Kalamata post #448:
"You gotta quit quoting Wikipedia, Joey, if you want to be taken seriously?
{sigh}" Seriously, Wikipedia mostly just repeats what I first learned in school or studied since.
It is usually just our "conventional wisdom" based on standard sources.
I use it to illustrate that my opinions are not just personal, but are based on what "everybody knows", when that is indeed the case.
A lot of what I quote from Wikipedia can also be found, with vastly more time-consuming effort, on other sites.
But unlike those other sites, Wikipedia loads quickly, is free of clutter, free of popups and other advertisements, and never crashes my old computer.
Finally, it is generally well referenced to standard sources.
Of course, none of that makes Wikipedia necessarily the last word on any subject, but it is often a good place to begin.
Kalamata on the definition of evolution: "Now everyone can plainly see what I have been saying.
Evolution, to the anti-God types, "proves" everything!
Evolution is their god!"
Complete nonsense.
Seriously, FRiend, what are you smoking or drinking?
Your response here is not even remotely rational.
Kalamata: "You do not understand evolution, Joey.
There is no such thing as "sideways evolution."
Evolution, by definition, requires an increase in genetic information; otherwise, common descent is impossible."
And now you're just babbling incoherent nonsense, childishly inventing word definitions which never existed.
Here are some actual definitions of the word "evolution":
- Webster: "descent with modification from preexisting species :
cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :
the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations..."
- Webster: "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) "
- Dictionary.com: "Biology -- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
- Wikipedia: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]"
- Collins: "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."
- Biology on line:
- "(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
- (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."
- Wikipedia: "Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5]
This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6]
Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant."
In other words, by definitions: evolution is any change, whether it includes
complexification or not.
Kalamata: "Without common descent, evolution fits the special creation narrative, whereby created organism multiply after their respective families, or "kinds."
It is okay for you to hijack special creation, Joey; but please don't call it evolution."
"Special creation" is a nonsense non-scientific term created by anti-scientists to confuse the unwary.
So let's review a summary of taxonomic categories:
The complete listing, including sub-groups for, say, human beings is 26 taxonomic categories, of which 20 come before "family" and five after:
- Domain: Eukaryotes -- 1st evidence 2.1 billion years ago
- Kingdom: Animals -- 1st fossils 590 million years ago.
- Phylum: Chordates -- 1st fossils 530 million years ago = "Cambrian Explosion"
Today there are about 36 animal phyla.
- Sub-phylum: Vertebrates -- 1st fossils 505 mya.
- Super-class: Tetrapods -- (animals with four limbs) from 395 mya.
- Clade: Amniotes -- (fully terrestrial tetrapods whose eggs are "equipped with an amnios"), 1st fossils 340 mya.
- Clade: Synapsida -- Proto-Mammals 308 mya.
- Class: Mammals -- 220 mya.
Today there are about 100 animal classes.
- Sub-class: Theria -- mammals born live, 160 mya.
- Infra-class: Eutheria -- Placental mammals 125 mya.
- Magna-order: Boreoeutheria -- Supraprimates, (most) hoofed mammals, (most) carnivorous mammals, whales, and bats, from 112 mya.
- Super-order: Euarchontoglires -- Supraprimates: primates, colugos, tree shrews, rodents, and rabbits from 100 mya.
- Grand-order: Euarchonta -- Primates, colugos, and tree shrews from 90 mya.
- Mir-order: Primatomorpha -- Primates and colugos from 80 mya.
- Order: Primates -- from 75 mya.
Today there are about 450 animal orders, 28 of them mammals.
- Sub-order: Haplorrhini -- "Dry-nosed" (literally, "simple-nosed") primates: apes, monkeys, and tarsiers from 63 mya.
- Infra-order Simiiformes -- "Higher" primates (Simians): apes and monkeys from 40 mya.
- Parv-order: Catarrhini -- "Downward-nosed" primates: apes and old-world monkeys, from 40 mya.
- Super-family: Hominoidea Apes -- great apes and lesser apes (gibbons) from 28 mya.
- FAMILY: Hominidae Great apes -- humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans—the hominids, from 18 mya.
Today there are thought to be 5,000 animal families worldwide, 156 of them mammals.
So let's pause here: from 2.1
billion years ago to 18
million we find fossils in 20 descending taxonomic categories
before reaching what Linnaeus called "family" and which Kalamata tells us is the Biblical "kind".
Do we claim that each new sub-category was "Intelligently Designed" independently, without reference to preceding categories?
Or do we notice that each new category was somewhat more complex, from our perspective more advanced that what came before?
Now, from 18 mya to today, we find five more sub-categories:
- Sub-family: Homininae -- Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (the African apes)[1] 14 mya
- Tribe: Hominini -- Includes both Homo, Pan (chimpanzees), but not Gorilla 9 mya.
- Sub-tribe: Hominina -- Genus Homo and close human relatives and ancestors after splitting from Pan—the hominins 6 mya.
- Genus: Homo -- humans 2.5 mya.
There are said to be 75,000 animal genera worldwide, 1,250 of them mammals.
- Species: Homo Sapiens -- biologically modern humans 500,000 years ago.
Today there are about 450,000 animal species, 6,000 of them mammals.
My point in this exercise is to illustrate that your selection of 5,000 taxonomic "families" to equal Biblical "kinds" is not just arbitrary, but also it leaves a lot of room for alleged "micro-evolution" to produce hundreds of thousands of new species, genera, tribes, etc.
Enough for post #448 for right now. 
>>Kalamata post #448: "You gotta quit quoting Wikipedia, Joey, if you want to be taken seriously?{sigh}"
>>Joey said: "Seriously, Wikipedia mostly just repeats what I first learned in school or studied since. It is usually just our "conventional wisdom" based on standard sources. I use it to illustrate that my opinions are not just personal, but are based on what "everybody knows", when that is indeed the case. A lot of what I quote from Wikipedia can also be found, with vastly more time-consuming effort, on other sites. But unlike those other sites, Wikipedia loads quickly, is free of clutter, free of popups and other advertisements, and never crashes my old computer. Finally, it is generally well referenced to standard sources. Of course, none of that makes Wikipedia necessarily the last word on any subject, but it is often a good place to begin."
Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization that censures or mischaracterizes anything coming from the right, including special creation and intelligent design. These words are found under "Creationism":
"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been young Earth creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science."
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view."
What does anyone at Wikipedia know about science and pseudoscience? Probably nothing.
The truth is, evolution is pseudoscience masquerading as science, but you will never read that in Wikipedia, or at least not for very long.
Link: Wikipedia on Creationism.
*************
>>Kalamata on the definition of evolution: "Now everyone can plainly see what I have been saying. Evolution, to the anti-God types, "proves" everything! Evolution is their god!"
>>Joey said: "Complete nonsense. Seriously, FRiend, what are you smoking or drinking? Your response here is not even remotely rational."
LOL! I was going to ask you the same question after you made these loony statements in #442:
"Evolution by definition is any change, period. Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution. It's all evolution/adaptation, regardless of how much you hate it and wish it to go away." [Joey #442]
It appears Joey has invented the "Theory of Everything." LOL!
*************
>>Kalamata: "You do not understand evolution, Joey. There is no such thing as "sideways evolution." Evolution, by definition, requires an increase in genetic information; otherwise, common descent is impossible."
>>Joey said: "And now you're just babbling incoherent nonsense, childishly inventing word definitions which never existed. Here are some actual definitions of the word "evolution":
This will be interesting . . .
*************
>>Joey quoting Webster: "descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations...
That IS a very good definition of evolution, Joey. Where can I find your definition in that one?
*************
>>Joey quoting Webster (again?): "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) "
That is a weak definition because common descent is not emphasized.
*************
>>Joey quoting Dictionary.com: "Biology -- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
That IS NOT the definition of evolution. A definition of evolution MUST include and emphasize common descent.
*************
>>Joey quoting Wikipedia: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]"
>>Joey quoting Wikipedia (again): "Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant. "
Those are NOT definitions of evolution. (I warned you about Wikipedia, Joey!)
*************
>>Joey quoting Collins: "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."
>>Joey quoting Biology on line: "(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."
Those are NOT definitions of evolution.
*************
>>Joey said: "In other words, by definitions: evolution is any change, whether it includes complexification or not."
LOL! You are clueless. Common descent is the part of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from special creation. Special Creation emphasizes change over time, with the restriction that a species is confined within the genetic barriers or boundaries of its family (Bible: created "kind".) If common descent were true, a species could descend into multiple families, which has never been observed in any manner: only imagined.
This is the theory defined by Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne, which includes common descent (highlighted):
"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap 1, p.3]
*************
>>Kalamata: "Without common descent, evolution fits the special creation narrative, whereby created organism multiply after their respective families, or "kinds." It is okay for you to hijack special creation, Joey; but please don't call it evolution."
>>Joey said: "'Special creation' is a nonsense non-scientific term created by anti-scientists to confuse the unwary."
There is no doubt among real scientists that evolution is nonsense. Your definition -- "evolution is any change" -- is an example of "bait and switch." You watered down the real definition of evolution (by excluding common descent) to make evolution believable to the naive. In the process, you rendered evolution unfalsifiable, e.g., NOT science. LOL!
For the record, common descent has never been observed in any way, shape or form. Therefore, evolution is pseudoscience -- a faith-based religion.
*************
>>Joey said: "So let's review a summary of taxonomic categories: The complete listing, including sub-groups for, say, human beings is 26 taxonomic categories, of which 20 come before "family" and five after:"
You have to believe the evolutionism timeline of millions of years and hundreds of feet of sand deposition, followed by millions of years and hundreds of feet of limestone deposition, followed by millions of years and hundreds of feet of shale mud deposition, and so forth, to believe the millions-of-years dates Joey provided.
On this chart you will see what I am talking about. Each named section is typically hundreds of feet thick (middle column,) and of the SAME MATERIAL (left column,) supposedly deposited over millions of years (right column.) Those "layers" can spread over most of the earth.
Think about what you are seeing! How is that even possible over millions of years without serious mixing, contamination and erosion of the layers?
Now consider that there are many more layers like them above the Grand Canyon, and most layers, including the top most layers, contain marine fossils, world-wide. Many of the marine clams are in the closed position, indicating they were buried rapidly, while the clams were still alive. If those layers are not the result of a global flood, then how were they formed? I cannot imagine any other way.
When I examined the strata for the first time, about 8 years ago, I abandoned uniformitarianism and evolution. I was in my 60's at the time.
Summarizing, God miraculously created all of the plant and animal kinds (families) during the week of creation. The fossils are remnants of plants and animals buried during the global flood that God sent a couple of thousand years later, as are the thick sedimentary layers found world-wide. The land animals you see today are those that were on the ark, such as dogs, cats, lizards, turtles, deer, bears, etc..
*************
>>Joey said: "Today there are thought to be 5,000 animal families worldwide, 156 of them mammals."
The land animals are still with us today because they were saved on the ark along with Noah and his family.
*************
>>Joey said: "So let's pause here: from 2.1 billion years ago to 18 million we find fossils in 20 descending taxonomic categories before reaching what Linnaeus called "family" and which Kalamata tells us is the Biblical "kind".
Joey is deceiving you. The earth is no more than about 7,500 years old using the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint,) and about 6,000 years old with the Hebrew text. Taxonomic categories are composed only of the created kinds, arranged according to the whims of the categorizer.
*************
>>Joey said: "Do we claim that each new sub-category was "Intelligently Designed" independently, without reference to preceding categories? Or do we notice that each new category was somewhat more complex, from our perspective more advanced that what came before?"
Neither. Each kind (or family) was created by our creator with all the genetic material necessary to multiply into many varieties.
For example, there are many potential varieties of the canidae kind, all of which came from a single pair, The kind produced a recognizable subgroup of a dozen or more genera. The classifications are confusing, but in general, these are some, if not most of the genera:
Through natural and intelligent breeding, the genus "domestic" has multiplied into these varieties, and many more:
Those vary from the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane (and don't forget Clifford!) If you saw those for the first time as fossils, rather than as living animals, you might be led to believe they were not related..
When God commanded the animals to "be fruitful and multiply," he had already given them the tools necessary to carry out that command (e.g., the gene pool, cellular machinery, life, etc..)
*************
>>Joey said: "Today there are about 450,000 animal species, 6,000 of them mammals. My point in this exercise is to illustrate that your selection of 5,000 taxonomic "families" to equal Biblical "kinds" is not just arbitrary, but also it leaves a lot of room for alleged "micro-evolution" to produce hundreds of thousands of new species, genera, tribes, etc."
That is reasonable with respect to land animals. Each of the individual land animal kinds that walked off the Ark multiplied according to the potential varieties God originally coded into them. This short video explains:
Created Kinds (Baraminology)
This page explains classification:
Classifying Life
Special creation is the reason each kind remains distinct from other kinds. The term "micro-evolution" is a misuse of the word "evolution" since there has been NO increase in genetic information at any time.
BTW, your chart of Human Evolution is silly.
Mr. Kalamata