"'I have read most of Ray’s books, seen most of his videos and heard hundreds of his witness encounters, and as of yet have never caught him in a lie.' Then you are willfully ignoring data. Mr. Comfort engages in demonstrable dishonesty when he makes mention of transitional fossil forms, as he misrepresents the meaning of transitional in the context of fossils." Dimensio
I am often accused of lying, especially when it comes to saying that there are no "species-to-species" transitional forms. Before I explain what I mean, it’s important to know that there is some confusion as to the meaning of the word "species." This is what the dictionary says of the word: "Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
As the Bible so rightly says, every animal brings forth "after its own kind." Both in the creation we see around us (and in creation we see in locked into the historical fossil record) is evidence against, not for, the theory of Darwinian evolution. All of nature screams of intelligent design. All of it. None even hints of Darwinian evolution. If you think that’s a lie, then so be it. God is my judge.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Species to Species Definition
115 comments:
Dude:
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
How many times have you been told that evolution doesn't work like this? Yet you keep claiming it does. You don't understand evolution. This is why you wouldn't recognize a transitional fossil if one smacked you in the face.
Ray, I can't believe after all this time you are still spouting this nonsense. Are you really that deluded ? I oscillate between thinking that, and being sure you're "lying for Jesus".
For the last time, yes, you are right that we don't see cats evolving into dogs, chickens into fish, horses into cows. We don't expect to, and the theory of evolution would be majorly rocked if such a thing were observed !!!
Why do you go on and on and on about things like that. You must have been told at least a thousand times by now that your caricature of evolution is nothing to do with the real thing. I honestly can't fathom how you can continue on like this.
Ray, answer me this. Why do you think evolution suggests the cat->dog type transitions which you claim it does ? Why do you keep on claiming this, even after you've been corrected hundreds/thousands of times ? Is it dishonesty or complete, amazing, unbounded ability to wilfully forget every time you've been corrected on the issue ?
I think your answer would be invaluable to phsychologists who deal with major brain injuries.
Don't talk any more about Darwinian evolution. You are offending everyone who has an intelligence greater than an ant.
Ray wrote:
"When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history."
Nothing about evolution would predict any such thing.
All the changes occur gradually between generations. Offspring are slightly different from their parents. And indeed we see changes from one generation to the next in the fossil record.
Your strawman is that one particular creature would, during its lifetime, change into another creature ("a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog").
This post proves that you misunderstand the simplest concepts about evolution. Why are you incapable of learning this, Ray? Fear? Ignorance? The need to please your fans?
//Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"),//
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You are so funny. You're joking, right?
Yes, because evolution is a slow and incremental process of the agglomeration of randomly occurring chances which are selected according to their usefulness of their effect of the creature to procreate.
Incremental means in small little steps. I guess everyone can imagine going to the mall to go shopping. Even thou we might not be able to imagine the distance of such a walk, we could very well walk from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. (OK, you would have to take a boat at least once)
Ray Comforts demand for transitional fossils would be like demanding to see a person standing with one leg in Honduras and with the other in Colombia in order to believe that it is possible to take the priorly mentioned walk.
Ray Comfort said: "Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind"). "
Ray, listen closely. This is why people are continually telling you over and over again that you do not understand evolution. You just displayed for everyone that you do not even grasp a basic understanding of the taxonomical classification of the animal kingdom. You whimsically intermingle, family, kind and species.
Wand coyotes are NOT the same species. Wolves are the species C. lupus, Coyotes are the species C. latrans. They are part of the same family, which is Canidae.
"When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history. "
You are right Ray, because finding ANY of those "examples" would FALSIFY evolution. Provide me an example of one single credible biologist who claims that any of the examples above should be found in the fossil record.
Seriously, do everyone a favor, either stop posting non-sense like this or actually do some HONEST study and learn about common descent, phylogeny of organisms, comparative anatomy. Heck just take a primer on the scientific method for Pete's sake.
//I am often accused of lying, especially when it comes to saying that there are no "species-to-species" transitional forms.//
You are willfully ignorant. Do you consider that lying?
//Before I explain what I mean, it’s important to know that there is some confusion as to the meaning of the word "species."//
There is a scientific discussion on what a species is. That's true.
//This is what the dictionary says of the word: "Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."//
Since "species" is a complex category, I would recommend that you read one of the many books or reviews about the concept of Species and Speciation. A dictionary is not a good source in this case.
//Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"),//
Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are three different species, al belonging to the same family: Canidae.
//but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").//
You are right. Cats are one species and tigers are another another. And they belong to the Felidae family. By the way, you have to capitalize the family category> Canidae, Felida, Hominidae, etc.
//When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.//
Of course you won't. Evolutionary theory makes none of those predictions.
//As the Bible so rightly says, every animal brings forth "after its own kind." Both in the creation we see around us (and in creation we see in locked into the historical fossil record) is evidence against, not for, the theory of Darwinian evolution. All of nature screams of intelligent design. All of it. None even hints of Darwinian evolution. If you think that’s a lie, then so be it. God is my judge.//
This is why you are willfully ignorant. Let me ask you again, isn't that sort of lying?
And Ray... You are so lucky that your God doesn't exist, because you wouldn't be able to get away with so much out right deceit. You are a huckster of the highest order. You play the same broken record over and over and over and over, joyfully ignoring the facts that have been presented to you again and again and again.
I understand that you've found quite a meal ticket. You don't mind looking foolish to most people. You've got your clientele to please and you please them something fierce.
I first heard about you when I viewed the Nightline debate where you were supposed to prove God's existence without using the Bible. You never even came close to doing that and you couldn't even hold your own against those crazy kids from Rational Response Squad.
But you will do anything to get your name out there so you can sell more DVDs and stuff. And of course Kirk, dear Kirk can't bear to be out of the lime light for a moment so yours is a marriage made in "Heaven."
That's nice Ray but that still does not explain why Tiktaalik is not a transitional form fossil.
If you would crack open a book on evolution that would explain why you will not find a dog changing into a cat or a horse into a cow.
Ray also said :
"Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").
endquote
Chihuahuas and Great Danes are canines and cannot successfully interbreed. Horses and donkeys can create offspring called mules or hinnies but those are infertile and cannot pass along their genetic information. Horses and zebras can but the offspring often do not live to maturity.
There is a lot more going on with defining species than what you laid out Ray. And alot of the times the species lines are just not that clear cut.
And no I am not suggsting that modern humans can interbreed with trees or dogs.
"If you think that’s a lie, then so be it. God is my judge."
And if he exists, God's gonna be angry at you.
I'm no biologist, or geologist, or embryologist, or chemist, or paleontologist or any of the other scientists who understand this better than you or me, so I'll let the others explain it to you. Again. I'm breaking the strike this once and tell you that if you're going to quote an unnamed dictionary about "species," let's use Princeton's sole definition of "kind" as a noun:
S: (n) kind, sort, form, variety (a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality) "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?"
Obviously, not a scientific term.
Besides, the definition you quote, that one species will not breed into another species, has been shown to develop in a wide variey of insects. I suggest you Google, or go to TalkOrigins for examples of speciation. You can say "but they're still insects," but THEY DON'T BREED. That makes them different species. "Insect" is the Class, higher on the classification (of which "Kind" does not appear). Cats and dogs aren't even the same order, let alone the same species, so the chance of one breeding or evolving into another is ridiculous.
Also: What exactly would a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog look like? Evolution has no predictions about it, because evolution doesn't expect it. You claim that it should after repeated corrections. That makes you a liar.
Back to striking.
I am often accused of lying, especially when it comes to saying that there are no "species-to-species" transitional forms.
This is because you make demonstrably false claims even after they have been exposed and explained as false. For example, you have been repeatedly informed that it is impossible to demonstrate that any given fossil -- even if clearly showing transition of physical characteristics indicative of taxonomic shift -- cannot be positively identified as being of a species that was an actual link between two other species; this is because a given fossil may have been a dead-end branch from the actual transitional lineage. As such, your use of the term "species to species" transitional refers to a concept that has no reality in biology, nor has it ever had any biological significance. Your continued usage of the term in spite of this correct demonstrates that you are dishonest.
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog,
This is because dogs are not descendants of felines.
or a chicken evolving into a fish,
This is because avians are not descendants of fish.
or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
This is because equines are not descendants of bovines.
Additionally, your statements above demonstrate further ignorance of biology in general. You have suggested that you have not observed "species to species" transitions, yet none of the hypothetical scenarios that you have referenced indicate specific species, with the possible exception of "dog" (which is Canis lupes. Cats, chickens, fish, horses and cows are not identifiers of "species". That you use such terms when attempting to speak of individual species again demonstrates that you have not researched the subject that you are addressing.
Your statement also begs the question of what, exactly, you believe should be observed. For example, how can a skeleton demonstrate a "cat evolving into a dog"? How would a skeleton demonstrating such an event -- which no biologist has ever suggested has occurred -- appear? Be specific; describe the hypothetical physical appearance of a hypothetical skeleton that would demonstrate such an event.
You have only demonstrated only that you are either willfully dishonest or willfully ignorant regarding the theory of evolution. You have been given examples of transitional forms, such as Tiktaalik, yet you dismissed them without addressing the explanation provided for their classification as transitional. Had you addressed the explanation of its transitional nature, in an attempt to show that the explanation is incorrect, you may have merely been mistaken or you may even have falsified an existing argument, however you did not do this; instead, you willfully ignored the information provided in the article, and instead cited the classification of Tiktaalik as a fish as evidence that it is not a transitional fossil, even though its classification as a fish does not disqualify it from being a transitional fossil. Because you demonstrably and willfully ignored information that contradicted your claim, and then you claimed to have debunked the information, it is clear that you have engaged in deliberate dishonesty.
Both in the creation we see around us (and in creation we see in locked into the historical fossil record) is evidence against, not for, the theory of Darwinian evolution.
Repeating this assertion does not demonstrate its factual validity. That you assert that observations in reality constitute evidence against the theory of evolution is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that such observations actually are evidence against the theory.
Ray wrote:
Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").
In a post trying to miseducate people about what a species is, you confuse "family" and "species," which are not the same. This was the best you could do, and you failed miserably to grasp even basic concepts and definitions.
Ray, wolves are Canis lupus, while coyotes are Canis latrans. Those are two different species, as biologists use the term. Likewise, in your example in the WDAY radio interview, you said that woolly mammoths and elephants were the same "species," but according to biological taxonomy, they are three different species in three different genera (Mammuthus, Loxodonta, and Elephas.) Note that the ability to interbreed does not establish that two populations are the same species, if they do not normally interbreed in the wild (i.e. if they maintain separate gene pools). Families are not species; families are groups of one or more genera, which are groups of one or more species (families in turn are grouped into orders, which are grouped into classes, which are grouped into phyla, which are grouped into kingdoms, which are grouped into domains).
Granted, all taxonomic ranks above "species" are somewhat subjective, but even living elephants fall into two or three species, and putting Indian and African elephants in different genera indicates a professional judgment that they differ more, anatomically, than, say, horses and zebras, or lions and tigers do from each other.
So you yourself exhibit some confusion about how the term is used, and engender still more.
A "species-to-species transition" would be something like a series of fossils spanning the morphological distance between, say, the snail species Cerion excelsior and the snail species C. rubicundum, which was discovered and described by the late Stephen Gould. That's about the same amount of difference as exists between, say, a brown bear and a polar bear (the latter is known from genetic evidence to be evolved from the former, although I think no transitional fossils have been found).
Cats are not ancestral to dogs; they are alike descendants of small, weasel-like carnivores such as Miacis. There would be no reason to suspect that a fossil intermediate between felines and canines would even exist. A similar point applies to horses and cows. Chickens evolved from fish, not into them, and you've already been pointed to some of the relevant transitional fossils, such as Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega, Euparkeria, and Archaeopteryx. Note that those are a few points along the line, and not the entire list of transitionals.
I'm not sure what you'd expect "a skeleton" of "a fish" evolving into "a chicken" to look like; you certainly wouldn't find a "crocoduck" sort of chimera with pieces of widely separated classes stuck together. You're not going to find a fish with a fully-developed reptilian leg in place of one fin, or something with a wing on one side of its body and a featherless arm on the other. Populations, not individuals, evolve, and a single fossil individual by itself isn't going to be obviously changing into anything. Only by comparing multiple species can one detect that some are intermediate between others.
So it's not clear how much of your refusal to acknowledge intermediate fossils stems from a misunderstanding of what they ought to be, and how much from an unreasonable unwillingness to examine the evidence. The shoddy and dishonest way you discussed, e.g. Tiktaalik (noting that it had internal gills, but refusing to note the importance of the shoulder girdle or other tetrapod-like features) suggests that not knowing what a "species to species transitional fossil" should be expected to look like is only part of your problem.
Note that it does you little good to say that the Bible teaches us that living things bring forth "after their kind," when you cannot even define what a "kind" is: aside from your desire that it be so, what qualifies humans and chimpanzees as separate "kinds," if African elephants and mammoths are placed in the same "kind?"
Quite a few aspects of nature implies Darwinian evolution: faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of life, the biogeographical distribution of species, and, yes, those transitional fossils you claim do not exist.
Ray sez:
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
And once again, Ray, you display your abject failure to grasp even the most basic tenets of the theory of evolution.
It's truly amusing that you hold up the lack of such ridiculous specimens as evidence against evolution, since the existence of any of them would completely demolish the theory.
A SKEPTIC'S QUESTION
All of nature screams of intelligent design. All of it.
Hey Ray,
What part of mental retardation is intelligently designed?
TEMPLE
Ray, I have 3 quick points:
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
Point 1:
A species-to-species transitional form, at least by that definition, would disprove evolutionary theory if it were found. In no way should any transitional form make such a substantial jump. Evolutionary theory states that every organism should have a common ancestor. So a cat and a dog should have a common ancestor in which you can trace two separate lineages. So you would expect to find something which is neither a cat nor a dog. In no way should evolutionary theory predict that a cat should turn into a dog or any such genus-jump transformation.
Cats and dogs are both in the order "Carnivora," which also includes bears skunks, and sea lions among other species. Evolutionary theory predicts we should find a common ancestor to all these creatures, not just between cats and dogs. And indeed, that's what paleontologists claim to see in miacid and viverravid fossils.
Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").
Point 2:
House cats and tigers can't breed together either despite being of the felidae "kind."
