Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 9:47 AM
111 online now:
bluegenes, Coragyps, Coyote, Davidjay, edge, kjsimons, Tangle, xongsmith (8 members, 103 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,084 Year: 13,690/21,208 Month: 3,172/3,605 Week: 514/933 Day: 12/40 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 76 of 137 (601096)
01-18-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
01-18-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.

How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?

I am different from both my parents, so does that qualify me as a different critter?

On the other hand I am supposed to believe that in the last 3 or 4 million years apes, chimps, and humans have evolved from a single life form.

Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?

The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.

330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?

This statement says that all those little microevolution events reaching back to a common ancestor has not been validated or invalidated yet.

A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long

Humans and chimps share thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in their genomes. Therefore, common ancestry between humans and chimps has been validated. Add to that the fossil hominids being discussed in this thread.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 1:28 AM Taq has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 77 of 137 (601178)
01-19-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
01-18-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?

Just a different species of the same critter.

Taq writes:

Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?

You may be an ape, I don't know but I have never met one that could type.

I am a modern human, descendant of mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God posessing a body, spirit and mind.

Taq writes:

330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?

All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.

Taq writes:

A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:

So says Taq.

The article you refferenced makes no such claim.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:43 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2011 2:58 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:32 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 92 by DrJones*, posted 01-21-2011 1:20 PM ICANT has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1602 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 78 of 137 (601185)
01-19-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICANT
01-19-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
You may be an ape, I don't know but I have never met one that could type.

I am a modern human, descendant of mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God posessing a body, spirit and mind.

You, I, every other poster on this site and every other human living or dead is an ape.

ICANT writes:

Taq writes:

How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?


Just a different species of the same critter.

So then what is a fox? Is that the same critter as a wolf?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 1:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 79 of 137 (601243)
01-19-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICANT
01-19-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Just a different species of the same critter.

Based on what criteria?

All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.

Humans and chimps are classified as the same critter, an ape. Humans and bears are classified as the same critter, a mammal. Humans and fish are classified as the same critter, a vertebrate. Humans and amoeba are classified as the same critter, a eukaryote.

So is this the extent of your criteria, the ability to describe two species with the same word?

So says Taq.

The article you refferenced makes no such claim.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long

The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.

And I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 1:28 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 12:52 PM Taq has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 80 of 137 (601248)
01-19-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
01-19-2011 11:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

Based on what criteria?

They can produce offspring that can produce offspring.

Taq writes:

The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.

Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:32 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 1:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 81 of 137 (601250)
01-19-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
01-19-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
They can produce offspring that can produce offspring.

So how did you determine that the 330 species of foraminifera were interfertile? Also, can you actually show me the offspring of a chihuahua and wolf? Does such a critter exist? How would that work, exactly?

Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose.

I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage. The overwhelming signal is common ancestry and the expected nested hierarchy. This also follows through for overal ERV divergence and LTR divergence, the two other phylogenetic signals seen in ERV's.

And I still have not seen a creationist explanation for the pattern of homology in the hominid fossil record. Why is it that we see the emergence of modern human features through time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 12:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 2:32 PM Taq has responded
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 6:29 PM Taq has not yet responded

barbara
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 82 of 137 (601260)
01-19-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Mu understanding is there is only 7 ERV's shared in all primates and that is also out of thousands mentioned here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 1:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 3:27 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 83 of 137 (601270)
01-19-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by barbara
01-19-2011 2:32 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Mu understanding is there is only 7 ERV's shared in all primates and that is also out of thousands mentioned here.

Such ERV's would probably need to be under positive selection to keep from being mutated beyond recognition since integration in the common ancestor of all primates (ca 35 million years if memory serves). For all apes we have a much more recent common ancestor (ca 10 million years).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 2:32 PM barbara has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 84 of 137 (601302)
01-19-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq, having fun with a brick wall?

ICANT wants to see evidence that foraminifera evolved into something like a snail ... ignoring that forams are single cell while snails are not.

I've yet to see his explanation why convergent evolution doesn't fill his criteria of "something like" another species.

I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage

You could also look to see if the loci for the anomalous ERVs shows evidence of subsequent mutation in the human lineage, thus eradicating the evidence in our lineage while not affecting it in the chimp and gorilla lineages.

Given that we are talking 1 or 2 ERVs out of several thousands, with the rate of mutations, plus the millions of years since the human\chimp\gorilla split, it would seem to be very reasonable to expect such subsequent mutations to happen. Certainly one would expect old ERVs to be lost at some point, as mutation\evolution is not just additive.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 1:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 85 of 137 (601346)
01-19-2011 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
01-18-2011 2:28 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANTREADENGLISHEITHER writes:

arachnophilia writes:

no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse?

