[Ahban]

OK, this thread has been referenced in another one, and we seem to have some disagreement about how it turned out. I just thought I'd post the whole thing here, and other freepers can, as they do so often, express their opinions- was it a slam dunk for evolution, or a clear victory for creationism, or something else???

[Physicist]

Before this goes on, we first need an objective definition of "family". We have an objective definition of "species" (even though it doesn't always work, e.g. the various species of bears, which are apparently able to produce viable offspring between them). But what constitutes a family?

[VadeRetro]

Dealt with adequately (and thus far ignored) in this response on that other thread.

I answer you and you simply repost your old drivel? You and scripter!

[Cicero]

Well, Creationism is not exactly the same thing as Intelligent Design, as these terms are normally used.

Creationism was a kind of bogus science that sincere Christians were more or less forced to resort to to when the courts illegitimately threw religion out of our public schools. Teachers should have been able to say, "The theory of evolution teaches this, but the traditional account in the Book of Genesis teaches that." But the courts would not longer allow them to do so. Ergo, the phony science of Creationism was introduced so as to get Genesis back into the schools through the back door. Which is not to say that God didn't create the world, or that the Genesis account isn't true, but that you can't prove the full Genesis account scientifically.

Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, is not religion-based. Using purely scientific arguments and statistical methods, you can make a good case that the best way to explain the nature of life as we see it is to posit an intelligent designer rather than blind chance. You can't prove that the whole Genesis account is true by pure science, but you can show that positing an intelligent designer better explains the facts than blind chance.

This argument about no new families appearing does, indeed, add still another difficulty for general evolution to deal with. I don't think it's as persuasive as some of the other arguments intelligent design theorists have recently been making, but it makes a good point, and one that's pretty simple to understand.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The gaps between family groups are too big to be crossed the once every 434 years the evidence suggests it would have to be, should evolution be responsible.

It's kind of hard to know if there were new families created 434 years ago, or even 217 years ago. In fact, there could be a new family in your back yard right now that you don't even know about.

I look at the Creationist/Evolution battle from two viewpoints. There are two conflicts which do not need to exhist.

Point 1: The 'missing link' of modern man is perplexing and frustrating the Evolutionists. The most volitile aspect of the creation/evolution aspect is: Did we or did we not evolve from some slime in the sea? That elusive 'missing link', time and again, is proven to be one hoax or mistake after another. It's counfounding everyone. We can link the evolution of all manner of life forms, but not of modern man. Modern man, according to many scientists over the past several decades, seemed to appear from nohwere and rapidly dominate the earth. That coincides with the Bible. Adam was created. He and Eve were cast out of Eden and rapidly took dominion over the the earth.

Point 2: Look at the Bible. Page 1: The sun is created on the second day. Huh? Second day? Doesn't that surprise anyone? The days of Genisis were not solar days. They could be anything. Days of Heavan? Phases of the Universe? God only knows.

I'm no great scientist, so maybe I need correcting. But in the first day, what I think is really kool, the light was separated from the darkness. Sounds like an explosion to me. The Big Bang, perhaps? And the Bible fortells that the stars will roll up like a scroll. The side view of a scroll rolling up looks exactly the same as a ball of stars being drawn back together, which will ultimately happen when the big bang energy is weaker than the gravitational pull of the stars.

Conclusion: Science is beginning to catch up with the Bible. But those who interpret with a reactionist perspective fail to see it. So far, Christianity remains highly compatible with science when compared with other religions. But there is always room for improvement. Seek the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. FReegards....

[AndrewC]

Little teeth, big inferences bump

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on just-so stories
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

[tacticalogic]

I can figure out why it always has to be an "either-or" proposition. Nobody argues that if Einstein was right, Newton had to be wrong. I find it the height of arrogance to think we know enough to be making absolute declarations one way or the other. Who's to say that God didn't create life with the ability to evolve?

[Junior]

Looks like a "best of" thread...

[Jeff Gordon]

Vodoo, magic, alien intervention or a meddlesome god can explain just about anything.

[Terriergal]

Of course it can't. Evolution never explains anything that they require Creation to explain to be considered scientific. Michael Behe wrote a whole book about it.

Read _Darwin's Black Box_

[Tribune7]

Interesting points, Ahban.

[Poser]

I'm sick to death of this argument. Nobody is convincing anyone. Let it go. (I know... If you don't want to read about it, don't read the thread)


Sorry.

[Youngblood]

A family grouping, as you realize, has to be fairly different from other genera in the order before it will be recognized as such. This involves a number of speciation events, which each require isolation or environmental change, as well as the disappearance or sufficient divergence of related genera. You maintain that we are in a period of such opportunity for rapid evolution at the moment, if evolution does occur. However, much of this change is not suited to the vast majority of species, involving as it does, across the board, a massive decrease in biodiversity due to agriculturalization, habitat destruction and fragmentation, pollution and invasive species, the most destructive of which has occurred within the past couple of hundred years. If evolution is occurring due to these changes, I doubt whether several hundred years is enough time for family-level divergence, especially since people have only really been looking for the past two or three centuries, and until recently, not in any great detail worldwide. Biologists have only begun to even scratch the surface of insect and plant life in the tropics. However, I do agree that we may be at the start of an experiment at the moment, especially with habitat fragmentation and biological invaders both providing tests of the effects of halted gene flow, founder effects and isolation, as well as the vacating of niches due to extinction. However, its early in the day and the environmental degradation is continuing, so I don’t forsee new families resulting for a very long time as related genera will either have to die out or diverge themselves,. The most successful species now are those commensal with man, such as rats, mice, cockroaches and so forth, and these animals are not meeting with any great environmental stresses, except pesticides, with which they seem to be coping admirably. Perhaps microorganisms or small invertebrates would be a fruitful area to look at given their short generation times, although even here the entire field of bacterial taxonomy was totally revised within the past thirty years, with often poor type and strain records kept prior to that.