Jump to content


Photo

New Species


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#41 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 08:27 PM

Evolution claims that there is one big family tree of related species which display such subtle differences at times, that there is no unambiguous way to classify them.

circletreeoflife.jpg

And here it is.

 

If you look, you will see a whole lotta lines that branch off into two.

These are all examples of a base species.

Lets apply this to our salamanders, the base of the fork would be the original group of salamanders discussed earlier.

(Salamanders BTW, which we could hypothetically say were the original  2 that came off the Ark if we wanted)

The two branches would be the two different groups that diversified into 2 other slightly different groups.

Lets call them group A and B.

Now,  from the group A line, 2 more different groups can split off and form yet again their own 2 branches.

Same with group B, 2 groups diversify and form their own base line, where, you guessed it 2 more groups can branch off.

 

This happens over and over until as you can see it gets quite "bushy" as groups split in two and then subsequently, those two groups both split in two.

 

Do you get the idea of how far away various diversified groups have distanced themselves from the original A and B?

Do you also get the idea of how this is not a linear type of diversification?

 

This is still all quite reasonable to a creationist right?

If we start from the basic kinds and describe how they diversified into all the species we see today.

So, just for giggles and grins, lets say that there were a group of "kinds" that came off the ark. Would you agree that it is entirely plausible that all the animals we see today, could have originated from that original group of kinds from the ark, by the method mentioned above?

 

Can't we all just get along!?



#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:12 PM

I don't think I said that which you have quoted me as saying.

 

I believe you made that claim in post #33

 

I mentioned how current observation of fossils defies the progressive evolution concept, (thus requiring an ad hoc hypothesis).

 

This is still all quite reasonable to a creationist right?

If we start from the basic kinds and describe how they diversified into all the species we see today.

So, just for giggles and grins, lets say that there were a group of "kinds" that came off the ark. Would you agree that it is entirely plausible that all the animals we see today, could have originated from that original group of kinds from the ark, by the method mentioned above?

 

That is the Creationist perspective. That there were original kinds from the ark (meaning less required) and these speciated to the variety of forms we see today. However still stating that a fly cannot become a pig or a fish to a horse etc.

 

As I see it, everything is still limited to its basic structure and whilst some variation is possible, extreme variations carry a trade-off which lessens the fitness of the "extremeness" of the change. I read an evolutionist site recently and it mentioned this in that say a cheetah can evolve longer legs for faster running however if it gets too long the legs may be more susceptible to breakage, (longer bones = more pressure also possibly thinner bones).

 

This actually works against the evolution concept since it imposes a limit on variation (a thing people have asked me to demonstrate and I give examples like the above but to no avail wink.png )

 

Essentially the Creationist perspective takes what we know of Biology, (variations in kinds) and uses it without all the  extraneous evolutionary extrapolations. Its using the facts and disregarding the imagination smile.png

 

Can't we all just get along!?

 

I don't see why not smile.png



#43 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:15 PM

nonaffiliated,

I was expecting a little more drama than your answer that you gave. I want a new leg or a set of eyes in back of a head not more of the same.
 
Also I want to be corrected about my mis-understanding of the evo hypothesis. Don't leave me hanging.  lol
 
Gilbo your post was the best graphic illustration of the flaws in evo logic I have ever seen. kudos
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:21 PM

Gilbo your post was the best graphic illustration of the flaws in evo logic I have ever seen. kudos

 

Aw shucks biggrin.png Thanks Mike.

 

I believe I just re-iterated what you had already said, with an analogy / demonstration to help it be more clear.



#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:01 PM

No worries mate. smile.png

I figured that was what you were doing. Thanks!
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#46 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:04 PM

I don't think I said that which you have quoted me as saying.

 
That's my bad!
I actually quoted myself to make a point, that, at this time of night forgot what that point was.
Probably not a good practice for a forum.
 

I mentioned how current observation of fossils defies the progressive evolution concept, (thus requiring an ad hoc hypothesis).

 
Let me get to that later.
 

However still stating that a fly cannot become a pig or a fish to a horse etc.

