Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 98 (79044)
01-17-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:35 AM


Old?
If the Great Flood happened, is it possible that it made the Earth look older than it is?
This is off topic for this thread I suggest you take it to the flood and date and dating fora. But quickly the answer is no. You are free to propose a reasonable mechanism whereby it could have. If you go over the existing threads you will probably find that anything you can make up or have read about has already been refuted.
My belief is the various animals came off Noah's ark and populated the entire Earth. These species evolved/adapted enough to survive in their new environments. That's my opinion. -open to comments.
This is closer to on topic. The question here is 'hyperevolution'. How much evolution/adaptation do you think has taken place in how much time?
Since the flood was supposed to have happened about 4500 years ago (correct?) and there is no hint of further rapid evolution well before we reach the first century CE you have at most 2500 years to play with. How much of that can you support has haveing unrecorded hyperevolution taking place?
How many "kinds" were on the ark? What is a kind? If all "cats" are a kind did the evolution of the ark-cat into tigers and house cats all occur in less than 2500 years? That is did new species and genera arise hyper-fast?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:35 AM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:38 PM NosyNed has replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 98 (79049)
01-17-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:35 AM


A Real Boatload If You're Asking Me
In Message #75, Truth Detector says, "My belief is the various animals came off Noah's ark and populated the entire Earth. These species evolved/adapted enough to survive in their new environments."
Currently, estimates of the number of living species on Earth, including microbes, range from 1.4 million to 200 million. Biologists do not agree on this number, even to the nearest order of magnitude.
Until a few years ago, the total number of species on earth was estimated at between 1.4 and 6 million. These estimates were obtained as follows:
For the more conspicuous birds and mammals, the number of species is known quite accurately, both for tropical species as well as temperate ones. It is estimated that at least 98% of birds have been discovered. For birds there are 2-3 times as many tropical species as temperate ones. For other organisms most of the named species (1.4 million) are from temperate countries. If we assume that the same factor applies to other organisms as to birds, then there are 2-3 times this many tropical species (2.8-4.2 million), giving an estimated total species of 4.2-5.6 million worldwide.
There are about 1.8 million described and named species of organisms. Over half of described species are insects from temperate zones, but the real number of species of insects is very uncertain.
For example, beetles represent about 40% of all known arthropod species. Erwin estimated 160 x 100/40 = 400 arthropod species per tree species. Next, he estimated that the canopy is roughly twice as species-rich as the forest floor, and is composed mainly of different species. Therefore, including the forest floor brings the total to 600 arthropod species per tree species.
The estimated total number of species of tropical trees is 50,000. Therefore, the total number of tropical arthropod species is estimated as 600 x 50,000 = 30 million. (See link given below.)
There are about 4260 species of mammals known on this planet at this time, though taxonomists are still arguing about this figure, too.
Mammals are not the most speciose animal on the planet. Three other groups of vertebrates outnumber mammals at the moment: Reptiles 6787 species, Birds 9703 species and Fishes with approximately 25,000 species.
Invertebrates, of course, have groups with huge numbers of species that outnumber all the vertebrates put together: Molluscs 80,000 and Insects 1,000,000; while Arachnids with 44,000 species still outnumber any 3 groups of vertebrates put together.
About 10,000 new animal species are found every year (most of these are insects and other inconspicuous animals); but in groups such as birds and mammals, new species are still being discovered, at the rate of about 1-5 birds and 1-5 mammals per year, mainly in the tropics.
[For more information on the number of species occupying Earth, go to
earthlife.net, or http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec06/b65lec06.htm or other similar sites. The figures quoted above were taken from the two Websites given.]
So, Truth Detector, my questions for you would be:
(1) How many species were extant before the Flood?
(2) How many species did Noah load on-board?
(3) How many species did Noah obtain from the Tropics, Artic, and other regions distant from his home; or
(4) Are we to assume that all species now extant that Noah was unable to load are evolved from species he was able to load and keep alive for one year?
(5) How about migratory species? Would they have posed insurmountable problems for Noah and Company?
(6) The tropical beetle data given above raises interesting questions and must have posed quite a challenge for Noah regarding capture and subsequent feeding, then re-release into appropriate habitat. Any comments on that particular scenerio?
(7) The question has been posed in other threads, but please reconsider not only the available cubic feet available in the Ark for the thousands of land animal species that would have to be loaded, along with a year's supply of highly specialized and variant feeds; but consider also the gross tonnage and its effects on a wooden craft.
As far as your final note: "If the Great Flood happened, is it possible that it made the Earth look older than it is?" ... I had always been left with the impression that a mud bath was rejuvenating.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:35 AM TruthDetector has not replied

TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 98 (79290)
01-18-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
01-17-2004 11:55 AM


Re: Old?
NosyNed, read the artical on Answers in Genesis for on the flood and species evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 11:55 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:23 PM TruthDetector has replied
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:34 PM TruthDetector has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 98 (79308)
01-18-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 6:38 PM


Hyperevolution?
You pointed to the whole site and didn't offer any of your own discussion. That is not kosher here.
However, I did find this tidbit: [quote]For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, ...[/qs] at Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis
So it seems that AIG has accepted, finally, that humans, chimps and gorillas are one kind. Thanks for that information.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:38 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TruthDetector, posted 01-19-2004 11:46 AM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 98 (79310)
01-18-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 6:38 PM


Hyperevolution of us
TruthDetector from pst 96 of Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution" writes:
Yes I know evolution is a fact but humans coming from evolution IS NOT A FACT
I moved the issue to here as that is where it belongs.
Oh? But I think that we just need to do a little more research and will find that AIG agrees that it is. They suggest the horses and zebra are one kind. Therefore if we find through DNA sequencing that humans and chimps are closer than horses and zebras we have settled that issue in a way that both sides will finally agree on.
Well, in fact, we don't need to wait for the zebra/horse comparison. AIG already says that "kinds" are at the genus/family level --- odd that they are so very fuzzy on something that is supposed to be so fixed ---and chimps and humans are closer than the members of some genera I think.
So AIG must conclude that the hyperevoluion includes humans, chimps etc. from, I guess, Australopithicus as the ark "kind".
If they can't agree to that it shows that they make things up to fit what the want to have happened.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:38 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 01-18-2004 8:29 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 84 by TruthDetector, posted 01-19-2004 11:49 AM NosyNed has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 98 (79314)
01-18-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NosyNed
01-18-2004 7:34 PM


Re: Hyperevolution of us
Ah, Ned, I'm afraid that Creation Science has again provided the answers for us. Allow me to post some links to that paragon of Science, the CRS Quarterly.
Here we have a wonderful classification of the cats in a single holobaramin:
A variety of characters including ecological, morphological, chromosomal, and molecular data were used to characterize 17 cat species, the spotted hyaena, and the meerkat....Monobaraminic continuity within the cats and apobaraminic discontinuity bet! ween [sic] the cat and outgroup taxa leads to the hypothesis of a single Felid holobaramin.
(emphasis is mine)
Pretty nifty science, eh? Because we all know the cats form a single kind!
And now in primates we have this piece of great research on the Catarrhine primates:
We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin.
Oops. Seems that this time chromosomal and molecular data are not sufficient to distinguish humans from primates! But all is not lost: with the proper selection of criteria:
Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.
And the day is saved!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 8:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 82 of 98 (79319)
01-18-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
01-18-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Hyperevolution of us
Ah, just as I suspected. They make it up as they go along. -- crap
Now is truthdetector going to tell us what this part means:
ecological and morphological characters
and how distinct they are compared to others within the same holobaramin

Common sense isn't
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 01-18-2004 8:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 98 (79402)
01-19-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by NosyNed
01-18-2004 7:23 PM


Re: Hyperevolution?
Is that what it said, O really? It said horses, zebra, ect. If you are talking about Biblical history like the Flood, you must remember what it said earlier, on the 6th day of Creation. So yes, I would agree in some aspects that (most) Creationists are Hyperevolutionists - that do NOT believe in inter-species evolution. IE - monkeys to humans, bacteria to frog, ect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:23 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2004 1:30 PM TruthDetector has not replied

TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 98 (79403)
01-19-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by NosyNed
01-18-2004 7:34 PM


Re: Hyperevolution of us
Yes, but according to Bible, since that is an event that it describes also implies monkeys to humans as an exception. Genesis 1: the first day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2004 4:31 PM TruthDetector has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 98 (79425)
01-19-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TruthDetector
01-19-2004 11:46 AM


Re: Hyperevolution?
So yes, I would agree in some aspects that (most) Creationists are Hyperevolutionists - that do NOT believe in inter-species evolution. IE - monkeys to humans, bacteria to frog, ect.
Wasn't it you that referred to AIG? They disagree with the above statement.
fromL
Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis
quote:
God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
and
quote:
...so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family.
So they disagree with you statment about "inter-species" evolution.
Since humans and chimps are close enough based on all observable evidence they are the same kind. I await your actual evidence that they are not.
It might help you to know what your own sources say, btw.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TruthDetector, posted 01-19-2004 11:46 AM TruthDetector has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 98 (79460)
01-19-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by TruthDetector
01-19-2004 11:49 AM


Exception
But the evidence shows that they are not an exception. Or is this God the deceiver again?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by TruthDetector, posted 01-19-2004 11:49 AM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by TruthDetector, posted 01-20-2004 7:53 PM NosyNed has replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 87 of 98 (79542)
01-20-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:50 PM


Endosymbosis
John Paul
quote:
Just-so stories and assertions are not to be confused with evidence- scietific or otherwise. I have heard & read the stories. I know about endosymbiosis (Lynn Margulis).
There isn't any evidence of a bi-cellular organism.
Wrong. Look here.
quote:
Professor Kwang Jeon's Supporting Discovery
Seem more like a creative story than a plausible theory? Let's examine the case of Professor Kwang Jeon of the University of Tennessee. In 1987, Professor Jeon noticed that his collectioin of amoeba were developing a large number of dots. These large number of dots turned out to be bacteria, which were quickly killing off Jeon's collection. Jeon noted the least sick ones and began keeping records of their progress. The least sick ones apparently were more resistant to the bacteiar since they survived and returned to their normal modes. However, some 40,000 of the invading bacteria were still present within each of the surviving amoebas! Through transplating experimentation, Jeon found that the nucleus of the amoebas could not live without the once pathogenic bacteria. Jeon's accidental discovery proves that it is possible for an organism to become dependent on and a functional part of invading organisms. Rather than eliminating competitors, evolution eliminated competition itself on the basis of symboitic relationships.
Bold emphasis mine.
Experimental proof of the possibility of the Margulis theory. Single cell prokaryotic cels can form symbotic colonies as per theory.
Game, set and match.
Woops - hit the submit button too soon.
Edited again to correct poor grammar and spelling.
[This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 01-20-2004]
[This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 01-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:50 PM John Paul has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3837 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 88 of 98 (79547)
01-20-2004 9:49 AM


Portugese man of War
Another one to add to the slime mould as an intermediate between uni and multi cellular life.
quote:
The Bluebottle or Portuguese Man-of-War is not a single animal but a colony of four kinds of highly modified individuals (polyps). The polyps are dependent on one another for survival.
From an Australian Museum Fact Sheet
A colony organism, made up of four specialised individuals, still partially capable of independent survival.
What kind does this fall into?

TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 98 (79660)
01-20-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
01-19-2004 4:31 PM


Re: Exception
You say God may be the deceiver... I believe man is just trying to get around the fact that God exists. You tell me logically, and based on past behaviors, why God would try to make His creations believe He doesn't exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2004 4:31 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Asgara, posted 01-20-2004 7:59 PM TruthDetector has replied
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2004 9:33 PM TruthDetector has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 90 of 98 (79662)
01-20-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by TruthDetector
01-20-2004 7:53 PM


Re: Exception
You tell me logically, and based on past behaviors, why God would try to make His creations believe He doesn't exists
Gee, that's the question WE are asking you. Why would god put one story in the bible and leave evidence around that totally contradicts what was written?

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by TruthDetector, posted 01-20-2004 7:53 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by TruthDetector, posted 01-26-2004 10:22 PM Asgara 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