Point 3:
Since you seem to like biological classifications a lot, I thought you would like to know that biologists have long classified humans under the genus "homo" in the family "Hominidae" within the "Primate" order long before the theory of evolution was even established because if you apply the standards of classification of animals to humans, that's where we fall.
Just something to keep in mind when trying to argue humans aren't animals or didn't evolve. :)
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
No credible evolutionary scientist would claim any of the transitions you list above.
Yet again you demonstrate your complete and utter lack of comprehension of the science.
failure again ray
Ray wrote: "This is what the dictionary says of the word: 'Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.'"
There are lots of instances where organisms of what some people consider different species breed with each other. For instance, the lonicera fly is a hybrid that most likely resulted from a cross between a blueberry maggot and a snowberry maggot. Grizzly and polar bear hybrids have been confirmed.
In addition, I don't know if you consider lions and tigers members of different species or different generera, but some lions are able to breed with some tigers. We call their offspring ligers. Some dolphins breed with some whales. We call them wolphins.
Members of what some people consider different genera also sometimes breed. For example, different cyprinid fishes (the family of fish that consists of carps) sometimes breed. And the hyacinth macaw sometimes breeds with the blue-and-yellow macaw.
Finally, sometimes members of what some people consider different families even breed. Some people call this interfamilial hybridization. Domestic fowl have been crossed with guinea fowl. Some people consider these interfamilial hybrids.
Given what you said you meant by "species," some lions are members of the same species as some tigers; since they can interbreed. However, I think you would want to same that lions and tigers are members of different species. So, there is a problem here.
Look, all organisms descended from self-replicating molecules that lived on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Here is a paragraph from the great biologist Enrst Mayr:
"Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living" (What Evolution Is, p. 40).
Ray,
I'm not even going to bother adressing the points you make in this giant, straw, monument to stupidity you have just posted as they have been made many many times every week.
You are either monumentally stupid or monumentally dishonest!
You must know by now that what you state is not what evolution is or what evolution predicts - we've told you often enough but you still keep spouting the same old straw man arguments to your brainless toadying followers.
I've always given you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were stupid but I'm struggling to believe that you can be that stupid!
Why do you keep barking on and on about evolution for godness sake?
Even if (and its as big as IFs get) you could prove evolution wrong it doesn't mean for a second that God, therefore, exists.
Why do you cretinists have such a hangup about it? Is it because, secretly, youy find it so convincing that it makes you question your own belief?
Stop trying to pontificate on a subject of which you obviously have no understanding whatsoever and answer some of the questions relating directly to God that we want answering.
e.g. I have asked you several times this week to confirm whether my understanding of the following is correct:
Is it true that a convicted murderer who accepted Christ would enter heaven whilst an otherwise good man who once lusted would not?
If this is true thaen how can you justify this as perfect justice and how is it a model for moral behaviour as we could all behave exactly as we like and then repent at the last minute.
You lack of ability to respond to this is starting to make me think you don't know, or don't like, the answer.
If you care about my salvation you'd better pull your finger out and get giving me some answers!!
Phil
And how exactly would you classify archeopteryx? Unless birds and reptiles are the same species now.
Ray Comfort said:
//God is my judge.//
Which to us atheists, is akin to saying ... "I will not be judged on this." Not TOO arrogant, eh?
You WILL be judged on it, Ray. By those who KNOW BETTER.
Ray Comfort said:
//All of nature screams of intelligent design. All of it. None even hints of Darwinian evolution. If you think that’s a lie, then so be it.//
Nature neither screams, nor hints. Nature provides evidence. It is up to *US* to interpret that evidence, in ways that can be FALSIFIED by contrary evidence, AND by using tests that are REPEATABLE by others.
Evolution provides all of that. Creationism provides none.
You've been shown evidence, that enough migration of DNA can make divergent species unable to reproduce with each other. Do you deny it?
It's quite easy to see that Horses and Burros at one time shared a common ancestor, due to the fact that they can interbreed, yet are left with infertile progeny. This is contradictory to being "designed" to breed "kind after kind". Do you deny it?
-ACE
"When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history."
And that's the best part of evolution: it never says that things happened like that. If it did, it would be a long disowned theory.
To portray evolution like you just did is dishonest--or perhaps ignorant. If you make such a strawman of evolution, you should expect to be called on it by someone, who either thinks that you are someone who knows what evolution predicts but knowingly misrepresents it (a liar) or someone who doesn't know what evolution predicts and unknowingly misrepresents it (an ignoramus).
Evolution (read: real evolution, not the strawman you use, intentionally or otherwise), as a theory, has the kind of predicting power that science requires, which is why it is accepted by people who fully understand it. By your post, it seems like you expect to find a fossil of CatDog or ManBearPig, when that isn't how evolution works or what evolution predicts.
Let's go over the "intelligent design" of foods. Let's assume, arguendo, that the banana was designed, even by God. Let's look at some other foods. Why, here's the potato, a food that contains poison in the skin and flesh when not cooked. Yum! Then the onion, an awful food when bitten like an apple: God must have intended us to cut it, then! Oh, wait, it causes sulfuric acid to be produced in your eyes! Benevolent!
I believe what you do when you consider the banana is called--pun intended--"cherry picking". Many people do this when arguing against scientific theories. Only science doesn't cherry pick, looking at all the evidence, creating theories, and putting them into practice by predicting things and having them validated.
And I love the untouchable/unequivocation clause at the end. It makes you seem so unbiased.
@atheists:
Doesn't evolution say that all things have one singular ancestor? So if mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, plants, bugs, etc. had one singular ancestor, wouldn't we find one of these transforming into the other at some point (even gradual changes can bear some striking resemblances to both kinds if they "stack" over time)? And if the one that came after was stronger or weaker, then why do we have such diversity among creatures if evolution is true - you'd think according to the theory that the strongest creature would have made the weakers extinct - and why isn't there just one kind? That's the questions I have, and I'm not thoroughly studied on evolution, but I think at some point evolution violates simple laws of logic and common sense.
To believers who find Ray's writings to be intelligent:
Many of you must have learned about the heirarchy used to classify living things and thus know that thinking a family and a species are the same thing is a gross error. Haven't you heard terms like kingdom, phylum, genus, etc? If so, how do you look up to Ray as a source of information about evolution when he can't even grasp these concepts?
"When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history."
This is because you have an enormous misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution, as is demonstrated over and over with your arguments.
No biologist, archaeologist, or paleontologist has ever suggested that a population of cats will evolve into populations of dogs. Just like all descendants of the first vertebrate are still vertebrates, all the descendants of the first tetrapod are still tetrapods, all the descendants of the first mammal are still mammals, birds are still dinosaurs, and we are STILL hominids (great apes), hominoids (apes), primates, mammals, chordates, vertebrates, animals, eukaryotes, et-cetera ad nauseum.
You are a member of a group which is a eukaryotic animal with a spinal cord and backbone, that has sweat glands modified for milk production, hair, three middle ear bones used in hearing, a neocortex region in the brain, who give birth do live young wihout using a shelled egg, with the fetus instead being nourished during gestation by a placenta, two forward-facing eyes on the front of the skull, a bony ridge above the eye sockets, five-digits on each limb with keratin nails on the end of the finger, with the bottom sides of the hands and feet having sensitive pads on the fingertips, opposable thumbs, tricolor vision, a dry nose, flat fingernails, a nose with narrow, downoward pointing nostrils, that lives in social groups, that is omnivorous, with an 8-9 month gestation period with the birth of a single offspring (usually), a long adolescence and weaning compared to other animals of similar morphology.
If you agree, then you admit you are a great ape by definition, if you disagree then please show me where we and the rest of the great apes differ, since this is the basic taxonomic definition of an ape.
Ray,
What could possibly be the motivation for all but a handful of highly trained scientists to accept the theory of evolution if as you say, it's a lie.
Either they aren't as smart as you or it's a massive conspiracy. A conspiracy so unlikely it would take someone completely divorced from reality to believe. Or you're
lying, again.
Ray, Very interesting that so far the comment string does not have any of your supporters quoting scripture at us. It appears that there is no way to support the ridiculous statements you continue to make. I read your blog from time to time. Not sure if it is for a laugh or just to confirm how you demean the meaning of religion.
I have noticed that the illustration that accompanies Mr. Comfort's posting on this topic refers to trees, fish, bacteria and moss as "families". This is factually incorrect. Trees are represented across various divisions within kingdom Plantae, jawed fish fish are represented by an entire class, Chondrichthyes, which is then broken down into a number of orders before being further subdivided into categories of families. Mosses are any number of members of the division Bryophyta and bacteria represent an entire domain, which is a level of classification above kingdom. Note that I cannot comment on the accuracy of any of the other representations, as I ceased my investigation upon discovering those four grevious errors.
I am unaware of the extent of communication that exists between Mr. Comfort and the creator of the illustrations that accompany his postings, but the illustration itself demonstrates ignorance of biological classification so extensive that the person should not be considered a reliable source of information regarding any biology-related subject.
Hey Ray, have you noticed that none of your fans are posting in this thread? As of when I posted this, anyway.
Not even the compulsary "Great post, Ray". I wonder why?
@atheists:
It may be more prudent to address inquiries regarding the theory of evolution to those who accept the validity of the theory in general, as atheists are a minority amongst the percentage of the populace who accept the validity of the theory.
Doesn't evolution say that all things have one singular ancestor?
Not necessarily. There is some research that the three domains, Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota, are not directly related through common ancestry, but rather emerged as separate and distinct prior to the occurrence of evolution but after a number of transcription events. See the Youtube video "10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" for a very brief overview of this concept.
So if mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, plants, bugs, etc. had one singular ancestor, wouldn't we find one of these transforming into the other at some point (even gradual changes can bear some striking resemblances to both kinds if they "stack" over time)?
This is not accurate. The lay classifications of "mammals", "reptiles", "birds", "plants", and "bugs" are very broad descriptors, and while all of the aforementioned terms ultimately refer to classifications of organisms that are related through common descent, it is not accurate to say that any one "turned into" another. Avians emerged from dinosaur species, which themselves were a member of the class Sauropsida, which did not transition to mammal species, thus there is no rational expectation that a transition between avians and mammals or avians and "bugs" should ever be observed. Similarly, as fish are vertebrates and "bugs" are not, it is not expected that any transition from one to the other should be observed, as insects emerged from a distinctly different lineage than did fish; while the two classes do share common ancestry, that common ancestry would resemble neither fish nor arthropods. For species that are known to be related there do in fact exist transitional forms; for example, the specimen Archaeopteryx is classified as an avian, however it possesses physiological characteristics not found in any extant bird and that are definitive of sauropods, and Tiktaalik is a fish that possesses physical characteristics definitive of tetrapods, which were the precursors to all land-based vertebrates.
And if the one that came after was stronger or weaker, then why do we have such diversity among creatures if evolution is true - you'd think according to the theory that the strongest creature would have made the weakers extinct - and why isn't there just one kind?
Your inquiry is based upon a misunderstanding of the means by which evolution occurs, and the meaning of "strong" and "weak" as they relate to biology. The theory of evolution does not state that only the "strongest" of any given collection of diverse organisms will ultimately survive. The theory of evolution states that subpopulations of organisms whose heritable physical characteristics enable them to reproduce in quantities sufficient to sustain or grow their population will have their heritable physical characteristics represented with greater proportion with respect to the population at large in future generations, and that the heritable characteristics of subgroups of organisms whose heritable physical characteristics prevent them from reproducing adequately to sustain or grow their populations will ultimately cease to be represented in future populations. More simply, this means that organisms who reproduce more successfully because of the physical makeup of their bodies will outbreed organisms whose physical makeup causes them to reproduce less successfully, until only the former organism exists. However, it is possible for multiple subgroups of organisms to exist within a population in such a fashion that they are able to sustain or grow their numbers. The existence of biodiversity in any environment is sufficient evidence of this. Moreover, "strong" and "weak" are poor descriptors; evolution results in selection of genetic traits that confer reproductive advantage and while this may benefit individuals with greater physical strength it may also benefit individuals with superior eyesight (which itself is relative to environmental conditions; eyesight attuned for brightly lit environments is not adapted for dark environments and vice-versa), better reflexes or greater intellect.
That's the questions I have, and I'm not thoroughly studied on evolution, but I think at some point evolution violates simple laws of logic and common sense.
Then I would encourage you to more closely study the theory; many objections such as yours are based upon a lack of understanding of the theory, not upon a failing of the theory itself.
This is one topic where Ray is outright dishonest and not just ignorant in a more forgivable way.
There are transitional forms out the wazoo, it's easy to see that. However, creationists get particularly high mileage out of demanding "species to species transitional forms", and why those in particular? Because they're an oxymoron: species to species transitions take place over the course of multiple generations. There's no one fossil that just flicks, like a lightswitch, from one species to another. If there was, there would be no need for natural selection or descent with modification (the very component parts of the evolutionary process).
Direct species to species transitions in an individual are not now, nor have ever been, a part of the scientific theory of evolution. For Ray to ask for them continually is just another intellectually bankrupt creationist talking point.
Ray, I don't often comment on your illustrations, and dimensio has already raised this point, but your little chart speaks of a "bird family," a "reptile family," even a "fish family," even a "bacteria family," on a par with the "cat" and "dog" families. Of course, "birds" are traditionally an entire class, with as much diversity among themselves as exists among cats, dogs, horses, and cows together. "Fish" comprises several different classes; hagfish, sharks, and goldfish are less like one another genetically and anatomically than you're like a chicken. "Bacteria" are even more diverse at the genetic and metabolic level.
This is the point: the Bible is right that living things bring forth "after their own kind." But that does not mean that the offspring of any particular individual or breeding pair are identical; there is considerable variation even within individual species (as biologists define "species"). And you allow that species (as biologists define the term) can give rise to new species within a "kind." So how much change is possible within a "kind?"
You yourself will allow considerable diversity of form and behavior within a single kind (extraordinary diversity, if you consider the several kingdoms of bacteria to be a single "kind"). You can't speak of bacteria, or even birds, as a single "prison" around possible evolution, and then casually assume that humans cannot share ancestry with monkeys, or even with dogs and horses. The argument implied by your illustration is too confused and contradictory to support your point.
Whoops: my apologies. When I posted my last, Webster Hunt's post hadn't appeared.
To Webster:
First, no: we wouldn't find a modern creature "evolving" into another modern creature.
However, we would (and do) find ancestor creatures evolving into decendant creatures.
Examples are everywhere: Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega are all good transitionals, but are but three: do a search on TalkOrigins, they have a goodly sized list.
