Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

A Challenge To Evolutionists.

Recommended Posts

Here is the perfect example of conformism:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=4002

66233[/snapback]

Politics is universal. The research by creationists is just beginning though, and it has a nice head of steam. Enough to cause attention anyway. While ID and creationism may never be mainstream, I believe they will make their point with more evidence and scientists in the future.

 

God always has a witness, though he may not be heard by everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the perfect example of conformism:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=4002

66233[/snapback]

Politics is universal. The research by creationists is just beginning though, and it has a nice head of steam. Enough to cause attention anyway. While ID and creationism may never be mainstream, I believe they will make their point with more evidence and scientists in the future.

 

God always has a witness, though he may not be heard by everyone.

66241[/snapback]

Can anyone say "Expelled"! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agressive evangelical tactics, (evolutionist, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu etc) are also a form of conforming others.

 

I prefer the passive approach, whereby one waits for people to come. Luckily in Australia I have not seen much of the aggressive evangelical tactics, except by evolutionists my University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agressive evangelical tactics, (evolutionist, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu etc) are also a form of conforming others.

 

I prefer the passive approach, whereby one waits for people to come. Luckily in Australia I have not seen much of the aggressive evangelical tactics, except by evolutionists my University.

66256[/snapback]

Indeed. But, I hope you don't (and really don't think you do) consider refuting others attempts of agression AS agression (i.e. Christian Apologetics etc...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus did not teach his disciples to wait for people to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus did not teach his disciples to wait for people to come.

66263[/snapback]

Yep. We're supposed to share our faith and if people don't want it? Shake the dust from our shoes and move forward.

 

Faith is not meant to be kept in the dark, but rather lived and allowed to shine before others. One should not feel ashamed of having faith in God, or keeping it under wraps for fear of "annoying" others, but so often many of us do! I'm no exception.

 

I feel the best way of sharing ones faith is living the faith and being a witness to it. Gently sharing it, particularly if the person seems open to hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. But, I hope you don't (and really don't think you do) consider refuting others attempts of agression AS agression (i.e. Christian Apologetics etc...).

66260[/snapback]

Refuting something that is wrong is ok in my eyes, though, (like in all things), there are various ways of doing it :)

 

What I meant were the people who try and force the point about Religion. My preference is to share the word when someone is willing to listen, rather than force it down... (like what my evolutionist lectuers attempted to do).

 

I hold these tenets in support of my belief.

 

"a man changed against his will, is of the same opinion still"

 

Or

 

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

 

Back when I was a fully fledged Christian, I admit I was an agressive evangelical person. However I realised that it forces people away rather than invites them in.

 

 

@ Bex. Exactly, you have hit the nail on the head :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refuting something that is wrong is ok in my eyes, though, (like in all things), there are various ways of doing it :)

 

What I meant were the people who try and force the point about Religion. My preference is to share the word when someone is willing to listen, rather than force it down... (like what my evolutionist lectuers attempted to do).

 

I hold these tenets in support of my belief.

 

"a man changed against his will, is of the same opinion still"

 

Or

 

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

 

Back when I was a fully fledged Christian, I admit I was an agressive evangelical person. However I realised that it forces people away rather than invites them in.

@ Bex. Exactly, you have hit the nail on the head :)

66322[/snapback]

Thanks Gilbo. Yes, I know what you mean. :)

 

The bible does describe what effects preaching the word can have on people.

 

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseac...ymbolism-of.htm

 

Sometimes a seed can indeed be planted, but the person may not respond at the time, but that seed may lie "dormant" so to speak and come to fruition later. Sometimes it can happen quickly, the person responds, but when trials come, their faith is tested, they may just as quickly fall away. And some of course, the seed falls on stony ground and it's basically like hitting a brick wall.

 

There are some who come to the faith, may fall away, and then later return.

 

I had a faith in Christ during my childhood, but had no real conversion. I had a friend at 14 who had a very religious Mother (Reborn Christian), who was very dogmatic and at times, I found it a bit off-putting. Certainly, it did not pull me towards becoming baptised, as she was attempting to do. I believed, but had no real intention of becoming baptised at that time and her pushiness was met with basic resistant and even some indifference from me at that time.

