Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cassiterides

Now We Evolved From This?

Recommended Posts

I think you'll find the contents of Shubin's book includes much factual information. You don't need a time machine to observe the rock record. For instance, in the rock record why do we observe that the deepest sedimentary layers(the oldest) contain no lifeforms, then as we progress upward to the younger rock we observe the simple life forms(i.e. jelly-fish-like creatures) and moving to even younger rock we see greater complexity ("creatures with skeletons, appendages, and various organs" from page 6 of Shubin's book). Furthermore, you'd have to continue onto even younger rock above these layers to find animals with backbones. Such change would be expected from biological evolution. How do you explain this?

63838[/snapback]

http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

 

Problems for the Geological Column

 

Despite propaganda by evolutionary and uniformitarian scientists that the fossil order is an exact global order with time, there are numerous problems and anomalies that make this assertion questionable. I can only briefly mention these problems, since they could be amplified into a whole book.

 

1) Vertical Sequence of Geological Column is often Horizontal in the Field

 

Many think that the geological column is a vertical, onion-skinned model, which has the same vertical sequence in most areas. Actually, the vertical fossil scheme is mostly derived from lateral relationships. The reason for this is because only a small number of the ten Phanerozoic geological periods are represented as a vertical sequence in any local area, defined for analysis purposes by Woodmorappe as a 406 by 406 km square (Woodmorappe, 1999d). Two-thirds of Earth's land surface has five or fewer of the ten geological periods in place. Only 15–20% of Earth's land surface has even three geological periods in correct order. This is a conservative estimate in favor of the geological column because Woodmorappe used any suggestion of a period being in a square as evidence that the period existed in that particular square. His squares are so large that it was difficult to establish a single vertical sequence because of tectonics, facies changes, etc., and many of these local geological columns should be verified lithologically. Regardless, the global and continental columns mainly represent a horizontal sequence.

 

2) Changing Fossil Ranges in the Geological Column

 

3) Different Names for the Same or Similar Fossil from Different Ages

 

4) Taxonomic Manipulation

 

Another problem mentioned by Woodmorappe (1999f) is that slightly different features in cephalopods have been used to date a layer of strata to a different age. These slightly different biological features cause one type of organism to be split into a different species, genera, families, etc. Since taxonomic splitters have had the upper hand in taxonomy, how meaningful are such taxonomic and age manipulations to the geological column? We know that species of living organisms, like dogs and pigeons, have a great morphological variety. How do we know whether the variety found in an extinct organism is not from intraspecies variation? Within creationist biological terms, such variation would be considered within the same Genesis kind or baramin.

 

5) Anomalous Fossils

 

Evolutionists often tell us that there are no contradictions to the evolutionary fossil order. However, they have to explain many anomalies in order to make the geological column "consistent." One type of anomaly is finding two fossils of different ages in the same layer.

 

If the evolutionist cannot extend the stratigraphic range of the fossils, he must determine which fossil represents the true "age." If the strata are considered young, the "old" fossil is simply assumed to have been "reworked," eroded from "much older" strata and incorporated into younger sediments. Often, their only criterion for reworking is an expected evolutionary order rather than the condition of the fossil. However, if "old" organisms are reworked into "young" strata, wouldn't the "old" fossil be pulverized?

 

In the opposite case, a "young" fossil is found in "old" strata, and evolutionists assume that the "younger" organism was buried within "old" sediment and fossilized. This is called "downwash." This could happen if a "young" organism became trapped and fossilized in a cave, sinkhole, or bog within "old" sediment or sedimentary rock. If the strata remain unconsolidated until after the "young" organism is buried, it would be difficult for the "old" organism to have remain unfossilized for millions of years.

 

6) Out-of-Order Fossils

 

When one realizes that there are hundreds of alleged overthrusts (they seem to occur in most mountain ranges of the world), and that mountains are usually the few places to observe a thick vertical sequence, one is forced to conclude that out-of-order strata are common. A real overthrust should show abundant physical evidence; relying just on fossils is unreasonable. If these strata cannot be tied to a real overthrust, then the fossil distribution in the geological column is contrary to evolutionary predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read it so I can't answer your questions.

