When you get to the point that you do not have sufficient evidence you can go no further unless you are going to accept by faith that something happened. Then I will say why should I have faith in your theory when You say my theory is based on faith and therefore is unbelievable.
So when you reach the point evidence is not sufficient to prove Position #1 and Position #2 you must say ok we are at a dead end.
When we come to a point where we don't know for sure, we are not at a "dead end",
- say we don't know for sure, ... but until we know more we can
- look beyond the missing evidence to find a most likely ancestor species based on shared traits and
- hypothesize a tentative genealogical development based on possible changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation to fill the gap, and
- make testable hypothesis of what missing evidence would look like and where it would likely be found in the geological record
- look for evidence to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.
We can expect a number of these hypothetical links, but those links will still be based on the theory that each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.
There would only be a
serious problem if there were no possible ancient ancestors that shared traits with the species in question.
Its your theory so have at it.
We agree that this theory applies to both the evolutionist model and the creationist model, at least since some hypthetical flood event.
Message 96quote:
This is essentially the creationist model, using (1) variation and adaptation, plus (2) speciation, to explain the diversity of life today back to the hypothetical biblical flood event and a point where we started with known kinds.
Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap.
To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge.
From
Two of Every Kind (see box at bottom):
quote:
The evolutionary “tree” (above right) postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from nonliving chemicals). The creationist “orchard” (above left) shows that diversity has occurred within the original Genesis kinds over time.
Baraminology ... shows, for example, that the many dog species that we find throughout the world today”including the coyote, the wolf, the fox, the border collie, and the jackal”may all descend from one original created kind, ...
So we should see the effect of the orchard vs tree arrangement in the fossil and genetic record, and it should be repeated after the flood event, which should also show up as an extinction event that winnows species down to the original kinds again.
From this information we can state a corollary to theory #1 that must be true for the creation model and false for the science model:
Theory #1b (a corollary of theory #1 if creationism is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their parent "original kinds" at the same time and in one general location ... once for the hypothetical flood event and once again for creation.
ie - there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, and we should
not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships:
Theory #1c (a corollary of theory #1 if evolution\geology is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their individual parent species at different times and different places ... in a fairly continuous process that forms a tree of relationships.
ie - we should find evidence that forms a tree:
If we can agree on this and the tests for the different corollaries then we can move on to the evidence for descent from parent species or kinds and see if
(1) the theory #1 can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(2) the theory #1b can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(3) the theory #1c can, or cannot, explain the evidence.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : thumb
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.