And "fitness" is entirely determined by environment, and environment is partly determined by other creatures. Usually, creatures don't evolve in competition: they co-evolve, filling in niches other creatures have no interest in, or making use of another creature as a food source rather than competing with said creature. Geography also increases diversity: there's plenty of room on earth for creatures.
[QUOTE]
{{{Only by comparing multiple species can one detect that some are intermediate between others.}}}
[REPLY]
Yes, and that is the problem - you are assuming that one "descended with modification" (that is the terminology, correct?) into the other - but you can only show similarities in design - not an actual change. That shows a single Creator, not descent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{Quite a few aspects of nature implies Darwinian evolution: faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of life, the biogeographical distribution of species, and, yes, those transitional fossils you claim do not exist.}}}
[REPLY]
This sounds exactly like chapter 2 in a book by Ken Miller that I am currently reading.
I am still seeing a lot of conjecture, assumption and human reasoning of a materialistic nature. By that I mean attempts to explain an unkown occurence by our limited site. The Bible gives God's view - I will trust Him before I would men's finite and grossly imperfect observations.
Blessings,
Patti
fourkid replied to me:
Only by comparing multiple species can one detect that some are intermediate between others.
Yes, and that is the problem - you are assuming that one "descended with modification" (that is the terminology, correct?) into the other - but you can only show similarities in design - not an actual change. That shows a single Creator, not descent.
There's more to the case for evolution than "similarities in design." There's the pattern into which the similarities fall. For example, all animals which are "similar" in that they have three bones in the middle ear are also "similar" in that they have mammary glands, a left but not a right aortic arch, at least some hair, and various other anatomical and genetic similarities. Bats, for example, don't have feathers, nor do birds have mammary glands; birds are united by a number of anatomical and biochemical peculiarities that they don't share with other groups.
This is known as the "nested hierarchy" of life, a "groups within groups" pattern that doesn't follow from a principle of "common design." It involves "common design" for structures that don't serve a common function (e.g. the similarities among the bones of bat wings, whale flippers, and human arms and hands, or between the functional plantaris tendon in nonhuman apes and the nonfunctional version in humans), while often different designs are used for quite similar functions (e.g. the different ways forelimbs are modified to make wings in pterosaurs, birds, and bats). All this suggests a process of opportunistic modification of inherited features rather than special creation with shared designs for shared needs.
Note that in many cases, there's more than just similarities and intermediate states. The fossils of Tiktaalik are found in sediments laid down after the time of less "amphibian-like" tetrapods like Panderichthys,, but before the time of more amphibian-like tetrapods like Acanthostega. Very primitive whales like Ambulocetus, which still had recognizable ankles like those of even-toed hoofed mammals, lived after terrestrial hoofed animals with a few whalelike features like Pakicetus, and before more advanced legged whales like Dorudon. The sequence looks just as we'd expect an evolutionary sequence to look, and not like a sequence of species created independently and drawing from a pool of design features shared by all mammals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quite a few aspects of nature implies Darwinian evolution: faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of life, the biogeographical distribution of species, and, yes, those transitional fossils you claim do not exist.
This sounds exactly like chapter 2 in a book by Ken Miller that I am currently reading.
These are the typical arguments that have been put forth for common descent since the time of Darwin. A great deal of additional data in each category has been discovered since then, but the same sort of evidence that supported common descent in 1858 supports it a century and a half later.
I am still seeing a lot of conjecture, assumption and human reasoning of a materialistic nature. By that I mean attempts to explain an unkown occurence by our limited site. The Bible gives God's view - I will trust Him before I would men's finite and grossly imperfect observations.
The oldest (and presumably the lost original) manuscripts of the Bible do not include a table of contents; the very decision about what books to put in the Bible is a decision of men's finite and grossly imperfect grasp observations and reasoning power. You are trusting the conjecture and reasoning of human beings to suppose that the Bible is a coherent whole, that it is inerrant when properly interpreted, and, for that matter, that you are properly interpreting it (e.g. that the references to "windows of heaven" don't refer to literal openings in the solid dome of the sky, but that references to making man out of dirt refer to the literal origin of the biological species Homo sapiens).
Blessings,
Patti
Please consider my comments.
Shame on you all for not realizing the reality of the situation.
Facts? Reason? Honest research? Logic?
These things do not concern Ray.
What concerns Ray are the voices in his head that tell him that the nature - that most silent and coy and lovely of mistresses - 'screams' intelligent design.
What nonsense. Nature not so undignified as to scream. Hers is the coy smile, quiet and knowing and infuriating with its loveliness. Yet we are fortunate that nature is kind - for if we court her well, she may deign to indulge us with her favors: argiculture, healthcare, sanitation, computing, automated transport, refrigeration, entertainment, the printing press, astronomy, mathematics, physics, biology, literature... Her charms are as numerous as the stars, and ever more lovely still.
Ray knows her favors well - indeed, I am sure he could not live without them. This blog itself is proof of such a thing - see how Ray turns to the internet, that most reason of coy nature's boons to the courtship of man.
Yet she burns him. She frightens him. To court nature is to show due respect to our own ignorance. We must embrace and admit our ignorance before we can truly learn something new, for what is learning if not the means by which ingnorance is replaced with knowing? And the first step in this endeavour is to know our own ignorance - and this, the proud Ray cannot permit himself to do.
To look to the dark places and fear what lies beyond - this requires a courage and commitment to the rewards of coy nature to which Ray and his ilk are not equal. Their fear leads them to madness - to imaginary friends that they can place between themselves and the dark spaces, to sheild themselves from the unknown and convince themselves that so doing is the hight of wisdom.
What tradgedy.
Show Ray not your anger. Pity him for the madness that keeps him from nature's good graces.
@Steven J.
I just want to you let you know that I admire much of what you write. In this comment section in particular, you have so elegantly expressed your thoughts and understanding of not only biological theory but also human nature.
Thank you so much.
- Kaitlyn
Heh, this is exactly why I come here.
1 - To learn a little on evolution. Not from Ray, but from the far more intelligent commenters.
2 - To laugh at Ray's horrible fumbling around in terms and theory or evolution.
3 - To see such remarkable human resilience. Really Ray, if nothing else, you must be the most "determined" person alive.
4 - The hunt for quotes for FSTDT (no link, google it)
All that's lacking is one of Ray's faithfull followers to repeat 75% of his post and pretend it's now magically better and suddenly adresses the issues.
-------------
Also, so far 22 posts this month where ray alludes to, or mentions evidence for creation or against evolution.
And 22 posts this month where no such evidence is provided.
Sounds like nature is your god, che.
Ray:
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
Evolutionists do not claim this either. That you could comment on evolution and be so ignorant of basic evolutionary theory, makes me wonder if this is a satire site.
Ray,
This is beyond ridiculous. But, since you want to do this, since you want to advance a definition of "its own kind" so wide. Have you noticed that you just made us humans, chimpanzees and bonobos to belong to the same "species"? Scientists have already advanced that we should be into the same genera, but you went too far. I would just say: "then you have no problem with us being descendants of the same organisms as chimps." But you are in such poor shape, I can't. You are so lost I cannot imagine how can you say that you have been studying evolution for 30 years, and yet know so little about biology. Oh well, of course, willful liar, that is how you can say you have studied evolution for such a long time.
G.E.
Ray,
Could it be that with this one you have finally demonstrated to your "admirers," "followers," or whetever they want to call themselves that you are worse than we have always said you are? Worse in ignorance? Worse as a liar? Worse as everything?
After all, not only is your definition of species multi-layeredly insane, you also repeat the very same fallacies (cat evolving into a dog ...), now clearly not as a joke.
So, willful liar: evident. Ignorant: evident.
Not even mister Terry AKA schizophrenic religious zealot said anything!
G.E.
A question for the crhistians:
Do you seriously think Ray can tell you anything about evolution after this display of supreme ignorance? Do you even notice the huge problem with his "definition" of species? Do you at all note that he puts humans, chimps, and bonobos into the same species? If I look at it again [at his multi-layered definition], he might even put gorillas and orangutans as the same species with humans, or even new world monkeys, depending on the line you read.
Do you see this or not?
Convinced about anything about this guy? I would ask for my money back. Specially of you bought "the special."
G.E.
erikloza:
Sounds like is exactly right. It comes down to what you mean by 'God'.
By my understanding of the term 'God', then no - my regard for nature is something similar to - yet distinct from - the kind of regard Christians have for God.
get_education said:
[QUOTE]
{{{A question for the crhistians:
Do you seriously think Ray can tell you anything about evolution after this display of supreme ignorance? Do you even notice the huge problem with his "definition" of species? Do you at all note that he puts humans, chimps, and bonobos into the same species? }}}
[REPLY]
What you don't seem to get is that "man" is not another animal in a biological chain of descending evolution. We are not in the same "species" as the apes - because we are human - not ape. We are made in the image of God and have eternity written in our hearts - not apes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{If I look at it again [at his multi-layered definition], he might even put gorillas and orangutans as the same species with humans, or even new world monkeys, depending on the line you read.
Do you see this or not?}}}
[REPLY]
No, see above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{Convinced about anything about this guy? I would ask for my money back. Specially of you bought "the special."
G.E. }}}
[REPLY]
Not only do we have a house full of Living Waters materials - but #2 son is with Ray right now in CA and studying with him to do the same street preaching! Nope, we don't want any refunds!
God has given Ray a ministry to reach the lost - and to train others do do the same. His character and life hold up under scrutiny. While I don't hold him in higher esteem than any other human - I do believe that God has fitted him to help other Christians to reach the lost, and warn false converts before it is too late and their eternal fate is decided.
Do not be so concerned for me and my money, GE, instead you need to repent and humble yourself before God and accept His sacrifice for your sin.
Blessings,
Patti
i'd like to jump in on this topic with y'all...okay, correct me if (i can here the tapping on all sides of me already)...anysways, you have this religion -- let's call it Evilution (as a gesture of good will i even capitalized it for you)...and it says that everything evolved from oooooooozzzze!!! (please come to unison on this topic before the wedontknowwhere replies start flowing foth because many of you do preach it)...now to the point, yes, i wish i had gotten here sooner too...if eVILUTION is a gradual process (like the way a rainbow changes colors from one side to another and not a set of stairs) then how many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fossils have we uncovered -- yet they are virtually a set of stairs as a whole -- wouldn't we expect at best a 50/50 chance that when a fossil is uncovered that we might not know where to put this particular specimen??? where are all the fuzzy colors of the rainbow that we say boy -- i am not sure if this is a green or a blue...
now, i am sure -- you guys are going to go off on the few that you think are shady colors of the rainbow and say "blankety blank blank" but my point is that if eVILUTION did happen, how could you not have atleast every, at a minimum, tenth or so fossil look like it doesn't belong anywhere???
Looks phishy to me...andrew w.
Patti,
I am so sorry for you and for your kid "studying" with Ray. I cannot believe it. Poor destroyed minds.
The anatomical and DNA differences between humans and chimps or humans and bonobos, or humans and gorillas, are lower than the differences between many of the "its own kind" described by Ray.
We are apes. If there is such thing as a God, and if such God made us to his image, well, he obviously made the other apes to his image too.
G.E.
What you don't seem to get is that "man" is not another animal in a biological chain of descending evolution.
Please identify the defining physical characteristics of members of kingdom Animalia that Homo sapiens sapiens does not possess.
We are not in the same "species" as the apes -
Your statement is nonsensical; "ape" is not a species; "apes" are any number of species within the superfamily Hominoidea, which is divided into the families Hylobatidae and Hominidae, both of which are a part of the order Primate. It is for this reason that no organism is in the same "species" as "the apes", as "the apes" is not a species.
because we are human - not ape.
You are incorrect; humans are apes.
We are made in the image of God and have eternity written in our hearts - not apes.
Please identify the defining physical characteristics of members of the taxonomic clade Hominidae that humans do not possess. Explain why being "made in the image of God" and having "eternity written in our hearts" -- even if true (though you have not substantiated this assertion -- is mutually exclusive with humans being hominids.
Ray said... Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind")
Thank you Ray, yet none of these athiest seem to get it, but that's because they have denied the Creator. and His Word. Genesis 1:23-25 clearly discribes this and it goes against the basis of evolution.
Ace said... You WILL be judged on it, Ray. By those who KNOW BETTER.
Well even those who claim to KNOW BETTER will get their time on judgement day.
"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. - Matthew 12:36
G.E. said... Do you at all note that he puts humans, chimps, and bonobos into the same species?
G.E. only you come up with that speculation, weak speculation at that. That is why evolution is a lie.
Dimensio said...
What you don't seem to get is that "man" is not another animal in a biological chain of descending evolution.
Please identify the defining physical characteristics of members of kingdom Animalia that Homo sapiens sapiens does not possess.
[REPLY]
A soul and spirit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are not in the same "species" as the apes -
Your statement is nonsensical; "ape" is not a species; "apes" are any number of species within the superfamily Hominoidea, which is divided into the families Hylobatidae and Hominidae, both of which are a part of the order Primate. It is for this reason that no organism is in the same "species" as "the apes", as "the apes" is not a species.
[REPLY]
Fine - you dispute my use of the term "species". All the terms are man-made anyway. All the classifications are man-made. Bottom line of my intent - apes are animals - humans are made in the image of God and are a higher status than an animal. We are made a littel lower than the angels - and have dominion over the animals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
because we are human - not ape.
You are incorrect; humans are apes.
[REPLY]
Only if you hold to the humanistic theory of evolution. I do not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are made in the image of God and have eternity written in our hearts - not apes.
Please identify the defining physical characteristics of members of the taxonomic clade Hominidae that humans do not possess. Explain why being "made in the image of God" and having "eternity written in our hearts" -- even if true (though you have not substantiated this assertion -- is mutually exclusive with humans being hominids.
[REPLY]
Because animals do not have the ability to share in communion with God. They have no spirit, no conscience, no soul.
Blessings,
Patti
Thank you Ray, yet none of these athiest seem to get it, but that's because they have denied the Creator. and His Word. Genesis 1:23-25 clearly discribes this and it goes against the basis of evolution.
As has already pointed out, Ray is factually incorrect; wolves and coyotes are different species. Your gratitude toward Mr. Comfort for his postings does not alter the fact that the information that he has presented is demonstrably false.
Please explain the relevance of atheism to the current discussion.
now, i am sure -- you guys are going to go off on the few that you think are shady colors of the rainbow and say "blankety blank blank" but my point is that if eVILUTION did happen, how could you not have atleast every, at a minimum, tenth or so fossil look like it doesn't belong anywhere???
