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

#1 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:47 AM

http://www.apologeti...pub=2&issue=945

Here is an excellent article per the link above, on symbiotic relationships.

On one had it supports very well the Young Earth biblical view very well as God had to create these animals and plant relationships at the same time. Symbiotic relationships invariable go back to Gods design and original placement of animals in their eco-niches. These relationships do not seem to fare well with long term development ideology, but are a sign of relationship from conception, as part of God’s original design. So though YECs reject this, it actually works in favor of a YEC view. This just does not allow or support long periods of time IMHO. What un-guided mechanisms outside of God’s Design would have been the onus for the development for thousands and thousands of these symbiotic relationships to convene with one another, how great is God’s design?

Actually the bible is clear about the creation week. After reading this article, you can add white tip sharks and sucker fish, bees and flowers, and hundreds of thousands of other symbiotic relationships between animals and plants (ants and certain plants), the web worms tree cocoon cycle with pecan trees)--actually, what explanation could an evolutionist give to explain random change and long periods of time to come up with these “designed” relationships???? They (evolutionists) have nothing? These relationships exist through out the whole of our known diversity.

Here is my own my own personal dilemma with this---how do I explain the symbiotic relationships required by surviving the flood and dispersion through out the known diversity that exists today? Certainly we all agree the animals dispersed from the ARK if you are a ww Flood advocate, if your a local flood and you believe the same, then one must assume that what ever was on the Ark in either scenerio also dispersed as well, the bible is clear on that point.... !

I don’t have an answer either biblical or scientific for symbiotic relationships that is in harmony per se with the bible???
I just know that hundreds of thousands of these relationships made it through the flood, and are part of our diversity today. So when I think of dispersion, I also must include the symbiosis part of our animal kingdom when thinking of dispersion which complicates the dispersion narrative even more beyond procreation as many animal species cannot exist without a counter part to help complete their cycle. Bees are a good example, but ants and certain flora is used to make a food to feed the colony, and there are many thousands more....? Frogs and certain picture plants in South America. So it is clear that certain plants, insects and animals require each other in order to exist, if you know anything about nature, this is undeniably true---God created them “that way” in the beginning.

I do not get very much discussion from anyone on this, and often those that are creationists on any side say this all happened post flood after the ARK, but I know this is not true, and we have many examples on the fossil record and amber encased fossil insects as well. Any inclusion by others that the animals adapted after the flood and became dependent on one another is outside of the information within the selected animals that GOD put there originally. Adaptation to environment cannot employ new gene material into an animal species, it is clear the our animals diversity, insects, and other fauna and flora, were designed and the DNA of each symbiotic relationship started in the beginning and is a “Design feature”, and is an excellent source of discussion when dealing with evolutionists.....

I just wish I had a better explanation than what creationists put out there for our diversity to have dispersed off the ARK, this is one reason why I am unfortunately drawn to a local flood position, but I respect others with a differing view.


#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1015 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:29 AM

The question is: How would symbiotic relationships have evolved? The Evolutionist usually will reply that this relationship is an survival advantage for both species. I deem that to be true, although it doesn't really answer the question. Maybe one needs to be more specific: What are the real life survival advantages of the steps in between?

#3 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:13 PM

Dear Mark
I am not on this forum to change anyone, but only to challenge them, as I am challenged by others such as yourself--so I am saying there are no in betweens? That is an assumption that there is evidence of long periods of time which caused animals to become dependent upon these relationships with one another, but, and if there was creator, the design of these symbiotic relationships are part of a design in the eco-niche of certain animals species, plants, insects, fish... This is evidence to me that that this came about at one time as part of the creation narrative. Other than creative design, can you support or provide any evidence that evolution as a non-guided mechanism has an explanation for the thousand sand thousands of relationships between different species. What was the onus in a a non-guided environment that would have caused symbiosis? Do you disregard design? The whole creation seems to imply that this is no act of a random non-guided mechanism. Why would say one animal specie pair up with say a plant like bees and flowers, or sharks and lampreys? IS this caused by the DNA and information of these animals, or was this some kind of willful act for ever one of hundreds of thousands of species? But what is the statistical probability of all the animals just moving in this direction and affiliating one another in order to survie or produce? I think there is more to this whole idea than that. It doesn't seem plausible to me in a random environment for this to have come about as an act of the will, if it wasn't then what....? What about the link between any animal specie over time, where is the evidence. I know there is a gulf between us, but I believe as the article implies, that GOD is a great designer and this was part of "His" plan, and it seems the evidence also shows the same???? I don't believe one can carry out a non-guided explanation and provide evidence for symbiosis in the species....