 

But who knows? A seed may well have planted by a well intentioned (though rather dogmatic Christian woman) without me being aware at that time. Later at the age of 24, I became baptised, but there was quite a few years of different life experiences and even spiritual things occuring that also may have been a part of that process. So it's possible God had been trying to reach me all those years, even through imperfect people who meant well, but my heart was evidentally not ready at that time to hear the truth. I had much to go through I guess and still do. I'm definitely far from a mature Christian, but one that tends to be swayed too much by feelings/emotions and experiences.

 

I believe that the experiences we go through in life, even if we fall away from the faith, is God always trying to reach us and bring us back to Himself. In even the bad things, He's there and can bring good out of them. Sometimes going so far as to almost break something in order to put it back together.

 

:) I'll get off my soap box now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove that evolution is not about conformism.

 

Conformism: Conformism is a term used to describe the suspension of an individual's self-determined actions or opinions in favour of obedience to the mandates or conventions of one's peer-group, or deference to the imposed norms of a supervening authority.

This is my first post on this forum - so I tend on treading lightly. But I would like to have a go at this.

 

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, a branch of science that studies Life (Literally: Bio = Life ; -ology = study). We know this because the Genome carries mutations to the next generation (microevolution). Evolutionary theory is a conclusion based upon a vast majority of studies, and the evidence produced by them (Macroevolution).

Science is a tool - a method we use to take evidence, examine it, and (through testing, logic, and bringing all the evidence together) we draw facts.

From what we draw from the evidence can show either a definite fact in nature (A Law), or make a model showing what the evidence currently shows us to explain patterns within the evidence (a Theory).

 

Taken this into fact - that Science is a tool, and that Evolution is simply a conclusion we have drawn based upon our human minds and the current evidence we have (a Theory), Evolution is just another result of the Scientific Method.

 

I can assure you that conclusions are not about Conformity.

New evidence is being brought in every day from every source you can think of about any scientific fact or any idea you can imagine! Not only evidence involving the topic of Evolution, but also the theory of Relativity, atomic theory, and so on and so forth.

The wonder about science is that it takes ALL of the evidence into account, and if something extraordinary comes along the entire Scientific World can be turned upside-down and have scientists talking for CENTURIES. How can an idea be about conformity when the whole idea can be turned upside down in the blink of an eye?

 

Now, some people who accept the Evolutionary Theory may want you to think like they do without a second thought - and give you a hard time about it. But that is just how people are anyhow. If you went to High School you would know that people always pressured you into things, regardless.

But that's been around since teenagers existed.

 

The conclusion:

Evolutionary Theory is simply a statement. A result of what Earthly scientists have drawn based upon patterns in the evidence presented. It cannot hold a grudge. It cannot ask for you to conform. It is simply an idea.

Some people who accept the Evolutionary Theory may expect you to accept it also, so they will try to pressure you into it. Like a good deal many other things in life that have nothing to do with the Evolutionary Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology,

67934[/snapback]

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolutionary theory is a conclusion based upon a vast majority of studies, and the evidence produced by them (Macroevolution).

What evidence proves macro-evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

67940[/snapback]

I would like to ask if you read my post. Even in your forum rules, it is admitted that you would accept Microevolution. Note that in my initial post, quoted by you, said specifically:

"Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, -"

Biological Evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable. (reference)

The Theory of Evolution is that this has been going on for a very, very, very long time and is not bound to Biology, but also into Archaeology, and other branches of science.

 

 

What evidence proves macro-evolution?

67946[/snapback]

That wasn't the question I was answering. The post was about whether Evolution = Conformity. My counter was that Evolution =/= Conformity since it is just an idea - that People = Conformity.

People are pressed into conformity all the time, about plenty of things other than Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to ask if you read my post. Even in your forum rules, it is admitted that you would accept Microevolution. Note that in my initial post, quoted by you, said specifically:

"Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, -"

Biological Evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable. (reference)

67959[/snapback]

I did read your post, and corrected your first mistake…

You said:

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology,

67934[/snapback]

Which is a falsehood.

