Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

so everybody ate sand then?

Critical for this is that none of the fossil strata data contradicts evolution -- and that this is an observation, not a conclusion, not an hypothesis.

Your guess about what a worldwide flood would have done is just as useless as all the others here. You are talking about the deep unknowable past Faith. You don't have any evidence that the flood deposited ANY of the strata OR that it eroded ANYTHING. All you have done here and in other threads about the Grand Canyon is dream up fantasies.Your disappearing cracks are compete fabrications.Your explanation/s of the Grand Canyon are wild speculation.And when you whole-sale throw out behavior in the past being similar to behavior observed today, then you have absolutely no basis for making any hypothesis.

and camels and lamas should leave a lot of transitionals in between.or bears and wolves ...

Curiously I've had no trouble understanding what has been said here ... and the fact that you are having trouble understanding a simple concept presented by several people would indicate that the failure is on your end (cognitive dissonance interference?): comprehension of the issue that the necessary rapid evolution to current species from species that were on the ark, should leave SOME evidence in the dirt\soil\etc that has accumulated in many places since the purported flood. These bones should be intermediate in form from their common ancestor to the current forms.One of the places to look would be archaeological sites where the bone of animals are preserved. Now I am sure that Coyote could give you a list of all the different species found in such sites covering the last 4,500 years.Another place to look would be sites where animals were trapped and died, like the Tar Pits, showing stacks of bones from animals over the pastTar pit - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Animals are usually unable to escape from the asphalt when they fall in, making these pits excellent locations to excavate bones of prehistoric animals. The tar pits can trap animals because the asphalt that seeps up from underground forms a bitumen pit so thick that even mammoths find it impossible to free themselves before they die of starvation, exhaustion from trying to escape or from the heat that would come from the sun. Over one million fossils have been found in tar pits around the globe.

---

And there would also be fossils left from volcanic eruptions since the purported flood.[abe]: the question comes down to how many "kinds" were on the ark, and how many modern species have evolved from them to fill out the diversity of life as we know it (I tried to find the picture Ken used in the debate, but this is the closest): there are several speciation events shown between the ark landing and the present day -- and it shows many intermediates in between[/abe]So where are these intermediate forms if we have not found any? That is the simple question, Faith.If nothing else there should be some record of some of the 'kind masters' that were on the ark, and there should be evidence of concentrations of their immediate descendants near the ark landing site.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : added img

In spite of this being factually wrong wishful thinking totally unsupported by any evidence, you would still have intermediate forms in those small isolated populations over several generations .... and there is still no evidence of this.

Amusingly variations are intermediate, are transitional.Not so much paradigm clash as reality clash. If you don't understand what transitional means in evolution then the problem is yours. Which are still intermediate between the ark population and the modern day population -- that is what transitional means. I've seen your fantasy about preloaded genes before Faith.Amusingly getting human species from human species is not that much of a stretch.Now do beetles.Case study: why so many beetles? - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Case Study: Why So Many Beetles?

​

If you were to randomly pick an extant animal species, odds are that it would be a beetle. While there are 250,000 described species of plants, 12,000 described species of roundworms, and only 4,000 described species of mammals, there are over 350,000 beetle species described, with many more beetles yet to be discovered!

​

---

And koala bears.How did this slow moving, non-swimming, vegetarian that only eats eucalyptus leaves get from the ark to australia without leaving intermediates\transitionals (varieties) in between? Intermediates, transitionals ... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil? Intermediates, transitionals ... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil? And we have records of dog breeds and their intermediate forms ... Which are intermediates, transitionals ...... where is the evidence? Not in fossils, bones in the dirt and soil? They should show up in the archeological evidence of the last 4500 years.Edited by RAZD, : koalaEdited by RAZD, : +

And breeding for new traits does not work without mutations -- you can't squeeze blood from a stone -- a problem that Faith has historically had with evolution.

Don't worry Faith, I know that you insist on being massively wrong on the genetics, and I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how invalid it is. Reality doesn't care what you think.Remember you are postulating in the deep unknowable past according to your own argument. Evolutionists say we can use human anatomy and our knowledge of art to hypothesis\approximate where the hands go.Creationists say that you cannot know for sure where the hands go, you weren't there when the puzzle was made; they could be up-side-down or over her head or side-wise ...And it won't matter as more pieces are fit into place.