#4 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:30 PM

Dear Mark
I am not on this forum to change anyone, but only to challenge them, as I am challenged by others such as yourself--so I am saying there are no in betweens? That is an assumption that there is evidence of long periods of time which caused animals to become dependent upon these relationships with one another, but, and if there was creator, the design of these symbiotic relationships are part of a design in the eco-niche of certain animals species, plants, insects, fish... This is evidence to me that that this came about at one time as part of the creation narrative. Other than creative design, can you support or provide any evidence that evolution as a non-guided mechanism has an explanation for the thousand sand thousands of relationships between different species. What was the onus in a a non-guided environment that would have caused symbiosis? Do you disregard design? The whole creation seems to imply that this is no act of a random non-guided mechanism. Why would say one animal specie pair up with say a plant like bees and flowers, or sharks and lampreys? IS this caused by the DNA and information of these animals, or was this some kind of willful act for ever one of hundreds of thousands of species? But what is the statistical probability of all the animals just moving in this direction and affiliating one another in order to survie or produce? I think there is more to this whole idea than that. It doesn't seem plausible to me in a random environment for this to have come about as an act of the will, if it wasn't then what....? What about the link between any animal specie over time, where is the evidence. I know there is a gulf between us, but I believe as the article implies, that GOD is a great designer and this was part of "His" plan, and it seems the evidence also shows the same???? I don't believe one can carry out a non-guided explanation and provide evidence for symbiosis in the species....


The shark/lamprey relationship would have survived the flood, oceans continued to exist.
Bees seek out flowers, I don't know if its smell or what draws them to flowers, but they would have done it on the ark, and then done it off the ark. As the flower population subsequently grew, so did the bee population, and you would get more bees seeking more ways to feed.

Have you got any other symbiotic relationships that you would battle to explain after the ark? I cant think of any that would be problematic to the theory of a world wide flood.

#5 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:39 PM

Dear New Path,

While I lean towards a local flood for various reasons, you sort of missed the point of my discussion. you have "an " assumption with respect to speciation and after ark dispersion, I am implying strictly as a Christian, regardless of my views, that the symbiotic relationships complicate the flood dispersion. I imply, which your welcome to disagree with that, these relationships were "designed" and that they were present at original creation of the bio-mass. It is a fact that such relationships make it impossible for many species to exist, without this dependence. That was my point....

So this puts n extra light on the difficulty of dispersion, on top of Kinds and adaptive variation and floating mats.....

#6 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:59 PM

Dear New Path,

While I lean towards a local flood for various reasons, you sort of missed the point of my discussion. you have "an " assumption with respect to speciation and after ark dispersion, I am implying strictly as a Christian, regardless of my views, that the symbiotic relationships complicate the flood dispersion. I imply, which your welcome to disagree with that, these relationships were "designed" and that they were present at original creation of the bio-mass. It is a fact that such relationships make it impossible for many species to exist, without this dependence. That was my point....

So this puts n extra light on the difficulty of dispersion, on top of Kinds and adaptive variation and floating mats.....


Ok I agree with you that they would have complicated the dispersion. I believe that despite the ark's attempt to save species , many many species died off soon after the flood due to unsuitable conditions. Obviously those that survived continued in their God-designed symbiotic relationships because they managed to link up with the necessary resources. Some would have died off because of their inability to re-establish the necessary eco-systems that caused them to thrive pre-flood. So those that have these relationships now are merely the survivors, the rest died off.

#7 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 08 August 2012 - 05:25 AM

New Path:
Yes I agree that the pre-flood world was different than todays world post flood, and Yes many species did die off. We agree...

Can I ask you about adaptive variation. Where are you with that off the ARK and KInds? I have been very interested in this subject, not to argue with anyone if you accept this "theory" as viable, it is being taught by many creationists as fact, there are big holes in this view...

If this is something you would like to converse on I will start a new thread, specifically about this subject.

#8 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:36 AM

New Path:
Yes I agree that the pre-flood world was different than todays world post flood, and Yes many species did die off. We agree...

Can I ask you about adaptive variation. Where are you with that off the ARK and KInds? I have been very interested in this subject, not to argue with anyone if you accept this "theory" as viable, it is being taught by many creationists as fact, there are big holes in this view...

If this is something you would like to converse on I will start a new thread, specifically about this subject.


I am a strong believer in adaptive variation, I believe phenotypic variation will be increasingly highlighted over time as they do more and more genome sequencing. Two near identical subspecies with virtually identical DNA sequences can look entirely different due merely to adaptation which can be seen in their differing alelle frequencies.Thus a marsupial can look like and act like a dog (tasmanian wolf) and a civet can look and act like a dog (Madagascar) merely because they are in isolated environments and nature required a predator to keep the balance. It will be very interesting when they release more genome sequences, this may be embarassing to some creationists who kick against any sort of macro-evolution. Take the Tasmanian wolf, this creature was known to leap on two legs like a kangaroo. It has a weak jaw, instead of a strong predators jaw like God designed. It really appears like an adapted kangaroo, it has a marsupial pouch. This shows the flexibility and adaptability that God designed in creatures, we are designed hardy.

So, yes, I am a believer in extremely rapid adaptive variation since the ark and it would be interesting to discuss.