Yes, specifically the one that uses עשה with the beginning of man to exist.

sure!

quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
...
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי

you see the עשה don't you?

Could you please point out the verse that שבת appears in prior to Exodus 16:23

sure!

quote:
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת

when the Sabbath was first instituted and observed.

sure! same as above.

So asserts arachnophilia.

and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew.

I can't help it if your sources ignore the rules concerning Biblical Hebrew to support their personal beliefs.

rashi! that's a good one. tell you what, why don't you actually learn some biblical hebrew before you make that charge.

So you prefer what some man says rather than what the text says.

er, no. i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense. if i want to read what the text literally says, it's easy enough to go grab a hebrew copy. if i want to know what it means, i have to understand the idioms. and the grammar. literally rendering the words into another language often does not translate meaning. here's from the wikipedia article on idioms -- i think it provides a sufficient example.

quote:
In the English expression to kick the bucket, a listener knowing only the meanings of kick and bucket would be unable to deduce the expression's true meaning: to die. Although this idiomatic phrase can, in fact, actually refer to kicking a bucket, native speakers of English rarely use it so. Cases like this are "opaque idioms."

Literal translation (word-by-word) of opaque idioms will not convey the same meaning in other languages an analogous expression in Polish is kopnąć w kalendarz (to kick the calendar), with calendar detached from its usual meaning, just like bucket in the English phrase. In Bulgarian the closest analogous phrase is da ritnesh kambanata ("да ритнеш камбаната", to kick the bell); in Dutch, het loodje leggen (to lay the piece of lead); in Finnish, potkaista tyhj (to kick nothing, or more literally to kick the absence of something); in German, den Lffel abgeben (to give the spoon away) or, closer to the English idiom, im [contraction of in dem] Eimer sein ("to be gone into the (waste)bucket"); in Latvian, nolikt karoti (to put the spoon down); in Portuguese, bater as botas (to beat the boots); in Danish, at stille trskoene ("to take off the clogs"); in Swedish, trilla av pinnen ("to fall off the stick"); and in Greek, τινάζω τα πέταλα ("to shake the horse-shoes"). In Brazil, the expression to kick the bucket (chutar o balde) has a completely different meaning (to give up something complicated, as a bucket kicked makes too much noise, demonstrating impatience).


I think I can tell the difference in Hebrew and English.

i'm not convinced that you can.

Could you explain how the verb ברא which is the Qal perfect which is completed action can become imperfect which means continuing action.

and this is what i mean. hebrew grammar is not english grammar. it doesn't have present and past tense -- the verb is perfect (and yes, even complete, though this is not the same as past tense), but there is no grammatically correct way to portray this in english, on the level of the individual word. instead, the verb in english is "began creating", which, btw, is a (past) perfect construct. hebrew (even modern) does not distinguish between past and present perfect.

What does infinitive and gerunds have to do with a preposition placed on a noun turning it into a verb in Biblical Hebrew?

again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew.

To get your interpertation of "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" you have to change the perfect verb into an imperfect verb.

How do you acomplish that feat?

"created" and "creating" are simple past participles. "began creating" is past perfect. but thanks for playing.

Trying to support one idiomatic translation with another idiomatic translation is not going to get you any points with me.

that's funny. please note that i only suggested a translation. you are free to read the verse i actually posted all on your own. here it is again:

quote:
וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

since you can't actually read any hebrew, here's the horribly literal, word-for-word nonsense you prefer.

quote:
and-was as-began the-man to-more on-face the-dirt, and-daughters born to-them, and-saw sons-the-god (object)-daughters the-man, as good, and took to-them wives from-all that chose

that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both כי (as/because/when, beginning a dependent clause), but also החל (begin/began)* -- and every phrase that follows it begins with a vav.

* not, btw, חלל as you wrote in Message 62, which means something like "heresy".

Definitely seems to me that the story in Genesis chapter one is being resumed later in Genesis 2:4. That may not be what was intended but it is what was stated.

that's fine. but it's clearly comparing the two stories, and drawing a parallel. this is not the same as conflating the two stories.

Yes I know "in the day" is literal.

God gave the definition of day.

but the days in genesis 1 aren't? you just apply your standards wherever you see fit, don't you? how ludicrous. ביום is a classic biblical idiom. just anywhere else it's used. for instance, numbers 3:

quote:
וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן, וּמֹשֶׁה: בְּיוֹם, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--בְּהַר סִינָי

yet, as we know from exodus, moshe was on the mountain for forty days.

So I will take God's definition of what Day is over anything you want to say or anyone else as He is responsible for Day existing.

if you're going to be that idiotically literally, then these two contradict:

God called a light period Day.

God called a light period and a dark period Day.

either there are multiple usages, or there aren't. you can't argue both.

