Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
When it happens in the context of a lab experiment, it's not random or spontaneous.
BTW, genetic mutation isn't the only reason members of a species might cease to be able to breed with each other. Some male aquarium swordtails have been selectively bread for ornate finnage, and as a result, they would be incapable of fertilizing wild females with their cumbersome gonopodiums.
A few points about the speciation issue....
1) Since, as Nebie notes, micro and macro evolution SEEM to occur by different mechanisms, the noted instances which seem to be the former don't apply as examples of the latter.
2) The Bible, as I read it, is much more ameniable to plant evolution than animal evolution (check the wording in Genesis One). Those examples on Quila's link where chromosomes change seem to be of plants.
3) SPeciation itself is not evidence for macroevolution, It is just evidence that a generalized type tends to break into a number of more specailized or isolated types due to a loss of information. One species of ducks splitting into two species due to extinction of a middle population that can interbreed with both is NOT the type of 'evolution' that can produce birds from reptiles, or even hummingbirds from Owls. This is not the same as animals developing complex new structures.
As for how Creation events would occur...its just like they do now. Except the second Person of the Trinity did what scientists are doing right now. Scientists are taking genes from two very different species and combining them to get new creatures that would never have arisen by chance alone. For example, they took jellyfish glow genes and put them in a monkey. Result- glowing monkey.
If they can, and did, do it, then why couldn't God the Son?
There are identical mutations of a chromosome that is necessary for making vitamin C, found in people, chimps and gorillas. This is an example of a true prediction made by evolution theory. (ie identical point mutations in related crreatures) There are no predictions, true or false, made by creationism.
The fact that a defective chromosome is found indicates that any design was less than intelligent.
Presumably, the mutation was not fatal in the species that had it because it got adequate ascorbic acid in its diet.
Not true. Tell me where exactly (in this example) a scientist came in & manually changed a worm's genes? Nowhere, of course! If the genes of the Long Beach population and/or the Mass. population didn't change from their common original sequence randomly, then how else would they have? Whose "finger on the scale" are you hypothesizing in this example?
Jesus is the one assigned the task of being the Intelligent Designer??? I have NEVER heard that one! Pray tell, where does it say that in the Bible?
First, I'm not a literal special creationist. If Macro-Evolution is what happened, it doesn't affect my faith at all. My beef is with the sloopy thinking of Evolutionists. I've got other beefs with the sloppiness of Creatioists, but that's for another thread.
The fact that a defective chromosome is found indicates that any design was less than intelligent.
Nonsense.
Why is it logically necessary for a perfect Creator to have a perfect Creation?
Even Creationists don't claim a perfect Creation. The Bible is all about the imperfect state of the world.
Now, let's look at the question of mine that you quoted:
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
Doesn't seem to me that you answered it, and that's my point.
i.e. let's start off by ignoring the physical evidence...
This is a false dilemma. The point is the circumstance of the worms' living conditions did not change randomly and spontaneously. I don't need a scientist's finger.
Your question, "how else would they have?" is my point... in the absence of knowing the mechanism for speciation, Evolutionists fall back too quickly on the explanation of "randomness."
To say that "random did it" because we can't think of a better explanation is no more compelling that to say "God did it."
Does being an ignorant imbecile somehow make you feel good?
You should know about stupidity since you're a fine example of it. Since you believe that God is dead, you certainly haven't been molded in God's image but King Kong's or a mollusk's instead and whatever brain you were going for, you obviously missed it. You think you're clever mouthing silly nihilistic gibberish about God being dead. I doubt you know who said it or what he meant by the comment. Hint: it wasn't an endorsement of your atheistic views.
Isn't it dangerous to use all of your vocabulary in one post?
Perhaps you could tell us.
An incorrect presumption of my motives. Read the thread.
Even if I stipulate the physical evidence, answer the question. you know, the one you started off by ignoring...
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
There's another character around here by the name of "Come get it" who espouses something similar. The problem with that proposal is that the starting lineup of species (or genetic diversity) is unimaginably large. Remember to include all extinct species. All living at the same time.
Macroevolution generally refers to events at the speciation level or above.
However, you are quite correct that the evolution of novel function and speciation are not the same thing.
Dude, I accept the bulk of the physical evidence. Read the thread.
I wanted to set those arguments aside, just as I wanted to set aside textual arguments with Creationists over the interpretation of the word "days" as translated from the original Hebrew in Genesis 1 & 2. They aren't the point.
Now...
Answer the question, or admit that you're begging it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