Based on what evidence and hypothesis? That hands appeared suddenly in the jigsaw record?Really?

You talked about lions and the "cat kind" ... and one of the questions is where you draw your arbitrary mythical "kind" line.Feliformia - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Feliformia (also Feloidea) is a suborder within the order Carnivora consisting of "cat-like" carnivorans, including cats (large and small), hyenas, mongooses, civets, and related taxa. Feliformia stands in contrast to the other suborder of Carnivora, Caniformia ("dog-like" carnivorans). Both suborders share one characteristic which distinguishes Carnivora from all other mammals: the possession of the four carnassial teeth.

​

All extant feliforms share a common attribute: their auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). This is a key diagnostic in classifying species as feliform versus caniform. In feliforms the auditory bullae are double-chambered, composed of two bones joined by a septum. Caniforms have single-chambered or partially divided auditory bullae, composed of a single bone. ...

​

​

There are seven extant families, twelve subfamilies, 56 genera and 114 species in the Feliformia suborder. They range natively across all continents except Australia and Antarctica. Most species are arboreal or semi-arboreal ambush hunters. ...

​

Family Eupleridae (the "Malagasy carnivorans") includes fossa, falanouc, Malagasy civet and Malagasy mongooses, all of which are restricted to the island of Madagascar. ...

​

Family Felidae (domestic cats, tiger, lion, ocelot, etc.) are the best-known of "cat-like" carnivorans. There are 41 extant species, and all but a few have retractile claws. This family is represented on all continents except Australia (where domestic cats have been introduced) and the Antarctic. The species vary in size from the tiny black-footed cat (Felis nigripes) at only 2 kg (4.5 lb) to the tiger (Panthera tigris) at 300 kg (660 lb). Diet ranges from large to small mammals, birds and insects (depending on species size.)

​

Family Hyaenidae (hyenas and aardwolf) has four extant species and two subspecies. All show features of convergent evolution with canids, including non-retractile claws, long muzzles, and adaptations to running for long distances. ...

​

Family Herpestidae (the mongooses, kusimanses, meerkat, etc.) has 32 species. ... They are extant in Africa, Middle East and Asia. All have non-retractile claws.

​

Family Nandiniidae (African palm civet) has only one species (Nandinia binotata), extant across sub-Saharan Africa. They have retractile claws and are slender-bodied, arboreal omnivores (with fruit making up much of their diet).

​

Family Prionodontidae (the Asiatic linsangs) has two extant species in one genus. They live in Southern-East Asia. All are arboreal hypercarnivorans. They are the closest living relatives of Felidae family.

​

Family Viverridae (the binturong, civets, genets and African linsang) has 30 extant species and all have retractile claws. They are extant in Southern Europe, Africa and Asia. ...

​

Evolution

​

In the Middle Palaeocene (60 million years ago), Miacoidea appears. Miacoids were a group of paraphyletic taxa believed to be basal to Carnivora. ...

​

The miacoids are divided into two groups: the miacids, with a full complement of molars, and the viverravines with a reduced number of molars and more specialized carnassials. These dental differences resemble the difference between Caniforms (with more teeth) and Feliforms (with fewer teeth) but this may not mean evolutionary lineages. ...

​

In the Middle Eocene (about 42 mya) the miacids started to branch into two distinct groups of the order Carnivora: the Feliforms and Caniforms. ...

​

The diagram below presents a contemporary (2010) view of feliform evolution and familial relationships (cladogram) overlaid onto the geological time scale. The information presented is based on fossil records and systematic classifications.

​

---

Note that Family Prionodontidae is not shown on this cladogram for some unstated reason.Intermediates\transitionals galore.But there are also shared characteristics that show development and evolution from the early forms to the extinct and current forms.None of them showing significant evolution (speciations) in the last 4500 years, with the families being established over 26 million years ago.And that is a simplified summary of the paleontological data that is known.Edited by RAZD, : subtEdited by RAZD, : word

I agree that such confusion would be counterproductive.If I may, I would suggest using cladistics instead of traditional taxonomy as it appears closest to the way creationists discuss kinds:Cladistics - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cladistics ... is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are grouped together based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the group's last common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. ...

