Evolution Can't Explain Biotic Diversity (vainity)

self ^ | from a prior thread | Ahban

[Hunble]

I agree with you on many of your points. Yes, the exponential growth rate is only a component of the question. As you also pointed out, extinction rates, ecological niches, birth rates, major disasters, and other factors must be included.

And yes, as I fully expect that human influence to open up new ecological niches that animals will evolve into. Rats in the city are a prime example.

[xyggyx]

My post wasn't really aimed at you, I just hit reply and forgot to put Ahban on the list, but I'm glad you agree :)

[VadeRetro]

There probably haven't been any new families of animals evolving in thousands and thousands of years.

Quite likely. Then throw in that the Linnaean system was created in 1757 based upon the way things looked 245 years ago. Then consider that divergence isn't sudden. Throw in that higher taxons are arbitrary, based upon the retrospectively considered importance of evolved traits.

[Hunble]

Obviously, it would depend upon the birth rate.

For slow birth rates with the larger animals, I would expect a new family to emerge in about 100,000 years.

Actually, it should be a function of the number of generations, and not specifically time.

[DallasMike]

That is a really big EXCEPT---the prime initiator!

Sure, it's an infinite difference, but what science needs to ask is whether evolution as currently taught can explain everything that has happened since, depending on your point of view, one second after (1) creation; or (2) the appearance of the first thing that can be called life. I would argue that the theory of evolution comes up short.

My training and most of my work career has been in the fields of chemistry and chemical engineering. The theory of evolution kind of looks okay at the macro level, but at the level of chemistry it sure seems to fall apart.

In other words, one doesn't need God to poke holes in the theory of evolution. It's not an issue of theology but rather of science.

[f.Christian]

Even theology admits the mother of all science is philosophy---it is inescapable!

Evolutions skips all three!

[diode]

Genesis in particular and the Bible in general contains prescientific (as opposed to nonscientific)language which is often poetic and lyrical. Who can ignore the awe inspiring phrase "And God said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.'" Although vegetation could be sustained by such a light, the Hebrew text (unlike the English translation)does not exclude the possibility that the sun was in fact made to appear on the fourth day(Hebrew asah=reveal in hundreds of places in the Old Testament).
Moreover, given the inorganic constituents of the human body, I think "dust" is an apt description, not only of our physical nature but also as a reminder of our own humble origins.
Indeed, despite the nontechnical nature of the Bible, there are several concepts expressed by the human authors which presage modern scientific discovery that should be aknowledged: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Life producing after its kind, water returns to its source (evaporation), the earth is round and hangs in space unsupported, life depends on blood, and disease can spread by physical contact. Regards.

[Junior]

Been channeling the great god Ted again?

[xdem]

I really don't understand the need to discredit evolution.

Were evolution "proven" tomorrow morning, would you give up your belief in the Lord?

No?

Then why does the validity of evolution matter one way or another?

[Hunble]

Evolution is the study of how living animals change over time.

How living animals were originally created is not part of that specific field of study.

You are correct in stating that the origin of first life would be a chemistry and/or theology field of study.

[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_

[PatrickHenry]

Over-the-hump placemarker.

[f.Christian]

the validity of evolution matter one way or another?

To: Nebullis

I suspect the AAAS would like to update the Declaration of Independence to better reflect their view of what should be the foundation of American liberty to:

We hold these outlooks to be best, that all men are evolved, that they are endowed by accident with certain conditional allowances to be determined by us.

America is based on the assumption of God's existence. Throw that out we become just as much of a Hell on earth as was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

114 posted on 11/08/2002 8:32 AM PST by Tribune7

[Tribune7]

Interesting points, Ahban.

[AndrewC]

No, just reminding all of the obvious, including freedom of expression and fairness.

[AndrewC]

There are probably new families evolving deep in untouched forests, under the ocean, or in jungles, but it's impossible to tell because we haven't catalogued every living being on the planet yet. You won't see a new family of animal evolving in your backyard because you mow it every week.

Let me get this straight. You are stating that things don't evolve because things change? More precisely, because they change too fast?

[gore3000]

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).

The ability to produce viable offspring is the only objective criteria for species. If these bears can do as you say then they are one species just like dogs and wolves are the same species in spite of the apparently large differences between them.

[gore3000]

It should not be obvious on any given day that a new family has emerged, but looking back over 435 years it should be clear-

I think we really do not even have to do that. If evolution is happening all the time then there should be species 'in the middle' at any given point in time - such as right now. There are no such species between families right now. Therefore this is a strong disproof of evolution. The excuses of evolutionists for not finding this in the millions of living species just does not wash.

[Ahban]

my family definition: A family is a group of related species, morphologically similiar, who share a set of physical characteristics, which are not posessed in total by any other group.

For the felines for example, they would be placental carnivore mammals that have retractable claws. If I cared to I could find a few more defining traits of the cat family.

[Ahban]

I see Creationism as a major subset of ID. Even Theistic Evolution can be considered ID. Creationism I define as that subset if ID that maintains that the Designer intervened at least once in creation after the initial creation event.

Thank you for your input.