I stated the actual fact:

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

67940[/snapback]

You need to do further research into what a scientific “Law†is, and what is not. And when you do, you can come back and we’ll further discuss your faux pas if you’d like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to do further research into what a scientific “Law†is, and what is not. And when you do, you can come back and we’ll further discuss your faux pas if you’d like.

67961[/snapback]

With all due respect - there's a reason Microevolution has that "-evolution" at the end of it. Observed changes in the Genome lead into Speciation - and that is exactly the definition of Biological Evolution. It is an observable fact. A Law.

Which is the explenation I just gave you above?

Biological Evolution is a proven fact. It is a Law. We can observe Evolution on the small scale. It is the driving force behind speciation.

The Theory of Evolution is based upon a variety of sciences. Not just Biology. It stakes the claim that the diversity of life came about over long stretches of time through microevolution over billions of years. This is not to say that microevolution is evidence of macroevolution, but merely sports that the same mechanisms that drive macroevolution drive microevolution.

 

But this has nothing to do with my initial post, and this thread seems to have derailed slightly. -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well truth might not be the best word for it but any claim supported bye the scientific method will be accepted as such. The more conclusive the results the more you can say something is the "truth"

66123[/snapback]

 

Yes but Bibically-speaking, how is truth 'defined'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect - there's a reason Microevolution has that "-evolution" at the end of it.

67963[/snapback]

Yes, it’s because it’s a prevarication from the word adaptation that allows for the false worldview of “macroâ€ÂÂevolution. Otherwise you’d be honest and simply call it “adaptationâ€ÂÂ.

Observed changes in the Genome lead into Speciation - and that is exactly the definition of Biological Evolution. It is an observable fact. A Law.

67963[/snapback]

First – speciation would be an apelike creature “evolving†in to a man. Not one type dog (etc…) adapting to its surroundings, and yet remaining a dog.

 

Which is the explenation I just gave you above?

67963[/snapback]

You didn’t give an explanation; you merely gave an opinion with absolutely NO factual substantiation. If you had actual evidence, you would have actually provided that evidence, not excuses in the form of equivocations due to getting caught in a bold falsehood. Again, evolution “IS NOT†a law! But, you found yourself caught in a lie, and simply could not admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First – speciation would be an apelike creature “evolving†in to a man. Not one type dog (etc…) adapting to its surroundings, and yet remaining a dog.

 

No, speciation would be on lineage branching into two. Ie, two daughter species from a single parent species. Classification of the daughter species necessarily means they are still given the same designation as the parent. Humans are still apes are still primates are still mammals are still Eukaryotes.

 

If you want a real world example look no further than ring species of salamander, highlighted elsewhere on this forum by me and probably by others.

Species is the only rigorously defined taxonomic level, and even then it is constrained. It would be defined as a population through which gene transfer can occur.

 

Genus, family, order etc are all arbitrarily applied for ease of classification, but all stem from speciation events. Ie. Take a given lizard and apply a speciation event. You know have two species of lizard. Allow the process to repeat a couple of times in each lineage and you now have 8 species, neatly grouped together as a genus.

 

Allow another 4 or 5 speciation events in each lineage and the group that was previously referred to as a genus is now an order or family. The original 4 (or maybe 8) subspecies would now be referred to as separate genera.

 

This method of classification is often misunderstood and is a cause of much confusion. For some reason people continue to insist that the formation of new phyla or genera requires something other than a speciation event. It doesn't, it just requires that that speciation event was followed by numerous further speciation events making it reasonable for us to choose to classify the organisms into distinct groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First – speciation would be an apelike creature “evolving†in to a man. Not one type dog (etc…) adapting to its surroundings, and yet remaining a dog.

 

No, speciation would be on lineage branching into two. Ie, two daughter species from a single parent species. Classification of the daughter species necessarily means they are still given the same designation as the parent.

68474[/snapback]

That is basically what I just said. You have not provided a rebut to it, you simply reworded it. And, you have supplied absolutely NO evidence for it.

