Introduction of Pest Species

I was wondering; I thought somehow there were two Lams here... Well then, I guess this argument shall be a form of roleplaying...

I apologize for such a late reply. Microsoft has successfully made itself my mortal enemy, and I can say with absolute certainty that whatever problem I may have in the future will always be microsoft's fault. As a matter of fact, you will find that most coherent creationists will not disagree with you on this one. What they will disagree with you on is how much of a species natural selection can change over time. Any such change would have been anything but sudden. Primitive cultures tend to have short memories. If, for example, generation A of bird X can fly great distances, it would hardly be noticable if over the course of, say, 10 generations their flight range are limited to around that area. It is, then, no surprise that the natives never noticed such a change in their bird population. Even if they did notice, it was gradual enough for them to not pay attention to. Sure.There are examples of such genetic change on this forum in laboratory conditions. A few of them are even presented by my altered self.One specific example is Pinky's snails. You can do a search on that.Remember that the creationist concept of genetic degradation does not necessarily mean from good to bad. It simply means a change from what it had been right after creation. I never said such thing.Like Lam, I am too not very knowledgeble with geology and anything that comes close to it. Perhaps I could answer this question after some further research. Just because one person can't answer a question at the very moment doesn't mean a whole belief system has been refuted.Maybe someone else could help me with this? Please, no crackpot ideas, please. Well, according to Romans 1:20, "For ever since the creation of the world, His invisible characteristics-His eternal power and divine nature-have been made intelliible and clearly visible by His works."Psalms 19:1 states, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork."What we learn from and about the world around us will ultimately show us the glory of God's creation.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

Hey Jacen, np with the late reply.

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, you will find that most coherent creationists will not disagree with you on this one. What they will disagree with you on is how much of a species natural selection can change over time

---

A cap being placed upon how much can change though selection would surely be entirely arbitrary though, as it would make assumptions about environment and as to how it could be exploited.

quote:

---

Any such change would have been anything but sudden. Primitive cultures tend to have short memories. If, for example, generation A of bird X can fly great distances, it would hardly be noticable if over the course of, say, 10 generations their flight range are limited to around that area. It is, then, no surprise that the natives never noticed such a change in their bird population. Even if they did notice, it was gradual enough for them to not pay attention to.

---

I think reducing this change to the status of merely flight lessens the enormity of the change - these birds were able to grow far larger being flightless. In the time span you suggest, (10 generations)this change would have been at least more rapid than that.

quote:

---

Sure.

​

There are examples of such genetic change on this forum in laboratory conditions. A few of them are even presented by my altered self.

​

One specific example is Pinky's snails. You can do a search on that.

​

Remember that the creationist concept of genetic degradation does not necessarily mean from good to bad. It simply means a change from what it had been right after creation.

---

Sorry, google failed to yeild results; however, the concept of genetic degradation is somewhat interpretational as to exactly what is happening. Now, of course this doesn't rule it out, but lessens the explanatory power of any research results into it.

quote:

---

I never said such thing.

​

Like Lam, I am too not very knowledgeble with geology and anything that comes close to it. Perhaps I could answer this question after some further research. Just because one person can't answer a question at the very moment doesn't mean a whole belief system has been refuted.

​

Maybe someone else could help me with this? Please, no crackpot ideas, please.

---

Sorry, I never meant to say you did state that - I merely was trying to ask if Creationists do hold that view, and why. And yes, I understand that you can't be expected to answer everything.

quote:

---

What we learn from and about the world around us will ultimately show us the glory of God's creation.

---

I wouldn't disagree with that, but for theists here the question is 'What have we learned?'

Well, it's not really a cap that I was referring to. It is how far can natural selection and mutation go. Creationists just aren't so sure that such a jump from genera to genera, even though they take place over many many generations, is possible.Creationists don't deny the fact that we do observe change in biology. It is how much change that we have evidence for is in question. Actually, I would like to make it clear that I did not suggest they change in 10 generations. I used it as an example to point out that it was anything but rapid in the sense that it would be noticeble to primitives.Besides, as I also mentioned, primitive cultures rely on oral tradition to pass their knowledge from one generation to another. Even if at one point some of the individuals noticed that their birds were changing, the record memory could have been lost or mutated.Perhaps we could look to some legends for clues? After all, even though we know that there was a city that fit Troy's description, we have no way of knowing if there was really a Hector, Priam, etc. This post by Pinky explains about a group of snails that had a mutation resulting in a change in shape of their shells which prevented them from mating with the ones without the mutation. We have learned that the world, the universe, is much more complex than we initially thought.I would compare it to how natives perceived the technologies they saw the Western Europeans were using. A gun to them might be "irreducibly" complex at some point. It stopped being such a miracle once some of them learned how it worked.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

quote:

---

Well, it's not really a cap that I was referring to. It is how far can natural selection and mutation go. Creationists just aren't so sure that such a jump from genera to genera, even though they take place over many many generations, is possible.
Creationists don't deny the fact that we do observe change in biology. It is how much change that we have evidence for is in question.

---

True, but it could be (and has been) argued that denying macroevolution is simply to place a cap on how far microevolution can go. However, I will concede that evidence for macroevolution is far weaker than that for microevolution *avoids temptation to post TalkOrigins link*.

quote:

---

Actually, I would like to make it clear that I did not suggest they change in 10 generations. I used it as an example to point out that it was anything but rapid in the sense that it would be noticeble to primitives

---

I was merely carrying on your example; I never meant to imply that this was a fact. And I agree that we should look to mythology; sadly this is somewhere that (globally at least) my knowledge falls down.

quote:

---

This post by Pinky explains about a group of snails that had a mutation resulting in a change in shape of their shells which prevented them from mating with the ones without the mutation.