Please explain the rational basis of your question by describing the extent of research that you have conducted in the field of biology and showing how your starting premises are rational and justified.
It would be great to see those of you with so much faith in evolution to devote the same scrutiny to the validity of the Bible. For instance, take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and understand what the Book of Isaiah predicts about the coming Messiah -- including where He was to be born and raised and the method of His execution. Then, research and discover that the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Or, here's an idea: start your own blog called "Willful Ignorance Central" and subject your own daily entries to the scrutiny of the Bible-believing Christians. Talk about being narrow-minded -- you haven't even looked at the evidence and realized that God was communicating to you the whole time through His written Word.
POST MY COMMENTS PLEASE ASSHAT
This is because avians are not descendants of fish.
sorry to correct you, dimensio, but avians are somehow descendants of fish. 'Fish' is a paraphyletic group, so every tetrapode is phylogenetically a bonefish. That means that even Ray is more related to a trout than a trout is to a shark. And if Ray doesn't believe in that I'd like to see his explanation why God made the trout DNA more similiar to human DNA than to that of the shark.
And just to make that very clear: EVOLUTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT RAY CAN TURN INTO A TROUT
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
I'm not a scientist of any kind but even I know that cat-to-dog is not species to species. Heck, it's not even genus to genus.
Why am I not surprised, though, that in order to find out what a species really is, you'd go to a dictionary rather than a biology textbook?
Anyone who's ever had the slightest interest in biology, even in plants, knows that you often can interbreed species. That's how we get Ligers, Mules and Zonkeys.
Indeed, we'd have no use for the word "hybrid" if species couldn't interbreed.
Hybrid (n) An offspring of parents from different species or sub-species.
If you go to dictionary.com and look for species you'll see that, of all the dictionaries referenced, only one includes the "can't interbreed" definition. Naturally Ray chose that one since the other definitions don't work to make his case.
Funny how the believers, and by that I mean Ray and Terry, can accept that one pair of dogs evolved into every separate canine species we see today and they do so without demanding to see a transitional form.
Has anyone ever seen a wolf give birth to a fox? No
Anyone watched as their favourite Labrador gave birth to a Jackal? No. (and aren't we thankful for that?!)
Can anyone show the transitional fossil between a Hyena and a Coyote? No.
Despite the overwhelming lack of evidence for these transitions (that occurred in around 4000 years, since Noah's flood), Ray and Terry find this version of evolution to be more than acceptable.
Hey, Ray, I've been waiting for that response for awhile now. I guess none of your supporters have been posting because you said it all, and all of the evolutionists' comments are the same thing over and over. I guess I could play along with them for a second - so, families don't change to other families. The only change that takes place is species to species? Alright, I can pretend that for a second. Now, where did the families come from if they didn't evolve? Science is so very different from speculation, isn't it?
What Ray has done here is not just attack evolution but the entirety of biology.
Ray, I know the site is intended only as parody of Creationism but the joke is over. Some people aren't getting it and it's becoming dangerous. You are now willfully spreading misinformation just for the sake of humouring yourself.
{{{Anyone who's ever had the slightest interest in biology, even in plants, knows that you often can interbreed species. That's how we get Ligers,}}}
[REPLY]
of the feline KIND
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Mules}}}
[REPLY]
of the HORSE kind
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{and Zonkeys.}}}
[REPLY]
of the HORSE kind
Blessings,
Patti
Chaps
As a Christian myself, it would be ridiculous for me to ignore scientific evidence on the basis that it conflicts my faith. The problem I have is how that evidence is interpreted.
A transitional form is, to my understanding, an organism that has some features common to its presumed ancestor and some features common to its presumed descendant... where those features (or a combination thereof) do not exist in both the ancestor and descendant.
Fossils of many species have been found and are classified as transitional forms, based on the definition above. Tiktaalik is one... talkorigins lists many others. Does this mean that they were really transitions? Not necessarily. They just fit our definition, that's all.
Evolution is a theory, yet it is spoken about in many circles and museums as fact. Natural selection is a fact. Mutations are a fact. It is true that through natural selection and mutations, some members of a species can exhibit changes that may make them more suited to their environments and better off than other members... and that the beneficial traits may eventually become the standard in that species, as the members of the species without the beneficial traits struggle to "compete" and die out. But does this prove evolution from species to species, or from ancestors? I do not see how. It seems to me that we have taken certain proven biological facts and applied them on a much grander scale, but without any certainty... but then branded them as factual.
Is it not also possible that every form of life that ever existed, whether currently existing or extinct, whether "transitional" or "immediate" according to our definition, was in fact created at the same time by God?
I can accept that some species "evolved" through mutations and natural selection since the creation. I cannot however look at the complete theory of evolution and regard it as anything other than theory.
Ray,
I don't understnad why you and Kirk continue to spout "missing data" that evolution neither posits, not predicts.
You come off as a dishonest broker, arguing with evolutionary strawmen, rather than than REAL evolutionary science. I'm left with the conclusion that you are either unable, or unwilling, to address evolutionbary science's actual arguments.
How do you explain issues like fused chromosome 2, or endogenous retroviruses? Those are STRONG evideces for common descent that ID and creationism must address.
Ray Comfort goes to buy a tree:
Ray: "I'd like to buy a tree"
Seller: "What kind of tree?"
Ray: "A tree"
Seller: "But what type? Conifer? Eucalypt? Maple...?
Ray: "A tree"
Seller: "What genus? Eucalyptus, Cupressus, Acer, Quercus...?
Ray: "A tree"
Seller: "What species?"
Ray: "What are you? Some sort of idiot?! I want a TREE! How much more specific could I be? I want a TREE - of the species 'TREE'! Oh forget it, I'm going somewhere where they know about these things."
fourkid said:
Yes, and that is the problem - you are assuming that one "descended with modification" (that is the terminology, correct?) into the other - but you can only show similarities in design - not an actual change. That shows a single Creator, not descent.
Actually, fourkid, if you argue that then you'll find yourself in opposition to Creationists because if you insist God created each type of cat, for example, then Creationist leaders disagree with you.
The reason is, as Kent Hovind points out, there is no reasonable way to assume Noah could possibly have fit two of every current species on the ark.
To solve this problem, Creationists have decided, as Ray has in his illustration, that there was only "Cat" - just one pair of one kind of cat. No lions, no tigers, no tabbies, no panthers, no cheetahs, no leopards, no ocelots, no siamese, no burmese, etc. Just "Cat".
So, when you say the subtle differences between today's cats only show design, no descent, you contradict Creationist teaching because even Creationists believe all today's cats descended from the two "cats" on the ark.
You can check out the Noah story at drdino.com to confirm the story.
But you're right, Creationists can provide no evidence of this transition and no one has ever witnessed a tabby cat giving birth to a lion. But it's the "truth", just the same because Ray says so.
One day, Ray Comfort goes fishing. He casts in his line and within minutes he gets a bite. Clearly the Good Lord is shining on him this day.
Quickly Ray reels in the tasty morsel that will serve as tonight's meal.
Ray cooks his catch and tucks in. Within minutes he starts to feel hazy. He begins shaking uncontrollably and then faints.
Later, he comes around in hospital. Doctors ask him what he ate.
"Fish" he replies.
"What kind of fish was it?" they ask.
He looks at them quizzically and says again, "fish".
"We think, from your reaction, that it might have been a blowfish, perhaps the species 'Arothron hispidus' which is common around here. You're lucky to be alive." say the doctors.
Ray thumps the bed "I want to see some real doctors. You guys are all crazy. I told you what species it was. IT WAS FISH!" I've eaten fish before and know they aren't poisonous. Even Jesus ate fish. Why would he eat fish and feed fish to the masses if Fish were poisonous? You guys are so stupid you must be Darwinists."
Kent Hovind says to Ray Comfort "Hey Ray, want to see my new pet?"
"Sure", says Ray, "what did you get?"
"A kitty cat", replies Kent, "He's in there, take a look."
Ray was devoured by a lion soon after and was never seen again.
The moral of the story is "cat's will eat anything that moves."
andrew w. said:
now to the point, yes, i wish i had gotten here sooner too...if eVILUTION is a gradual process (like the way a rainbow changes colors from one side to another and not a set of stairs) then how many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fossils have we uncovered -- yet they are virtually a set of stairs as a whole -- wouldn't we expect at best a 50/50 chance that when a fossil is uncovered that we might not know where to put this particular specimen??? where are all the fuzzy colors of the rainbow that we say boy -- i am not sure if this is a green or a blue...
There are two senses in which "we might not know where to put a particular specimen." Both have happened many times in the history of paleontology.
One is that the fossil might not fall anywhere on the "tree of life," the pattern of branching descent, already known to paleontologists and zoologists. If that happens, the obvious answer is just to draw in a new branch. Most of these new branches are pretty short, since new fossils tend to fall into already-known families, orders, or at least classes.
An example of this, drawn from the hominin fossil record, are the various African fossils known variously as "robust australopiths" or "paranthropines." These are erect-walking apes with thick skulls and massively-muscled jaws that appear incapable of being our direct ancestors, though they seem fairly closely related to erect-walking apes (like the "gracile australopiths) that were very closely related to our direct ancestors.
The sense you seem to have in mind, though, is something falling between established categories, especially established species. This brings up a division within the ranks of taxonomists and paleontologists between "lumpers" and "splitters;" the former try to stuff everything into a relatively few large categories, and don't like to make up new taxons, and the latter divide up categories according to minor differences and coin new category names all the time. So a splitter, especially, will treat a "blue-green" fossil as just a new species, give it a new species name (e.g. "turquoise"), and count the day well-spent and the matter well accounted for. A lumper will shoehorn the new, "blue-green" fossil into either "blue" or "green," perhaps with a new subspecies name to indicate that it's a bit different from previous specimens placed in that species. Problem solved.
An example from the hominin family tree are the Dmanisi skulls, so-called because they were uncovered near the town of Dmanisi, Georgia (the one in the Caucasus that Russia recently invaded). These skulls resembled Homo erectus, but seemed somewhat more primitive and apelike, like an intermediate between H. habilis and true, classic H. erectus. Some paleontologists named them Homo georgicus, a new species, but most just placed them in H. erectus, sometimes writing as Homo ex. gr. erectus, which means "if you define H. erectus broadly, these fit in it." Again, problem solved, albeit differently.
The "lumpers vs. splitters" problem exists for larger branches of the evolutionary tree, of course: again, just sticking to our own family tree within the larger evolutionary tree, there is the controversy over whether the "robust australopiths" should be classed in genus Australopithecus or given their own genus Paranthropus. For that matter, it has even been suggested that they should all be placed as subgenera within our own genus Homo, and that even chimps should join us there. So if you find yourself having to draw a new branch on the family tree, you still have to decide whether to label it as a member of whatever family or order it's most closely related to, or to give it an entirely new family or order name of its own.
Now, how commonly we should expect these "turquoise" fossils to turn up (as opposed to how often we should expect to need to draw new branches on the evolutionary tree) depends on the "tempo and mode" of evolution, and how complete the fossil record is. If "punctuated equilibrium" is the norm for speciation, then a typical species will spend a few million years spread out in many local populations over a large area, and one or two of those local populations will spend a few thousand of those years evolving into a new species, then "turquoise" fossils will make up a very tiny percentage of all the possible fossils of this species and whatever it evolves into. If "phyletic gradualism" is the norm, then a much larger percentage of total fossils will be interspecies transitions.
On the other hand, if the fossil record is very spotty and incomplete, and a "species-to-species intermediate" is the only fossil we have from an entire family, how would we ever know that it was an intermediate between two species rather than a typical member of some stable species? I've read somewhere that something like half of all known dinosaur species, for example, are known from a single specimen. If all you've got is a "turquoise" fossil, and you've never yet discovered "blue" or "green," how are you going to figure out that it's "really turquoise?"
now, i am sure -- you guys are going to go off on the few that you think are shady colors of the rainbow and say "blankety blank blank" but my point is that if eVILUTION did happen, how could you not have atleast every, at a minimum, tenth or so fossil look like it doesn't belong anywhere???
Well, if all life shares (if one only goes back far enough) common ancestry, and if it retains some traces of those ancient ancestors in its makeup, then everything should fit somewhere. There are a number of fossil phyla that are very puzzling (the infamous "Ediacaran fauna" from just before the Cambrian explosion are the best-known examples), but I suspect that's not what you're talking about. You mean, not fossils that don't fit anywhere, but fossils that fit equally well into a "primitive" and a more "derived" taxon thought to be descended from the "primitive" taxon. As I've noted, taxonomists can either create a new taxon and describe it as intermediate between the two previously-known groups, or try to shoehorn the new fossils into one or the other already-existing groups.
Looks phishy to me...andrew w.
Ray,
Since birds are apparently of one "kind" or "species" (from what the accompanying illustration suggests), where are the transitional fossils between penguins and ostriches?
[QUOTE]
fourkid said:
{{{Yes, and that is the problem - you are assuming that one "descended with modification" (that is the terminology, correct?) into the other - but you can only show similarities in design - not an actual change. That shows a single Creator, not descent.}}}
Andy said...
{{{Actually, fourkid, if you argue that then you'll find yourself in opposition to Creationists because if you insist God created each type of cat, for example, then Creationist leaders disagree with you.}}}
[REPLY]
I wasn't clear about this - I was speaking of the general "kinds", not specific breeds within the kind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{The reason is, as Kent Hovind points out, there is no reasonable way to assume Noah could possibly have fit two of every current species on the ark.}}}
[REPLY]
Actually it was 2 of every kind of unclean animal and 7 of each kind of the clean animals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{To solve this problem, Creationists have decided, as Ray has in his illustration, that there was only "Cat" - just one pair of one kind of cat. No lions, no tigers, no tabbies, no panthers, no cheetahs, no leopards, no ocelots, no siamese, no burmese, etc. Just "Cat".}}}
[REPLY]
I agree with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{So, when you say the subtle differences between today's cats only show design, no descent, you contradict Creationist teaching because even Creationists believe all today's cats descended from the two "cats" on the ark (snip)
[REPLY]
No contradiction, just my being unclear.
Blessings,
Patti
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of the feline KIND
Please define "kind" within the context of biology.
I guess I could play along with them for a second - so, families don't change to other families. The only change that takes place is species to species?
No one has stated that transitions from families do not occur.
Now, where did the families come from if they didn't evolve?