Humans are still apes are still primates are still mammals are still Eukaryotes.

68474[/snapback]

Beyond mere opinion, you have only made a presupposed and fact-less statement. Saying it’s so, does not make it so.

If you want a real world example look no further than ring species of salamander, highlighted elsewhere on this forum by me and probably by others.

68474[/snapback]

You may have highlighted is here and elsewhere, but you fail to mention that the salamander remains a “salamanderâ€ÂÂ; absolutely no macro involved. Therefore it in no way supports your foundationless “a priori†Humans are still apes presupposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, speciation would be on lineage branching into two. Ie, two daughter species from a single parent species. Classification of the daughter species necessarily means they are still given the same designation as the parent. Humans are still apes are still primates are still mammals are still Eukaryotes.

 

If you want a real world example look no further than ring species of salamander, highlighted elsewhere on this forum by me and probably by others.

Species is the only rigorously defined taxonomic level, and even then it is constrained. It would be defined as a population through which gene transfer can occur.

 

Genus, family, order etc are all arbitrarily applied for ease of classification, but all stem from speciation events. Ie. Take a given lizard and apply a speciation event. You know have two species of lizard. Allow the process to repeat a couple of times in each lineage and you now have 8 species, neatly grouped together as a genus.

 

Allow another 4 or 5 speciation events in each lineage and the group that was previously referred to as a genus is now an order or family. The original 4 (or maybe 8) subspecies would now be referred to as separate genera.

 

This method of classification is often misunderstood and is a cause of much confusion. For some reason people continue to insist that the formation of new phyla or genera requires something other than a speciation event. It doesn't, it just requires that that speciation event was followed by numerous further speciation events making it reasonable for us to choose to classify the organisms into distinct groups.

68474[/snapback]

The bodies of skinned (not that I enjoy the thought) rabbits and cats (small felines) are identical. Obviously one species that went two ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are still apes are still primates are still mammals are still Eukaryotes.

68474[/snapback]

Beyond mere opinion, you have only made a presupposed and fact-less statement. Saying it’s so, does not make it so.

68479[/snapback]

 

Well, there is fact in his statement, in that there are similarities allowing for similar classifications. But classifying in this manner is misleading and inferrs common ancestory, when it could just as easily be the result of common design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond mere opinion, you have only made a presupposed and fact-less statement. Saying it’s so, does not make it so.

68479[/snapback]

Well, there is fact in his statement, in that there are similarities allowing for similar classifications.  But classifying in this manner is misleading and inferrs common ancestory, when it could just as easily be the result of common design.

68481[/snapback]

The Bible agrees with this classification, "humans are still apes (more like monkey=mine), are still primates, are still mammals are still Eukaryotes"

 

Posted Image

 

In Gen. 2:7 man is a soul (Hebrew: a breathing creature/Greek: the animal sentiment principle only).

 

In other words, man was an animal at this stage. But what animal/mammal?

 

We have a tail bone! Ever watch little kids swing on the monkey bars at a playground? There's no doubt what animal man was!

 

In Gen. 2:8 this animal entered the garden (God's Paradise), got God's image (spirit/God is a Spirit) and changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, speciation would be on lineage branching into two. Ie, two daughter species from a single parent species. Classification of the daughter species necessarily means they are still given the same designation as the parent.

68474[/snapback]

That is basically what I just said. You have not provided a rebut to it, you simply reworded it. And, you have supplied absolutely NO evidence for it.

 

I stated it as I did because you showed a profound misunderstanding with the phrase "Not one type dog (etc…) adapting to its surroundings, and yet remaining a dog", and you continue to make the same mistake in your latest post.

 

The implication of that phrase is that you would not consider evolution to have occurred unless the daughter species were not still a dog. My example was simply to explain to you that regardless of how many speciation events occur in any dog lineage from this point forward, every daughter species will still be a dog, in the same way that they will always be a mammal.

 

Continuing to insist that this is not the case is arguing against a straw man. You're more than welcome to do so, but I don't know what it would achieve other than to convince others with a similar misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that you have a point. You don't.