Any light period from Genesis 1:1 until today is a literal day.

i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different:

quote:
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל-יְמֵי אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר-חַי, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 2:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 5:41 AM arachnophilia has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 86 of 137 (601511)
01-20-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
01-18-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT

Doing well hope you are also doing well.

I've been better, and I've been worse. Plus ca change plus ce le meme chose

There are very few places that mentions transmutation at all but the three gentlemen in his article did refer to transmutation which was the belief at that time is what was required to produce a different critter from an existing critter.

Ah, so we are going back to the time when Darwin was writing "Origin of Species" to find mention of transmutation, not any current biology texts, and you'd rather use something that was over 150 years than modern biology.

Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.

Ah, not quite: that is not what 'Macro-Evolution' means in the science of evolutionary biology, instead this how creationists try to misuse the term.

My definition of 'Macro-Evolution' = evolution above the level of species.
From Berkeley
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Do you disagree with Berkeley?

I don't disagree with Berkeley, I disagree with the way you interpret what Berkeley says. This is confirmation bias on your part, not careful reading to arrive at understanding.

Berkeley goes on to say that macro-evolution is the formation of nested hierarchies by speciation and descent from common ancestors; instead of looking at the specific evolution within species (micro-evolution) you look at the effects of such evolution on speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies and descent from common ancestors.

Berkeley does NOT say that some other kind of evolution occurs, no matter how much you try to interpret it this way.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Small scale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

quote:
Defining Microevolution
Microevolution is evolution on a small scalewithin a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

It is looking at the tree rather than the forest, to use another analogy.

Speciation, the dividing line:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml

quote:
Defining Speciation
Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species.

Large scale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...o101/VIMacroevolution.shtml

quote:
Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scalewhat we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

We look at the growth of a forest from a single tree, seeds from the tree grow into new trees, and this process continues until the forest is formed. Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

quote:
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...

quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

mutation
gene flow
genetic drift
natural selection

+ 3.8 billion years

= Macroevolution


... and the forest does not grow by a mechanism new and separate from the growth of the individual trees, that each grow from seeds from other trees. Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection are processes of microevolution.

Once speciation has occurred, the seed is planted for increased diversity as the two branches grow apart from their common ancestors and each other as each generation passes, producing seeds of their own that go on to grow into new trees, new clades of species.

The problem is there is no direct visible evidence that one critter has become a different critter. One critter becoming another critter would be necessary for all life forms to begin to exist from one life form.

We have a 66 million year history of foraminifera presented by Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) in which there was 330 species of foraminifera began to exist.

The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.

This is you equivocating on what is a "different critter" rather than a true statement about the evolution of foraminifera. The 330 species are different critters within the lexicon of evolutionary biology - they are different species. Curiously, in evolutionary biology, being different species is sufficient to be different critters.

Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order, including multiple taxonomic classes between the order foraminifera and the individual species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

quote:
The Foraminifera, ("hole bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] These shells are made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or agglutinated sediment particles. About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.

Orders:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida- extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
Xenophyophorea
Reticulomyxa


Within each order there are superfamilies, within the superfamilies there are families, within the families there are genera, and within the genera there are species.

Species from one genera within one family that is part of one superfamily are indeed "different critters" from the species from another genera within another family that is part of another superfamily, even though they are all part of the order of foraminifera --- just as you are a "different critter" from a ring-tailed lemur (which is also a member of the primate order) --
unless you want to say that humans and lemurs are still just primates, that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order ....

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramfr.html

quote:

The oldest fossil foraminifera, from the Cambrian, are simple agglutinated tubes. Calcareous microgranular and porcellaneous tests evolved in the Carboniferous, and calcareous hyaline tests in the Permian. Over time, each of these groups has evolved many different forms, including large complex tests associated with reefs. These groups of large species became abundant when reef environments were widespread, then suffered major extinction when world climate changed and reefs were decimated.

Do those all look like the same critter to you? Do some look similar to snails?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Wetmore.html

quote:
Fully grown individuals range in size from about 100 micrometers to almost 20 centimeters long. Some have a symbiotic relationship with algae, which they "farm" inside their shells. Other species eat foods ranging from dissolved organic molecules, bacteria, diatoms and other single-celled algae, to small animals such as copepods. They catch their food with a network of thin pseudopodia (called reticulopodia) that extend from one or more apertures in the shell. Benthic (bottom-dwelling) foraminifera also use their pseudopodia for locomotion.

You once said that you would be impressed if forams evolved into something like a snail, something that is a bottom dwelling shell enclosed type of critter that use their pseudopodia to catch food and for locomotion ... do you change your name to RECANT? or do we see continued equivocation?