Families did evolve. No one has claimed that they did not.
Science is so very different from speculation, isn't it?
Your question is apparently based upon a false premise.
sorry to correct you, dimensio, but avians are somehow descendants of fish. '
I incorrectly phrased my statement. Mr. Comfort made reference to a chicken producing fish offspring; this would indicate that Mr. Comfort believes that biologists claim that fish are descendants of avians, which is not the case and demonstrates only that Mr. Comfort has not researched the subject upon which he declares expertise.
I apologize for any confusion that my misstatement may have caused; I am aware that the concept of acknowledging and apologizing for error is a source of great confusion for many creationists.
It would be great to see those of you with so much faith in evolution to devote the same scrutiny to the validity of the Bible.
Are you able to address any of the specific criticisms of Mr. Comfort's demonstrably false claims?
Andrew W.
What is your native language. Nothing you write makes any sense at all. Are you new to this country or are you just poorly educated and proud to display your ignorance for all to see?
When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.
Those are rather above the species level, Ray. Cats and dogs are NOT the same species.
Try reading the Observed instances of speciation FAQ on the TalkOrigin archives.
A soul and spirit
I was unaware that possession of a "soul and spirit" was a requirement for inclusion in kingdom Animalia. Please cite a reference stating such a requirement, define "soul and spirits" and demonstrate that humans do not possess one and cite a number of animal species that do.
Fine - you dispute my use of the term "species".
That is because you have used the term incorrectly.
All the terms are man-made anyway. All the classifications are man-made.
This is correct. This does not justify your misuse of those terms once they have been agreed upon by consensus.
Bottom line of my intent - apes are animals - humans are made in the image of God and are a higher status than an animal. We are made a littel lower than the angels - and have dominion over the animal
Your assertion that humans are not animals is not a demonstration that humans are not animals. Classification in kingdom Animalia is based upon the possession of a specific set of physical characteristics such that any organism with those characteristics is classified as a member of the kingdom. Biological classification defines animals as any multicellular eukaryote heterotroph whose cells lack cell walls and whose embryos pass through a bastula stage, and who typically have specialized sensory organs for responding to stimuli and that are motile (though some exceptions exist). Humans are currently known to possess all of these features. To demonstrate that humans are not animals you must either show that the definition of "animal" requires another physiological characteristic that I have yet to identify in any biological research (and you must be able to name the resource from where you obtained your information) or you must show that Homo sapiens sapiens does not actually possess one or more of the aforementioned physical characteristics, which means that you must show that humans are not eukaryotes -- that is, that human cells do not possess a membrane-bound nucleus -- or that humans are not multicellular or that human cells have cell walls or that humans do not intake other organisms for sustenance or that human embryos do not posses a blastula stage or that humans do not possess sensory organs of any kind.
Your assertion that "humans are made in the image of God" and that humans are "a little lower than the angels" has no bearing upon biological classification, as neither "God" nor "angels" are classified in biology. It appears as though you believe that the classification of "animal" is mutually exclusive with other classification assignments. This is not the case, however. As an example, I am, by a certain classification system, classified as an "Administrative Systems Analyst". This does not, however, alter my biological classification as "animal". The two classifications are distinct and separate, and thus any human can be a member of clades of both classification systems simultaneously. As such, there is no logical reason that humans cannot simultaneously be animals, "a little lower than the angles" and "made in the image of God", as such distinctions are addressing at least two, and possibly three, distinct and different classification systems. It would be no different than noting that my automobile is both "property" and a "BMW".
Only if you hold to the humanistic theory of evolution. I do not.
The theory of evolution is scientific, not "humanistic". Your rejection of its validity does not alter biological classifications that were established before the theory was altered.
Because animals do not have the ability to share in communion with God. They have no spirit, no conscience, no soul.
You are again asserting your position, but you are not demonstrating its factual validity. The definition of "animal" in biology does not include a requirement that members "do not have the ability to share in communion with God", nor does it require that its members lack a "spirit", "conscience" or "soul". You are therefore asserting your position based upon a false premise; even if you could demonstrate that humans, and no other species, possessed a "spirit", "conscience" and "soul" and that they were the only species who could "share in communion with God" -- and you have not demonstrated this as of yet -- it would not alter the biological classification of humans as animals, as no biological classification addresses those concepts, and thus those properties -- even if present in an organism -- are not relevant when assigning taxonomic classification.
Mike and Lizette,
G.E. said... Do you at all note that he puts humans, chimps, and bonobos into the same species?
G.E. only you come up with that speculation, weak speculation at that. That is why evolution is a lie.
Nope, if we accept Ray's wide multi-layered definition of species we would have to conclude that, at least, humans, chimps and bonobos are the same species. NOTE: I did not say that Ray said that humans and chimps are the same species, I said that this should be the conclusion given his definition of species.
This is not "weak speculation," it is a logical conclusion given what we know about genetics, anatomy, et cetera.
Then, those genesis verses do not talk about coyotes and dogs, nor about ... you got the idea.
G.E.
to dimensio...yeah, thanx -- i make a sound logical arguement and all dimensio has to say about it is to attack my intellect -- i will just write this one off as another andrew w. post too close to the truth for dimensio to honestly consider...unless you care to reconsider???
gud tawken tu ya...andrew w.
andrew w,
to dimensio...yeah, thanx -- i make a sound logical arguement and all dimensio has to say about it is to attack my intellect -- i will just write this one off as another andrew w. post too close to the truth for dimensio to honestly consider...unless you care to reconsider???
So I guess all the patient explanation by Steven J counts for nothing to you?
Maybe you post to mock, rather than expecting answers, so you disdain the answers and concentrate on the ones who caught you mocking and mock back?
G.E.
What I want to know is how someone like Ray and Kirk can even speak against a topic of which he doesn't have a basic comprehension such as evolution.
Over and over again they have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of presented evidence, the actual theory of evolution by means of natural selection, and of the scientific method as a whole.
Not to mention the fact that Ray likes to lump theories together that are in completely different fields of study, such as the big bang (cosmology, physics), abiogenesis(biochemistry), and evolution(biology). And either he completely ignores the comments from people that ARE educated on the subject trying to educate Ray, or he honestly just doesn't grasp the most simple of concepts.
Please, Ray, if you are going to be discussing a scientific theory, at least have a working knowledge of this theory. And if you make a mistake with this theory, please listen to your commenters that know what they are talking about.
If i were to make stuff up about the bible, Ray would be all over me, correcting me, since that is apparently his area of expertise. All I ask is that he educates himself on his topics of conversation, and gain a basic grasp on scientific principles.
to G.E....sorry chief -- i don't know whether i post to get posted or mock to the mockers or whatever -- and i don't much care!!!
as per steven j he posted after i had sent in my reply to dimensio but unlike dimensio -- steven authored a very well stated response and i sincerely applaud him for that...i can say that it was insufficient for my taste, however, we are all different buds right...
i choose to stand with my premise that if everything evolved from one organism then i would expect shades of grey with nearly every new fossil instead of the tree that evilution suppposes...
btw...wrong again G.E. i actually hope for replies from you guys as two way conversations are usually much more productive (sept wen dar calen ya stewped er sumfin)...yes, that's for you too earth boy -- it may be different where you're from but calling someone stupid is almost always a red flag that the one calling may be feeling a little threatened intellectually...
God bless each and every poster t'day, andrew w.
You know I'm sure this has been asked before so I apologize in advance if it has. However, what I want to know is..why? Why are atheists so vehemently against creationism, Christianity and intelligent design and accuse us so many times of lying or believing a lie when your own moral standards don't apply since to you God doesn't exist? I mean, if your understanding is correct concerning evolution or the big bang...then why all the fuss about how creationists are lying? Why do our "lies" invoke so many fits of rage from you people when you don't adhere to any moral standards or either don't think that your sins matter in the expanse of eternity?
Obviously, no one likes for anyone to lie about anything that some may hold to be true. It tends to make people really upset or offended when others misrepresent something or someone else. However, your assertions of how much "evidence" there is for evolution makes for the burden of proof to lie with you.
You fail to humble yourselves and repent of sins (that you ARE aware that you do) and put your trust in Jesus Christ. And the only way you are ever going to humble yourselves is if you stop bragging about how smart you are and how many big words you know.
I'm sure you've heard it before, but atheism IS a religion whether you like that assessment or not. And its "deity" is the human brain or 'self'. You guys don't want to seriously look into what the Bible is really all about because YOU think that issues of faith can't coincide with science. That's just not true. There are plenty of Christians who make ample amounts of scientific studies on creation and how the Bible is cram packed with scientific discoveries. But of course to that you claim that they are real scientists. THAT'S a shame.
All I'm saying is that its real easy to not want God to exist when your morals don't line up with your own logic. Truth is not relative and YOU don't get to decide what's true or not...truth is truth no matter how you try to dismantle it. But seriously, I would like to know the answer to the question I posed at the beginning of the post. I highly doubt any atheist will answer though. Not that I lack the faith that you will...it will just be hard for some of you to adhere to your own accusations without incurring a moral standard to live by that's found deep within your conscience.(that God gave you by the way) Hey, we love you guys and only want for you to skip Hell and experience the love of Christ that He has for you. That's not such a bad thing to be honest! He gave His life so you wouldn't have to loose yours!
I know you don't like to be called fools...no one does for that matter. But understand that Christians didn't write the Bible, God did! But in order for you to believe that, you're going to have to look into it for yourself. I nor any other Christian can convince you nor convert you...its just not our job. The evidence is smack dab in the middle of it all and all we can do is be honest with you and tell you what lies ahead if you don't humble yourself, repent and put your trust in the Savior!
Jesus said:
"I AM the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." - John 14:6 Humility is not a bad thing!
to dimensio...yeah, thanx -- i make a sound logical arguement and all dimensio has to say about it is to attack my intellect
You have clearly misunderstood the intent of my statement, though perhaps this is the result of poorly chosen phrasing on my part. I did not intend to state or imply that your intellect is inferior. Rather, I merely inquired as to the extent of research that you have conducted in the field of science that you are apparently attempting to deconstruct and to show that your inquiries have a basis in fact.
Patti said:
[QUOTE]
{{{So, when you say the subtle differences between today's cats only show design, no descent, you contradict Creationist teaching because even Creationists believe all today's cats descended from the two "cats" on the ark (snip)
[REPLY]
No contradiction, just my being unclear.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. So, you believe, like Kent and Ray, that all modern dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, hyenas and silky terriers, all came from the original "dog species" on the ark?
If I haven't misunderstood you (and that is what Kent says and ray seems to agree so I assume you agree too)then have you ever seen a chihuahua give birth to a fox or a wolf or a hyena? If not, then can you at least point me to a reference that shows the transitional forms between chihuahuas and hyenas, or hyenas and foxes?
If you've never seen a chihuahua give birth to a wolf and you can't show us a transitional fossil (from the last 4000 years) between all the different dogs we see today, then Ray is going to make fun of you.
And if you think dogs are difficult - wait until we get to "birds", since Ray seems to think (and I assume you agree) that eagles can breed with parrots can breed with pigeons can breed with finches can breed with ostriches since, according to Ray, they are all the "bird" species and, by the definition he posted, that means they can breed with each other.
If i were to make stuff up about the bible, Ray would be all over me, correcting me, since that is apparently his area of expertise. All I ask is that he educates himself on his topics of conversation, and gain a basic grasp on scientific principles.
Actually, he wouldn't. I've tried it. He doesn't care. It's just more misinformation in the mix and he thrives on misinformation. In fact, he relies on it - and the people who willingly swallow it - because it's apparently easier to assume a supernatural entity is responsible for everything than actually thinking about reality and taking responsibility for yourself.
And the only way you are ever going to humble yourselves is if you stop bragging about how smart you are and how many big words you know.
And this seems to be the big issue for creationists. They abhor anything resembling an education.
If you seriously find Steven J's clearly written explanations of the vast amounts of evidence supporting evolution to be too difficult, then you really should get off to high school and do a little more learning. Not science, just basic English.
Seriously, if you can't understand the stuff atheists write here, there's no way you can understand the cryptic and strangely translated texts of the bible, unless you just have faith in what Ray tells you it all means.
Eric said:
You know I'm sure this has been asked before so I apologize in advance if it has. However, what I want to know is..why? Why are atheists so vehemently against creationism, Christianity and intelligent design and accuse us so many times of lying or believing a lie when your own moral standards don't apply since to you God doesn't exist? I mean, if your understanding is correct concerning evolution or the big bang...then why all the fuss about how creationists are lying? Why do our "lies" invoke so many fits of rage from you people when you don't adhere to any moral standards or either don't think that your sins matter in the expanse of eternity?
First of all, not all opponents of creationism and intelligent design are atheists. For that matter, not all atheists are vehemently against Christianity (nor do all atheists agree with Ray that Christianity cannot come to an accomodation with modern science, including evolution).
Second, it is false that atheists don't have or adhere to moral standards. It is false even that they have no grounds for moral standards. Think it through: if God is the source of moral standards, in what way is this true? Does God simply impose arbitrary rules according to His own ineffable whim, with no reason that they're "good" except that He can burn us in Hell for not following them? That's the Saddam Hussein theory of morality: "good" is the whim of the Guy Who can hurt you worst. Or does God create morality by building a universe and a human race in which some things are good because they correspond to the needs of human nature? If the latter, then morality can be recognized and discovered by even those who don't recognize God as its author.
Third, it seems to me that creationists keep raising this argument as though it doesn't matter that they have rules against lying, as long as they can pretend that their opponents don't. We object to creationism because it is wrong and absurd; we object to "intelligent design" because it is a list of logical fallacies and scientific errors, and never mind why we fuss about why creationists are lying: why aren't you fussing about the fact that creationists are lying?
Obviously, no one likes for anyone to lie about anything that some may hold to be true. It tends to make people really upset or offended when others misrepresent something or someone else. However, your assertions of how much "evidence" there is for evolution makes for the burden of proof to lie with you.
That's fair enough. It seems to me that several posters here have provided examples of that evidence. If you want a longer, more comprehensive example, you might start with the Talk.Origins archive article "29 Evidences for Macroevolution," and then we can recommend further study.
However, it would be nice if, when we presented the evidence, you actually paid attention to it. It would be, perhaps, even nicer if you attempted to understand evolutionary theory so that you would understand why the evidence is, in fact, evidence for it, and why the lack of "crocoducks" in the fossil record or puppies hatching from chicken eggs is not evidence against evolution.