 

Beyond mere opinion, you have only made a presupposed and fact-less statement. Saying it’s so, does not make it so.

 

I'd suggest this applies far more to anything you have said thus far than to anything I have said. But feel free to challenge me, show me how a human being is exempt from the definition of mammal, primate, ape or Eukaryote.

 

You may have highlighted is here and elsewhere, but you fail to mention that the salamander remains a “salamanderâ€ÂÂ; absolutely no macro involved.

 

Once again displaying ignorance of basic evolutionary theory. Any descendent of any salamander will always be classified as a salamander. If you insist evolutionary theory says anything else you are arguing against a straw man of evolutionary theory. Macro-evolution is simply change at or above the species level, and since it applies perfectly to ring species, extant salamanders right now, your point is trivial to refute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated it as I did because you showed a profound misunderstanding with the phrase "Not one type dog (etc…) adapting to its surroundings, and yet remaining a dog", and you continue to make the same mistake in your latest post.

 

The implication of that phrase is that you would not consider evolution to have occurred unless the daughter species were not still a dog. My example was simply to explain to you that regardless of how many speciation events occur in any dog lineage from this point forward, every daughter species will still be a dog, in the same way that they will always be a mammal.

 

Continuing to insist that this is not the case is arguing against a straw man. You're more than welcome to do so, but I don't know what it would achieve other than to convince others with a similar misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that you have a point. You don't.

I'd suggest this applies far more to anything you have said thus far than to anything I have said. But feel free to challenge me, show me how a human being is exempt from the definition of mammal, primate, ape or Eukaryote.

Once again displaying ignorance of basic evolutionary theory. Any descendent of any salamander will always be classified as a salamander. If you insist evolutionary theory says anything else you are arguing against a straw man of evolutionary theory. Macro-evolution is simply change at or above the species level, and since it applies perfectly to ring species, extant salamanders right now, your point is trivial to refute.

68486[/snapback]

I get the jist of what you're trying to say, but one issue sticks out. If everything remained the same, in the sense that you are trying to illustrate (speciation events of slamanders will always be salamanders), than we as humans, are not only primates, mammals, and eukaryotes, but granted the TOE is true we are also, fish, amphibians, and reptiles (as all of these are types of animals that 'we once were' and therefore always should be right?)...this is obviously not true, so could you help to clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the jist of what you're trying to say, but one issue sticks out.  If everything remained the same, in the sense that you are trying to illustrate (speciation events of slamanders will always be salamanders), than we as humans, are not only primates, mammals, and eukaryotes, but granted the TOE is true we are also, fish, amphibians, and reptiles (as all of these are types of animals that 'we once were' and therefore always should be right?)...this is obviously not true, so could you help to clarify?

68489[/snapback]

Wahoo! And I mean that sincerely. Far from being "obviously not true", that is in fact exactly what we are saying.

 

I'd be the first to admit that this sounds strange, so let me expand it it somewhat. In general usage we classify organisms on their current state: we're both humans, your dog is a dog etc and so on and so forth. We also apply the same kind of classification historically, we take a snapshot (for creatures that lived millions of years ago via one or more fossils) and we give them names. We classify them based on morphology into discreet units, be those units species, genera, families or orders etc.

 

Now, bear with me, this is a hypothetical example but I hope my purpose for using it will become clear.

 

Lets propose, for the sake of this discussion, that every fossil ever found was from the same lineage, and that each was found 20 million years apart, with a total of 20 fossils. In other words, we have 400 years worth of fossils, with each descended from the other.

 

We would catagorise each fossil as belonging to a different species, 20 million years being a long enough period that in most cases sufficient change accumulates to warrant the definition of species being applied. With me so far?

 

Now, suppose that we discover 20 new fossils, each of which fits exactly into the gaps between the fossils we found already. Now we have 40 fossils, each with 10 million year gaps. We can likely still classify each as a different species since they would have evolved sufficiently to merit it.

 

Now think about repeating this process, over and over and over, adding in new fossils. First we have 5 million year gaps, then 2.5 million. Keep going, until you get to the point where you have one fossil for every individual (ie, every single individual in an unbroken line was preserved).

 

And now comes the hard point. Where do you draw the line? At what point does one species become another? In this case it would be impossible to identify any species. At the one end you'd have a fish of some description (actually 400m years ago probably not even a fish), and at the other end you'd have some extant creature, say a human. You could look at the line of fossils and see a clear progression, no individual showing a noticable difference to the one before, but the accumulated changes adding up to form the huge difference from start to finish.

 

 

So, back to the issue of classification. Because we don't have continuous data we only have snapshots in time. For ease of reference it makes sense to classify those animals, to give them names and assign them into groups. The lobe finned fish, amphibious tetrapods etc. By strict application it is correct to refer to humans as belonging to the clade lobe finned fish. The reason we don't is that it serves no practical purpose. Colloquially we refer to fish as extant creatures that we all consider to be fish, but by strict definition if you're descended from a fish, you're still a fish.

 

This position tends to cause an element of disbelief, because people make the erroneous link between extant fish which we are extremely distantly related to, and the fish that would be our direct ancestors. A reasonable analogy would be something along the lines of human ancestry. It's often said that a ridiculously high proportion of Europeans are descended from William the conquerer. It serves no purpose in the modern day to refer to ourselves that way and so generally we don't. You wouldn't refer to a relative separated by 15-20 generations as being family.

 

 

You mentioned reptiles and it's worth going over the definition of reptile. The reptiles are not actually on our lineage. If we go back far enough you find the amniotes, which branch into two clades. The synapsids and the saurapsids. Mammals are within the synapsids, reptiles (in the modern sense) are within the saurapsids. Both are part of the tetrapod lineage.

 

So, in summary, by strict classification you're still a fish. It's a quirk of the nature of classification, because we apply snapshots, enabled by the fragmentary nature of the evidence of history. Possibly an easier to understand version would be to refer to birds as dinosaurs. If I mention dinosaurs nobody will immediately think of birds, but by taxonomic classification birds are dinosaurs (thoropod dinosaurs as it happens). I'd recommend reading the book "your inner fish" for a much more rounded presentation than anything I said here. Theres a particularly good video on youtube on this, lemme see if I can find it

 

 

Aha, found it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wahoo! And I mean that sincerely. Far from being "obviously not true", that is in fact exactly what we are saying.

 

I'd be the first to admit that this sounds strange, so let me expand it it somewhat.  In general usage we classify organisms on their current state: we're both humans, your dog is a dog etc and so on and so forth. We also apply the same kind of classification historically, we take a snapshot (for creatures that lived millions of years ago via one or more fossils) and we give them names. We classify them based on morphology into discreet units, be those units species, genera, families or orders etc.

 

Now, bear with me, this is a hypothetical example but I hope my purpose for using it will become clear.

 

Lets propose, for the sake of this discussion, that every fossil ever found was from the same lineage, and that each was found 20 million years apart, with a total of 20 fossils. In other words, we have 400 years worth of fossils, with each descended from the other.

 

We would catagorise each fossil as belonging to a different species, 20 million years being a long enough period that in most cases sufficient change accumulates to warrant the definition of species being applied. With me so far?

 

Now, suppose that we discover 20 new fossils, each of which fits exactly into the gaps between the fossils we found already. Now we have 40 fossils, each with 10 million year gaps. We can likely still classify each as a different species since they would have evolved sufficiently to merit it.

 

Now think about repeating this process, over and over and over, adding in new fossils. First we have 5 million year gaps, then 2.5 million. Keep going, until you get to the point where you have one fossil for every individual (ie, every single individual in an unbroken line was preserved).

 

And now comes the hard point. Where do you draw the line? At what point does one species become another? In this case it would be impossible to identify any species. At the one end you'd have a fish of some description (actually 400m years ago probably not even a fish), and at the other end you'd have some extant creature, say a human. You could look at the line of fossils and see a clear progression, no individual showing a noticable difference to the one before, but the accumulated changes adding up to form the huge difference from start to finish.