 

Like this...
 11830895883_49f2830294_m.jpg
Whew, you got me, I couldn't see that ever happening either.

Couldn't agree more!  See...same page!

 

 

 

I don't see why not smile.png

 

Another agreement! Me neither (I have the attitude that you should have lively discussion but not so bad that you couldn't have a beer/pepsi afterwards smile.png )



#47 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:15 PM

I like your attitude nonaffiliated. I'd be glad to have a Pepsi with you.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:41 PM

 
That's my bad!
I actually quoted myself to make a point, that, at this time of night forgot what that point was.
Probably not a good practice for a forum.
 

 

No worries, I thought the forum had made a mistake.

 

 
Let me get to that later.
 

 

No worries

 

Like this...
 11830895883_49f2830294_m.jpg
Whew, you got me, I couldn't see that ever happening either.

Couldn't agree more!  See...same page!

 

Great :)

 

Another agreement! Me neither (I have the attitude that you should have lively discussion but not so bad that you couldn't have a beer/pepsi afterwards smile.png )

 

As Mike said, I'd be happy to have a Pepsi with you :)



#49 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:00 PM

nonaffiliated,

I was expecting a little more drama than your answer that you gave. I want a new leg or a set of eyes in back of a head not more of the same.
 
Also I want to be corrected about my mis-understanding of the evo hypothesis. Don't leave me hanging.  lol
 
Gilbo your post was the best graphic illustration of the flaws in evo logic I have ever seen. kudos

 

Sorry to disappoint.

 

Must be getting late because I find myself agreeing here.

 

Cause I have to admit that YECs like Kent H*vind got it exactly right when he says "dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats, birds give birth to birds."

Why would it be any different, we don't see anything else happening in the world today do we?

Batboy being the possible exception.

 

11831381904_5fa52d88eb_o.jpgLook at all the main dog species of the world.

Each one came about from one main common dog that all the others branched off from.

Those branches split off and formed 2 more branches to make 4, those 4 branched off to make 8, yada yada, until we have the branching family of dogs today.

 

Remember, It is not linear, it's a tree.

 

Just like your own family tree.

 

We can still agree right?

 

Some were so successful they kept going (note the long lines), some lines were unsuccessful and just ended (not shown) and some of those we may never no about if they left no recoverable remains.

 

Interesting to note that most of the dogs here can interbreed, some with more success with viability than others.

 

But really interesting, note (I know it's small) that you can see the Red fox near the top, and the Gray fox at the bottom.

Even though they are both called foxes, both their ancestors split off, or diverged from the original dog branch very early and went off on their own forming their own branches.

So even though they look similar, they have both adapted to their environment along very different paths, and as a result, have changed so much that they can not interbreed with each other even though both species of foxes can interbreed with other dog members.

 

So, you could say they are all of the dog "kind" genera, or whatever human construct we use to try to classify them, but you would probably also consider them to all be different species.

 

A bit like our salamanders.

 

I still don't think Answers in Genesis would disagree with me much at all here.

 

Go to their site, they have articles on natural selection.

 

Are you on board still?

 

And again, feel free to "grade" my handling of the technical stuff...please remember to consider 'effort' as part of the grade.unsure.png



#50 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:20 PM

I'll buy tongue.png



#51 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:57 AM

11838582075_b73d60decd.jpg

 

This is Hesperocyon with an artistic recreation.

 

It is is thought to be the animal that was at or near the base of the canine lineage. (or one of them).

 

Remember, a branching family tree or bush, not a straight line .

 

Notice how generalized it looks. Very fox-like. It's not too hard to see how later groups could have branched off from this group to become all the dog varieties there are today.

 

Remember also how I mentioned foxes split off very early from this lineage? And you may also notice how fox-like the skeleton appears?

Well foxes are very generalized, and the Gray fox in particular would be considered a primitive dog kind, that is because it branched off early, and hasn't changed too much from the earlier stock. (look at the previous chart and note the Gray fox at the bottom and see the yellow lineage line that goes straight off the page with no branches.) That indicates that the Gray fox has changed little and is what we call "primitive". (again a word of human construct).

