Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Creation/Evolution dividing line
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 1 of 65 (144839)
09-26-2004 1:23 PM


The question that I’d like to try and get an answer for is one that I like to throw into discussions with creationists from time to time, so I thought I’d have a go at giving the issue a topic all of its’ own, as it has implications for a number of aspects of the debate from Intelligent Design to the definition of biblical ‘kinds’. Here goes
Most creationists seem to accept that there is a certain degree of variability in life that can be easily explained by the processes of random mutation and selection. My question is this:
Where is the line beyond which evolution can be said to have taken over from a creator’s handiwork?
In other words, I’d like to try and find out the point at which you find the ToE insufficient to explain life’s diversity. In order to do this without slipping back to the well-worn paths of the micro vs macro debate I’d like people to tackle the question in a specific way: by tracing the phylogenic ‘tree-of-life’ backwards:
  • Pick a mammal, any mammal (elephant, human, polar bear — doesn’t really matter)
  • Trace the tree back to the first split in the branches, and ask yourself whether you can accept that a common ancestor could give rise to the species on both sides of the split.
  • If the answer is yes, then proceed to the next split and ask the same question.
  • If the answer is no, then explain why you find that step a problem
Try not to make too large a step each time — any attempt to say that the step between E.coli and P. Pygmaeus is too large will be frowned upon.
My position is that when I do this exercise I get to no step at which there is a stumbling block, from man all the way back to the very first self-replicators. Others will obviously have a different view.
Where do you draw the line?
{This was message 5 of the original proposed topic thread. I am promoting it as the start of a new topic. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-26-2004 12:20 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Ooook!, posted 09-30-2004 3:15 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 09-30-2004 3:27 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 4 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:48 PM Ooook! has replied
 Message 8 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 12:08 AM Ooook! has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 2 of 65 (146152)
09-30-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 1:23 PM


Half-hearted Bump
OK, OK Adminnemooseus you were right, it's not even gliding from higher branches!!!
Unless of course any creationists out there want to give it a shot?
[Ooook sheepishly climbs back up his tree]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 1:23 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 65 (146155)
09-30-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 1:23 PM


I must emphasize to creationists to first define "kind" before going any further. I have never seen or heard a creationist give a proper definition of "kind" beyond anything that is vague.

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 1:23 PM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 10-09-2004 5:46 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 4 of 65 (146177)
09-30-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 1:23 PM


I am a creationist.
If i trace back the elephant to its first split thats fine. and so on.
The problem with the tree is that we don't accept the creatures presented on it. Once an elephant no longer looks like an elephant why should we accept we are dealing with its ancester.
Your saying to us why is this split so beyond evolution but how can we answer if we don't accept the creature is related to the elephant in the first place.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 1:23 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:54 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 7 by Ooook!, posted 10-01-2004 11:27 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 65 (146180)
09-30-2004 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:48 PM


Once an elephant no longer looks like an elephant why should we accept we are dealing with its ancester.
Because it looks enough like the last organism, which was an organism that you considered close enough to an elephant to be its ancestor.
If A is the ancestor of B, and B is the ancestor of C, then A is the ancestor of C, no matter how different A and C may be.
Your saying to us why is this split so beyond evolution but how can we answer if we don't accept the creature is related to the elephant in the first place.
Since you accepted that it was related to the creature that was related to the elephant, then by necessity it must be related to the elephant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 10-01-2004 9:41 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 17 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:39 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 65 (146443)
10-01-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
09-30-2004 4:54 PM


a comment only
Percy is as fair as E.Scott but the word here would be "collatoral" no matter how spelled. I'm not sure this applies to playtpus eggs IF the it's bill' electros are genetically determined by my own symmetric imganiation as one of the kind, so I wont go for this as I would like instead to think of bird/mammal not twomaMals. Croizat limited to any place this in the NWUS, and I have not, seen better biogeography anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 7 of 65 (146469)
10-01-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:48 PM


OK, let me try and clarify what I would like you to try:
Firstly, you accept that Random Mutation and Natural selection have contributed (to some degree) to the variety of species on this planet, right? But being a creationist, you obviously think that there is a limit to what RM and NS can do. I'm trying to get you to define (with the help of the phylogenic tree), where that limit is.
Where do you stop and say, " I can't believe that something could give rise to that and that"
Secondly, try (at least at first) to ignore all of the other aspects of the whole EvC debate, like the percieved lack of fossils and the age of the earth. Also try and put any preconcieved ideas about what a 'kind' is or isn't to one side before you start to trace backwards. I just want you to think about how powerful a tool for change RM and NS are.
For example, you've mentioned elephants. Can you accept there was a population of 'proto-elephants' (if you like) that, through RM had enough variation to produce modern elephants and mammoths. What about a forerunner to that population which had enough variation to give rise to the whole lot of Elephantiformes (including mastodons etc)? Keep on going until you have to invoke special creation for species on either side of a split in the branches. You've effectively defined a kind. We can then discuss why you can't trace it back any further. Try it again with a number of different start points.
Take your time to research it, I don't mind if this thread is a bit of a slow burner (within reason of course ).
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-01-2004 03:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:55 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:55 PM Ooook! has replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 65 (146668)
10-02-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ooook!
09-26-2004 1:23 PM


