Exp, lets review.
I began posting by quoting the Bible.
{"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:1,27,31}
You began posting by quoting Elledan and adding a few words of your own.
{<< Creation (Genesis) and evolution have _absolutely_nothing_ to do with each other. Since we're talking about how life started, it's about Genesis vs. Biogenesis, i.e., the creation of life by some supernatural power vs. lifeless materials forming the basic elements life exists out of (e.g., amino-acids), from which the first life-forms (being simply bacteria) were formed.
evolution has nothing to do with either of these things, so cease arguing. >>
FINALLY!! Somebody who understands. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain this to my ultra-religious family. It seems like no matter how many times their pathetically misguided arguments are destroyed they keep coming back. Some people are so damn ignorant it's incredible...}
To which I replied:
{In re"Creation (Genesis) and evolution have _absolutely_nothing_ to do with each other. Since we're talking about how life started, it's about Genesis vs. Biogenesis, i.e., the creation of life by some supernatural power vs. lifeless materials forming the basic elements life exists out of (e.g., amino-acids), from which the first life-forms (being simply bacteria) were formed."
evolution -"Organic evolution as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms." Encyclopedia.com
evolution -"Organic evolution conceives of life as having begun as a simple, primordial protoplasmic mass from which arose, through time, all subsequent living forms." TelexExternal LinkInternal LinkInventory Cache
"evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Creation "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" Genesis 1:20}
To which you replied:
{As Elledan mentioned, this "philosophical" definition of evolution is completely and utterly false. If you want to attack evolution that badly the least you could do is take the trouble to learn something about it. Read this brief intro to evolution and bring your comments/concerns back to this thread so they can be addressed. [Note: That FAQ is by no means a definitive text but hopefully it can dispel some common Creationist misconceptions.]
Links to more FAQs on evolution can be found at Talk.Origins.
*sigh* Why do I get the feeling none of the hardcore Creation-zombies out there will bother to educate themselves?}
In your first link this statement made"My conclusion is that evolution, especially the modern theories, is science at its best, and when it and the nature of science are considered realistically, evolution is not lacking from a philosophical perspective."
In your second link this statement is made "The word evolution has a variety of meanings."
To which I replied:
{In re"As Elledan mentioned, this "philosophical" definition of evolution is completely and utterly false. If you want to attack evolution that badly the least you could do is take the trouble to learn something about it. Read this brief intro to evolution and bring your comments/concerns back to this thread so they can be addressed. [Note: That FAQ is by no means a definitive text but hopefully it can dispel some common Creationist misconceptions.]"
Actually I read a part of his opinion a few days ago, the two statements he made that stuck in my mind were:
A)His opinion that "very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.", and thus implying that his understood definition (one which is necessarily based on the opinions of other biologists) of the word evolution is to be trusted over the understood definition of the majority of biologists.
B)"The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution."
Whereas on a web page updating peppered moth story this statement is made "What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action."
There seems to be a major problem as to the universally recognized meaning of evolution, and a quick glance at a dictionary should readily confirm this. As I stated in an earlier discussion on this topic, even though I fundamentally believe the King James Bible is the literal word of God, I have no trouble believing in evolution, if by evolution you mean:
A)"The gradual process of development or change" as in I am different from my parents
and not
B)"The theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms" Webster's Dictionary 1997 SAA
Or
"The formation of the heavenly bodies by the concentration and consolidation of cosmic matter" Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1959
Or for that matter any definition that contradicts the literal word of God.}
This was your next post
{It seems like most Creationist objections to biological evolution are, as usual, based on erroneous non-scientific definitions plucked from encyclopedias, philosophical texts, or (lol--> ) dictionaries. So let's cut to the chase:
1. Does anyone here deny that the gene pool of a population of organisms changes over time (i.e. micro-evolution)??
2. Does anyone here deny that new species are gradually created--either through extended micro-evolution or through separate mechanisms--over time (i.e. macro-evolution)??
If you can accept the two above phenomena of micro- and macro-evolution (both of which have been observed repeatedly) as facts then **CONGRATULATIONS**; you have just accepted the Theory of Evolution without precluding the possibility of a divine creation. Cast your insecurities aside and sleep soundly tonight.
If you deny either of the above phenomena then please explain why. And for God's sake, try to support your argument with something more convincing than a random Bible quotation.}
To which I replied:
{In re"1. Does anyone here deny that the gene pool of a population of organisms changes over time (i.e. micro-evolution)??"