 

Generalized species like the Gray fox tend to stick around longer because they can adapt to changes whereas specialized ones tend to die off when the environment changes.

 

So to fit in with the Noachian flood model, I would reckon that proponents would have no trouble positing that Hesperocyon, or something like it, would have been the 1st dog kind to step off the ark. And that perhaps this poor fossilized creature was one of the individuals that didn't make it aboard.

 

Evolutionists would claim that the dogs we have today arose in pretty much the exact same fashion, but would really only debate time scale and the method of how the "first" dog arrived.

 

No naturalist would say that a cat gave birth to a dog or anything as ridiculous as that, dogs give birth to dogs.

 

Needless to say, a crocodile would not give birth to a "crocoduck" either!

 

Both examples would indeed be "fairytales".

 

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:36 AM


No naturalist would say that a cat gave birth to a dog or anything as ridiculous as that, dogs give birth to dogs.

So we can all agree on the demonstrable part, which by the way is the whole point of the ridiculous portion ;) , but after we all agree to that; evolutionists come along and say that it's a scientific fact that a turnip and your pet dog Fido share a common ancestor.

#53 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:50 AM

So we can all agree on the demonstrable part, which by the way is the whole point of the ridiculous portion wink.png , but after we all agree to that; evolutionists come along and say that it's a scientific fact that a turnip and your pet dog Fido share a common ancestor.

 

But, understand that it's not the same thing as saying a turnip gave birth to your pet dog Fido.



#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:26 PM

But, understand that it's not the same thing as saying a turnip gave birth to your pet dog Fido.

The ridiculousness factor is exactly the same.

#55 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:24 PM

The ridiculousness factor is exactly the same.

 

Do you agree that Fido and that fox that Fido is barking at that is rummaging  the garbage can in the back yard shared a common ancestor?

 

Fido? Really? You couldn't come up with a less cliche name?tongue.png



#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2014 - 03:37 PM

Do you agree that Fido and that fox that Fido is barking at that is rummaging  the garbage can in the back yard shared a common ancestor?

 
When I say yes, you say, "Go back far enough with these slight successive modifications and you'll find Fido, foxtrot fossil and a tomato's great great great to the ten thousandth power great grandpa." ;)

Fido? Really? You couldn't come up with a less cliche name?tongue.png

I like to think I can make things more memorable that way. :D

#57 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:13 PM

 
...with these slight successive modifications

 

The above quote is all I really hoped to accomplish.

 

As long as I have gotten the point across that these species changes can only come about from a series of these slight successive modifications.

And, a new species can only emerge from the lineage of its past.

 

So, the only difference is that you feel that this process only goes back to something like Hesperocyon, and evo's feel that this exact same process continues over and over, only much further back.

 

That's the only real difference.

 

So that's it, there is no "macro evolution" , the only way paleontologists think that one "kind" would give rise to another "kind" would be over a very long series of these slight, successive, modifications as individual species branch off and in turn form new branches.

 

And, it would be equally impossible to pick out the exact moment when one "kind" gives rise to another, due to the slow, gradual, increments of the modifications.

 

So, a fish that is living today, can in no way give birth to a dog.

 

I hope I was able to explain how evolution would never claim such a thing.



#58 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 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: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:22 PM

So that's it, there is no "macro evolution"

 
Taking your statement out of context, I would agree wholeheartedly...there is no macroevolution. But that's not exactly what you meant, is it? wink.png
 

As long as I have gotten the point across that these species changes can only come about from a series of these slight successive modifications.
And, a new species can only emerge from the lineage of its past.
 
So, the only difference is that you feel that this process only goes back to something like Hesperocyon, and evo's feel that this exact same process continues over and over, only much further back.
 
That's the only real difference.

 
That "only real difference", however, is an apples to oranges difference. The kind of modification it takes to go from Hesperocyon to a modern canid is nothing more than "horizontal" modification. For example, here are a couple pictures of the dentition of Hesperocyon (left) compared to that of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) (right). (Sorry, but that's as clear as I can make it without a close range lens for my camera).
 