Would the dolophin of Cetacea and the giraffe of Artiodactyla work in terms of the split in the tree?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ooook!, posted 09-26-2004 1:23 PM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:25 AM General Nazort has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 65 (146686)
10-02-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by General Nazort
10-02-2004 12:08 AM


i think the idea of this thread is to take absurdly small steps, or at least show the logic of it. in this case, that's not a very small difference. their common ancestor is not a single generation or two away, but a few million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 12:08 AM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 2:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 65 (146687)
10-02-2004 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 2:25 AM


i think the idea of this thread is to take absurdly small steps, or at least show the logic of it. in this case, that's not a very small difference. their common ancestor is not a single generation or two away, but a few million years.
But on that chart he linked to they branch from the same place.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:44 AM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 13 by Ooook!, posted 10-02-2004 7:11 AM General Nazort has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 65 (146692)
10-02-2004 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by General Nazort
10-02-2004 2:32 AM


true, but there were also many, many offshoots between when dolphin had legs and when they didn't, and between when giraffes had long necks and when the didn't. both are examples of radical changes taking place over a few million years.
the chart (which i admittedly missed) is far from complete. i think for the argument to be effective, it may have to be broken down PAST the species level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 2:32 AM General Nazort has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ooook!, posted 10-02-2004 6:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 12 of 65 (146707)
10-02-2004 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 2:44 AM


the chart (which i admittedly missed) is far from complete.
True, the tree-of-life website is not very detailed. If you (or anybody else for that matter) can think of a better site that we can use instead to clear up some of the confusion I seem to have seeded then I'd be glad to switch over to using that.
i think for the argument to be effective, it may have to be broken down PAST the species level.
Not necessarily. If we get people going "giraffe and no further", or "house mouse and no further", then yes we will need to go into more detail (with extra examples and more links etc), but if they accept for example that all even-toed ungulates shared a common ancestor, but there is no way that Artiodactyla and Cetacea could have arisen from the same stock then the job becomes a bit easier. Then (he says hopefully) people can provide fossil evidence and/or try and persuade others that there isn't that much of a difference.
This is where I admit that I don't have the experience or knowledge to provide immediate examples so when someone does get to that stage they might have to wait a while for me to search the internet. Or I could ask for the help from others, who do have the experience and knowledge of course

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 2:44 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 13 of 65 (146712)
10-02-2004 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by General Nazort
10-02-2004 2:32 AM


OK, so you’ve started at whales and decided that they couldn’t have shared a common ancestor with giraffes et al in the Artiodactyla, fair enough — its now time for me to try and dig up a couple of examples of extinct land mammals that looked kind of like whales, and to search for a couple of websites that show the anatomy of whales (so you can try and explain why you think they are so different) — as I pointed out to the great spider-lover this may take some time.
In the meantime, do the exercise in reverse. Start at giraffes and ask yourself — can I accept that deer, cattle, goats, sheep, antelopes, giraffe etc all shared a common ancestor and so on. Do you then get back to the same place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 2:32 AM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 3:10 PM Ooook! has replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 65 (146768)
10-02-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ooook!
10-02-2004 7:11 AM


Actually it was dolphins I picked, not whales.
Does anyone know of a good site where I could research this better?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ooook!, posted 10-02-2004 7:11 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Ooook!, posted 10-03-2004 6:26 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 15 of 65 (147049)
10-03-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by General Nazort
10-02-2004 3:10 PM


Hello again General,
Actually it was dolphins I picked, not whales
So you did - ooops!
I must have misunderstood what you were doing. Can I be presumptious and ask you to backpedal a bit? The idea was to pick one animal and work backwards, not to pick two that you think are totally different and see where the split occurs. That may seem like splitting hairs but it does make a big difference, especially if you do the opposite and start from giraffes. Let me try and explain again:
If you've started at dolphins and got to the split between Cetacea and Artiodactyla before answering "nay!" then you've already accepted that whales, dolphins and porpoises came from common stock. If you don't think that this is the case then what are the fundamental differences between them that you think could not have been the product of RM and NS?
If you do accept that (at least in theory), then my next question would be why is it so difficult to accept an equatic mammal evolving from a semi-equatic one like the hippopotamus (which is -I think - the closest living relative to whales etc)? Especially as there seems to be evidence of transitional ancestors of whales:
talkorigins
Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales
Origins.tv
I hope these are alright. Again, if anyone has any better examples (or if these ones are out of date) I would be glad to see them.
Sorry about the lack of websites for more general research (I am still looking), for now I would suggest talkorigins for a start point and google if you see something there (or in the original link) that you want to know more about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by General Nazort, posted 10-02-2004 3:10 PM General Nazort has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2004 1:04 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024