​

The techniques of cladistics, and sometimes the terminology, have been successfully applied in other disciplines: for example, to determine the relationships between the surviving manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales,[7] or also between 53 manuscripts of the Sanskrit Charaka Samhita.

​

... The outcome of a cladistic analysis is a cladogram — a tree-shaped diagram (dendrogram)[17] that is interpreted to represent the best hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships. Although traditionally such cladograms were generated largely on the basis of morphological characters ... genetic sequencing data and computational phylogenetics are now commonly used ...

---

This allows us to discuss the "dog clade" and the "cat clade" without getting into family\genus\species etc definitions.The bottom of the clade\cladogram would be the ancestral breeding population, and the top of the clade\cladogram would be the reproductively separate derived populations living today ... the lions, tigers, cheetahs, cougars, domestic cats, etc.In between are the intermediate\transitionals and the branching points that isolate and divide the current populations into reproductively isolated sub-populations (whether you call them speciation points or not).Here are a couple of examples: The middle one is the vombatiform clade and it shows that the koala bear is more "basal" (closer trait-wise to the ancestral population) than the others, the tasmanian wolf\lion is intermediate and the wombats are the most derived (most changed from the "basal" ancestral population.If we use this clade as an example of a kind, then we can see that there would need to be intermediate\transitional forms along the branches to the more derived forms, the stages where the derived traits first occur:Fossil - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. ...

---

A transitional form\species\variety\etc is one that exhibits traits common to both the ancestral group and its derived descendant group.Remember that the animals are grouped based on shared characteristics, and those shared characteristics would be inherited from the basal ancestral population rather than derived multiple times.Multiple derivation does occur -- as in nocturnal behavior in different branches of primates: Monophyletic clades (yellow) are ones that include all descendant populations from a single ancestral population. Note that the whole picture is also a monophyletic cladeParaphyletic clades (blue) are ones that don't include all descendant populations, and thus they are incomplete clades.Polyphyletic clades (red) are ones that include several sub-clades without the basal ancestral population or all intermediate populations. The traits in these cases would be due to convergent evolution rather than inherited evolution.Kinds, no matter how defined, would have to be monophyletic clades, as they would be descendant from the ancestral kind on the ark.So if we use clades we can avoid any confusion from family\genus\species taxon descriptions and focus on the share characteristics and end populations.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by Admin, : Rerender for more mobile friendly placement of images.

Indeed, but the question here is whether we have slow biological evolution over many generations, or rapid creationist evolution (creolution) just after the ark landing.The evidence would be in recent (in the last 4500 years) and it would be bones rather than fossils.The issue is timing.

What I showed you is that there is not only no evidence for your post ark transitionals, there is evidence of current forms of species living earlier than 4,500 years ago -- evidence that is apparently contradictory to your claim.It is your job to show that your argument can be substantiated by evidence rather than just wild assertions.Note this part of my previous post:

quote:

---

The diagram below presents a contemporary (2010) view of feliform evolution and familial relationships (cladogram) overlaid onto the geological time scale. The information presented is based on fossil records and systematic classifications.

​

---

Those lavender bars represent "Fossil range extant species" -- fossils of the current forms well into the "unwitnessed past" -- while what your position predicts is all those vertical branches occurring in the last 4,500 years or so ...The transitionals that we see in stone fit the evolutionary paradigm.The transitionals that we should see in dirt\soil\sediments to fit the creationist paradigm are not only missing, but evidence of current forms extend without transition between them back much longer than 4,500 years ago, contradicting the creationist paradigm.Simple.

Which is the biological definition of species. Which is the biological definition of species. Which is both the biological definition of macroevolution and the biological definition of species.If you truly want to be clear then just use the biological definitions because they mean what you are saying. The true test of a definition is that you can use the word and the definition interchangeably with no loss in communication.