#9 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:17 AM

I have a Fishing reel buisnes and have been under the gun, but let me throw a few things out to you about this subject form my point fo view.

1. Adaptive Variation is indeed a theory, and Dr. Prudome and others are working on this as we speak, but it is certainly not fact.
2. Your honest enough to talk micro-evolution, now I reject evolution all together, but many YECS and creationists brothers refuse to use any inferences that the explanation for this is a type of evolutionary process.
3. Biblically there is no reference to such a process, as a biblical creationist, YECs and others usually are looking for a basis in scripture, I find no basis for this what so ever, so much so, that I would say this is not mentioned at all in the bible.
4. In two specific locations that I can think of GOD employs blessing and direction to the animal and mankind... He says to be fruitful and multiply--now this reference has a clear expectation, that tow male and female procreate and create another of the same. This is the Hebrew expectation clearly.....
5. Can you give me na example of any adaptive variation in the animal kingdom through the species?
6. YOu may mistakenly infer that certain animals are the result of adaptive variation, but all examples I have read by experts were clearly hybridization, which is not Adaptive Variation.
7. It is a fact that no animals procreative gene material or body change can be a result of adaptation? Unless you infer evolutionary processes.
8. God has originally created the animals diversity, of which much of it is actual living fossils? THe fossil record in amber encased fossils of hundreds of thousands of species, as well as the sedimentary and volcanic fossils all show one interesting thing. No change in their body plan. We can look at the Tuatara, Coelacanth, Texas Horned lIzard, Gila MONster, T-Rex, and other dinos. ON observation that is true...is each animal is of its designed kind all the way down through time, including and even what we refer to "living fossils". So the evidence of design shows that the Australian animals you referred to--how long in time do you think they have existed? What was its ARk ancestor that you would employ, and how did the environment become responsible for their change in body type? ALso do any of these animals have a fossil record? If they do, I suggest to you they have not changed one iota since GOD created them?
9. the platypus has a fossil record, this animal has not changed and as well as other australian marsupials, how does this fair in the light of your idea that they rapidly adapted off the Ark, when the evidence shows they are still the same animal and same design?
10. As far as I can tell the only possible explanation for body plan changes form fixity of species point of view is hybridization.

AIG posted an example of the pink Galapagos iguana as an example of modern adaptive variation. What is interesting that the actual article written by herpetologists, which I study lizards and was aware of... actually says that two of the islands land iguanas hybridized and the result was this "new specie', if you read up on the Goode's HOrned lIzard, a cross between the desert horend lizard and the flat tail horned lizard, both contributing new gene material through procreation, has indeed resulted in a new taxonomic sub-specie. So it does happen in nature but rarely, but hybridization is not at all adaptive variation.

Lastly if one could put up one animal that they imbibe as an example of adaptive variation, why would that be a convincing argument when we ahve a million different insect species and hundred of thousands of Fauna, and just saying it happened is no evidence at all. THe actual observable clearly biblical rational for speciation is from a fixity of species frame of reference.

The argument that adaptive variation is even possible is questionable at best. Please read up on Dr. Carl Werners work, and the fossil record, he is an expert on the fossil record, and has actually found many living fossils in his life time, and there is no reference in HOs work to adaptive variation. Again he has studied this and says that adaptation cannot change body plans. Plain and simple. Given my own view you can see why Symbiotic relationships that complicate speciation is of concern to me.....

#10 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:02 PM

I have a Fishing reel buisnes and have been under the gun, but let me throw a few things out to you about this subject form my point fo view.

1. Adaptive Variation is indeed a theory, and Dr. Prudome and others are working on this as we speak, but it is certainly not fact.
2. Your honest enough to talk micro-evolution, now I reject evolution all together, but many YECS and creationists brothers refuse to use any inferences that the explanation for this is a type of evolutionary process.
3. Biblically there is no reference to such a process, as a biblical creationist, YECs and others usually are looking for a basis in scripture, I find no basis for this what so ever, so much so, that I would say this is not mentioned at all in the bible.
4. In two specific locations that I can think of GOD employs blessing and direction to the animal and mankind... He says to be fruitful and multiply--now this reference has a clear expectation, that tow male and female procreate and create another of the same. This is the Hebrew expectation clearly.....
5. Can you give me na example of any adaptive variation in the animal kingdom through the species?
6. YOu may mistakenly infer that certain animals are the result of adaptive variation, but all examples I have read by experts were clearly hybridization, which is not Adaptive Variation.
7. It is a fact that no animals procreative gene material or body change can be a result of adaptation? Unless you infer evolutionary processes.
8. God has originally created the animals diversity, of which much of it is actual living fossils? THe fossil record in amber encased fossils of hundreds of thousands of species, as well as the sedimentary and volcanic fossils all show one interesting thing. No change in their body plan. We can look at the Tuatara, Coelacanth, Texas Horned lIzard, Gila MONster, T-Rex, and other dinos. ON observation that is true...is each animal is of its designed kind all the way down through time, including and even what we refer to "living fossils". So the evidence of design shows that the Australian animals you referred to--how long in time do you think they have existed? What was its ARk ancestor that you would employ, and how did the environment become responsible for their change in body type? ALso do any of these animals have a fossil record? If they do, I suggest to you they have not changed one iota since GOD created them?
9. the platypus has a fossil record, this animal has not changed and as well as other australian marsupials, how does this fair in the light of your idea that they rapidly adapted off the Ark, when the evidence shows they are still the same animal and same design?
10. As far as I can tell the only possible explanation for body plan changes form fixity of species point of view is hybridization.