To deny that the gene pool of a population of organisms (kind) changes over time is to deny the facts. It is quite obvious that I am different than my parents, it is also quite obvious that men in africa are different from men in china, etc, etc, but we are all still men. And considering that all races currently extant are the offspring of Noah's sons, the word of God is in total agreement with the scientific fact that the gene pool of a population of organisms (man for eg.) changes over time.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
In re"2. Does anyone here deny that new species are gradually created--either through extended micro-evolution or through separate mechanisms--over time (i.e. macro-evolution)??"
I deny it. As of now there is NO scientific evidence to prove that one species/kind of animal is capable of producing another species/kind of animal (eg. if you breed to different types of dog you will get a dog that is genetically different from both it's parents but is none the less still a dog. You can't breed two types of dog and get a cat.)}
To which you replied
{<< As of now there is NO scientific evidence to prove that one species/kind of animal is capable of producing another species/kind of animal (eg. if you breed to different types of dog you will get a dog that is genetically different from both it's parents but is none the less still a dog. You can't breed two types of dog and get a cat.) >>
You are wrong. The nature of speciation is such that it is difficult to observe directly, yet still we have accumulated large amounts of evidence that it does in fact occur. A commonly used definition of "species" is that two populations consist of separate species if they are incapable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Based on that definition speciation events, identified by the onset of reproductive incompatibility between popultions, have been observed repeatedly. You can find a sampling of those experiments here (towards the end of the page).}
Your link makes this statement "A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic."
(you reply to someone else)
You make this post and reference my name
{<< What evidence is so overwhelming? >>
*sigh* Here we go again. Since you have acknowledged "microevolution", as you call it, to be true I assume the only evidence you seek regards "macroevolution". I posted this link (to an index of observed instances of speciation) before in response to petrek's skepticism over speciation, but not surprisingly he has chosen to ignore it. Please try to do better. Here is another link as well.}
(you make another post)
I reply to your post:
{Actually exp, it's not that I ignored to comment about it. It's that it didn't prove anything that hadn't already been established. How do experiments showing a fly producing a fly, a beetle producing a beetle, corn producing corn etc. differ from what God said:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"Genesis 1:11
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" Genesis 1:21
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so" Genesis 1:24
or how does it prove that two dogs can produce a cat, a most preposterous notion, yet one that is stated over and over again as a fact, day in and day out.
Dave
PS The reason I hadn't responded yet is because I haven't had a chance to get some current sources I wanted to use in my reply ( school textbooks, nature programs, university texts, etc ) to expose evolution for what it is, an unproven theory that is being stated as fact over and over again, in a blatent attempt to decieve the world, through the repetition of a lie, that God does not exist.}
To which you respond:
{But that is precisely the point. These experiments are not about "a fly producing a fly", etc. They are about a fly producing a DIFFERENT species of fly. I would not expect you to read all of those papers I linked to (we all have lives outside ATOT, right? ) but you might try one or two. Reish's experiment with polychaetes is a classic example (I think you can find details in Weinberg's 1992 paper). He took polychaetes from one locale and grew them under different environmental conditions than the original population. After a long time (decades, I think, but I could be wrong) specimens from two natural locations plus the population originally founded by Reish were randomly interbred and it was found that only Reish's polychaetes were unable to reproduce with specimens from the other populations. How would you explain this phenomena if not by evolution? Or are you using a different definition of "species" not based upon interbreeding?
<< or how does it prove that two dogs can produce a cat, a most preposterous notion, yet one that is stated over and over again as a fact, day in and day out. >>
You are exagerrating. Two dogs never have produced a cat directly. In fact, AFAIK cats and dogs are not directly descended from each other at all. They merely share a recent common ancestor that may have appeared quite different from either of them. The mutations responsible for their divergent evolution accumulated over many thousands of generations.
<< PS The reason I hadn't responded yet is because I haven't had a chance to get some current sources I wanted to use in my reply ( school textbooks, nature programs, university texts, etc ) to expose evolution for what it is, an unproven theory that is being stated as fact over and over again, in a blatent attempt to decieve the world, through the repetition of a lie, that God does not exist. >>
My fellow deceivers and I await your return with bated breath.}
(you reply to a different poster)
To which I reply:
{Actually I did look at most if not all of those papers you sited with your two links. However, your addition of the words "a DIFFERENT species of" does not change the fact that a fly is producing a fly, etc. If the papers would have said that a fly produced a moth then you'd have an argument but as it stands, you don't.