Note, by the way, that creationists make various claims about the history of the Earth and life that place a burden of proof on them. That the Earth is mere thousands of years old is certainly no more intuitively obvious than that it is billions of years old, so anyone making any claims about its age should be ready to present evidence for them. Certainly there is no reason to accept that there's been a global flood within human history on the basis of nothing except old legends; actual geological evidence is needed. And, again, at some point, if we keep providing evidence of common descent and you keep insisting on separate creation, it's reasonable for us to ask for some scientific evidence against our position, not just your personal intuitions about your relationship either to apes or to God.
You fail to humble yourselves and repent of sins (that you ARE aware that you do) and put your trust in Jesus Christ. And the only way you are ever going to humble yourselves is if you stop bragging about how smart you are and how many big words you know.
Ah. You want us to provide evidence for evolution, without using scientific terminology or suggesting that your own creationist views might be erroneous or irrational. That may be difficult.
I'm sure you've heard it before, but atheism IS a religion whether you like that assessment or not. And its "deity" is the human brain or 'self'. You guys don't want to seriously look into what the Bible is really all about because YOU think that issues of faith can't coincide with science. That's just not true. There are plenty of Christians who make ample amounts of scientific studies on creation and how the Bible is cram packed with scientific discoveries. But of course to that you claim that they are real scientists. THAT'S a shame.
You make several claims here, and provide neither arguments nor evidence for any of them. For my own part, I find the statement that "atheism is a religion" less compelling than the rejoinder "if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby." I don't think my own brain is God; I know only too well that my knowledge is incomplete and my judgment fallible, but trusting people like you and Ray to substitute for my own knowledge and judgment does not seem like a plausible solution to that problem.
There are plenty of Christians who engage in scientific research. There are even scientists who are creationists, but they are not doing science when they're doing creationism, and their science remains uninformed by their creationism. Push a "creation scientist," and he'll generally tell you that his views on creation and evolution are based on the Bible, not on evidence, and cannot be overturned by evidence, which is pretty much the clearest indication possible that his creationist views aren't science.
I've read the first chapter of Ray's Scientific Facts in the Bible. Maybe it gets better after the first chapter, but that first chapter is very bad and very unconvincing (if you ask for details, be warned: I did a complete critique of this chapter for Terry and if you press me, I'll hunt it down and repost it). Do you have any better examples of "scientific discoveries in the Bible?
Webster Hunt (Parts Man) said:
Doesn't evolution say that all things have one singular ancestor? So if mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, plants, bugs, etc. had one singular ancestor, wouldn't we find one of these transforming into the other at some point (even gradual changes can bear some striking resemblances to both kinds if they "stack" over time)?
Evolution implies that the diversity of life we see around us is a process of branching descent: one ancestral species gives rise to several newer species, each of which gives rise to several yet newer species, and so for (thus, over time, as its descendants evolve and diversify, a single species gives rise to a genus, and later to a family, and order, a class, perhaps even over enough time a new phylum or kingdom). Humans share a more recent common ancestor with baboons than we do with lions and bears (and lions share a more recent common ancestor with lynxes or cougars than they do with bears or wolves), and a more recent common ancestor with lions and bears than we do with kangaroos and opossums.
Our last common ancestor with reptiles and birds lived over 300 million years ago, and our last common ancestor with fish (actually, there are many different sorts of fish, and we're more closely related to some than we are to others) was 400 million or more years ago. Our last common ancestor with bugs was probably about 700 million years ago, and our last common ancestor with plants perhaps a billion years ago. Note that there will not be transitional forms between different branches: no intermediates between cats and dogs, much less between birds and humans. There are plenty of transitionals between, say, fish and humans, from Tiktaalik to Australopithecus. Given that evolution tends to produce lots of side branches, and that the fossil record is very incomplete, none of these transitionals is necessarily a direct ancestor, but stages in the transformation from fish to land vertebrates, or primitive, "amphibian" land vertebrates to amniotes, or primitive amniotes to mammals, or primitive mammals to more avanced mammals, or early primates to our noble selves, all exist. I could adduce random names for you; if you're really interested, you could look up the Talk.Origins Transitional Fossil FAQ and see some of what has turned up.
And if the one that came after was stronger or weaker, then why do we have such diversity among creatures if evolution is true - you'd think according to the theory that the strongest creature would have made the weakers extinct - and why isn't there just one kind? That's the questions I have, and I'm not thoroughly studied on evolution, but I think at some point evolution violates simple laws of logic and common sense.
The short answer is that natural selection is about fitness, not "strength;" the fitter individual is the one who is better able to find food, and/or better able to avoid becoming food, or avoid or survive parasites and pathogens, and/or attract a mate, etc. There is no global or universal criterion for fitness: a great white shark isn't a very fit predator on the African savanna or in the Arctic; a polar bear wouldn't do very well trying to hunt in the Amazon jungle, and a lion dropped onto an Arctic ice flow would be far less "strong" than it is in the grasslands on which it normally lives. For that matter, the lion even on the African savanna can't make use of all that grass and trees growing around it, so it can hardly outcompete zebras or giraffes for those resources. There are myriad ecological niches, and each of them imposes its own selection pressures: what is "fitter" in one niche may be much less fit in another, nearby niche.
Stuart said:
As a Christian myself, it would be ridiculous for me to ignore scientific evidence on the basis that it conflicts my faith. The problem I have is how that evidence is interpreted.
"The evidence doesn't count" is not, strictly speaking, an interpretation.
A transitional form is, to my understanding, an organism that has some features common to its presumed ancestor and some features common to its presumed descendant... where those features (or a combination thereof) do not exist in both the ancestor and descendant.
That will serve for the present purposes, I think.
Fossils of many species have been found and are classified as transitional forms, based on the definition above. Tiktaalik is one... talkorigins lists many others. Does this mean that they were really transitions? Not necessarily. They just fit our definition, that's all.
That's not quite right. They do one thing more than fit our definitions: they fit evolutionary theory. Archaeopteryx shows a mixture of primitive archosaurian and advanced avian features that fit with the idea that birds and crocodilians are different modifications of a common archosaurian ancestor, and it lives in a time when such an intermediate form could plausibly exist. If Archaeopteryx had combined mammalian features (e.g. three bones in the middle ear and one on each side of the lower jaw) with reptilian features, that would be an intermediate that doesn't fit with evolutionary theory. If Archaeopteryx had turned up in sediments from some Devonian marsh rather than from a Jurassic shallow sea, that would also be a major problem for evolutionary theory. Finding fossils that fit into an evolutionary framework, when it's so easy to imagine fossils that don't fit, is rather strong evidence for the correctness of evolutionary theory.
There's one important point to remember: fossils are not the primary line of evidence for evolution. The nested hierarchy of life -- the way living things fall into the same pattern of "groups within groups" no matter which sets of anatomical features you examine -- is a pattern that is only explainable in terms of branching descent with modification (such a pattern doesn't turn up in suites of designed things), and has been, since Darwin's time, the strongest line of evidence for common descent. For the first century or so of evolutionary theory, comparative anatomy gave the strongest evidence of evolution; since then, comparative biochemistry and genomics has overtaken it as the strongest line of evidence, but it's all the same argument from the nested hierarchy.
We see the same pattern in other suites of things derived from common descent with undesigned change to descendants: in families of languages, or indeed in families of copies of the original New Testament documents (these fall into the same sort of "tree of descent" that languages and species fall into, for the same reason: they are copied from copies of copies of some lost original, with small, mostly accidental changes at each stage of copying). We don't see this in suites of deliberately designed artifacts: a sedan may be "descended" from earlier models of sedan from the same manufacturer, but may incorporate, say, a GPS system that is identical to that on a truck, and has no relationship to earlier systems on earlier models of the sedan.
Another line of evidence for common descent are biogeography: species tend to be found near other, similar species, or near fossils of other, similar species. The finches of the Galapagos are more similar to the finches of the South American mainland than they are to birds on the ecologically similar but distant Cape Verdes islands off Africa, for example.
One aspect of the fossil record that supports evolution is not so much transitional fossils, as the broader pattern of faunal succession in the fossil record. The older the strata, the less the mix of species resembles the mix of species in the world today. Sediments more than a few million years old contain many modern genera, but few modern species; older strata contain modern families, but few modern genera (and fewer or no modern species), and yet older strata have modern orders but few modern families, and mostly only extinct genera of those families. By the time you get back to the Cambrian explosion, there are no modern species, genera, families, orders, or even, as I understand it, classes. The younger fossils are, the more the world they make up looks like the world around us, which suggests that older lineages were gradually changing into those we see around us.
Evolution is a theory, yet it is spoken about in many circles and museums as fact. Natural selection is a fact. Mutations are a fact. It is true that through natural selection and mutations, some members of a species can exhibit changes that may make them more suited to their environments and better off than other members... and that the beneficial traits may eventually become the standard in that species, as the members of the species without the beneficial traits struggle to "compete" and die out. But does this prove evolution from species to species, or from ancestors? I do not see how. It seems to me that we have taken certain proven biological facts and applied them on a much grander scale, but without any certainty... but then branded them as factual.
Speciation is a fact, also: it has been observed several times, mostly with plants, but some animal examples (e.g. fruit flies giving rise to new species of fruit flies) are also known. The point is, mechanisms exist which can explain how humans could share ancestors with, say, other great apes. And there is evidence that we do share such ancestors. Human chromosome 2 exactly resembles a fusion of two separate chimp or gorilla chromosomes, complete with a vestigial centromere and telomere (the central body and end piece of a chromosome).
Humans share a number of pseudogenes (copies of genes that are disabled so that they do not code for proteins) and endogenous retroviruses (strings of crippled viral genes embedded in our genomes) with other primates. You get endogenous retroviruses when a virus copies itself into a segment of DNA in a germ cell (sperm or egg) and it gets passed on to future generations. Why should we have the same particular ERVs in the same portions of our genomes as chimpanzees, if we didn't inherit them from a shared ancestor? Especially (since ERVs mutate randomly like any other part of the genome, and do not appear to be under selection, so mutations accumulate randomly as well), why are ERVs in humans and chimps more similar in genetic sequence than the homologous ERVs in, say, chimps and orangutans, unless we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than we do with orangutans?
Yes, a Creator could have made it all that way, but to what purpose? Even if the ERVs and pseudogenes serve some function (and some pseudogenes do), does that purpose require that they look so much like the genes that they no longer function as? There is no reason to think so, and an omnipotent Designer would not be so constrained. And what reason could a Designer have for making the sequences of nucleotides in noncoding DNA fall into the nested hierarchy pattern that we would expect from common descent? Was the Creator trying to make us look like the products of common descent with modification (and if He was, wouldn't it be polite to actually think that?)?
Is it not also possible that every form of life that ever existed, whether currently existing or extinct, whether "transitional" or "immediate" according to our definition, was in fact created at the same time by God?
At the same time? We find different species arranged in different strata: we don't find, e.g. dolphins and whales in the same strata as plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs, or sauropods in the same strata as elephants. Where strata are datable by radioactive rocks or ash embedded in the strata, they give dates millions or billions of years apart. And it's not just spectacular examples like not finding leopards and velociraptors in the same strata; it's finding different species of trilobites or ammonites in strata stacked one atop the other, segregated not by size but by species, exactly as though the strata were laid down over vast periods of time and preserved the shells of a succession of related species. If all these species lived at the same time, again, God went to a lot of trouble trying to make it look otherwise, which seems moderately perverse of Him.
Is it possible that God created each species, or at least each "kind," separately, modifying each successive species to form one or more descendant species (and letting various species go extinct when He was tired of that lineage)? Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, this is possible, but there seems no reason to reject the strong appearance of common descent with modification. Again, if each "kind" is a separate creation, they were created in just such a way as to create the illusion of evolution.
I can accept that some species "evolved" through mutations and natural selection since the creation. I cannot however look at the complete theory of evolution and regard it as anything other than theory.
Theories are explanations. They are not candidate facts, trying for more evidence in hopes of graduating to become facts; they are reasons why the facts are the way they are, rather than some other possible way. Theories do not become laws or facts; they explain laws and facts. Note that there is a distinction between common descent -- the extremely well-supported explanation for the nested hierarchy of life, faunal succession in the fossil record, biogeography, vestigial and parahomologous organs, etc. -- and the theory of evolution strictly speaking, an explanation for why common descent and adaption happen.
Sending props out to Steven J. and Kaitlyn.
Steven J., your ability to clearly convey the knowledge that you obviously have on this subject awes me.
Kaitlyn, your posts all display the patience and gentleness of a saint, even in the face of some of the most extremely deliberate ignorance I've witnessed.
Why do you go on and on and on about things like that. You must have been told at least a thousand times by now that your caricature of evolution is nothing to do with the real thing. I honestly can't fathom how you can continue on like this.
I think what you theorize is actually worse because one prototype gave rise to not only the horse, but the dog, cat, the elephant etc. Yet in all our research even after 150 years of studying many generations of e-coli, they are still e-coli.
Vera
You are right Ray, because finding ANY of those "examples" would FALSIFY evolution. Provide me an example of one single credible biologist who claims that any of the examples above should be found in the fossil record.
The other thing that is important here is that almost everything went extinct after the KT extinction event so what did "evolve" during this time, did not last with the exception of a few. It doesn't appear that even one dinosaur survived either from the blast of a rock the size of a small city or the fact that the herbivores lost their food supply causing the carnivores to also lose theirs. What that cataclysmic event did was to give rise to the fossil fuels that are so important to mankind in terms of technology and plastics. It is really amazing how each of these extinctions led up to what we see today and occurred at just the right timing. Just ten million years after that, all the phyla we see today came into existence, if I read this correctly. The evolutionist then posits that with this recreation of life from the microbe stage, in just less than ten million years, mankind emerged. Not buying it. But it does fit the biblical model.
Vera
G.E. said... Nope, if we accept Ray's wide multi-layered definition of species we would have to conclude that, at least, humans, chimps and bonobos are the same species. NOTE: I did not say that Ray said that humans and chimps are the same species, I said that this should be the conclusion given his definition of species.
This is not "weak speculation," it is a logical conclusion given what we know about genetics, anatomy, et cetera.
Then, those genesis verses do not talk about coyotes and dogs, nor about ... you got the idea.
Actually the Bible is quite clear that God created the animal kinds separate from man for whom is created in His image. So no it is only your inference that man and ape are related by species.
Also adding thanks, again, to steven j.