AIG posted an example of the pink Galapagos iguana as an example of modern adaptive variation. What is interesting that the actual article written by herpetologists, which I study lizards and was aware of... actually says that two of the islands land iguanas hybridized and the result was this "new specie', if you read up on the Goode's HOrned lIzard, a cross between the desert horend lizard and the flat tail horned lizard, both contributing new gene material through procreation, has indeed resulted in a new taxonomic sub-specie. So it does happen in nature but rarely, but hybridization is not at all adaptive variation.

Lastly if one could put up one animal that they imbibe as an example of adaptive variation, why would that be a convincing argument when we ahve a million different insect species and hundred of thousands of Fauna, and just saying it happened is no evidence at all. THe actual observable clearly biblical rational for speciation is from a fixity of species frame of reference.

The argument that adaptive variation is even possible is questionable at best. Please read up on Dr. Carl Werners work, and the fossil record, he is an expert on the fossil record, and has actually found many living fossils in his life time, and there is no reference in HOs work to adaptive variation. Again he has studied this and says that adaptation cannot change body plans. Plain and simple. Given my own view you can see why Symbiotic relationships that complicate speciation is of concern to me.....


I agree with much of what you say. I do believe in fixation of species, and living fossils. I believe that most animals are unchanged since creation 6500 years ago.

Referring to hybridisation, I do not believe two truly seperate species can breed, they require a closely matching chromosomal organisation for the two DNA strands to link up together. Without the close match, breeding is impossible. Therefore when they do breed , this is a sign of them being the same created "kind" or "species", those lizards are merely 3 different sub-species of the same God created lizard, created 6500 years ago. And so I would use your lizard example as proof of natural variation, not proof against it. The fact that the two lizards did breed is absolute proof of their near identical chromosomal pattern, saving us the effort of doing genome sequencing to determine whether their chrosomal organisations do match. When you breed two humans , the child is a combination of the genes of both, and therefore has a sameness of the parents (same genes) and an absolute uniqueness (unique combinations of genes). This is what happens with children of humans and offspring of lizards.

However I also believe its possible in rare circumstances for an animal to evolve a bit to fill an ecological gap. I don't believe there has been enough genome sequencing yet for either of us to conclude yet. I also believe the appearance of an animal can be changed through external factors, diet, pressure, oxygen. This cannot be dusputed because even the human has certain set features during undernourishment. Plants/animals change size under certain conditions. So there has not been 100% lack of changes among all creatures, some changes are observed over time (eg huge dragonflies)

If the Tasmanian wolf has a near identical chromosomal organisation to another Australian/Tasmanian animal, this would prove my case.
If not, I would still be looking for evidence and I may not be correct. I believe its still early days in the exciting field of genome sequencing.

#11 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 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: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:16 PM

...Take the Tasmanian wolf, this creature was known to leap on two legs like a kangaroo. It has a weak jaw, instead of a strong predators jaw like God designed...


I don't want to highjack this thread, but I must take exception to that statement. Below are a few photos of a thylacine skull and jaw (left) compared to a red wolf skull and jaw (right). Both are Bone Clones replicas. How is that a "weak" jaw compared to the placental wolf?

Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#12 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:52 PM

I don't want to highjack this thread, but I must take exception to that statement. Below are a few photos of a thylacine skull and jaw (left) compared to a red wolf skull and jaw (right). Both are Bone Clones replicas. How is that a "weak" jaw compared to the placental wolf?


Posted Image


Digital stress tests reveal weakness (red/white areas in right-hand image) in the thylacine jaw. (Credit: Marie Attard)


ScienceDaily (Sep. 1, 2011) — Australia's iconic thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, was hunted to death in the early Twentieth century for allegedly killing sheep; however, a new study published in the Zoological Society of London's Journal of Zoology has found that the tiger had such weak jaws that its prey was probably no larger than a possum.



http://www.scienceda...10831210058.htm

#13 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 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: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:12 AM

Nice. I stand corrected...I think. I'll have to get ahold of the full article. I also would like to see a placental wolf in that analysis for comparison, not just Sarcophilus and Dasyurus.

#14 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:50 AM

Nice. I stand corrected...I think. I'll have to get ahold of the full article. I also would like to see a placental wolf in that analysis for comparison, not just Sarcophilus and Dasyurus.