Or is your standard of a "totally different critter" unrealistic, as evolution does not create "totally different critters" by speciation, but by continued evolution of daughter populations after speciation, including further speciation events.

Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why?

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_evolution.htm

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : dbcode


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM RAZD has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 87 of 137 (601529)
01-21-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arachnophilia
01-19-2011 10:40 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

you see the עשה don't you?

Sure I see make in verse 26 but I don't see a man or mankind existing.

I don't see mankind until they are ברא created male and female in verse 27. There is no specific number of mankind created, there could have been many.

arachnophilia writes:

sure! same as above.

I didn't know God needed a day of atonement.

arachnophilia writes:

and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew.

Others that disagree with you would include, Driver, Briggs, Brown, Dillman, Pusey, Delitzsch, Dillman, among others.

arachnophilia writes:

i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense.

Then explain how the following is a mess.

בראשית רא אלהים ברא את השמים ואת האדץ

בראשית a femine noun which is the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at?
The proper translation of that word and the preposition would be, In beginning, At beginning, At first

ברא is a Qal perfect verb that is only used with God as the subject of the verb and means to create, shape, form?

Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present, or future tenses.

Biblical Hebrew verbs are either prefect which is completed action or imperfect which is incomplete action.

אלהיםmasculine noun plural, meaning God the subject of the verb ברא? Translated God

את particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English.

השמים masculine noun meaning Heaven sky, with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Heaven?

ואת particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English. With the prefix ו translated and.

האדץ femine noun meaning land, Earth with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Earth?

In the Beginning, at the beginning, or at first tells us when God did the forming, shaping or creating.

I know you want בראשית to be translated as when began God to create.

That is impossible as the verb ברא is Qal perfect telling us the action of God was completed. The Heaven and Earth existed.

Now you can make your attacks and tell me I don't know what I am talking about that I can't read Hebrew and don't understand English. I would probably agree with you. But I do know the rules of Biblical Hebrew and I know that you can not make a Qal perfect verb an imperfect verb. Therefore I will conclude you are mistaken when you try to take modern English and modern Hebrew and apply their rules to Biblical Hebrew.

acrahnophilia writes:

again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew.

And when bareshit bara elohim is translated properly it makes perfect sense.

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

At the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

At first God created the Heaven and the Earth.

I have no problem understanding from any one of the three that in eternity past God created the Heaven and the Earth.

You and I just don't agree on when that was.

But then no one else agrees with me so what is one more.

arachnophilia writes:

that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both

You did mean verses didn't you as that is two verses.

arachnophilia writes:

i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different:

So you accept that God called the light יןם.

Do you disagree that God called the חשש night.

Do you disagree that God called the evening (end of a light period) and the morning (the end of a dark period) יןם.

Here is Genesis 1:5 to refresh your memory.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So God called a light period day.

God called a light period combined with a dark period day.

God did not call anything else day and that settles it as far as I am concerned.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : Insert code for Hebrew word in a quote


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2011 10:40 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 01-24-2011 11:08 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 88 of 137 (601530)
01-21-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
01-20-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi RAZD,

Sorry the problems presist.

RAZD writes:

Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow.

It is not a new tree if it comes from the seed of a tree.

RAZD writes:

It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...

Using trees in a forest is not a good example of what you are trying to explain to me.

If you want to explain how all those little changes in a critter can produce a competely different critter you probably wasting your time as there is not enough variation in the critters we have to look at to convince me.

RAZD writes:

Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order

There are probably millions of species of foraminifera that have lived in the past and that we have burned in our automobiles.

But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter.

Now when you back off and look at life and you see a foraminifera and a horse you got two different critters. And you are trying to convince me they decended from the same life form. I don't think so.

RAZD writes:

that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order ....

But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years.

RAZD writes:

Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why?

Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God.

I have faith that in the future the prediction of the Bible that I will stand before God and give an account of my life will be validated which will then validate all other beliefs I have held.

Just like you have faith that in the future there will be evidence that will validate the prediction of the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population.

God Bless, as I remember you always in my prayers.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 10:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 11:06 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 01-21-2011 1:04 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 6:07 PM ICANT has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5785
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 89 of 137 (601539)
01-21-2011 9:28 AM


Back to the topic
How does creationism explain these? (Click on the picture for a nice big view of these skulls.)

  • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  • (B) Australopithecus africanus

  • (C) Australopithecus africanus

  • (D) Homo habilis

  • (E) Homo habilis

  • (F) Homo rudolfensis

  • (G) Homo erectus

  • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus)

  • (I) Homo heidelbergensis

  • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens

  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 90 of 137 (601542)
01-21-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
01-21-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God.

Which of the fossils in the post above are different critters from humans, and what criteria are you using?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:09 PM Taq has responded

Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017