Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speciation events
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 27 (308)
08-11-2001 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
08-11-2001 11:02 AM


quote:
John Paul writes:
I don't know of any learned Creationist since the time of Linnaeus that didn't agree speciation occurs.
Much more recently than Linnaeus both ICR and CRS have interpreted kind as synonymous with [b][i]species[/b][/i]. Duane Gish of ICR for years gave presentations denying that speciation was possible. All the speciation FAQs at Talk.Origins are there specifically to rebut the long-held Creationist position that speciation cannot occur. It has recently become more fashionable to interpret kind as a higher level of classification, but that doesn't change history.
quote:
The observed data of evolution fits the Creation model of biological evolution like a tailor-made glove.
As you've mentioned, there is more than one Creation model, and I'm not yet familiar with the specifics of what you're advocating. But if you're retaining the Genesis account of creation by God of kinds of plants and animals then your model doesn't fit the data since the data clearly goes back to a time when there were very few kinds at all, and certainly none that we know today like fish, birds and livestock.
On the other hand, if you're saying that the geologic column is a record of the order in which God created suddenly various kinds of life then you've wandered so far from the Genesis account as to raise the obvious question, why do you think you're following Genesis at all?
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-24-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 11:02 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 2:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 27 (390)
08-22-2001 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by lbhandli
08-21-2001 6:40 PM


I agree that this thread is threatening to encompass too many topics. It'll probably be less confusing if whenever anyone decides to take a detailed detour into a topic not directly related to Speciation Events that they begin a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 08-21-2001 6:40 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 27 (391)
08-22-2001 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
08-21-2001 2:24 PM


John: I can't control what other Creationists believed, proposed or thought about speciation at one time. Whatever that was it appears to have changed.
I wanted you to be aware of it, not control it. And while other viewpoints have recently acquired an increased voice, probably due to ID, the viewpoint that speciation is impossible hasn't changed or gone away. ICR and CRS, the two foremost Creationist organizations, still teach that speciation is impossible. Their adherents participate in Creation/evolution discussion sites like this all the time. That's why I pointed out to you that this viewpoint is still alive and kicking when you said that no one since Linnaeus had believed this. By the way, the first sentence of your linked article (Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists) mentions these Creationists.
John: The problem could have been with the definition of species. I am not even sure what state it is in now (the definition of species). And once a solid definition of species "evolves", how could we test it on all the extinct fauna?
Species has a pretty clear, though complex, definition. It's complex because the different means of reproduction require different definitions. For mammals it's pretty simple: a species is a population of individuals capable of producing offspring with one another. Once you get away from mammals it can become more interesting. For example, some species are bisexual, where an individual can play the role of either sex, and so the definition is different. For asexual organisms the definition of species is even more different because there is no such thing as sex. And though there is a definition of species for all the methods of reproduction, there are still ambiguities causing biologists to debate just where the species boundaries lie.
The ambiguities concerning where to draw the species boundaries greatly increase with fossils. For fossils we must use yet other definitions for species because we can't know whether one fossil was ever capable of reproducing with another fossil. There are no living examples by which to judge, and there's no DNA, either.
The problems with identifying fossil species are made clear by a modern example. Lion and tiger skeletons are identical. If we only had fossils of lions and tigers we would conclude, incorrectly of course, that they were a single species.
John: As for the "history" of what Creationists claimed, what about the "evolution" of the theory of evolution? Where does it stand now? Is the Modern Synthesis still reign supreme? Or has it been replaced? I can never get a straight answer.
The Modern Synthesis combines Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics. This merging of sciences occurred because they were found to be interdependent, interexplanatory and mutually compatible. This wasn't understood to be the case until the work of the population geneticists back in the 1920s. We've discovered nothing over the past 80 years to cast any doubt upon genes as the foundation of heredity, and the Modern Synthesis is as valid today as it was then, even more so.
John: Now that we have directly witnessed catastrophes depositing many layers of sediments in a short time frame also puts a damper on the old line "the further down in the strata you go, the older the objects are that are found there," because in fact it doesn't matter in what layer they are found, the objects could have been deposited at the same time.
I've scanned ahead a little and noticed that Larry already addressed this, I'm not sure in how much detail, so for now I'll just mention that the geologic column is not consistent in any way with rapid deposition. We can come back to this if it makes sense.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-24-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2001 2:24 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 08-22-2001 1:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 27 (397)
08-22-2001 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
08-22-2001 1:42 PM


All you need do to find a Creationist denying speciation is find a debate about transitional fossils. That's why the transitional fossil FAQs at TalkOrigins exist. Duane Gish of ICR wrote an entire book denying speciation called The Fossils Say No!. I've been in discussions where a Creationist will concede speciation but deny transitional status to any fossil mentioned. And many Creationists who say they accept speciation will drop it as soon as you mention human evolution.
The Modern Synthesis received a lot of attention here early this year. Thmsberry maintained at great length that it had been replaced in the 70s but was unable to cite anything anywhere to that effect. I think some people become confused because they start thinking that the Modern Synthesis is a theory when it is actually something else.
History makes clear how unlikely replacing the Modern Synthesis is. Before the 1920s one of the widely accepted perspectives was that Darwinian evolution and genetics were not consistent or compatible. The work of the population geneticists mathematically demonstrated that genetics and evolution were not only compatible but reinforced one another, and thus the Modern Synthesis of evolution and genetics was born. The Modern Synthesis is not itself a theory but simply a recognition that two previously separate and distinct sciences were actually extremely closely inter-dependent. The only way to supplant the synthesis is to decide that genetics and evolution are not really inter-dependent sciences. Doesn't seem likely.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 08-22-2001 1:42 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 27 (472)
11-22-2001 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jimlad
11-22-2001 1:54 PM


We haven't seen JP in a while, don't know what happened to him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jimlad, posted 11-22-2001 1:54 PM Jimlad 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