Its not really central to this debate. It would just be a side-point. Kangaroos seem to have strong jaws , I don't know if they have weak jaws or strong jaws. So my "weak jaw" comment about the thylacine doesn't add much to my argument about a common ancestor for some Australian marsupials. Its just something I noticed about thylacines, I am theorizing that they seemed to be a marsupial in a development phase towards becoming a more effective predator. Unfortunately they did not survive the process. Only genome sequencing could determine how accurately their chromosomal organisation matches other Australasian marsupials, and I am only aware of one or two Australian marsupials sequenced so far.

#15 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:06 PM

A couple things as it applies to New Path and Bone digger.
I guess my question and inference here is, the fossil record is pretty clear and observable. When one digs up a certain animal, that animal specie what ever it is if it does have a fossil record has shown no change in its body plan. The inference about eco-niche micro-evolutionary changes are interesting to me, because these animals "do" have a fossil record. These fossil records do not show a change in body plan?

With respect to the honed lizard, you arguement about the "Kind", I can accept on the surface,however, one cannot use this for the speciation of all diversity as it exists today.

My example about the Goode's Honred Lizard is a perfect example of Hybridization, which rarely takes place in nature, but given certian species and situations it does. Lizards happen to be one of those. Males are attracted to females by pheromones as well, so a female of another specie may not interest a male at all. But the two honred lizards are the same "kind" but seperate sepcies, and one of the two eventually corssed over into the others eco-zone (intergradation) and the two could mate and did mate. This is hybruduzation, but not at all an argument for Adaptive variation, because adaptive variation implies the animals also carry between the female and male the gene information say of 20 or 30 species of a certian lizard kind. I beleive this has never been demonstrated in nature, it is not observable, the fossil record itself as I implied is clearly one of fixity of species and no body change.

To be more clear---I am implying for instance--instead of a phylogenetic tree (which is being heavily criticized by scientists in different fields) I imply the animal phylogenetic tree would actually be like a blade of grass. The length of that blade would correspond to its leagth on earth or if it exsists today. However it also implies there are no ancestors, as the fossil record clearly shows the animals as bieng fully robust and fully formed with no ancestral linkage, nor any evidence these naiamls have changed their body plans. We are not talking about a few animals we are talking about the full diversity of the naimal kingdom.

Any animal that has a fossil record whether in amber or in sediment or under vocanic ash, show one clear thing, they have not changed. Now I am open that there could be another explantion for this, but I am quite sure that evoutionary expectations are not correct. I also am quite sure that this adaptive variation inferences is theoretical and so far as I know, AIG and other sites have used examples of hybridization as an example of adaptive variation, including as I said before the Pink Galopogaos Iguana which was purely a hybird. The diversity was uch bigger at one time and many if the animals found in certian areas had much larger distribution zones.

So I take issue with the subject of adaptive variation, and I don't believe that as a YEC the amount of species on the boat male and female could be responsible fo the diversity we see today within 3,500 years. Especially given mans written history which clearly shows diversity was already existent soon after the flood.

So I have to ask how long was the tasmanian tiger in existence? We know when it went extinct, it has a fossil record, and it seems to me given the evidence of the overwhelming animal diversity that does have a fossil record, there is no body change in these animals at all. It is pure presupposition to imply these animals were on their way to change its body plan? This does run counter to the DNA information contained in the species, the only way a new specie can be reproduced is the introduction of new procreative information from a source. The animal has no onus or control over its looks, its use of its God given design whatsoever. The only observable changes that have taken place is through hybridization, through mans tampering and domestication, or in some island situations tw different species that can mate do and hybridize creating a new specie or a different colored one etc. and that would be because new DNA information was introduced through procreation.

No outside stimuli (environment, temp changes. etc) can change the procreative or reprodictive DNA in an animal. That is fact....So IMHO ther is not an argument here from my example that could imply adaptive variation. With all do respect I see no ohter expectation for the biblical narrative except God said be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, now that is the same expectation that God had set up at the 6 day creation, and that would be standard male and female reroductive and observable hsitorical evidence that has not changed in 6,000 years.

It is interesting when evltionists dig up a missing link wanna be, it turns out that it has the same fossil record, same body plan, and evidence of one designed type and every time it bothers and sisters come to light---what is dug up it is the same, there are no ancestors, no links, and while a bat homology may be similar in nature to to other bat winged animals, it is a fact that intelligent design is used over and over in the naimal kingdom, and I can give account for the reptile area which clearly shows the shovel heads and fringed toes, or prehensile tails with lateral lines, or horned lizards, or biods and pythoins with anal spurs, etc, etc, etc. Gods design is used over and over, and we observed these similarities in the animal kingdom.

It is no accident that a tortise is designed the way it is and salt water turtle is designed as he is. God is incredible in all of this, and clearly the DNA of each of these animals seems to be fixed because the observable eivdence is evidence and is right in front of our faces. I am sure htis flies in the face of what you might htink, but if you actually look at what I infer and look at the fossil record,and observe nature--these truths are clealry left as footprints in the sand of our earthly history.....