Isn't everything interpretation of facts/observations?  We know that the creatures in the fossil record are different than the creatures currently around.  The interpretations that we can take from this are that creatures can change.  We can also say that some species have gone extinct.

63840[/snapback]

Some species such as birds and octopuses show no change over the supposed 65 million years.

 

If the flood account is the cause of the fossils then some of the modern species would be different than that which expired. Remember, the bible states that only 2 or 7 of each kind were aboard, not representatives of every species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some species such as birds and octopuses show no change over the supposed 65 million years.

Depends on which sources you are looking at. And how much change you are looking for. But as far as certain species "not" evolving isn't the nail in the coffin that the Creationists are trying to make it seem.

 

If a species has not shown much change, then the question is why? One good explanation is that there is not an environmental pressure on the species that has changed much.

 

If the flood account is the cause of the fossils then some of the modern species would be different than that which expired. Remember, the bible states that only 2 or 7 of each kind were aboard, not representatives of every species.

63844[/snapback]

And this is the reason why I am annoyed with the kind/species thing...

 

Kind=Species in all contexts except when Creationists use it in reference to Noah.

 

So if Kind does not equal Species then there needs to be a specific definition of Kind that makes it unique and different from species. The difference has not been brought forward by any Creationist that I know of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is the reason why I am annoyed with the kind/species thing...

As are all evolutionists, you have failed for over 150 years to be able to define what a species is.

 

Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’

 

Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’

 

Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on which sources you are looking at.  And how much change you are looking for.  But as far as certain species "not" evolving isn't the nail in the coffin that the Creationists are trying to make it seem.

 

If a species has not shown much change, then the question is why?  One good explanation is that there is not an environmental pressure on the species that has changed much.

And this is the reason why I am annoyed with the kind/species thing...

 

Kind=Species in all contexts except when Creationists use it in reference to Noah.

 

So if Kind does not equal Species then there needs to be a specific definition of Kind that makes it unique and different from species.  The difference has not been brought forward by any Creationist that I know of yet.

63863[/snapback]

The forum FAQ has some on this topic. You can also search baraminology. I have had general (not detailed) creation material available to me and it was pretty easy for me to figure out that there is a cat kind, a dog kind, a cattle kind... etc. I don't think it is all that confusing. This is one of the first places that I got more information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp I have included three paragraphs (with stuff deleted) from this here:

Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class. This is why John Woodmorappe,2 in his book on the reasonableness of Noah’s ark, used the genus level as the average for the Genesis kinds. He ended up with only 16,000 animals that needed to be on Noah’s ark.3 So, there would have been plenty of room on the ark for all the animals that would have repopulated the earth after the Flood.

 

Defining the Genesis kinds is very difficult because we do not know enough about genetics, and it is at the genetic level that the kinds need to be defined. Even the test of interbreeding is not a foolproof determination because we do not know how genetic defects (mutations, etc.) have built up over time to interfere with the reproductive process. We also have come to realize that animals that appear to be one kind do not interbreed (at least normally) because of different ingrained behaviors (a scientific subfield called ethology), mating practices, and other such complications.

 

Based on the amount of splitting and the poor classification system of the order Proboscidea, as well as the unique and many similar aspects of their morphology, I lean toward Jonathan Sarfati’s view.5 He thinks the order Proboscidea is probably one created kind  the elephant kind. It is known that the two living genera of elephant can interbreed successfully. The mammoths and mastodons that lived after the Flood may have diverged from two elephants that contained genes for all of the elephant kind. Mammoths are fairly close in anatomy to the Asian elephant. It is likely that if the woolly mammoth lived today that it could interbreed with the Asian elephant. In fact, mammoth researchers are even hoping to fertilize mammoth cells by placing a frozen mammoth sperm from a Siberian mammoth carcass into the womb of an Asian elephant.

You can also find quite a lot here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answer...c/created-kinds

Creationists would like to define “kind†in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,†and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers†and “splitters.†“Splitters,†for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers†(creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read it so I can't answer your questions.

63840[/snapback]

Again, you don’t have to read the narrative to get the answers. Some of the answers can be gleaned from the title of the book. Some of the answers can be sifted from the reviews of the book (as they quote portions of the book). Some of the answers can be understood from the authors pervious writings (i.e. books, papers, lectures etc…).