I learnt more about evolution (and "theory") in this one comment thread than I've ever learnt before.
To doubt what you've written (and as a skeptic by default, I don't accept it at face value) I would have to find evidence to dispute the 'facts' as you've laid them out. But even evolutions most vocal opponents don't offer any such evidence. Indeed, they offer very little that could be called evidence.
Is it possible that God created each species, or at least each "kind," separately, modifying each successive species to form one or more descendant species (and letting various species go extinct when He was tired of that lineage)? Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, this is possible, but there seems no reason to reject the strong appearance of common descent with modification. Again, if each "kind" is a separate creation, they were created in just such a way as to create the illusion of evolution.
I love that explanation. It encompasses the humility of science with a "we don't know" whilst reminding the reader of the things we do know and accepting at least the possibility of diverse explanations for those things.
If only creationists would be so humble.
The other thing that is important here is that almost everything went extinct after the KT extinction event so what did "evolve" during this time, did not last with the exception of a few.
You are greatly overstating the impact of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. While a number of phyla were devastated by the event, and while the event did eliminate all dinosaurs, its impact on other life was not always as pronounced. Many plant species were affected, but not all. Amphibians do not appear to have been impacted by the extinction event at all, either. Neornithean
birds generally survived the event due to physical abilities that enabled them to continue maintaining their numbers during the aftermath of the impact. Mammals did suffer losses, but were not devastated by the impact; the extinction of dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify into new biological niches.
It is really amazing how each of these extinctions led up to what we see today and occurred at just the right timing.
Please explain what is meant by "just the right timing".
Just ten million years after that, all the phyla we see today came into existence, if I read this correctly.
You have evidently not "read" this correctly. Most, if not all, extant phyla existed prior to the extinction event.
The evolutionist then posits that with this recreation of life from the microbe stage, in just less than ten million years, mankind emerged.
I am aware of no biologist who posits the re-emergence of all organisms from microbe ancestors following the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. It would appear that you have not adequately researched this subject.
Not buying it.
As your rejection is of a strawman assertion, it is irrelevant.
But it does fit the biblical model.
Please define the "biblical model"; explain the physical processes and observations that were employed in the derivation of this model, and explain how the observations to which you refer "fits" this model. Explain whether your assessment of this fit is based upon your apparent aforementioned misunderstanding of the claims of mainstream biology.
I think what you theorize is actually worse because one prototype gave rise to not only the horse, but the dog, cat, the elephant etc. Yet in all our research even after 150 years of studying many generations of e-coli, they are still e-coli.
Please explain why you would expect a population E-Coli to become something other than E-Coli in one-hundred and fifty years.
verandoug replied:
Why do you go on and on and on about things like that. You must have been told at least a thousand times by now that your caricature of evolution is nothing to do with the real thing. I honestly can't fathom how you can continue on like this.
I think what you theorize is actually worse because one prototype gave rise to not only the horse, but the dog, cat, the elephant etc. Yet in all our research even after 150 years of studying many generations of e-coli, they are still e-coli.
They are, however, many different strains of Escherichia coli. Some have acquired (through various mutations) resistance to various antibiotics. Some have acquired the ability to digest substances ranging from citrate to nylon to some of those very antibiotics. Some cause severe illnesses (though I don't know of any of those arose in the course of laboratory experiments); most are harmless to humans.
E. coli has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever evolved multicellularity (there is at least one species of unicellular eukaryote that has done so in the lab), but they have evolved a large variety of different adaptions as a result of different histories of mutation, genetic drift, and different selective pressures. The changes to E. coli have all been to metabolic pathways rather than to anatomical differences, but the sheer variety of differences that have arisen in metabolic pathways ought to suggest that if a shrew-like insectivore can, over enough time, evolve into a horse, it can evolve, over the same time, into horses, camels, whales, and apes.
At the biochemical level, you don't differ so much from a camel or a whale as some of those E. coli strains differ from each other. And the camel and the whale, after all, are built of pretty much the same parts as you, just with relatively small changes to the shapes and sizes. If purely natural causes can accomplish the changes in biochemistry in E. coli, why cannot they accomplish the equivalent changes in anatomy in mammals, or indeed in vertebrates as a whole, or indeed in animals as a whole?
Note that animals and plants are not thought to have evolved from bacteria (our mitochondria, and the chloroplasts of plants, are thought to have evolved from symbiotic bacteria: our mitochondria seem most closely related to the Rickettsia bacteria, and chloroplasts are derived from photosynthesizing cyanobacteria). It may be that, for all their metabolic versatility, most bacteria are too specialized to be open to much morphological change.
you make me want to break things ray
verandoug said:
The other thing that is important here is that almost everything went extinct after the KT extinction event so what did "evolve" during this time, did not last with the exception of a few.
A very great many species went extinct, so far as we can tell by fossils. Entire genera, families, orders, even classes went extinct. I think, though, that representatives of all phyla and most classes survived and continued into the Tertiary Period which followed the Cretaceous.
It doesn't appear that even one dinosaur survived either from the blast of a rock the size of a small city or the fact that the herbivores lost their food supply causing the carnivores to also lose theirs. What that cataclysmic event did was to give rise to the fossil fuels that are so important to mankind in terms of technology and plastics.
My own impression is that most fossils fuels come from deposits of biomass laid down well before the K-T boundary event: the so-called Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic Era is so-called because of the huge deposits of coal that trace back to its widespread forests, and the oil from, most likely, single-celled marine phytoplankton. No doubt much oil dates from the Mesozoic, but I think very little comes from the very end or owes much to a single, sudden die-off of either marine or land plants.
It is really amazing how each of these extinctions led up to what we see today and occurred at just the right timing. Just ten million years after that, all the phyla we see today came into existence, if I read this correctly.
I'm not sure what you mean here; what you said is very, very wrong. Although the fossil record for some phyla is poor, presumably all modern phyla originated before the Mesozoic and survived both the end-Permian and K-T boundary extinctions (phyla are very large, diverse groupings: humans belong to the same phylum as birds, frogs, lizards, bony fish, sharks and acorn worms). Several different modern orders of birds were already in existence in the late Cretaceous and presumably all survived the K-T boundary event. Although fossil mammals from right before and right after the boundary tend to be rat-sized and ratty-looking, genetic analysis and molecular clocks indicate that the ancestors of modern mammal orders (primates, artiodactyls, bats, etc.) were already separate from one another in the late Cretaceous, although they still looked much like one another.
As for "just the right timing," you seem to be assuming that a particular outcome was foreordained (well, of course, you do assume that, but you should realize that evolutionists tend to assume the opposite). It's not "isn't it weird that we got just the right history to produce us," but "is it really so weird that that particular history should produce us, rather than, say, intelligent stone-age dinosaurs?"
The evolutionist then posits that with this recreation of life from the microbe stage, in just less than ten million years, mankind emerged. Not buying it.
The K-T boundary event was 65 million years ago. Right after the asteroid strike, there were still mammals (the still-primitive ancestors of the modern orders), birds, assorted fish not very different from those around today, quite a few lizards, snakes, and crocodilians, various molluscs and insects, etc. etc. The shrew-looking primates of 65 million years ago had produced recognizable lemur- and tarsier-looking primates by 60 million years ago, recognizably monkey-like primates by 55 million years ago, recognizable apes by around 30 million years ago, and apes bearing the first distinctive (if vaguely) human characteristics perhaps six million years ago.
No one is proposing that we went from bacteria to humans in ten million years. In ten million years, we went from a common ancestor with gorillas (something that probably looked vaguely like a chimpanzee) to modern humans.
But it does fit the biblical model.
Since you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the actual geological or fossil record, I don't think you should be so confident of that. What sorts of things would not fit the Biblical model? What testable predictions does the Biblical model make, that weren't already known when it was proposed?
Andy said...
One day, Ray Comfort goes fishing. He casts in his line and within minutes he gets a bite. Clearly the Good Lord is shining on him this day. Quickly Ray reels in the tasty morsel that will serve as tonight's meal. Ray cooks his catch and tucks in. Within minutes he starts to feel hazy. He begins shaking uncontrollably and then faints. Later, he comes around in hospital. Doctors ask him what he ate. "Fish" he replies. "What kind of fish was it?" they ask. He looks at them quizzically and says again, "fish". "We think, from your reaction, that it might have been a blowfish, perhaps the species 'Arothron hispidus' which is common around here. You're lucky to be alive." say the doctors. Ray thumps the bed "I want to see some real doctors. You guys are all crazy. I told you what species it was. IT WAS FISH!" I've eaten fish before and know they aren't poisonous. Even Jesus ate fish. Why would he eat fish and feed fish to the masses if Fish were poisonous? You guys are so stupid you must be Darwinists."
Hahahahaha Andy. That (and the others) cracked me up! Sadly, that's probably exactly what would happen.
Stephen J
They are, however, many different strains of Escherichia coli. Some have acquired (through various mutations) resistance to various antibiotics. Some have acquired the ability to digest substances ranging from citrate to nylon to some of those very antibiotics. Some cause severe illnesses (though I don't know of any of those arose in the course of laboratory experiments); most are harmless to humans.
But think how many generations of E-coli it took to get there. And then think about many generations of mammals there are. It is a vast difference. Then ask yourself the question, was this design in E-coli important to its survival and the acclimating of this planet for higher life forms? Could higher life forms have survived without the work of E-coli and other microbes in a very hostile world?
From Creation is Science pg. 129
Detailed analyses of cryptogamic crust material - soils comprised of photosynthetic or oxygen-producing bacteria, fungi, mosses, sand and clay existing in symbiotic colonies -reveal that such microbial soils dramatically transformed both the temperature and the chemistry of Earth's early landmasses. This material prepared the way for more advanced vegetation. These findings solve a long-pondered puzzle - the late emergence of advanced land vegetaion (about a half billion years ago).
Earth's early landmasses were relatively hot and soil-deficient. Cryptogamic colonies, including those that exist today, can withstand these harsh conditions. They effectively limit erosion while, at the same time, they enhance chemical conditions of the soil, cool things down, and oxygenate the atmosphere. These microbial colonies took hold very early, on the few pockets of loose rock that existed on the first barren continental masses.
Over 2 - 3 billions years, cryptogamic colonies transformed these pieces of land into the large accumulations of stable, nutrient-rich soil that vascular plants (higher plants with conducting tissue consisting primarily of xylem and phloem) require. This function helps explain the long wait - roughly 3.3 billion years - for the arrival of the first advanced life forms. Again it suggests anticipation of later life's needs.
E. coli has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever evolved multicellularity (there is at least one species of unicellular eukaryote that has done so in the lab), but they have evolved a large variety of different adaptions as a result of different histories of mutation, genetic drift, and different selective pressures.
I would think that this is what we would expect from such a cell, however as these are the cells that make up multicellular organisms. A molar pregnancy is a eukaryote cell that grows into a mass. Growing multicellular organisms does not therefore, express viability. I did a search for this experiment but could not find it. Can you direct me to it somehow?
The changes to E. coli have all been to metabolic pathways rather than to anatomical differences, but the sheer variety of differences that have arisen in metabolic pathways ought to suggest that if a shrew-like insectivore can, over enough time, evolve into a horse, it can evolve, over the same time, into horses, camels, whales, and apes.
We are talking inestimable numbers of generations of 3.3 billion years compared to what? Also you must keep in mind the number of climate changes, cataclysmic events, volcanic eruptions etc that drove many species to extinction. Could the species survive long enough to change through natural selection toward a beneficial mutation? What are the odds? According to Francisco Ayala, the probability that humans (or a similar advanced species capable of developing a high-tech civilization) arise from a single -celled organisms as the possibility so small ( 10^1,000,000) that it might as well be zero. I think I read once that this would be like filling up the universe with dimes and the odds of you picking the right one.
At the biochemical level, you don't differ so much from a camel or a whale as some of those E. coli strains differ from each other. And the camel and the whale, after all, are built of pretty much the same parts as you, just with relatively small changes to the shapes and sizes. If purely natural causes can accomplish the changes in biochemistry in E. coli, why cannot they accomplish the equivalent changes in anatomy in mammals, or indeed in vertebrates as a whole, or indeed in animals as a whole?
Biologically, there are many similarities between humans and other animals naturally because we live on the same planet. In the creation account, apparently there is reference to God using things already made (the dust of the earth for one thing) and things that were new. But we differ greatly in that we possess attributes of those created in the image of God. We have the capacity to contemplate the future, to consider what lies beyond death, to comprehend and attempt to maintain moral and ethical standards, to seek connection with a higher Being or Force, to engage in worship . to express curiosity and creativity about matters far removed from the immediate environment, and immediate survival needs, and to seek ultimate hope, purpose and destiny. pg. 151
Note that animals and plants are not thought to have evolved from bacteria (our mitochondria, and the chloroplasts of plants, are thought to have evolved from symbiotic bacteria: our mitochondria seem most closely related to the Rickettsia bacteria, and chloroplasts are derived from photosynthesizing cyanobacteria). It may be that, for all their metabolic versatility, most bacteria are too specialized to be open to much morphological change.
Do you have any idea how many genetic changes and mutations it would take for rickettsia bacteria first of all to begin but later to mutate? I mean it is mind boggling the assumption that this could have happened naturally. I think we mirror God in many respects displaying character of those created in His image. When we are attempting to invent, we rarely begin again on any similar process. We start with what we have and we make adjustments. Look at the computer as a class example. Rarely do computer companies start all over again to build a computer. They use the basic design and tweak. I personally believe (and this is just my personal belief) that we do animal testing because it is a part of our design. I wonder if hominids were not a sort of animal testing prior to God creating His ultimate creation in His image. I mean He has done all these changes and such and I would think that like a good inventor, He would use subjects that were able to test the situation before He placed His special creation on planet earth.
Vera
Stephen J,
Instead of commenting on each individual thing you said, I am going to try to just write a post as I know these are getting long.
If I understand you correctly, the KT extinction event occurred 65 million years ago. 60 million years ago, primates show up on the scene. Doesn't that strike at something remarkable to you? That is only 5 million years from that point to create something so complex! The shrew shows up almost immediately? From what? The bat?
No one is proposing that we went from bacteria to humans in ten million years. In ten million years, we went from a common ancestor with gorillas (something that probably looked vaguely like a chimpanzee) to modern humans.
No, I realize this. The point was that this cataclysmic event was so vast and so widespread as to cause all the dinosaurs to go extinct. That is fairly remarkable if you ask me especially in light of the fact that they would have been deleterious to mankind. I mean these things were amazing. This prehistoric shark, megalodon, that we were learning about was beyond scary, if you ask me. I mean he is the real Jaws.