#16 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:04 AM

A couple things as it applies to New Path and Bone digger.
I guess my question and inference here is, the fossil record is pretty clear and observable. When one digs up a certain animal, that animal specie what ever it is if it does have a fossil record has shown no change in its body plan. The inference about eco-niche micro-evolutionary changes are interesting to me, because these animals "do" have a fossil record. These fossil records do not show a change in body plan?

With respect to the honed lizard, you arguement about the "Kind", I can accept on the surface,however, one cannot use this for the speciation of all diversity as it exists today.

My example about the Goode's Honred Lizard is a perfect example of Hybridization, which rarely takes place in nature, but given certian species and situations it does. Lizards happen to be one of those. Males are attracted to females by pheromones as well, so a female of another specie may not interest a male at all. But the two honred lizards are the same "kind" but seperate sepcies, and one of the two eventually corssed over into the others eco-zone (intergradation) and the two could mate and did mate. This is hybruduzation, but not at all an argument for Adaptive variation, because adaptive variation implies the animals also carry between the female and male the gene information say of 20 or 30 species of a certian lizard kind. I beleive this has never been demonstrated in nature, it is not observable, the fossil record itself as I implied is clearly one of fixity of species and no body change.

To be more clear---I am implying for instance--instead of a phylogenetic tree (which is being heavily criticized by scientists in different fields) I imply the animal phylogenetic tree would actually be like a blade of grass. The length of that blade would correspond to its leagth on earth or if it exsists today. However it also implies there are no ancestors, as the fossil record clearly shows the animals as bieng fully robust and fully formed with no ancestral linkage, nor any evidence these naiamls have changed their body plans. We are not talking about a few animals we are talking about the full diversity of the naimal kingdom.

Any animal that has a fossil record whether in amber or in sediment or under vocanic ash, show one clear thing, they have not changed. Now I am open that there could be another explantion for this, but I am quite sure that evoutionary expectations are not correct. I also am quite sure that this adaptive variation inferences is theoretical and so far as I know, AIG and other sites have used examples of hybridization as an example of adaptive variation, including as I said before the Pink Galopogaos Iguana which was purely a hybird. The diversity was uch bigger at one time and many if the animals found in certian areas had much larger distribution zones.

So I take issue with the subject of adaptive variation, and I don't believe that as a YEC the amount of species on the boat male and female could be responsible fo the diversity we see today within 3,500 years. Especially given mans written history which clearly shows diversity was already existent soon after the flood.

So I have to ask how long was the tasmanian tiger in existence? We know when it went extinct, it has a fossil record, and it seems to me given the evidence of the overwhelming animal diversity that does have a fossil record, there is no body change in these animals at all. It is pure presupposition to imply these animals were on their way to change its body plan? This does run counter to the DNA information contained in the species, the only way a new specie can be reproduced is the introduction of new procreative information from a source. The animal has no onus or control over its looks, its use of its God given design whatsoever. The only observable changes that have taken place is through hybridization, through mans tampering and domestication, or in some island situations tw different species that can mate do and hybridize creating a new specie or a different colored one etc. and that would be because new DNA information was introduced through procreation.

No outside stimuli (environment, temp changes. etc) can change the procreative or reprodictive DNA in an animal. That is fact....So IMHO ther is not an argument here from my example that could imply adaptive variation. With all do respect I see no ohter expectation for the biblical narrative except God said be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, now that is the same expectation that God had set up at the 6 day creation, and that would be standard male and female reroductive and observable hsitorical evidence that has not changed in 6,000 years.

It is interesting when evltionists dig up a missing link wanna be, it turns out that it has the same fossil record, same body plan, and evidence of one designed type and every time it bothers and sisters come to light---what is dug up it is the same, there are no ancestors, no links, and while a bat homology may be similar in nature to to other bat winged animals, it is a fact that intelligent design is used over and over in the naimal kingdom, and I can give account for the reptile area which clearly shows the shovel heads and fringed toes, or prehensile tails with lateral lines, or horned lizards, or biods and pythoins with anal spurs, etc, etc, etc. Gods design is used over and over, and we observed these similarities in the animal kingdom.

It is no accident that a tortise is designed the way it is and salt water turtle is designed as he is. God is incredible in all of this, and clearly the DNA of each of these animals seems to be fixed because the observable eivdence is evidence and is right in front of our faces. I am sure htis flies in the face of what you might htink, but if you actually look at what I infer and look at the fossil record,and observe nature--these truths are clealry left as footprints in the sand of our earthly history.....


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we had all this already covered. I already showed that there have been some changes ( mega-dragonflies) Where I am disagreeing with you is that I believe very different sub-species can very rarely develop from the same "kind" but on the whole I am agreeing with you that most species remain unchanged. The proof of some recent changes to "kinds" since the flood, is in the closely matching chromosomal organisation, and secondary proof is the ability to breed. Thus lions and tigers are of the same kind that came off the ark. The lizards too. I do not believe in hybridization, this is basically breeding within a kind. Breeding is impossible unless the creatures are already of the same kind. Some colorization and slight physical changes on the outside are no reflection of a different species, its merely a sub-species of the same kind that came off the ark.

I do not see how either argument can be proven, except by observing standard rates of mutation between sub-species and comparing chromosomal organisation. ie this argument will be concluded with more genome sequencing. I do believe that there is a high range of limb structures, teeth patterns, etc etc already contained in our DNA. ie human teeth come in a variety of sizes and shapes, some of us having more teeth than others (I have never had wisdom teeth). Thus all it requires is the necessary environmental factors to have a new set of alelle frequencies within a species, creating a different look sub-species.

How would you explain the fact the a large number of ecological niches are filled only by marsupials in Australasia?
ie marsupial mouse=antechinus
marsupial hyena = tasmanian devil
marsupial deer = kangaroo
marsupial monkey = cuscus
marsupial wolf = tasmanian wolf

Did Noah separate the marsupials and deliver them to a faraway group of islands after the flood? Come on I need an explanation.
My explanation is rapid adaptive variation after the flood from one or two marsupial kinds that were isolated in Australasia, what is your explanation? Deliberate separation of species by some sort of marsupial ecological protection program of Noah's descendants? I am very interested.

#17 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:21 AM

Wow! Once again you missed the whole crux of the argument? So before I go over this, how do you explain the fossil record whenever it was laid down that shows no change body plans. Also it is a fact that environmental factors have no bearing at all on animal DNA? That is an assumption on your part. You don't "believe" in hybridization??? I don't understand that? That is a plain and simple "fact" of science. While it does happen in nature rarely, man has Hybridized thousand of animals?

With respect to the Marsupials----how about GOd as the original creator set the marsupial design in spades in Australia? IS there any thing wrong with that concept? Since the fossil record point out that these animals were existent in Australia pre-flood and part of Gods design and implementation in Australia originally, what is so difficult about that? The fossil record is totally observable, the actual existence of these species is a fact. We don't disagree about that.

Now as far as adaptive variation I have no explanation as to how any animal diveristy off the ARk dispearsed off the Ark, I happen to lean towards a local flood, the expectation of God in His word was standard procreation as it is in the observable animal kingdom, and not a wwFlood. But one way or the other, the fossil record is clear, God as the designer of the eco-niches we all are aware of..... so we agree on some of this and i am open, but i also don't see the connection between your inferences about DNA and actual factual observation. If you could explain the fossil record then I might be open to accepting your inferences, otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show how the fossil record and all living fossils that exists today are product of "change" as implied by your answer? This runs counter to the animal kingdom observed today and in past creation history..

Have you read any of Dr. Carl Werners works on this subject? Adaptive variation is "theoretical", not one example yet has been shown to be a product of anything but hybridization, and as I can send you to peer review articles that were used as examples of adaptive variation by creationists, that are plain and simply hybridization, and yes the sub-specie does come into play because of the contribution of tow different species of the same kind that can breed. NOw this isnot adaptive variation where two of the "same" specie bredd and the offspring take on new specie status, such as an-implied Iguana kind, male and female producing 14 different kinds (species) of iguanas from this offspring mating. There is no proof or example of this ever taking pace.. Period? Hybridization--oh yea! Adaptive variation...Oh no?

#18 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:54 PM

Wow! Once again you missed the whole crux of the argument? So before I go over this, how do you explain the fossil record whenever it was laid down that shows no change body plans. Also it is a fact that environmental factors have no bearing at all on animal DNA? That is an assumption on your part. You don't "believe" in hybridization??? I don't understand that? That is a plain and simple "fact" of science. While it does happen in nature rarely, man has Hybridized thousand of animals?


What i am saying is that I agree with you that there are various kinds. I disagree that they do not change, the original large cat can adapt into a lion and into a tiger. When these two breed, the fact that they can breed is an indication that they are the same kind that came off the ark. And so the tigron is not a new species through hybridisation, but just another large cat descended from the large cats that came off the ark. Therefore to call the lion or the tiger or the tigron a new species is in fact incorrect, they are merely sub-species , nearly unchanged DNA from the ark. And so yes, the word "hybrid" can be used, but I just see this as the same animal breeding with the same animal. They can be called sub-species and hybridisation between sub-species if you like, but I just see them all as the same species with various expressions and some minor mutations.


With respect to the Marsupials----how about GOd as the original creator set the marsupial design in spades in Australia? IS there any thing wrong with that concept? Since the fossil record point out that these animals were existent in Australia pre-flood and part of Gods design and implementation in Australia originally, what is so difficult about that? The fossil record is totally observable, the actual existence of these species is a fact. We don't disagree about that.


I believe all the marsupial fossils are post-flood, and SINCE the flood the marsupials all gathered in Australia (those original mega-kangaroos). I see you believe in a local flood, and so yeah, your explanation does make some sense, you believe God placed the marsupials there originally. But I believe the local flood is not consistent with the bible wording.

