A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)

Thank you sir. We can now all go home.Thus ends the EvC Debate, Evolution Rules.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Whatever that is accepted from the unicellular organism to man.

then your understanding of evolution is wrong, man is not at the top, we only think we are, i guess you never have seen a bear eat someone or a shark take a bite out of someone
your idea sounds a bit egocentric

Well, technically, the terms mean the same thing, "kind" merely being the English word for the Latin "species." The terms are interchangeable but we use them differently just because evolutionists think the proliferation of NEW species proves evolution, and Kind DOESN'T refer to NEW species, but to the ORIGINAL of each animal that has subsequently "speciated" into the many types known today. Well, actually it does pretty well explain it. I know what you're getting at though: There is no reason why any creature should have the capacity to adapt to changed circumstances. The fact that they can and do shows the hand of the Designer. The fact, for instance, that a small lizard can "evolve" into a poisonous type in defense against heavy predation by a snake in the neighborhood, certainly suggests intelligence in the design. Random mutation hardly seems equal to such a clever defensive adaptation. Well, I don't dispute natural selection or "survival of the fittest." I think it's what happens since the Fall brought death into the world.But I do think that the genetic potentials or the whole system of adaptive genetic change is great evidence for a Designer and that no random process could possibly explain this.Clearly there is evolution WITHIN a "kind" which can be seen in any domestic breeding program. Consider the various breeds of dogs or cats, which can differ so dramatically from one another. There is no reason to think something similar doesn't happen in nature. To this extent Darwin was right. What has never been shown, however, that evolution assumes, is that the great variability from generation to generation that is displayed in many forms of life, amounts to anything more than interesting, creative and providential possibilities for each Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ok.. You have admited that "KIND" is a term that means the same things as 'species'.The fact that one species gives rise to another species (or two), or that two populations of the same species, for what ever reason, no longer interbreeds, and have enough variation between the two to no longer able to interbreed, that is evolution.Congraduations, you have just started accepting evolution.

Your second sentence makes even less sense than the first.A bacterium is is morphologically less complex than humans, but in evolutionary terms it is just as successful. And I doubt you could really make a case that humans are the most morphologically complex animal. As ramoss said, we may be the most technologically skilled, but technology does not necessarily correlate with "fitness" in the evolutionary sense.So, what is this "evolutionary scale" you're talking about? Does it relate to the topic in any way?

It is the evolutionary scale ranging from the unicellular organism to mammals. Let me try to explain this better. During all these years man has evolved from the lower scale.Today, to my knowledge, there is no other species above man. My original question is: If evolution is a continuous process, then where does it end? What will be the next species after man?

That didn't explain it better at all, it explained it exactly the same and made the same mistake again. There is no 'evolutionary' scale except perhaps in purely temporal terms. There are measures by which man could be seen to be 'top species' but there are equally many by which he is not. Do you mean what will man evolve into?TTFN,WK

You are making several assumptions here. The first and foremost being that there is some sort of ranking system. The second being that man is at the top of that system.But, you haven't given your ranking a title.Which species is most complex?
Well, rice is far more complex than humans if you look at the genetics.Which species is most successful?
There are many many species which have been around a lot longer than us. Or have more members than our puny 6 billion. Or will be around long after we have poisoned ourselves out of existance.Which species makes the most tools?
Okay, that's probably us.Which species is smartest?
Well, ask the cockroaches? They don't think that we even have language. Of course, we don't think they have language. So, who's right?

There is no such scale, there is just the assumption on your part that one exists. It is the Bible that says mankind was set above other animals. Science generally considers man to be just another animal.Take a look here:
Palaeos: Page not foundThat's a high-level cladogram of how science currently views the phylogenetic class of mammals. You'll notice that humans and their close relatives (hominoidea) do not appear on the top or bottom of the list. Position on the list merely places each clade (branch) in relationship to other clades within the diagram. Homo sapiens is just one more branch on the tree, not the end product. The ToE tells us evolution requires only imperfectly replicating structures. If there are none (all life as we know it ends or somehow begins to replicate perfectly) then evolution will cease. Evolution does not have a goal or purpose. Since we cannot (yet) predict what mutations may appear or how they will be filtered by natural selection there's no way of knowing. Think of it like this: those cards haven't been dealt yet. We have a growing understanding of the cards still in the deck and we can make a few predictions (our successor species will probably still have 4 limbs and our general arrangement of bones and organs) we can't say exactly what will be different about them.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Define "Lower scale". That is not a biological term, nor is it used by evolution.

.Take for example, any text book on biology. Man is the current listing in the hierarchy. Everyone here who has questioned me regarding the hierarchy does not seem to have noticed the scale in basic text books on biology where man is listed on the top.Applying the above quote, I would like to ask everyone who demanded prediction from those who believe in ID to explain why they are not predicting the future of man as to whom he will EVOLVE into?
the general premise for any theory to be approved is its PREDICTABILITY. How does evolution fit in interms of prediction??--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't noticed that "scale" at all. Could you give us a reference? Something from a "basic textbook on biology" where there is a "heirarchy" with man at the top?My understanding is that we are at the end of a branch - and there is no way to predict where that branch will go next.What can we predict? Suppose we find a fork in the bush that separates into mammals and non-mammals. We can predict that man will be a twig somewhere down the mammal branch, cows will be another twig somewhere on that branch, and so on.ID is being asked to predict something similar - in species that already exist, not in species that might exist sometime in the future. ID is being asked to "design" a bush of its own.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What you're saying is equivalent to saying "Well you can't tell me which atom is going to decay next so quantum mechanics is wrong!". It makes no sense to ask someone to predict something that's random, and so by definition can't be predicted. The path of evolution is dictated by the state of the environment (which is largely impossible to predict into the future), and completely random mutations which are certainly impossible to predict into the future.

Here is my prediction:

the political right will continue to follow the dictates of their greed;

the religious right will continue to worship greed (which they will misspell as "god");

because of the combined influence of these groups, we will continue to rape and pillage the earth, until it becomes unfit for human habitation.

​

The winners will be cockroaches and other creatures that we despise.

​

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber