Jump to content


Photo

Symbiotic Relationships And Animal Diversity In Light Of Creation And Ark Dispersion....

Aymbiotic relationships dispearsion eco-niches Gods design

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#21 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:48 PM

Don't know if you meant this gracefully or not---but I think I am quite clear as to what I am saying.


Sorry if I came across a bit terse, it was intended gracefully. Let me illustrate what I'm asking. Take, for example, the gray wolf Canis lupus and the coyote Canis latrans. In modern biology they are classified as different species. Do you regard them as species that have been separately fixed from creation? Or, in other words, do you regard each as a separate created kind as referred to in Genesis 1? If so, on what basis do you equate these presently defined species as equivalent to a Genesis kind? Why do you not regard the fact that they can interbreed as proof that they are subvariants of a single original Genesis kind? Do you regard each as having a different "body plan"? Same "body plan"?

Thanks for your patience

#22 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:16 AM

Let me answer this way. I see the two dog "species" above as I would an Allosaurus and a T-Rex. They are both Therapods but they are unique species, they have different eco requirements, and other DNA designer information for body plan that is not the same. Now even though I am a Christian and a tendency to lean pretty huge towards YEC or at least believe in a young earth... I diverge from YEC in many ways. I don’t believe some of these ideas about creation are not issues of inerrancy but of Hermeneutics, and I do not accept some of the premises or even interpretations of scripture. But most of it I do buy into.

I also don't believe science is the boogie man. I believe that science has an agenda, but for instance or Taxonomic system was started by Christians, who wanted to glorify God. I believe it its the best thing going, not perfect and certainly based on some principles that I don’t own. And while I take issue with evolutionary inferences, there is "no doubt" that the two species above are different morphologically, they have different eco niches, different distribution, different requirements and while they are both carnivores, they both are unique. So I believe these are not offspring of a Kind in the sense that YECs use kind, but are unique and these design differences started at creation by almighty God. I have already used the Goode's Horned lizard as an example of the rarity that some animals are from the same “type”, “kind”, “specie” in this case horned lizards a specie that can breed.


Posted ImagePosted Image

Here is Uma inornata and Uma scoparia, both Fringe-toed Sand Lizards—while they look to a novice to be the same animal, they are not. Not only that, in spite of being separated from each other by hundreds of miles, one assumes looking at them that they would breed with one another, or if your an evolutionists that they could breed because they come from a common ancestor??? Well not so. I personally have tried to hybridize these in the past, males and females pay no attention to one another. So morphologically close looking does not necessarily bode that they will cross. As a Christian and a Scientist and naturalist and studying lizards for 40+ years, I see this as purely a design feature in the lizards, there DNA is uniquely different, there eco-niche requirements fit their design, with shovel heads, fringe toes, and eye lids, nostril valves, and black bars under the tail. These unique features can also be found in lizards in Africa and Australia, and several other sand lizards in the US. But my point is this??? IS kind as interpreted by YEC’s referring to specie or some other inference?. I know this runs up against my YEC brothers views, but the kind that I believe GOD spoke to in the bible were two of the same “specie” male and female breeding. If in the instance of some collared lizards a western collared and an eastern collared can breed (and they do) morphologically and taxonomically they are different, DNA also supports their difference, but apparently the females put off the same breeding pheromones which attract males? So I don’t think we fully understand reproduction biblically nor do we understand it scientifically---we can describe what takes place but there are anomalies within the pale of that issue that are far from being answered, and some of our scientific assumptions may be incorrect. Now looking at these two lizards above an evolutionists says these were the result of a past ancestor. YEC says they are the same biblical kind. Observing the facts in this lizard specie--it is possible that the range being so close may have had the two in the past hybridizing --that’s theoretical, but there is no doubt that clearly these are two different and unique species, not the same---I agree with the taxonomic studies and the genetic studies clearly delineate what these are.
So getting back to the two “Dog” kind for a YEC view, Two different species from a scientific (evolutionary) view...the fact that they “can” breed is that a good basis on defining their taxonomic relationships given the fact that they do not hybridize even though they live in the same distribution areas, but they probably can...
But I make no assumptions on looks or even family as pointed out there are many examples of animal “kinds” that cannot breed or do not breed.

I only fed you previously by post what I observe in nature.... Fixity of species clearly in my humble opinion fits with the creation narrative much better than the rest IMHO. As the incursions into DNA become more sophisticated some of this will be drilled out and we will have a better idea. The phylogenic tree inferred by evolutionists is full of false relationships even in lizards that are not implied by nature’s observations....

Lastly while YECS infer rapid speciation off the Ark, where is the examples? It has never happened in our history, if it really is a viable inclusion into this discussion, why is not happening in our written recorded history, where are the intermediate species, Adaptive variation is a “theory” but it is not fact. It falls on the underlying pinning's of evolution by its inferences? I do not believe that for instance the 11,000,000 insect species of insects off the Ark are the result of adaptive variation? An iguana kind for instance off the Ark, clearly did not produce 14 different species of Iguanas given some hidden DNA within the cells from the beginning. I believe GOD put in place “all” diversity that was to cover the earth originally, If these 14 iguanas are now our known diversity (there were others), DNA does not preclude these to al be from the same linage, actually each one like the fringe-toes have unique design, eco-systems, and DNA? The colors, Morphology, and body plans are different.

6 months ago Dr. Georgia Prudome wrote an article for AIG on the “pink” iguana of the Galapagos and insinuated that this animal was an example of Adaptive variation. Since I study lizards I challenged her on the forum about this, the actual “scientific” evidence form the DNA was that two of the island iguanas hybridized (doesn’t happen often, in fact rarely) but they did and whalla we got a pink iguana all from hybridization and new information introduced. Clearly like Goode’s Horned lizard and others in nature this was not adaptive variation, this was hybridization....clearly!!! MY point is that even DNA found in the procreative genes does not change unless infused with new information? this again infers a fixity of species. When animals hybridize and they rarely do in nature, there is an exchange of new procreative DNA between the two and you get a new or sub-specie. For me this is not rocket science, but it also infers that science has a lot of assumptions, and my YEC bothers are pushing a theoretical inference that has no basis in real observable science or for that matter even the fossil record. Horned lizards, Tuataras, coelacanths, Cockroach, all have fossil record s and they have not changed. My point again is that fixity of species seems to begin with creation and is fully explainable by observation....I always mean this biblically, look at al the scripture when God gives orders or refers to any procreative acts, it is always in the vain of fixity...that is His expectation inferred in scripture. If you have a biblical basis for adaptive variation I would be interested in knowing about it.


#23 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 28 September 2012 - 09:44 PM

Let me answer this way. I see the two dog "species" above as I would an Allosaurus and a T-Rex. They are both Therapods but they are unique species, they have different eco requirements, and other DNA designer information for body plan that is not the same.


I would have to disagree with your analogy. The morphological differences between allosaurs and tyrannosaurs are qualitative (unlike allosaurs, tyrannosaurs possess, among other things, a "pinched" third metatarsal=arctometatarsus, a bidactyl manus=two fingered hand rather than three fingered, etc.), whereas the morphological differences between wolves and coyotes are quantitative related to difference in size.

Here is Uma inornata and Uma scoparia, both Fringe-toed Sand Lizards—while they look to a novice to be the same animal, they are not. Not only that, in spite of being separated from each other by hundreds of miles, one assumes looking at them that they would breed with one another, or if your an evolutionists that they could breed because they come from a common ancestor??? Well not so. I personally have tried to hybridize these in the past, males and females pay no attention to one another. So morphologically close looking does not necessarily bode that they will cross.


Here you use the fact that they don't interbreed as a basis for distinguishing them as different species.

So getting back to the two “Dog” kind for a YEC view, Two different species from a scientific (evolutionary) view...the fact that they “can” breed is that a good basis on defining their taxonomic relationships given the fact that they do not hybridize even though they live in the same distribution areas, but they probably can...
But I make no assumptions on looks or even family as pointed out there are many examples of animal “kinds” that cannot breed or do not breed.


But here you question interbreeding as a basis for taxonomy. That kind of fuzzy equivocation is exactly why I insisted that you define what you mean by species.

In a recent study, Way, et. al. studied the genetics of the eastern "coyote." They found that the eastern coyote is a cross breed between the eastern wolf Canis lycaon and the western coyote Canis latrans. To complicate matters further, many taxonomists consider the eastern wolf to be a subspecies (Canis lupus lycaon) of the Gray wolf (Canis lupus), but in this study they treat it as a separate species. The most significant statement they make, however, in my estimation, is (pp 196-197):

The three closely related species of North American Canis (western Coyote, Eastern Wolf, and Gray Wolf) do not conform to the biological species concept (Mayr 1942) because they are not reproductively isolated and gene flow occurs between them (Kyle et al. 2006). Although there is no evidence for direct hybridization between Gray Wolves and western Coyotes, the Eastern Wolf mediates gene flow between these two species. This relationship is especially apparent in southeastern Ontario where the term “Canis soup” was coined to reflect the mix of eastern Coyotes, Eastern Wolves, Gray Wolves and their hybrids (see Grewal et al. 2004, Sears et al. 2003, Wilson et al. 2009).

In other words, there is no real biological genetic basis for distinguishing Canis lupus and Canis latrans as separate species, based on evolutionists own criteria, yet they still classify them as distinct species. In reality, they are just end members of a common gene pool. My point is this. If you are going to insist on "fixity of species", you are going to have to come up with a better basis for defining those "fixed" species than the latest evolutionary taxonomy. Otherwise, you are just building your house on ever shifting sand.

The phylogenic tree inferred by evolutionists is full of false relationships even in lizards that are not implied by nature’s observations....


I agree wholeheartedly. Many phylogenetic relationships inferred by evolutionists are just the best of the worst scenarios because evolution requires that something must be ancestral to everything. The challenge, at times, is determining where the real discontinuites are.

Lastly while YECS infer rapid speciation off the Ark, where is the examples? It has never happened in our history, if it really is a viable inclusion into this discussion, why is not happening in our written recorded history, where are the intermediate species, Adaptive variation is a “theory” but it is not fact.


Catchpoole and Wieland give several examples of recent adaptive speciation ranging from guppies to anoles to mosquitoes to mice. In the case of the anoles, the length of the hindlimb was greatly decreased within a few generations when they were transplanted to an island with much shorter vegetation, and without trees like the island they came from. Would that count as a change in body plan in your view?

#24 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 September 2012 - 07:35 AM

Bone Digger--I think you misrepresented my discussion above, but I'm not here to argue but to share. O.k. it seems we aree on some and not others. We both have our examples of DNA... good.

NOw I have written a short paper on the stickleback fish which was claimed to have been adaptive variation, don't know about guppies. And I have shared the study of the anoles with a University Herpetologists and there are so many holes in that study that frankly it was a poorly done paper and I do not accept its tenants. IMHO there is no scientific evidence of Adaptive variation taking place in the animal fauna, I guarantee you its not in the reptile kingdom. You cannot support that by the fossil record which seems to be in favor of fixity of species (Werner).

My point is the the biblical narrative seems to imply fixity of species. The facts of procreation and DNA with the exception of HYbridization also supports this. The fact there is gene flow between two species of wolves does not bode for adaptive variation but past hybridization, just as Neanderthal and sapiens gene flow, does not negate fixity, but also does not support adaptive variation. So you and I will have to agree to disagree because your "inference" through published information does not in my opinion at all support my contentions or observations in nature.

I used the fringe-toes for a reason, please look-up collared lizards and go to the side of the page and click on images. PLease note there are variations in color and pattern. BUt within the morphological Characteristics there is defining diferences in populations. So one cannot take .01% of an animal DNA and sequence it and draw realistic conclusions without also considering is morphology. MY point to this and the reason I used Fringees you missed it? God has made subtle changes to different species but they carry with them certain design. There are actually many other lizards in the US that are called sand lizard that have a distinctive shovel head for digging in the sand. MY point this is "evidence" of design in the animal kingdom, good designis reemployed It is no accident of nature that sand lizards may have shovel heads So my point it more in line with the biblical narrative of creation, and the animal kingdom being placed in situ in the beginning. What do you think it means that GOD saw that it was good and rested? I get no other inferences from the bible of any other change or plan for animal diversity? I asked you to support adaptive variation from the bible, you did not, and you gave me a scientific answer, I gave you both. but you missed what I implied. Your point about wolves does nto at all cover this. If there is a red wolf and grey wolf. Science has some bassi for delineating the two as different In the lizard kingdom color may not bode for different specie status, but differing scales, and other such things do make a determiner along with color. BUt if there are distinctive gene pool for grey and red. Then doesn't this support the biblical idea of fixity of species. IF Dogs ahve been domesticated in the US by ancient man and there is plenty of proof that has taken place, or other scenarios the gene flow between the two does not at all make a case for adaptive variation. JUst as the Galapagos Island iguana argument. And as a lizard person the longer legs on anoles have many other possible explanation than the conclusion that was presented not including hybridization previously by partners with other localized species. The only way that experiment could ahve been done correctly if exact genetic animals were used then we might be taking abou this form a different point of view, but if there is gene drift in anoles due to hybridization then certainly only procreative genes can make changes in the body plans of animals, so therefore a hybridized anole could carry information from the previous hybridization which may have come out in such a way. MY point this is not adaptive variation. Not at all. You clearly assume that all control factors covered were covered, that is not the case. I have other friends that are lizard people that don't accept this study either.

#25 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 September 2012 - 04:14 PM

If I misrepresented your argument, then I apologize. If I did, it's only because I am trying to find a consistent definition of a species somewhere in your arguments. So, with no disrespect intended, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this unless:

1. You give a concrete, consistent definition (list of criteria) for a species--something I asked for earlier but you have not done. Presenting a pair of lizards as an example of different species is not a definition.

2. You demonstrate how a species (a modern scientific taxonomic term) relates to the Bible. Contrary to your claim, the Bible does not imply "fixity of species." Species is not a Biblical term. If you're going to say that the Bible implies fixity of "kind" (Hebrew = miyn), then I'm all on board with you. However, if you're going to argue that the modern scientific term "species" is equivalent to the term "kind" used in Genesis, which, if I'm not mistaken, is a fundamental assumption in your argument, then you are going to have to justify that. Simply asserting that it is so is not good hermeneutics; it just begs the question. As far as I know, no YEC disputes that the Bible implies fixity of "kind". Where you draw the boundaries for a "kind", and what criteria you use to draw those boundaries, those are the point of contention, and they are not explicitly spelled out in the Bible. Generally, YECs have used interbreedability as a test for a Genesis "kind", but you appear to reject that criterion, dismissing interbreedability as nothing more than hybridization. So then, what are your criteria for distinguishing a "kind"? If, for example, the term "kind" just refers to a lizard "kind" (something I am not implying or arguing for), then any variation between the lizards would be a subset within that lizard "kind", just like the variations of blond hair and blue eyes or black hair and brown eyes are included within the variation of the human "kind". Or would you also call combining people who have blond hair and blue eyes with people who have black hair and brown eyes hybridization? The point is, where do you draw the line, and what criteria are you using to draw that line?

#26 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:02 AM

I happen to "think" and I could be wrong about this, the taxonomic nomenclature currently used to define specie is acceptable and the best sytematics for describing our diversity. Now no one all agres with these, but they are the best thing going. Now the idea of Kind in the Bible is one thing, but the Recent "YEC' definition of Kind is something else. Also the implication because of young earth views which obviously I don't buy into even though I am a YEC, is another.

First of all with all do respect I have the bible and science on my side with respect to fixity of species. There are many YECS that do not buy into Kinds as a taxonomic nomenclature In fact we have DNA to refer to which does not at all confirm the teachings of YEC kinds. DNA says that GOD created distinctive animal types with in each ones own category.

Bone digger I am not on this forum to put people down or get in argument. But here are the clear fact of what I have put forth, then I will ask you something at the end...

"Facts" real science and real observable science on fixity:
1. The fossil record (Werner and others) show all animals of any diversity set in situ by God has "never" changed except out side of Hybridization.
2 A tyrannosaur does not have an ancestor it is identifiable every time it is dug up, as is all other animals living fossils or extinct.
3. Design in the animal KIngdom is actual "true evidence" of a designer and good design is used over and over in the animal diversity....
4. When GOd says, "Be fruitful and multiply" the only definition of that actions standard procreation between a male and female of the same what is called species today. Such as a Palomino HOrse M/F
5. I don't see how an adaptive variation ideology can get around the fact of this--only procreative genes can change an animal. That would be receiving new information through procreation.
6. THere is no examples of adaptive variation, links, or gateways into these process, and in fact not one iota of DNA has ever encouraged its possibility. Not one.
7. Barminology is a very recent YEC idea, this was proposed in order to make the ARk population more manageable, and "some" kind of explanation for diversification and speciation after the Ark. Please go to some of the recent pages that suppor this, and see the animals all included under one order. It's interesting, but and unless they can come with proof that DNA would or could support hese theories, I don't see this going a long way.
8. I have purposefully brought up symbiotic relationships, because this is not included in YEc discussion anywhere that I am aware of? Because of the nature of symbiosis, its not just male and female but it is also shared culture or shared eco-niche requirements between two species no explanation for this off the ARK.
9. How does kinds fit in with the insect kingdom. where they on or off the ARk, since they didn't breath air in the same way animals do, were they left off and how did 11 million species in the Amazon alone survie the flood catastrophe?
10. When YECs use "Adaptive" this term is exactly in context to Adaptive used in evolution I challenge you to show me how any outside change in the environment, or pressure, or any other non procreative factor can change an animals DNA. Animals don't control their DNA any mor ethan you and I do? Again Clearly and without reservation, the only evidence for change in a body plan in any plant or animal is through procreation That means new information is necessary for that change the only process by which that change can take place is through procreation via hybridization Other than that animals ahve a fixed DNA program that identifies who, what, habits, breeding, etc. that teach and every animal.
11. Your argument about some of this is faulty in that even given your anole analogy, its still an anole. Your adaptive idea here using this publishing sounds exactly like evolution and long term requirements to change it from one body plan to another?

Since the animal diversity past fossil, amber encased, and living all show no change except through domestication and hybridization like for beef cows etc., can you provide evidence of any animal coming off the ark like the iguana kind that fostered at a minimum 14 new species with all new environmental requirements and habits, if they belonged to an "ARK Ancestor" where are the proofs for these "kinds" having procreated many different species of diversity? What you are implying is that all life on this planet was reproduced in specie in the last 3,500 years? That would include all insects as well. Why does this sound possible to you with completely disregard doing Gods work in the beginning?

You mean your leaving it up to the animals to procreate along their way back to their original distribution which we have via the fossil record, and find their way across land and floating mats, God isn't even in that picture? It's left up to "nature" to replenish itself be fruitful and multiply to Noah and the animals what was that phrase's expectation?? Why does this sound like the God of Genesis beginning, be fruitful and multiply? So with out GODs work, the animal diversity was able to find its way back to all locations and neo-niche son their own? This is indeed very interesting?

I think maybe I have given you enough to think about, I am not going to take this up any higher with respect to arguing my point. My view is that "only" God set the animals originally in place in situ in the bio-sphere. There is "no" such thing or example of adaptive variation, and one big reason is only procreative genes can change a body plan or create a "new specie.... I have wrestled personally with the exact same thing you are trying to infer but after much research and my own serious 40+ years of of being a naturalist, I have an instinct as well about the animal kingdom, but I also have a very good knowledge of the bible, and I know that some of this flies in the face of YECs, but "I AM A YEC", sadly the biblical narrative is exactly as it is? Now with all do respect you can also see why I am open to a wwFlood, but lean towards a local flood for the reasons we are discussing above. Given the biblical narrative of Gods work in the beginning the earth is young, and it was a designer creator God who put all this into place.... So there you have it, it flies in the face of what you espouse, but as I said earlier the biblical narrative, science, and the fossil record all bode for fixity, hybridization, and symbiotic relationships born out by GODs design and work originally. I do not believe we can "pin" a whole new creation of diversity on mother nature....because it is clear GOD did not "re-create the diversity. He didn't need to, and when he rested it was good.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users