 

Thank you for the explanation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the TOE, populations eventually stabalize for large amounts of time and then adjust to environmental pressures between stabalization points? If this is true, than in your example we would most likely be able to observe the fossils and notice where one population was stable and then notice the gray area between the two stable populations. We could classify each stable populaton seperately and then call the gray area, the transitional period. This transitional period would be the fossil evidence that I believe most creationists want (usually refered to as a transitional fossil, but I think it would be more of a set of transitional fossilS), but evolutionists have probability of fossils being formed on their side, so we cannot collect enough data to realize where the transitional period is located. It reminds me of an analogy I heard from an evo on this forum before, but I want to modify it a bit. If there was a square drawn on a piece of paper and you used 2 billion pieces of paper to slowly round the corners out and turn it into a circle there would be no clear change form page to page, but I think that it would be changing fairly rapidly for say a couple thousand sheets and then for a couple thousand sheets remain the same and repeat. We would then be able to recognize the periods of time when the shape is changing and the periods of time where the shape remained the same (because it was 'fit' for the current environment and had no environmental pressures) Then again, I could be misrepresenting the TOE and all of this could be wrong.

 

So, back to the issue of classification. Because we don't have continuous data we only have snapshots in time. For ease of reference it makes sense to classify those animals, to give them names and assign them into groups. The lobe finned fish, amphibious tetrapods etc. By strict application it is correct to refer to humans as belonging to the clade lobe finned fish. The reason we don't is that it serves no practical purpose. Colloquially we refer to fish as extant creatures that we all consider to be fish, but by strict definition if you're descended from a fish, you're still a fish.

 

This position tends to cause an element of disbelief, because people make the erroneous link between extant fish which we are extremely distantly related to, and the fish that would be our direct ancestors. A reasonable analogy would be something along the lines of human ancestry. It's often said that a ridiculously high proportion of Europeans are descended from William the conquerer. It serves no purpose in the modern day to refer to ourselves that way and so generally we don't. You wouldn't refer to a relative separated by 15-20 generations as being family.

 

Ok, but heres where evos and creas differ. Evos can accept that there is not enough time to see a substantial change, where creas only consider that as a cop-out and arguement to the future fallacy. As is understood, at some point our ancestor would clearly not be a fish-like creature anymore, and that is what creationists are looking for, an observation where the speciation event results in something that is obviously a 'completely' different life-form than it was x amount of speciation events earlier. ie. a dog speciating into something that is clearly not a dog anymore, just as our fish-like ancestor supposedly eventually speciated into not a fish-like creature anymore.

 

You mentioned reptiles and it's worth going over the definition of reptile. The reptiles are not actually on our lineage. If we go back far enough you find the amniotes, which branch into two clades. The synapsids and the saurapsids. Mammals are within the synapsids, reptiles (in the modern sense) are within the saurapsids. Both are part of the tetrapod lineage.

 

Honestly, thank you, I appreciate your assistance and information. B)

 

So, in summary, by strict classification you're still a fish. It's a quirk of the nature of classification, because we apply snapshots, enabled by the fragmentary nature of the evidence of history. Possibly an easier to understand version would be to refer to birds as dinosaurs. If I mention dinosaurs nobody will immediately think of birds, but by taxonomic classification birds are dinosaurs (thoropod dinosaurs as it happens).  I'd recommend reading the book "your inner fish" for a much more rounded presentation than anything I said here. Theres a particularly good video on youtube on this, lemme see if I can find it

68493[/snapback]

Thanks again, I'll have to look into the book. I still don't see why macro-evolution wouldn't exist in the way creationists are looking for it though. Eventually a series of speciation events should lead to one population of life-forms that has only remotely small similarities to it's original ancestor.

 

"Possibly an easier to understand version would be to refer to birds as dinosaurs."

^ Us creationists want to see these types of events in real-time, we want to witness when it becomes pointless to consider a population as the 'common name' they are classified as, because we watched them become dramatically different, not because contemporary fossil documentation suggest the possibility of these changes happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms