Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and the BIG LIE
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 108 (448270)
01-12-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
01-06-2008 12:28 AM


Re: On to the theory then. Perhaps? Creo vs Evo predictions from the theory?
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 96
quote:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 12:28 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 8:35 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 7:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 108 (448490)
01-13-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
01-12-2008 8:35 PM


Evolution is not the issue, the issue is common ancestors
Thanks, ICANT.
You are aiming at somebody I ain't. You are looking for yec's lots of luck.
And the resident YEC's seem to have disappeared.
One point that is demonstrated by this, is that evolution is not the issue, the issue is common ancestors, not how we get here from there.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 8:35 PM ICANT has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 108 (448496)
01-13-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 7:46 PM


why did the chipmunk cross the road?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: look into co-evolution.
k?
Edited by RAZD, : the long and the short of it.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 7:46 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 108 (448513)
01-13-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 8:07 PM


Re: why did the chipmunk cross the road?
... what is not addressed is that the walnut existed well before the chipmunk, being a form of vegetation ...
Is there a different view, as both appear wanting?
You have not explored when the walnut tree evolved or when the hard shell evolved, whether the chipmunk eats other foods that have softer shells, notably pine nuts, bugs, etc etc etc etc.
This is all, however, off topic. Please start a new thread
EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics
Please see Message 96 and Message 98 for latest topic input.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 8:07 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 108 (454621)
02-07-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
02-07-2008 8:17 PM


yes, I asked ray to bring it here, it was off-topic on the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2008 8:17 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 108 (454623)
02-07-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 7:41 PM


False.
Creationism rejects microevolution.
Actually you can find lots of references to microevolution on creationist sites. Thus the best you can say is that some creationists reject microevolution (or anything with the word "evolution" in it - a rather extreme bit of cognitive dissonance imho).
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.
Speciation has been observed.
The undisturbed fossil record as seen in the crust of the Earth shows species appearing, changing slightly, then disappearing. No evolution is seen.
Changing slightly is evolution. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, the definition does not have a minimum threshold for the amount of change to qualify.
This is an image you may have seen before, of Pelycodus fossils:
What you see are fossils sorted by depth in the geological column (see left side scale) and by size (see bottom scale). The population divides into two different populations - speciation.
The only difference is size and the horizontal lines represent the distribution of size within each population captured in the fossil record.
The fossils sort themselves, so this is not an interpretation of the data. You will note that you can connect the horizontal lines with vertical ones because they overlap in sizes from one depth to another, but the overall trend is to larger size until you get to the speciation event, where one branch reverts to the smaller size.
The whole graph shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- evolution (as defined by scientists studying evolution).
As far as the topic of this thread goes, these fossils demonstrate the kind of fossil evidence available to connect fossils at one geoplogical age with the fossils in another: overlapping with a trend towards change in one or more hereditary traits.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : cleaned up

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 7:41 PM Cold Foreign Object 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