---

Interesting post, but again the question here is one of interpretation; evolution or degradation.

quote:

---

We have learned that the world, the universe, is much more complex than we initially thought.

​

I would compare it to how natives perceived the technologies they saw the Western Europeans were using. A gun to them might be "irreducibly" complex at some point. It stopped being such a miracle once some of them learned how it worked

---

Very true. I remember the aztec's description of guns as 'sticks that spat thunder'.(NB: is your avatar a Blake? Only it looks very much like one.)This message has been edited by Sisyphus, 01-16-2005 13:26 AM

A creationist and an evolutionist having a friendly, polite discussion; I never thought I'd see the day.Anyway, I thought my input would be useful.

quote:

---

Well, it's not really a cap that I was referring to. It is how far can natural selection and mutation go. Creationists just aren't so sure that such a jump from genera to genera, even though they take place over many many generations, is possible.

---

This has some up before, and the case remains the same; if you accept that small changes can occur, why not large changes? After all, they are simply accumulated small changes. For clarity:You accept that 1+1 = 2.
Why not accept that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10, in the absense of any mechanism or limitation preventing it from occuring? Creationists have yet to propose such a thing in the case of evolution.For the record, according to the entirety of the geological discipline, the flood did not happen. There is no evidence of it, and no YECist has ever pointed out the flood layers or developed a viable hypothesis regarding it, etc, etc. I am a geologist who has come to this conclusion after doing field research in Ireland, reading extensively on YECism, and being a member here for... ? A while at least. It doesn't do to get hung up on this stuff though. Just because it's metaphorical doesn't mean it's wrong.The Rockhound{edited out of admin mode AGAIN}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 01-17-2005 11:01 AM

You haven't. You're all going to hell Sorry, couldn't resist. While there are mountains of data and evidence support "micro-evolution", there aren't really much definitive evidence to support "macro-evolution" other than what you described above.What I am saying is that since there is a lack of definitive evidence for it we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Hehehe. I'm sure other creos who are well versed in geology can discuss with you on the matter. It's also fun to discuss about

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

Very true. I would say that creos do not deny scientific facts. Creos just disagree on how to interpret them. My point exactly. I actually don't know. I came across it while looking for por... I mean art works for my screensaver gallery.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

The problem is you are unaware of the evidence not that it doesn't exist. Let's start really, reallly simply shall we?Have a look at:
Message 184You can carry on there as it is off topic here. Guess what! No 'creos' at here or anywhere on the web have good explanation for what we observe. If you don't know enough to comment then you might look for help elsewhere or refrain from the giggles about something you are ignorant of.I would guess you are also a young earther. If so perhaps you can handle the correlations discussed in:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Again, I do not deny that the evidence exist. I only disagree with how we go about interpreting the evidence. Thanks, but no thanks. When I see another thread less incoherent than that one, (reading darkstar's posts made my head hurt)I will jump in with the discussion... when I'm more prepared. Exactly why I haven't given any comment of significance regarding geology and dates and dating. No, thank you. I am still trying to read some books about the subject. I don't like to get into discussions about things I don't quite have my fingers on yet.Added by edit. Admittedly, the creo side is somewhat handicapped by the very limited number of genuine works written about the subject. Whether most creos know this or not, it is a noteworthy challenge to have to read through creo materials and weed out crackpot ideas that seem to infest the creo community *ahem darkstar*. Since the creo side lacks a peer review system, each creo is on his own when it comes to digesting creo info.This message has been edited by Jacen, 01-16-2005 17:59 AM

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

This is the other biggie that is asked for a lot but never seems to get dealt with. Again and again the suggestion of different interpretations is raised but a coherent interpretation of the various evidences isn't forthcoming. The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldviewIs a thread where you could tack your examples of a different interpretation on the end.It allows for pretty well any example so if you read the OP and add to the end that should work. That is as honest and assessment as I've seen here. It is a serious problem for those of you trying to do an honest job of answering the issues. It is odd that none of the various sites including the biggies like ICR or AIG seem to really answer the tough questions though. Also we haven't had the good fortune to have a really knowledgeable "creo" drop in to tackle the real science threads.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-16-2005 18:28 AM

You also, commike, suggest that there are different interpretations. Please read the opening post of the linked thread in the previous post and show the evidence and a different coherent, explanatory interpretation for something.

My question is are you trying to drive me away?I'll slowly start new threads to discuss specifically the things that I know.I really do not feel like reading through 10+ pages of stuff written by some of the least coherent members of this forum. Well, sometimes you've gotta work with what you have.Coincidently, I don't remember ever visiting any of the ICR or AIG sites. I look a lot smarter holding a book than looking into a computer screen.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

There isn't any need to. The OP sets the basic idea and asks someone to have a go at it. The junk that was posted in reply can be skipped over since nothing came of it.You are the one that said that the scientific consensus is a just an interpretation. It is, of course, an interpretation at some level but it is not "just" anything. If it is just an interpretation you can supply one as good. If you can't don't bring up that argument.

What argument?I don't recall calling it "anything" or "just an interpretation" with the intention that of refering to it as just any interpretation. I do admit that my understanding of the subject is limited. Don't get me wrong, I give scientists a lot of respect for their work. The veracity of their educated interpretations of what are observed in the real world, I'm sure, outweighs my own.However, is it that important to remind a creo of that fact every time he says "I beg to differ" or how big and bad other creos were?

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.