Hesperocyon-Vulpes-001-rs_zpscb93bc9e.jp
 
Hesperocyon-Vulpes-002-rs_zps64b9a9fb.jp

The dentition is virtually identical (minus the absence of m3 in Hesperocyon, which I assume is due to lack of preservation in the original, although it could be a "derived" actual loss akin to what you see in some modern similarly short faced canids like the bush dog Speothos venaticus), even down to the reduced metaconid on the lower carnassial. But the kind of transformation required by universal common descent amounts to far more than just the scalar variation you see there, and often involves a complete renovation of something like the lungs, while still remaining functional. To equate the one with the other is, at best, disingenuous, and that is why playing a game of bait and switch by claiming the one is proof of the other is the "unpardonable sin" of equivocation at this forum.



#59 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:21 AM

But, understand that it's not the same thing as saying a turnip gave birth to your pet dog Fido.

 

That wasn't being claimed... (Strawman)

 

 

 

The above quote is all I really hoped to accomplish.

 

As long as I have gotten the point across that these species changes can only come about from a series of these slight successive modifications.

And, a new species can only emerge from the lineage of its past.

 

Ok and what we would like to get this point to you.. That dogs are still dog kind and cat are still cat kind, there is nothing demonstrating that they can become something else. Meaning all evolution is, is an extraneous extrapolation of what we observe, there is no reason to claim they did / can become something other than what they are.

 

In fact I already mentioned how there is a limit to change thus this demonstrated limit shows that evolution is not possible since the trade-off would not select for such.... An organism can variate so much before the variation is no longer beneficial, so evolutionists do not have a leg to stand on here. They are merely postulating and appealing to imagination.

 

So, the only difference is that you feel that this process only goes back to something like Hesperocyon, and evo's feel that this exact same process continues over and over, only much further back.

 

Yes we believe in what we observe and that is it. Evolutionists extrapolate it based on no evidence.

 

That's the only real difference.

 

Certainly

 

So that's it, there is no "macro evolution"

 

Like Bonedigger I agree ;)

 

, the only way paleontologists think that one "kind" would give rise to another "kind" would be over a very long series of these slight, successive, modifications as individual species branch off and in turn form new branches.

 

If they could demonstrate the mechanisms for such empirically then perhaps they would be onto something. Otherwise they are simply making assumptions and assumptions are not science.

 

Here is a great quote which demonstrates this folly.

 

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
William Thomson

 

And, it would be equally impossible to pick out the exact moment when one "kind" gives rise to another, due to the slow, gradual, increments of the modifications.

 

Nobody is asking for such. However there should be a RECORD of these slight changes in the fossils , instead we see stasis which is 100% contradictory to what you claim. Such contradictions should deem the idea (assumption) of evolution as debunked, why isn't it?

 

So, a fish that is living today, can in no way give birth to a dog.

 

Nobody said it could / would / should (strawman)

 

I hope I was able to explain how evolution would never claim such a thing.



#60 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:08 AM

So that's it, there is no "macro evolution"

Like Bonedigger I agree wink.png

 

OK, well that's the main thing.

 

We can discuss more about the "long term" vs "short term" evolution.

 

But my main point of this discussion was to dispel this idea that a "fish gave birth to a lizard, that gave birth to a mammal" (or something like that) idea that I see so many creationists put forth.

 

Earlier you said:

"However still stating that a fly cannot become a pig or a fish to a horse etc."

 

Can you see how a fly cannot become a pig, (within the theory of evolution)?

Now, the theory does allow for a common fish ancestor, to later give rise to a horse.

But a fish would never give birth to a horse.

So I may have mis-represented you when I made the statement:

"So, a fish that is living today, can in no way give birth to a dog."...my apologies.

 

But still, what started this discussion was this comment from M. Summers:

"What is not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record.
That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is."

 

This is a viewpoint that the theory of evolution in no way subscribes to.

If it was discovered that a dog actually gave rise to a cow, it would shatter what we currently think about evolution.

 

That was my sole intention, not necessarily to argue the validity of the theory, but rather simply clear up the common misconception of what the theory actually proposes.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users