 

There is absolutely NO reason to spend your hard earned dollars on his book to understand his bent on evolution, and the evolutionary baggage he carries into his writings, and his commitment to evolution.

 

Also, if he actually found some “revolutionary†informational “facts†to further the evolutionary cause, the book couldn’t contain this! It would be all over the evolutionary scientific publications and evolutionary leaning media first, then the rest of the worlds meadia.

 

Isn't everything interpretation of facts/observations? 

63840[/snapback]

NO…. Facts are Facts. No interpretation involved, unless one wants to equivocate in order to twist the facts to meet their needs and worldview. Basically what this book does.

 

We know that the creatures in the fossil record are different than the creatures currently around. 

63840[/snapback]

Actually this is incorrect. For example, we have absolutely NO evidence that Man is any different now, than he has ever been. The same can be said for the giraffe, ape, and squid (etcetera… etcetera…). In fact, we have absolutely NO evidence that any of the extinct animals changed at all during their lifetimes. It is ALL presupposition.

 

The interpretations that we can take from this are that creatures can change. 

63840[/snapback]

That is, in fact, incorrect. The only real extrapolation we can prove empirically is that we adapt within kind/species due to pressures like food source, predators, and climate change (etc…). Again, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that a dog has been anything other than a dog, a monkey has been anything other than a monkey, a carp has been anything other than a carp, a giraffe has been anything than a giraffe, and a man a man. Everything else id speculation.

 

We can also say that some species have gone extinct.

63840[/snapback]

We can indeed say that some animals have gone extinct. But that doesn’t prove any “Facts†about evolution; it simply proves the fact that they went extinct.

 

 

We can also observe that certain species are not found with other species.  This is a fact. 

63840[/snapback]

We can indeed say that some animals are not found with other animals. And, we have found some animals, that we thought were extinct, were in fact NOT extinct.

But that doesn’t prove any “Facts†about evolution; it simply proves the fact that we were incorrect.

 

This tells us that different creatures existed at different times.

63840[/snapback]

That’s it in no way proves empirically that the creatures of today weren’t around at the same time. All it does do is prove that we are speculating at best.

 

Very true.  If the introduction of any book sounds incredible, or credulous then the rest of the book probably will also.

63840[/snapback]

Agreed. But this is interwoven in every book, paper, and any other writing I have personally found on evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

 

Problems for the Geological Column

 

Despite propaganda by evolutionary and uniformitarian scientists that the fossil order is an exact global order with time, there are numerous problems and anomalies that make this assertion questionable. I can only briefly mention these problems, since they could be amplified into a whole book.

 

1) Vertical Sequence of Geological Column is often Horizontal in the Field

 

Many think that the geological column is a vertical, onion-skinned model, which has the same vertical sequence in most areas. Actually, the vertical fossil scheme is mostly derived from lateral relationships. The reason for this is because only a small number of the ten Phanerozoic geological periods are represented as a vertical sequence in any local area, defined for analysis purposes by Woodmorappe as a 406 by 406 km square (Woodmorappe, 1999d). Two-thirds of Earth's land surface has five or fewer of the ten geological periods in place. Only 15–20% of Earth's land surface has even three geological periods in correct order. This is a conservative estimate in favor of the geological column because Woodmorappe used any suggestion of a period being in a square as evidence that the period existed in that particular square. His squares are so large that it was difficult to establish a single vertical sequence because of tectonics, facies changes, etc., and many of these local geological columns should be verified lithologically. Regardless, the global and continental columns mainly represent a horizontal sequence.

 

2) Changing Fossil Ranges in the Geological Column

 

3) Different Names for the Same or Similar Fossil from Different Ages

 

4) Taxonomic Manipulation

 

Another problem mentioned by Woodmorappe (1999f) is that slightly different features in cephalopods have been used to date a layer of strata to a different age. These slightly different biological features cause one type of organism to be split into a different species, genera, families, etc. Since taxonomic splitters have had the upper hand in taxonomy, how meaningful are such taxonomic and age manipulations to the geological column? We know that species of living organisms, like dogs and pigeons, have a great morphological variety. How do we know whether the variety found in an extinct organism is not from intraspecies variation? Within creationist biological terms, such variation would be considered within the same Genesis kind or baramin.

 

5) Anomalous Fossils

 

Evolutionists often tell us that there are no contradictions to the evolutionary fossil order. However, they have to explain many anomalies in order to make the geological column "consistent." One type of anomaly is finding two fossils of different ages in the same layer.

 

If the evolutionist cannot extend the stratigraphic range of the fossils, he must determine which fossil represents the true "age." If the strata are considered young, the "old" fossil is simply assumed to have been "reworked," eroded from "much older" strata and incorporated into younger sediments. Often, their only criterion for reworking is an expected evolutionary order rather than the condition of the fossil. However, if "old" organisms are reworked into "young" strata, wouldn't the "old" fossil be pulverized?

 

In the opposite case, a "young" fossil is found in "old" strata, and evolutionists assume that the "younger" organism was buried within "old" sediment and fossilized. This is called "downwash." This could happen if a "young" organism became trapped and fossilized in a cave, sinkhole, or bog within "old" sediment or sedimentary rock. If the strata remain unconsolidated until after the "young" organism is buried, it would be difficult for the "old" organism to have remain unfossilized for millions of years.

 

6) Out-of-Order Fossils

 

When one realizes that there are hundreds of alleged overthrusts (they seem to occur in most mountain ranges of the world), and that mountains are usually the few places to observe a thick vertical sequence, one is forced to conclude that out-of-order strata are common. A real overthrust should show abundant physical evidence; relying just on fossils is unreasonable. If these strata cannot be tied to a real overthrust, then the fossil distribution in the geological column is contrary to evolutionary predictions.

63843[/snapback]

Regardless of whether one accepts the claims of Mr. Woodmorappe, a YEC, it in no way changes the fact that the general composition of the species in the rock record changes from non-existent to basic to complex as one progresses from the oldest rock at the bottom of the record to the younger rock at the top of the record. I'll ask again. How do you explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some species such as birds and octopuses show no change over the supposed 65 million years.

It's referred to as evolutionary statis. "Some of the things that encourage evolutionary stasis include flexible adaptation to a wide range of environments, a lack of predators, the species' being cut off from other environments, and a lack of change in the native environment."

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Evolutionary_Stasis

 

 

If the flood account is the cause of the fossils then some of the modern species would be different than that which expired. Remember, the bible states that only 2 or 7 of each kind were aboard, not representatives of every species.

63844[/snapback]

I've often wondered how believers in the global flood story reconcile the many logistic challenges the story raises. For example, how did the animals from distant and different environments manage to get to the ark, survive for a prolonged period, and then return to their distant homeland? Penguins and koala bears come to mind. In addition, have you ever wondered where all the water went or what the animals ate after the flood in a flooded environment not conducive to vegetation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if he actually found some “revolutionary†informational “facts†to further the evolutionary cause, the book couldn’t contain this! It would be all over the evolutionary scientific publications and evolutionary leaning media first, then the rest of the worlds meadia.

Shubin's extraordinary find, Titaalik, was a huge story at the time in the scientific community and remains so.

 

NO…. Facts are Facts. No interpretation involved, unless one wants to equivocate in order to twist the facts to meet their needs and worldview. Basically what this book does.

Specifically, what facts have Shubin twisted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''the rock record changes from non-existent to basic to complex as one progresses from the oldest rock at the bottom of the record to the younger rock at the top of the record. I'll ask again. How do you explain this?''

 

This is an incorrect statement.

 

The most complex forms are found at the lowest strata, and nothing leading up to them. An example would be the trilobite, look up its complex eye.

 

"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginningâ€â€Âto have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life-forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes." Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shubin's extraordinary find, Titaalik, was a huge story at the time in the scientific community and remains so.

63894[/snapback]

The presupposition of Titaalik as some kind of “missing Link†is just that; a fabricated and “a priori†presupposition. Do you have ANY empirical evidence to suggest differently?

 

 

Specifically, what facts have Shubin twisted?

63894[/snapback]

If you actually kept this comment within the context it was used (Java and my conversation string), instead of cherry picking it, and attempting to use your comment as a rebuttal (i.e. without your misinterpretation), then you may have some credibility. Either go back to the original comment, or deal with the comment in the context of what I was referring to.

 

 

In other words "Hey Water, where's the facts?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an incorrect statement.

 

The most complex forms are found at the lowest strata, and nothing leading up to them. An example would be the trilobite, look up its complex eye.

The lowest strata contain no visible life. Layers above them contain impressions of jelly-fish-like creatures. Then you have the Cambrian creatures which anatomically, would not be considered as complex as later animals with backbones, hair, breasts, large brains, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presupposition of  Titaalik as some kind of “missing Link†is just that; a fabricated and “a priori†presupposition. Do you have ANY empirical evidence to suggest differently?

It would not be considered empirical evidence but it is evidence (which supports the TOE) nonetheless. Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the discovery was found exactly at the precise geologic time and place as would be expected of a transitional species from fish to tetrapod based on the TOE.

 

If you actually kept this comment within the context it was used (Java and my conversation string), instead of cherry picking it, and attempting to use your comment as a rebuttal (i.e. without your misinterpretation), then you may have some credibility. Either go back to the original comment, or deal with the comment in the context of what I was referring to.

In other words "Hey Water, where's the facts?"

63898[/snapback]

My mistake, here I thought you were claiming that Shubin had twisted the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As are all evolutionists, you have failed for over 150 years to be able to define what a species is.

 

Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’

 

Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’

 

Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’

63867[/snapback]

And this post in no way clarifies the issue. Kind is used to mean species/family/what-ever-you-want-it-to-mean-at-the-time-you-use-it...

 

Species is difficult to define, but at least you can find easily what species means in the different circumstances that the term has any wiggle room.

 

So you are incorrect Cass. There is a complex definition for Species, you just need to know when and why the definition is changed. One thing you will notice. Species never equals Family.

 

So instead of tossing the canned creationist response at me, why don't you figure out what kind actually means, when it means it, and why there are the differences. You can do that can't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The forum FAQ has some on this topic. You can also search baraminology. I have had general (not detailed) creation material available to me and it was pretty easy for me to figure out that there is a cat kind, a dog kind, a cattle kind... etc. I don't think it is all that confusing. This is one of the first places that I got more information:

63872[/snapback]

 

Sorry Mama I meant no issue with you when I posted. Are you fairly new to the Evo vs Creo debates? (This is in no way an attack either) There is a lot of wiggle room, a lot more wiggle room than species, in how kind is used.

 

If an Evolutionist goes on to use Kind in the way that he uses Species, inevitably a Creationist will start screaming that Kind doesn't mean species. And When an Evolutionist tries to find out what Kind actually mean, some Creationist will mock the Evolutionist with either "You can't even define "species"...or With "Kind=Species"

 

Can you understand the frustration anyone would have when having to deal with that?

 

Its like trying to play a game, and the rules are constantly changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you don’t have to read the narrative to get the answers. Some of the answers can be gleaned from the title of the book. Some of the answers can be sifted from the reviews of the book (as they quote portions of the book). Some of the answers can be understood from the authors pervious writings (i.e. books, papers, lectures etc…).

Fair enough. But it seems to me, from the reviews, is that this author has written a book on Evolution, that is easy to approach for people interested in Evolution. For someone who need a better understanding of what is actually said from Evolutionists is better than quote mining from Creationist books on Evolution. Wouldn't you say that as being a fair statement?

 

There is absolutely NO reason to spend your hard earned dollars on his book to understand his bent on evolution, and the evolutionary baggage he carries into his writings, and his commitment to evolution.

Again to learn. If someone wants a better understanding of what they are trying to fight, then to know what is written is better than to go forward in ignorance.

 

Also, if he actually found some “revolutionary†informational “facts†to further the evolutionary cause, the book couldn’t contain this! It would be all over the evolutionary scientific publications and evolutionary leaning media first, then the rest of the worlds media.

I believe that this has alread been addressed, and I don't have anything to add.

 

NO…. Facts are Facts. No interpretation involved, unless one wants to equivocate in order to twist the facts to meet their needs and worldview. Basically what this book does.

Of course facts are facts. But what can we learn from the facts. How do we explain the facts. These are the things that take interpretations to do.

 

Actually this is incorrect. For example, we have absolutely NO evidence that Man is any different now, than he has ever been. The same can be said for the giraffe, ape, and squid (etcetera… etcetera…). In fact, we have absolutely NO evidence that any of the extinct animals changed at all during their lifetimes. It is ALL presupposition.

It would take someone with more knowledge on this than me to counter it. So I will just say this. I do not believe that you are correct in this statement.

 

That is, in fact, incorrect. The only real extrapolation we can prove empirically is that we adapt within kind/species due to pressures like food source, predators, and climate change (etc…). Again, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that a dog has been anything other than a dog, a monkey has been anything other than a monkey, a carp has been anything other than a carp, a giraffe has been anything than a giraffe, and a man a man. Everything else  is speculation.

If you say so. Life forms adapt to their environment. If there is enough of a change in the environment, there will be enough change in the species to call them 2 different species.

 

We can indeed say that some animals have gone extinct. But that doesn’t prove any “Facts†about evolution; it simply proves the fact that they went extinct.

We can indeed say that some animals are not found with other animals. And, we have found some animals, that we thought were extinct, were in fact NOT extinct.

But that doesn’t prove any “Facts†about evolution; it simply proves the fact that we were incorrect.

That’s it in no way proves empirically that the creatures of today weren’t around at the same time. All it does do is prove that we are speculating at best.

Then why aren't there monkey fossils down there with the trilobites?

 

Agreed.

Yay common ground!

 

But this is interwoven in every book, paper, and any other writing I have personally found on evolution.

63881[/snapback]

Oh its gone again. :lol:

 

But I know you don't just let something sit. You have the drive to learn. You are a voracious reader. I know you won't just sit there and not keep up with the times. Maybe something will come along and change your mind on the whole thing. Things change you know :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered how believers in the global flood story reconcile the many logistic challenges the story raises. For example, how did the animals from distant and different environments manage to get to the ark, survive for a prolonged period, and then return to their distant homeland? Penguins and koala bears come to mind. In addition, have you ever wondered where all the water went or what the animals ate after the flood in a flooded environment not conducive to vegetation.

63893[/snapback]

Actually, fossils left from the flood and from the ice-age help us to piece that together quite a bit. There were fossilized specimens buried (evidently during the flood) in the area of the poles that we believe were tropical plants and animals, some are tropical today.

 

During much of the ice-age also evidence shows that the environment was temperate. It had to be... there were arctic animals living in the exact same environment as tropical animals and they all had plenty to eat. Again, remains of plants have been found as well.

 

It is very likely that before the flood there was only one continent and that the climate was temperate everywhere.

 

In addition, I live in the midwest. We have very hot summers and very cold winters... much more harsh than the environment during the ice age. We still have a polar bear, walruses, rhinos, elephants, etc. etc. They are just fine. (edit: in our zoo! Not in the wild. hahaha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mama I meant no issue with you when I posted.  Are you fairly new to the Evo vs Creo debates?  (This is in no way an attack either)  There is a lot of wiggle room, a lot more wiggle room than species, in how kind is used.

 

If an Evolutionist goes on to use Kind in the way that he uses Species, inevitably a Creationist will start screaming that Kind doesn't mean species.  And When an Evolutionist tries to find out what Kind actually mean, some Creationist will mock the Evolutionist with either "You can't even define "species"...or With "Kind=Species"

 

Can you understand the frustration anyone would have when having to deal with that?

 

Its like trying to play a game, and the rules are constantly changing.

63906[/snapback]

Hey, everyone gets frustrated sometimes, even with their friends. No feelings were hurt here. Well, I started out debating against evolution in my homeschooling group. I only had limited answers though, not a lot of detail and pretty outdated materials. I made a statement that YEC ideas were ridiculous and causing more harm than good. A YEC got on my case and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about. So... I admitted it and started reading up on YEC. I am very new to YEC, not as a believer, but a researcher. I no longer think that they are ridiculous. :lol:

 

This will help with the "kind vs. species" confusion more than the other links I think. My (limited) understanding is that kinds and genera line up pretty often, but sometimes there are animals in different genera that can mate so the two different genera are only one kind, and sometimes animals in a kind have lost their ability to mate even though they have that common created ancestor. http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

The ability to reproduce is the keystone characteristic which indicates that plants or animals have descended from the same baramin. To aid in the identification of baramin, a database of known cases of interspecies reproduction was needed (for example, lion x tiger = liger). To meet this need, Ashley Robinson and Todd Wood started an internet database of published references to such interspecific hybrids. This important creation science research tool is called the HybriDatabase.[2] The database, which is hosted and maintained by the Center for Origins Research (CORE) at Bryan College[3], contains nearly 3000 hybrid records.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Life forms adapt to their environment.  If there is enough of a change in the environment, there will be enough change in the species to call them 2 different species.

63907[/snapback]

Yes, but you'll have to provide that both animals can no longer create fertile offspring. Evolutionist will typically call two species that can still mate seperate species only because they are seperated geologically... which is obviously incorrect at best... plus it's obvious mis-identification.

 

 

Also, the reason you don't find monkey bones with trilobites is because monkeys don't live in the ocean... unless your talking about Sea Monkeys ™.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you'll have to provide that both animals can no longer create fertile offspring.  Evolutionist will typically call two species that can still mate seperate species only because they are seperated geologically... which is obviously incorrect at best... plus it's obvious mis-identification.

Also, the reason you don't find monkey bones with trilobites is because monkeys don't live in the ocean... unless your talking about Sea Monkeys .

63913[/snapback]

I really can't understand what the big deal is if they can't mate. Couldn't they each have lost enough genetic information to make it impossible? That wouldn't discount the fact that they originated from a created kind. I mean, I understand that they are using that as one of the means of naming the kinds, and that there are many species that can mate, which is good... I just don't understand why it is such a big deal if they can't.

 

Sea Monkeys. :lol::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this post in no way clarifies the issue.  Kind is used to mean species/family/what-ever-you-want-it-to-mean-at-the-time-you-use-it...

 

Species is difficult to define, but at least you can find easily what species means in the different circumstances that the term has any wiggle room.

 

So you are incorrect Cass.  There is a complex definition for Species, you just need to know when and why the definition is changed.  One thing you will notice.  Species never equals Family.

 

So instead of tossing the canned creationist response at me, why don't you figure out what kind actually means, when it means it, and why there are the differences.  You can do that can't you?

63905[/snapback]

As i said, evolutionists have failed for 150 years on how to define a species. This problem is so well known it has been added to wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

 

Modern evolutionary biologists admit they don't know what a species is or how to define one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My (limited) understanding is that kinds and genera line up pretty often, but sometimes there are animals in different genera that can mate so the two different genera are only one kind, and sometimes animals in a kind have lost their ability to mate even though they have that common created ancestor. http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

Just to point out that the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) are actually evolutionists, not creationists.

 

From Todd Wood's (one of the founders of BSG) blog:

 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/trut...-evolution.html

 

''Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution.''

 

Creationists should be warned what Baraminology really is and the real agenda agenda behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to point out that the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) are actually evolutionists, not creationists.

 

From Todd Wood's (one of the founders of BSG) blog:

 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/trut...-evolution.html

 

''Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution.''

 

Creationists should be warned what Baraminology really is and the real agenda agenda behind it.

63917[/snapback]

I am glad I read this post. From the little bit I have read in this one page, Todd Wood sounds like my kind of guy. REASONABLE. I will probably enjoy more of his blog. No wonder you call me an atheist in disguise if you think he is.

 

Nice quote-mining by the way.

 

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you'll have to provide that both animals can no longer create fertile offspring.  Evolutionist will typically call two species that can still mate seperate species only because they are seperated geologically... which is obviously incorrect at best... plus it's obvious mis-identification.

I concede that point. If they can reproduce fertile offspring then they are probably the same species.

 

 

Also, the reason you don't find monkey bones with trilobites is because monkeys don't live in the ocean... unless your talking about Sea Monkeys .

63913[/snapback]

 

Man I always wanted Sea Monkeys . But fine, replace monkeys with whales. Or Crabs, or Lobsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said, evolutionists have failed for 150 years on how to define a species. This problem is so well known it has been added to wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

 

Modern evolutionary biologists admit they don't know what a species is or how to define one.

63916[/snapback]

If you don't have a better response than repeating what you have already stated then don't post anything. It is better that way.

 

And fine, we haven't been able to nail down the definition of Species for the last 150 years...

 

I see Creationists haven't been able to nail down the definition of Kind for the last 2000+ years :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms