19-2003, 04:08 AM

Quote:

It's only micro-evolution ( at DD ). It's not macro, because that'd be evolution from one 'kind' to another, which is of course impossible...

wait... speciation is microevolution now?

Spaz · 03-19-2003, 04:57 AM

yeah, that guy is grade a stupid, I don't see how he dresses himself in the morning, I guess god helps him.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-19-2003, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
wait... speciation is microevolution now?

Yup. Morpho, try reading this (but put your drink down first

):

Baraminology by Dr Kurt P Wise

Here we at last have a clear(-ish) definition of kind. State-of-the-art (as opposed to state-of-the-science

) creationism. And what does it reveal?

Quote:

Baraminology is a new field of science. It is the science of baramins�the study of created kinds.
[�]
The baramin is a set of organisms containing fewer than all organisms and almost if not always more than just a single species.
[�]
Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. [�] Separate listings of organismal groups �after their kind� in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups
[�]
Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development.
[�]
Since the time of Linnaeus, creationists have been inclined to believe that when two species produce offspring which can survive, that those two species must be considered part of the same baramin. This oldest of criteria for identifying baramins has resulted in suggestions that each of the following groups might well comprise a baramin: the canid family (dogs, coyotes, foxes, and wolves); the bovid family (cows, antelope, sheep, and goats); the anatid family (ducks, swans, geese); and the equid family (horses and zebras). Other methods for uniting species into single baramins might include extreme similarity in adult form, chromosome structure, and molecular makeup.
[�]
it seems at this early stage that on the average the baramin might turn out to correspond rather closely to the biological �family�

Now, if that isn�t admitting evolution while trying to deny it, I don�t know what is.

Take the Odontoceti (toothed whales), for instance. Anyone want to point out to him that there are four separate families of river dolphins listed in my Encyclopedia of Mammals?

Anyone want to ask him if sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), family Physeteridae, are a different baramin from Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm whales (K simus), family Kogiidae? I certainly do!

Are beaked whales, family Zipihiidae, a separate baramin from those?

And what of family Delphinidae? That�s 30-odd species in quite a few (can�t be bothered to count �em

) genera of �dolphins�, and includes killer whales. Are they so very different from the four river dolphin families mentioned above? And are those groups so very different from porpoises, family Phocoenidae? They are placed in separate failies, remember, not because they can�t interbreed -- that�s mere species -- but because they are pretty significantly different from each other. But that different?! If a killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin are the same kind, why not a river dolphin?

Wise says:

Quote:

At the same time, major groups of organisms (e.g. kingdoms and phyla) differ so substantially that there doesn�t seem to be any way for one of those groups to be transformed into another. Breeding seems to produce change up to definable limits which fall far short of reaching to another major group. The fossil record lacks the intermediates which would suggest that transformations actually occurred between any of these groups. Even human imagination has been unsuccessful at envisioning a way to transform most of the major groups from any other.

So specifically, are these cetacean families really so different that �there doesn�t seem to be any way for one of those groups to be transformed into another�? What of their �chromosome structure, and molecular makeup�? Clearly no similarities there that might link them of course�

In sum: Wise accepts the common ancestor idea within �baramins�, yet his argument against going further is that there�s no way to transform one modern family into another! It is simply the �no dog ever gave birth to a cat� reasoning clothed in less blatant words. In other words, stupidity.

Cheers, DT

WinAce · 03-19-2003, 06:06 AM

How complex are the adaptations from salt water to freshwater whale? The reason I ask is because I once converted a creationist when I pointed out he didn't mind flying squirrels 'microevolving' in all their half-winged glory from regular squirrels.

MrDarwin · 03-19-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
wait... speciation is microevolution now?

Yes, at least according to creationists, who regularly define biological terms differently than evolutionary biologists define them (but just try to get them to define "kind"!). This is one of the reasons why conversations between creationists and supporters of evolution are so difficult.

Creationists generally accept what they call "microevolution", which they consider evolution within a "kind", including speciation (like the evolution of two crocodile species from a single ancestral species). They consider "macroevolution" to be the evolution of one "kind" into another (like a fish into an amphibian), and deny that it has ever happened, or ever could. This is a rather outdated definition of "macroevolution" among evolutionary biologists, who now generally consider macroevolution to be the origin of species as well as higher groupings, and microevolution to be evolution within a species.

tgamble · 03-19-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
wait... speciation is microevolution now?

Of course. ALL evolution observed is microevolution because macroevolution is a lie of the devil. It's never been observed because it's impossible and it's impossible because it's never been observed.

03-19-2003, 01:24 AM	#1
Arikay Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ca, Usa Posts: 262	Dr. dino Admits evolution. I Posted this on the Christian Forums, and thought it was funny so I figured I would post it here too. Yeah, I know even AIG doesnt take Dr. Dino seriously, but then again, why should they? He is an evolution supporter. For your amusement. While looking through Dr Dino,s FAQ section, I came across this: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=29 Its about how fresh water animals survived the flood (lets ignore the part where the flood should have killed all salt water animals ) In it he says: "Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor." (please ignore the bad science) So not only does Dr. Dino say that the crocodile became two species (Macro Evolution). But that it took less than 4400 years to happen.

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

03-19-2003, 01:52 AM	#2
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	Ouch. Has anyone told him that he is a supporter?

03-19-2003, 01:59 AM	#3
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	It's only micro-evolution ( at DD ). It's not macro, because that'd be evolution from one 'kind' to another, which is of course impossible... Dr Dino is only catching up with the 'baraminologists' such as Wise, who by allowing a 'baramin' to roughly equate to the Linnaean grouping of Family ( ) are allowing for some pretty radical evolution from a common ancestor. Never mind the other illogicalities of this; I wonder how many of the 'grass roots' believers consider yaks and dik-diks, goats and antelope to be the same kind? Cheers, DT

03-19-2003, 02:20 AM	#4
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Nope DT. You misunderstand our good "doctor". He can still claim evolution is false. After all, they're still crocodiles. After all, you never see crocodiles turning into chickens...

03-19-2003, 04:57 AM	#6
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	yeah, that guy is grade a stupid, I don't see how he dresses himself in the morning, I guess god helps him.

03-19-2003, 06:06 AM	#8
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	How complex are the adaptations from salt water to freshwater whale? The reason I ask is because I once converted a creationist when I pointed out he didn't mind flying squirrels 'microevolving' in all their half-winged glory from regular squirrels.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.