Now as far as adaptive variation I have no explanation as to how any animal diveristy off the ARk dispearsed off the Ark, I happen to lean towards a local flood, the expectation of God in His word was standard procreation as it is in the observable animal kingdom, and not a wwFlood. But one way or the other, the fossil record is clear, God as the designer of the eco-niches we all are aware of..... so we agree on some of this and i am open, but i also don't see the connection between your inferences about DNA and actual factual observation. If you could explain the fossil record then I might be open to accepting your inferences, otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show how the fossil record and all living fossils that exists today are product of "change" as implied by your answer? This runs counter to the animal kingdom observed today and in past creation history..

You seem to misunderstand me, I have been agreeing repeatedly that most animals are unchanged. Only some need adaptive variation, most do not need adaptive variation, and therefore do not vary. My belief that adaptive variation can rarely occur is not at all challenged by your examples that in most cases it has not occurred.


Have you read any of Dr. Carl Werners works on this subject? Adaptive variation is "theoretical", not one example yet has been shown to be a product of anything but hybridization, and as I can send you to peer review articles that were used as examples of adaptive variation by creationists, that are plain and simply hybridization, and yes the sub-specie does come into play because of the contribution of tow different species of the same kind that can breed. NOw this isnot adaptive variation where two of the "same" specie bredd and the offspring take on new specie status, such as an-implied Iguana kind, male and female producing 14 different kinds (species) of iguanas from this offspring mating. There is no proof or example of this ever taking pace.. Period? Hybridization--oh yea! Adaptive variation...Oh no?


Well as I keep saying, we need more animals to be genome sequenced to see if you are right or I am right. So its possible to prove one way or the other from DNA analysis, unfortunately they have not done complete sequencing on a lot of animals yet. If two animals have strong outward differences and yet near-exact chromosomal organization, then I will be right, the design remains the same but the adaptation can be extreme. If we can find no examples of this, you will be right. The only differences between the DNA of two subspecies of the same kind that came off the ark should be a few mutations that are known to occur often, ie a disabled gene, minor mutations etc
  • JayShel likes this

#19 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 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: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:15 PM

Have you read any of Dr. Carl Werners works on this subject? Adaptive variation is "theoretical", not one example yet has been shown to be a product of anything but hybridization, and as I can send you to peer review articles that were used as examples of adaptive variation by creationists, that are plain and simply hybridization, and yes the sub-specie does come into play because of the contribution of tow different species of the same kind that can breed. NOw this isnot adaptive variation where two of the "same" specie bredd and the offspring take on new specie status, such as an-implied Iguana kind, male and female producing 14 different kinds (species) of iguanas from this offspring mating. There is no proof or example of this ever taking pace.. Period? Hybridization--oh yea! Adaptive variation...Oh no?


I think you're missing the point of hybridization experiments. The point is not that you are necessarily generating a new variety by hybridization, but rather that the hybridization ability forensically demonstrates that the two or more species in question are subsets of what once was a much larger gene pool that has been culled down and "fixed" in each species in response to local conditions (i.e "unfit" variants didn't survive locally).

I'm not even going to get into your claims about fixity of species or changes in "body plan" unless you first define exactly what you mean by both of those terms.

#20 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:32 PM

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

With respect to body plans, there are perhaps thousands of therapod dino fossils. Allosaurus, T-Rex, Voliceraptor. What I am implying is that these animals have a fossil record just like the horseshoe crab, or tuatara, or coelacanth, or Texas Horned Lizard, all of which live today and are part of our diversity, but also have a fossil record in history. If the dino drawings that exist with in the pale of mans written history are not fake, then they are very accurate as to how they are in the fossil record. I believe dino's (some) lived on into mans recorded history.

Not one of these naimals (either dino's) or modern animals that I have refered to as examples have ever changed their body plans. Every single time one of these dino's or any animal with a fossil record--are dug up, unless it is a new unidentified specie, it is identifiable and has not changed??? What I am implying is that external forces like heat or cold, or eco-pressure from other animal species, can not change reproductive DNA? That is a fact.

Now if you know anything about that, and you seem to imply you do, then you know that to be a fact? So I don't understand your issue with what I clearly espoused about fixity of species? Unless your coming at me from an evolutionary postion, of which I would say the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate where these wanna be links ro the mechanism that we can look at and the proof that such body plan changes have taken place. I infer clearly that any kind of hybridization can cause body change... That does not happen in nature often but it does. Man's tampering and domestication is not problem for body changes. But this is not adaptive variation????

I imply as a creationists, that there was an intelligent designer as observed by the fabulous information in DNA that is not a product of nature. I also imply that what was set forth has not changed. NOw if you can give me examples of adaptive varaition where animals did not hybridize, but a male and female of the same kind (in the biblical sense) bred say 14 different species of igunans through the offspring by quick adaptive changes, please show me the evidence of this and how this could of happened given the laws the criculate around procreation and DNA?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users