I forgot a point that was made to me through RTB that had slipped my mind. When you speak of hominids and humans what are we talking about? Are we talking about homo sapien sapiens or some other sub species?
Since you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the actual geological or fossil record, I don't think you should be so confident of that.
Geology, I admit, is something that I have to read about ten times to get because it is not my forte. Biology is more up my alley. The fossil fuels, I recognize were created over many years.
There are a host of examples on pg. 140 of this book that explain how many processes were needed to produce petroleum and how the failure of any one of them would have resulted in the loss of the fuel. One example was certain sedimentation processes that were needed. I didn't read this in this book but saw it in one of the documentaries I watched that the vegetation in certain places that are now remote was lush. Also, what I meant was the way these organic materials in masse were used to produce petroleum and thus the technology of our day. I realize that petroleum was not produced through the KT extinction event. I was just thinking that a T-Rex or brachiosaurus that only lives about 29 years would make a great petroleum source. :-)
Vera
Vera wrote:
The evolutionist then posits that with this recreation of life from the microbe stage, in just less than ten million years, mankind emerged. Not buying it.
Hmm, Ray and colleagues argue that all todays varieties of animals descended from some basic "kinds" in just 4500 years.
So eagles, pigeons, ostriches, emus, albatross, penguins, pelicans, finches, parrots, toucans, quail, vultures, chooks, ducks, swans, geese, hawks, falcons, owls, honeyeaters, humming birds, robins, wrens, cuckoos, woodpeckers, etc... all descended from a pair of birds (or maybe a few pairs) that Noah saved.
Some 9000 (estimated) varieties of birds (real scientists call them species but that just confuses Ray who thinks all birds are the same species), in just 4500 years. Using creationist maths, that's two "varieties per year!
No wonder you're not impressed by E. coli remaining E. coli after 150 years but why can't you accept huge variety after 10 million years?
Also, I keep asking but no one's answered yet, can you show me transitional fossils between penguins and eagles from the last 4500 years? Also, also, have you ever seen a penguin lay an egg that hatched a vulture? If not, why do creationists believe it happens?
verandoug replied to me:
If I understand you correctly, the KT extinction event occurred 65 million years ago. 60 million years ago, primates show up on the scene. Doesn't that strike at something remarkable to you? That is only 5 million years from that point to create something so complex! The shrew shows up almost immediately? From what? The bat?
Vera, here's something you need to understand to discuss this issue: there were mammals before the K-T boundary. How long before the K-T boundary mammals existed depends on how you define "mammals." Originally, mammals were defined as "synapsids" with one bone on each side of the lower jaw, three bones in the middle ear, and (generally) one set of baby teeth replaced by one set of adult teeth; by that standard, there were "mammals" around before there were dinosaurs. Nowadays, "mammals" are defined (by evolutionists) as the last common ancestor of a blue whale and a platypus, plus all its descendants living and dead; by that standard, mammals have only been around since, I think, the early Cretaceous. It's hard to be sure: on the one hand, the fossil record is imperfect, so you can't be sure that the earliest known fossils of some group are the earliest that group existed, and molecular clocks keep rather bad time, so you can't be sure by comparing genes exactly how many millions of years ago, say, the line leading to modern primates split off from the line leading to modern carnivores (but that particular split seems to have taken place around the mid-Cretaceous, 80-100 million years ago).
There are "primates," albeit very primitive and with only a few details of the teeth and skull distinguishing them from a bunch of other small "insectivores," right after the K-T boundary. Presumably very similar primates existed before the K-T boundary, but there are no confirmed discoveries of them yet. There are discoveries of generalized small placental mammals, as well as larger mammals belonging to extinct groups with no living descendants, from the time of the dinosaurs. Bats show up a "mere" 52 million years ago (13 million years after the K-T boundary), but the group is presumably older (the imperfection of the fossil record again). Here's the point: even before there were modern mammal groups, there were mammals, and even before there were "true" mammals, there were creatures that looked very much like mammals, and even before them, there were "reptiles" with many mammalian traits (these go back to millions of years before the age of dinosaurs), and before them there were more generalized reptile-like amniotes. Complex modern mammal groups didn't just spring up from microbes, or even from fish, right after the close of the age of dinosaurs; they had mammal ancestors that had lived alongside the dinosaurs. In many cases, the bones of these mammals (or at any rate of their close relatives) have been found alongside dinosaur bones.
No, I realize this. The point was that this cataclysmic event was so vast and so widespread as to cause all the dinosaurs to go extinct. That is fairly remarkable if you ask me especially in light of the fact that they would have been deleterious to mankind. I mean these things were amazing. This prehistoric shark, megalodon, that we were learning about was beyond scary, if you ask me. I mean he is the real Jaws.
Throughout much of our history, leopards were deleterious to mankind (a number of early hominid skulls with leopard bit marks on them have been found). Bears have been deleterious to us, as have crocodiles, hippopotamuses, tigers, etc. Mosquitoes have probably killed more of us than all these big animals put together. It's doubtful that Carcharodon megalodon preyed often on things smaller than whales.
I forgot a point that was made to me through RTB that had slipped my mind. When you speak of hominids and humans what are we talking about? Are we talking about homo sapien sapiens or some other sub species?
Alas, this is a bit complicated. "Hominids" refers to members of the family Hominidae; this currently includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Hominids are one of two families in the superfamily Hominoidea (homininoids), or apes; the other are the gibbons and siamangs, who form the Hylobatidae or hylobatids.
Within the hominids are two subfamilies: Homininae, or African great apes (humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas), and Ponginae, or Asian great apes (orangutans). Within the Homininae are three "tribes," the Hominini (humans, australopiths, paranthropines), the Panini (chimps and bonobos), and the gorillini (gorillas). The word "hominin" refers, rather confusingly, to members of either the subfamily Homininae and the tribe Hominini, but usually to the latter, since nearly all fossils of extinct members of the Homininae belong to the Hominini (the latter lived mostly out on the savanna, where fossilization is more likely than in the jungle where the gorilla and chimp ancestors lived).
The tribe Hominini is further divided into various genera: Homo, Australopithecus, etc. Members of the genus Homo are "hominines," just as members of the genus Canis (dogs, wolves, etc.) are "canines," and members of the genus Felis are "felines." Hominines include everything from Homo habilis, who doesn't appear to be much different from the australopithecines, to Homo sapiens. Note that the last sapiens in H. sapiens sapiens is a subspecies or "racial" designator (all modern humans are assigned by biologists to the same race). There is at least one extinct race of humans known and named: Homo sapiens idaltu, an African population from more than 100,000 years ago that were much like us, but lacked the projecting chin of all modern humans. Those paleontologists who reject the idea that Neanderthals were a separate species put them in their own subspecies or race, H. sapiens neanderthalensis.
Just to make things more complicated, many paleontologists prefer the older classification that restricts Hominidae to primates more closely related to us than chimpanzees are (i.e. they use the term "hominid" to refer to members of the tribe Hominini, instead of using the term "hominin"). I try to use terms, though, that reflect modern cladistic taxonomy.
Andy
Hmm, Ray and colleagues argue that all todays varieties of animals descended from some basic "kinds" in just 4500 years.
So eagles, pigeons, ostriches, emus, albatross, penguins, pelicans, finches, parrots, toucans, quail, vultures, chooks, ducks, swans, geese, hawks, falcons, owls, honeyeaters, humming birds, robins, wrens, cuckoos, woodpeckers, etc... all descended from a pair of birds (or maybe a few pairs) that Noah saved.
Some 9000 (estimated) varieties of birds (real scientists call them species but that just confuses Ray who thinks all birds are the same species), in just 4500 years. Using creationist maths, that's two "varieties per year!
No wonder you're not impressed by E. coli remaining E. coli after 150 years but why can't you accept huge variety after 10 million years?
Also, I keep asking but no one's answered yet, can you show me transitional fossils between penguins and eagles from the last 4500 years? Also, also, have you ever seen a penguin lay an egg that hatched a vulture? If not, why do creationists believe it happens?
All I can say is that Ray allows me to share an old earth perspective here every single day. I believe life went from simple to complex as we who are created in the image of God test as true and as I believe the Bible portrays.
Go to iTunes and put in a podcast search for New Bird Family Tree Reveals Some Odd Ducks.
Also, I keep asking but no one's answered yet, can you show me transitional fossils between penguins and eagles from the last 4500 years? Also, also, have you ever seen a penguin lay an egg that hatched a vulture? If not, why do creationists believe it happens?
Funny, I thought this is the kind of "mutation" one would expect from evolution. hee hee. I couldn't resist.
Vera
Also, I keep asking but no one's answered yet, can you show me transitional fossils between penguins and eagles from the last 4500 years? Also, also, have you ever seen a penguin lay an egg that hatched a vulture? If not, why do creationists believe it happens?
All I can say is that Ray allows me to share an old earth perspective here every single day. I believe life went from simple to complex as we who are created in the image of God test as true and as I believe the Bible portrays.
Sorry Vera, it seems I've been confused about your position. After reading your exchanges with Steven, it appears you don't share Ray's short-sighted view of history or evolution.
My confusion arose as a result of your earlier response to me that Kirk "has something" I don't. I took that as implied support for Cameron's viewpoint while it appears you actually don't agree with him at all but perhaps just sympathise with him since he takes a Christian stance.(?)
Sorry for the confusion. My questions still stand for YE Creationists.
you ray, are a complete moron who knows NOTHING about science, and you also do very bad quote mining. you forgot these from eintein you ignorant fool:
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.” –Albert Einstein
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”-Albert Einstein
Ariel
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”-Albert Einstein
What you and Einstein failed to realize is what Jesus did by dying on the cross. These pieces of knowledge are only there to explain to you the necessity for change. The reason you reject this is the same reason Einstein rejected it. He liked to sin, which is fairly obvious by his nefarious love affairs and the way he ditched his loving wife.
What Jesus did was to die to fulfill the Law completely and die so that we could die with Him with the Law and be raised up in newness of life as He was to walk out the righteousness of the Law without the Law. I don't live in fear of those things but am only perhaps reminded of them occasionally. I do fear the Lord, please don't misunderstand me. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I know God has the power to cast me into hell's fire. But through faith and grace, my relationship to Him is reconciled and I am counting on HIM to see me to the end, while at the same time doing all that I can so that my own free will lines up with His will. This does not mean that we stop suffering, having problems or even stop crying. On the contrary, Jesus dealt with all of that. What it does mean is that we can respond in God's will.
I never really experienced that in my life until I began spending time with God every day in His Word. Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee. I repented of specific things I had done and asked for His Spirit and then began to spend time in His Word. At first, I had many questions. Sometimes as in science, I hit a brick wall because my understanding of the truth was off. Instead of quitting at those moments, I learned and God renewed me even more by grace.
You know what I hope my reward is in heaven? I hope I get to spend the most time with God. I mean that with all sincerity. As the song says, "I'd rather have Jesus than silver or gold."
Vera
[QUOTED FROM PATTI]
Bottom line of my intent - apes are animals - humans are made in the image of God and are a higher status than an animal. We are made a littel lower than the angels - and have dominion over the animal
[QUOTED FROM DEMENSIO]
Your assertion that humans are not animals is not a demonstration that humans are not animals.
(Lots of snips)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can see that you are very proud of your logical reasoning abilities. I could not possbily go point for point with you - I am just not that smart. As long as you hold on to that pride - you will never find God. Please note - I am not telling you to give up your intellect - that is a God-given gift. But the pride is blinding you - and that you must put aside.
Blessings,
Patti
Andy has left a new comment on the post "Species to Species Definition":
Patti said:
[QUOTE]
{{{So, when you say the subtle differences between today's cats only show design, no descent, you contradict Creationist teaching because even Creationists believe all today's cats descended from the two "cats" on the ark (snip)
[REPLY]
No contradiction, just my being unclear.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. So, you believe, like Kent and Ray, that all modern dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, hyenas and silky terriers, all came from the original "dog species" on the ark?
If I haven't misunderstood you (and that is what Kent says and ray seems to agree so I assume you agree too)then have you ever seen a chihuahua give birth to a fox or a wolf or a hyena? If not, then can you at least point me to a reference that shows the transitional forms between chihuahuas and hyenas, or hyenas and foxes?
If you've never seen a chihuahua give birth to a wolf and you can't show us a transitional fossil (from the last 4000 years) between all the different dogs we see today, then Ray is going to make fun of you.
And if you think dogs are difficult - wait until we get to "birds", since Ray seems to think (and I assume you agree) that eagles can breed with parrots can breed with pigeons can breed with finches can breed with ostriches since, according to Ray, they are all the "bird" species and, by the definition he posted, that means they can breed with each other.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
I wasn't there (on the ark) - so I can't give exact answers. The Bible isn't meant to be a biology text book. And I don't know where God draws the line at kinds.
There is some degree of interbreeding possible from very diverse "species' in the animal kind groups. Dogs do breed with wolves. Someone has already mentioned that we have seen ligers. I also think we ahve made it clear that some degree of trnasitions can and do occur between the kinds of animals. I don't think that has been in dispute.
It sounds to me like you want to make a case for every single little type of wren to have been on the ark -if you were to agree that there was an ark - and this just isn't what Scripture teaches.
Blessings,
Patti
Steven J. said:
(snips) {{{If all these species lived at the same time, again, God went to a lot of trouble trying to make it look otherwise, which seems moderately perverse of Him.
(snip)
Again, if each "kind" is a separate creation, they were created in just such a way as to create the illusion of evolution.}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
I did read the whole post - but I wanted to just pull out this one portion.
It does seem this way, doesn't it? I wonder why? Maybe, it is becasue our enemy, Satan, is an angel of light - and he is a liar and the father of lies?
Blessings,
Patti
[QUOTE FROM STEVEN J.]
{{{I know only too well that my knowledge is incomplete and my judgment fallible, but trusting people like you and Ray to substitute for my own knowledge and judgment does not seem like a plausible solution to that problem. }}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find this sentence very profound and very accurate. I never want someone to take my word for anything I "teach" - I agree with you, Steven J., my knowledge is too limited and too fallible. BUT Scripture is not. There is one Truth out there - don't settle for someone else's interpretation of it, and don't settle for a conterfeit authored by the fatehr of lies (satan). God can be trusted and His Word can be trusted.
Blessings,
Patti
Post a Comment