Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

Ok, let's go back to something I was discussing earlier. I was trying to point out that the claim by the creationists that there are no "transitionals" is wrong. What we see in the reptile-to-mammal fossils is nothing but transitionals, and a lot of them. You merely dismiss this. How can you dismiss it so summarily?You say, oh well, that can be explained according to creationist ideas. No, it can't. Why would there be all these creatures that are crosses between reptiles and mammals? It's not like these fossils were just made up.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-23-2005 11:37 PM

They AREN'T crosses between mammals and reptiles, they merely have features in common with both, and this is only judged from the FOSSILS, the BONES, you have no idea what the creature looked like from that or how it behaved.

Here's the way it works. The creationist screams, "There are no transitionals!" and then when you show them some, they say, "Oh, it's just bones."I'm just wondering, if special creation is true, where did these fossils come from?

Unfortunately I forget all the arguments about transitionals -- it's not one I usually get into -- so I'm going to have to bone up on them, pun intended, but I don't think your example qualifies. My arguments focus on the fact that design explains everything they say evolution is needed to explain.Where did they come from? The Kinds had enormous built-in genetic capacity to vary in many ways, that would have proliferated in fascinating creative expressions -- without preying on each other too, except for the Fall which brought in death and "nature red in tooth and claw." The enormous variety we find fossilized died in the Great Flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-24-2005 01:14 AM

I've been thinking about it, and now I'm beginning to understand why we seem to be arguing at cross purposes, why it seems to you I am merely superficially skimming over many topics.We were viewing the issue from different perspectives:1. Your question is, is macroevolution theoretically possible?2. My question is, has it in fact happened?I understand now why the concept of "mutation" is such a key term from your perspective, and if you like we can stick with that and see what we can make of it.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-24-2005 06:45 AM

I don't think I follow. I'll have to think about it too as I don't immediately recognize this.Hm. Maybe I don't really have a question, it's more like I am CERTAIN that it hasn't happened, and if it's theoretically possible this is some kind of illusion, and my job is trying to uncover the proofs of this and find answers to challenges. It's clear as mud to me, but yes, mutation is particularly important from my point of view, because of its being the ONLY additive factor among the "Evolutionary Processes." Is that what you meant?But then anything genetic is important. For instance I understand that some primitive organisms have bigger genomes than human beings, and also that this is probably because humans have so much "junk" or "noncoding" DNA in our genome. I've also heard that the evolutionist explanation is that this is the case for the more "highly evolved" creatures because the "junk" represents the evolutional path that has been abandoned. But thinking YECishly I suspect it represents the death that entered the race and in fact the whole Creation with the Fall, and all the animals that were affected by it too, but amoebas and fruitflies may not have experienced such a great bottleneck. So I'm curious, for instance, about this mammoth DNA that's being studied, that I linked in Message 100. Based on my suppositions, I'd guess it would have less junk DNA than modern elephants do -- but unfortunately my suppositions may be in the same direction as the evolutionists' although for vastly different reasons, and we'll be simply battling interpretations. But then that's a lot of what this argument is all about anyway.But the above paragraph is not exactly on the topic of an overview of the debate itself. Maybe the best use of this thread really is what the title suggests, a compendium of various arguments pro and con rather than an in-depth discussion of any in particular. Your gleanings from Mayr's book make an interesting framework, and I can still get back to the Talkorigins list that is also a compendium of supposed proofs. We can always take a subtopic for another mediocre thread some time if we're so inclined.I still think what I thought months ago and suggested somewhere, though nobody took me up on it, that there needs to be a ranking system of some sort, maybe a point system, so that each side's arguments can be ranked for logic and effectiveness. I don't expect evos to give any credence whatever to creo arguments of course, so it would have to be creos doing the ranking for our side. The idea, however, is that the creos HAVE produced some very reasonable arguments and all that happens is that they get drowned out by the evos, and this would be a way to give them some standing even in this anti-creo environment. Also, creos in general and I in particular might be more willing to concede points to good evo arguments if it didn't mean being immediately swamped by evo triumphalism.Probably a pipe dream.

I just meant that you were setting forth a theoretical argument about the impossibility of macroevolution due to loss of genetic variety.What I was doing was setting forth some empirical evidence (fossils)that is supposed to show that it did in fact happen, however it took place genetically. Yes. That's fine with me. I'll see what Mayr says about junk DNA. A judge?

This is just an emotional reaction but I thought I would mention it.My reaction goes back to something I said on another thread, to the effect that Darwinism is mind-boggling once you began to realize its full implications. Here's what I mean: Let's go back to those fossils that seem to show us a creature that is part reptile and part mammal--a lizard-cow, as it were--and a rather large one I suspect: not a creature you would want to meet while strolling through the woods. Fortunately for us, they disappeared before we were even a twinkle in evolution's eye.But here's the strange part. If evolution is true, we are the descendents of a lizard-cow.It doesn't seem so strange to say that we came from a single cell since, in fact, individually we do. But a lizard-cow? A monster?
Very strange, indeed.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-24-2005 03:51 PM

Yes, a judge, but as soon as I say that I realize it's a lost cause. All I have to do is realize what gets nominated for POTMs here and I know I don't want an in-house judge. Someone would have to be recruited for the job from some other universe in order to ensure true objectivity.

This entire thread was nominated. That should make you right proud.

Very strange. Fortunately it isn't true. We DIDN'T come from a lizard cow or an ape precursor or anything but human beings. Take my word for it. (Some species of Smilie is needed here but it doesn't exist).(Just as an aside, for "monsters" I don't think we have to look to the past -- there are some pretty weird creatures roaming the planet as we speak.)

Comment deleted.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-24-2005 05:17 PM

...Glory to the Newborn King...

​

Joy to the world, the Lord is come, let Earth receive her King.

​

Remember Christ our Savior was born on Christmas Day, to save us all from Satan's power when we had gone astray...Oh tidings of comfort and joy...That's WAY stranger than a lizard-cow, but it's joyful ecstasy strange rather than morbid weird strange...Merry Christmas Robin. Must leave for a while.

"It was the time of our dear saviours birth..."Was out carol singing for the first time ever. They fair bring a lump to your throat them there carols..God bless this Christmas Faith. 'See' you in the New Year. Happy Xmas to you Robin Rohan .. too.

This is a restricted debate, and you are not one of the debaters.

---