As I have stated before in this thread, I fundamentally believe the King James Bible is the literal word of God, and as such I believe in evolution, if by evolution you mean a change in the gene pool. The bible clearly states that after the global flood, Noah's 3 sons and their wives repopulated the earth, and a walk through any big city will quickly afirm that there are many variations in the gene pool of man. However that is precisely as God stated would be the case some 3600 years ago.
"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread." Genesis 9:18-19
In re "You are exagerrating. Two dogs never have produced a cat directly. In fact, AFAIK cats and dogs are not directly descended from each other at all. They merely share a recent common ancestor that may have appeared quite different from either of them. The mutations responsible for their divergent evolution accumulated over many thousands of generations."
So me stating that "two dogs produced a cat" is an exageration, but your belief that a single celled organism is responsible for all the different kinds of plants, winged fowl, beasts, creeping thing, etc. is not? A far more ridiculous notion than my "two dogs producing a cat" example, yet again is stated day in and day out as if by repeating the lie eventually it will be true. ( Much in the same way a state run news station of a country at war will daily go on television assuring the people that they are "winning the war" while it is quite clear from our television sets that their country is being dessimated by the allied forces, the only difference is that this theory of evolution is a world wide phenomena. )
In re "My fellow deceivers and I await your return with bated breath."
Aside from the few scientists which are fully aware that there is no evidence of evolution and yet go on promoting the lie with the belief (faith) that it will one day be proven true, the vast majority of the individuals who believe it are the ones who are decieved. After all you (I also) were taught evolution ( humans descended from apes, etc., etc. ) as a fact all through school, on tv, in the paper, etc., why would you doubt it? [Edit: While at work today I kept thinking about the words I used and how other words would better convey the thought I wanted to get across, and as such, I must needs feel a correction is in order.] Because what if what the Bible says is true, and one day you will have to stand before God and answer to him. Personally, on the off chance that what the bible said was true, I wanted to make sure that the evidence for evolution (and against God) which I was taught and accepted as true was indicative of the evidence which exists. So I began to demand more than just the conclusions of scientists who had (like nearly everyone else) been indoctrinated with the belief that evolution was no longer a theory, but a given. I wanted facts, I wanted to know what facts led those scientists to the conclusions they made. And in so doing, I realized all the so-called evidence doesn't actually exist. All the evidence is based on assumptions. Thus, it became obvious that Satan is the God of this world, as the bible contends, whose goal is to convince the world that God doesn't exist, and in so doing secure the same fate for all those who choose to be willingly ignorant of the truth, as for himself. How else could it be possible that the vast majority of the world is convinced evolution is true (and thus the God of the bible doesn't exist) if there is no actual evidence to support such a theory.
Allow me to quote a few exerts (blatent lies, for "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee , and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.") from one of my favorite books as a child "Early Man" by Life Nature Library 1968:
"The story of creation, as told in the Bible, is a fine case in point. It is seldom taken literally now. Its simple, sweeping concepts are interpreted by most modern Christians and Jews as being symbolic of the spirit and majesty of God. The world, in effect, was not created in six days even though the Bible says it was" blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. page 9-10
"It is now a proven scientific fact that man was millions of years in the making. The path of his evolution is maked by dead ends and new beginnings, the wayside strewn with relics of his various forms." etc., etc. page 39
"Almost the entire Pliocene for reasons that science is still trying ot explain, is a total blank as far as human ancestors are concerned. For some 10 million years that exasperating and cryptic epoch lasted, and during it profound evolutionary changes occurred among certain of the higheer primates. New creatures emerged, primates unlike any that lived before. No longer forest apes, they made their living increasingly on the open plains, moving erect on two legs.
The importance of bipedalism--two-leggedness--cannot be overestimated. It is much more than a mere rearing up and running about." etc., etc. page 47
Dave
PS I appreciate the fact that even though this debate is by necessity a heated one, our replies need not be filled with slander and ignorance. As I was once a believer that evolution was a fact and fought bitterly with those who opposed its teachings.
It's like this guy at work, Matt, who I've talked to on occasion about this exact debate and he's always "yah, yah" nodding his head. Then today I mention to him about this debate I'm having here, saying how the earth is about six thousand years old, and he goes "well how do you explain this new 50 foot alligator that is millions of years old" and I go "Whatt" and he goes "yah, they carbon dated it to be __millions of years old" so I go "Oh, that's funny, because the maximum date from carbon dating is about 60,000 years old and it's always based on assumptions..."
Respectfully
Dave}
This is your next post.
{LOL This thread just refuses to die...I thought it was gone weeks ago but here it is again, like a bad cold.}
(you reply to someone else)
I reply to your post.
{Exp, it's unfortunate that rather than responding to my previous email wherein it was proved that in light of the facts, faith in evolution is absurd; you chose instead to scoff at the fact that this thread is still here.
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20}
(you reply to someone else)
You reply to my post.
{Sorry, petrek, I missed this post earlier. Regardless, I know your game too well now to fall into that trap again. In short, I have ignored your posts ever since you first began to ignore mine. Let's review the "creationist" argument to date:
-- Creationists began this thread by arguing against "evolution" as defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias, entirely useless sources when it comes to scientific terms. Other posters have since provided a more natural definition (i.e. based on changes in allelic frequencies within a population).
-- Creationists held that evolution is not factual, because it is a theory and not a law, revealing a gross misunderstanding of the scientific terms "hypothesis", "theory", and "law". The relationship between those three terms was then clarified for you.
-- Creationists insisted that the Theory of Evolution concerns also the origin of life itself, rather than just the origin of the species. This (common) misconception was also rectified when you were introduced to the concept of abiogenesis.
-- Creationists believed that Gould's PE has replaced "evolution", by which I assume they mean phyletic gradualism, and that PE is a saltational theory. Yet again you were corrected on both counts.
-- Creationists argued that there was no evidence whatsoever for speciation. When I provided links to the TalkOrigins index of speciation events with research papers cited therein you chose to ignore them. Later, when I called you out to respond you insisted that you would be back later to refute this evidence. I am still waiting for that rebuttal.
-- I then provided a widely-accepted definition of the word "species" (the BSC) and one specific example of a speciation event (Reish's polychaetes) under that definition, so that anyone who was genuinely interested in learning more about evolution would not have to wade through mountains of research papers at random to find relevant data. This evidence was also promptly ignored by anti-evolution poster(s) here.
-- Some creationists have now resorted to arguing that it is impossible to really know anything, a pathetic premise that clearly illustrates how precarious their position has become. That is akin to me saying "This shirt is blue," and receiving the creationist retorts "Well, can we actually KNOW that?" or "What IS 'blue', really??" Thank God that that sort of complacent, nonconstructive attitude is in the minority here, or we would undoubtedly still be languishing in the Stone Age right now.
-- Some creationists now argue that we have not observed the creation of "dogs from cats", whatever that is supposed to mean. Apparently now that your earlier position--that not even the creation of slightly different species (e.g. "fly from fly") has been observed--has been discredited you have resorted to the argument that the new species formed in such instances are "not different enough" for you. According to you "fly from fly" is not real speciation (despite the fact that there are many recognized species of flies, including some so similar that only an expert can identify them), but "cat from dog" (a meaningless example anyway since they are not of the same lineage) would be. Ironically, the fact that we have not observed the divergent development of two so morphologically different species actually supports our current understanding of evolution, as we would not expect such a process to have occurred in the short time that humans (and scientists in particular) have been around to witness and catalog it.
For whatever reason, you have chosen to continuously (and ineffectually) attack the theory of evolution, no matter how overwhelming the evidence arrayed against you. The extent of your desperation is clear by the very term you use for other posters: "evolutionists". What does that label even mean? Do you call someone who accepts the Newton's Law of Gravity a "gravitationist"? Am I a "precipitationist" because I recognize that it is snowing outside?? If I missed something here then by all means correct me, petrek, but from what I can see this debate is--and probably always was--pointless. All pretense of legitimate interest in the other side's viewpoint has vanished. The record of this thread speaks for itself: Creationists are backpedaling like hell and abandoning their positions as usual, all the while regurgitating the same tired arguments as before, complete with bible quotations, strawmen, slippery slopes and more. And I and like-minded posters have, in turn, become weary of regurgitating the same evidence time and time again.
As for you specifically, petrek, I must have missed your post that "proved that...faith in evolution is absurd." Of course, I did notice that you are still trying to intertwine the science of evolution with religious terms ("faith in evolution"). Get this straight: EVOLUTION != RELIGION. As most of your brethren have realized (including the Pope himself), it is very possible to reconcile the Theory of Evolution with Christianity. Either way, I see no reason to address whatever it was you had to say until I have first received a satisfactory response to my post containing evidence of speciation. How ironic that the very accusations of dodginess you fling at me apply most notably to yourself.}
Having concluded a review of our interaction to date, I will now reply to your most recent post.