Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

TCS Daily ^ | 10 Jan 2008 | Lee Harris

[RightWhale]

The new battle might well be over the Koran now that these new documents have showed up. It will actually be serious since the islams actually get insanely enraged to the point of exploding.

[Elvis_TCB]

My God created a universe that needed no tinkering.

How can it be Good if it needs adjustment? Why would God create a universe with laws that he had to break to make work?

It seems these IDers are looking for traces of spiritual duck tape, just so they can be sure God is real. How sad.

[GodGunsGuts]

I never said archeology backs up the Bible re: the global flood. I don’t know enough about what archeology says about the global flood to comment one way or another at this point. What I am saying is that the Bible has proven it’s reliability over and over when archaeological finds are compared to the historical claims of the Bible. I also pointed out that a number of archeologists are starting to take the global flood seriously (the archeolgist profiled in Discover Magazine being one of them). And science is increasingly pointing to a global flood (ie paleocurrents, fossil position, evidence of large-scale flood depositions all across the globe, etc), as does global folklore, etc. But you have piqued my curiosity, so this will be the next thing I look into. I will get back to when I know more. In the meantime, it is sad that you close yourself off from the scientists who claim that the Bible is accurate with respect to history, archeology, origins, and cosmology. I read evolutionists all the time, and I often take their data at face value...it is their interpretation and conclusions I often find myself in disagreement with.

[Elvis_TCB]

So, no speciation possible within a kind?

[GodGunsGuts]

==If you believe in creationism, you have to believe in geocentrism. The bible says the earth is fixed and does not move.

Actually, that is not the case at all. There are other verses in the Bible where the exact same Hebrew word refers to not being moved from a path.

[bvw]

Tinkering? More than tinkering, but rather constant upkeep -- and even upkeep is too small a word. And thank G-d for it all, for that is the sign there is a caring G-d, a merciful G-d.

Nor does the Creator have to break any laws -- for there is plenty of room for adjustments to be made, all within the most exacting laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know them, or might ever know them.

And what is the Good in that, for doesn't that mean the creation is imperfect, so you ask? What is the purpose for what might appear an imperfect world to our eyes -- an "imperfect, broken" creation by a loving, merciful and good G-d?

Perhaps the purpose! Perhaps the purpose is for us to build up our souls, and what seems what could be broke is a test to the soul -- and then by man's free will and the choices made by men, the great intrinsic desires for life, the result of spiritual forces disbursed into the creation -- our merciful G-d must continually adjust so that to men, to all souls and each soul at every instant the creation presented to each and to all souls, can be the perfect universe at that next instant. Perfect to be the best possible existence for spiritual growth, not just as a whole, but for each individually.

Is a conversation perfect?

[Coyoteman]

Biblical scholars place the date of the flood at about 4350 years ago. If you are going to propose a global flood at that date there are a few bits of data you need to account for.

1) Neither sedimentology nor archaeology support a global flood at that date. Rather, the soils and human cultures are continuous in most areas spanning this date. Post-Ice Age floods are known; we can see those floods but we can't see a much larger, much more recent flood? That doesn't make any sense.

2) Fauna and flora are continuous across this date worldwide. For example, pollen cores that show no discontinuity attributable to a global flood 4350 years ago. Neither do glacial varves, tree ring sequences, or several other methods of tracking time.

3) mtDNA shows a continuity that can be tracked back tens of thousands of years. Just on the west coast a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago found in southern Alaska was found to have the same mtDNA as living individuals in southern California and all along the coasts of Central and South America. There was no break in Native American mtDNA, followed by replacement by mtDNA attributable to Noah's folks.

These are just a few of the things that help to disprove the idea of a global flood at 4350 BP.

[metmom]

Short stay. Too bad so sad. What was your previous screen name?

In answer to the question, though...

Speciation is a change from one kind to another, so therefore, no, there could be no speciation WITHIN a kind, just variation.

[longtermmemmory]

gimmie a sec. Huck wanted a popped squirel first...

[GodGunsGuts]

1) Evidence?

2) Evidence?

3) Evidence?

[Coyoteman]

1) Evidence?

2) Evidence?

3) Evidence?

Yes, there are mounds of evidence out there. All you have to do is open your eyes. Try a google for any of this (and stay away from the creationist websites; they lie).

The three examples I cited above disprove a global flood 4350 years ago. There are many other lines of evidence which do the same thing.

OK, one more. The Egyptians had a going civilization a thousand years prior to the date purported for the global flood. They failed to record record any such flood.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Yes, there are mounds of evidence out there...The three examples I cited above disprove a global flood 4350 years ago.

OK, why don’t we narrow your three lines of evidence down to something more manageable. Seeing how I have been very interested in molecular and cell biology these days, I thought perhaps we could start with mtDNA. Could you please quote, link to and explain the mtDNA evidence that you claim falsifies the Noahidic flood? Or is you belief that it never happened strictly based on your Darwinist faith alone?

[Coyoteman]

OK, why don’t we narrow your three lines of evidence down to something more manageable. Seeing how I have been very interested in molecular and cell biology these days, I thought perhaps we could start with mtDNA. Could you please quote, link to and explain the mtDNA evidence that you claim falsifies the Noahidic flood? Or is you belief that it never happened strictly based on your Darwinist faith alone?

You will have to read the article for yourself. I won't spoon feed you.

Genetic Analysis of Early Holocene Skeletal Remains from Alaska and Its Implications for the Settlement of the Americas, by B.M. Kemp et al. (2007).

[YHAOS]

"gimmie a sec. Huck wanted a popped squirel first..."

Take your time. I've fallen asleep anyway.

[metmom]

Try a google for any of this (and stay away from the creationist websites; they lie).

How would you know?

In order to determine if something is a lie, you have to have something you know is true to compare it to. You yourself have insisted that science is not about truth so there's no standard of truth to appeal to. Your world view doesn't allow for truth, so it provides no place for accusations of lying.

How can you recognize a lie, when you can't even recognize the truth?

[valkyrieanne]

Excellent article; thanks for posting. His idea reminds me a bit of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver really wants to be identified with the noble horse-like creatures, the Houhynyms, and hates the ape-like Yahoos. Perhaps if we were closer to horses or lions it would be easier to appreciate our ancestors...

[atlaw]

A kind is most similar to family, but is formulated under a different set of assumptions.

What set of assumptions? And, again, what "kind" is a porpoise?

To which genus do cattalo belong?

Odd. Genetically manipulated hybrids such as cattalo are problematic for the proponents of "kinds", which you appear to be. On the other hand, they pose no explanatory difficulty in a common descent setting, and indeed demonstrate the inherent malleability of classification systems.

The more pertinent question is, what "kind" is a cattalo?

[CottShop]

You folks ask for the precise definition of KINDS as though if it can’t be precisely defined, then you’ve got some sort of falsification for KINDS, but yet you can’t even precisely define species or give biological evidence for connections between continuities that you claim are related.

The definition of KINDS has been given many many times here on FR, but yet evidently, you Evo folks ignore it and continue to ask in every evo/creo thread. KINS is a term used to describe discontinuity of species- something for which there is biological evidence- Continuity has no biological evidence between different KINDS- the only way to claim continuance is to propose nothign but assumptions. The linean KINDS is far more biologically viable than the cladistic system that is based on scientifically missing facts and asasumptions. KINDS is based on precise bariminological biological science (When you folks have biological evidence for continuances between dissimilar KINDS, then you can demand a more precise definition- until then, you cladistic classification system is a far more problem riddled system than bariminology, and if you’re suggesting that because there are problems with bariminology, then it must not be true science, then you have just confessed that your own cladistic system should not be taught in schools either because it has far more problems and heck, even biological impossibilities than bariminology does, and thus shlould not be called science. You folks really NEED more scientifically valid arguments against Creation/ID than the ones you present- because quite frankly, the ones you present fall flat on their faces when compared to the more biologically valid and demonstratable creation/id models:

Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that “race” is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.

Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[2]

Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[4]).

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[5]:

Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

[CottShop]

[[The more pertinent question is, what “kind” is a cattalo?]]

The Bison and the cattle are the same KIND and respresent continuance- when the Cattalo miraculously produces a biologically impossible NEW kind, such as somethign like an amphibian, and you have evidence for that, then let us know, then we’ll have us an interesting discussion- until then, the Cattalo is fully within the continuance parameters of the same KIND

[CottShop]

Coyote said: “Try a google for any of this (and stay away from the creationist websites; they lie).”

Metmom- he doesn’t have to back his accusations up- He’s an evo- his word is golden don’t ya know? He finds a few instances where creationist websites might make a mistake, or some lesser creation websites run by unscrupulous unsaved people, who say somethign intentionally incorrect, and all of a sudden every article ever written by a creationist just can’t be true- that’s all the ‘evidence’ he needs to present to make his lame case. When asked to refute creationist science however on reputable creation sites that present scientific facts that are supported by biological evidence, he is mysteriously silent and ignores the challenge and simply waits for another creo thread when he thinks everyone has forgotten his innability to refute scientific facts, and makes the same lame false accusation again in the hopes that someone not familiar with creation science will buy his claptrap. Don’t ya knowe that imature unsubstantiated repetition makes something true?