Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):

quote:

---

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

---

In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Sorry, this was a pretty crappy post. It was late at night and I wasn't really reading very carefully.

​

Creationists are touting that kinds are the limit to evolution. I don't think creationists are close to coming up with a definitive answer, but they are at least trying. (The reason that the hybridization only works one way is that mutations could cause the original created kind to not be able to hybridize, despite being from the same created kind.)

---

JM:Actually, your definition is something i've seen before from creationists. They have the same escape clause for 'baramins' (created kind=bara min) as you have for hybrids. It's hilarious because it includes the possibility of exactly what they claim as impossible (eg bacteria to man)!cheersjoe meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Joe,
In all respect, I do not use the word (baramin) or any term in science for that matter, merely for a lexical escape given your grammer, but I use it to extend the written expression of evolution thinking, into a textual space that evolutionists so far a wont to go but with use may find that, (text) says something in any biology afterall. This is because cladistics and phenetics with community of phylogeneticists have made some points between biometricians and mendelists impossible to express grammetological in any other differANCE for the genetic difference not any different no matter the C/E.

​

But that you would class my posts less classy as Derridian would be a mistake even though the New Zelanders may so associate the same English for a time, till a Journal of Panbiogeography be formed and USA work therethrough be accounted in or out the generalized track.

​

As far as I am aware, and this comes from a constraint, from HM MOrris, it, is only necessary for good science to clearly keep the biology and the math seperate. Croizat did a good job of combining things while Wright can be used as seperationist if one is needed in the human realm ABOVE the Cebu level.

​

Good luck with the difference of projective geometry and affine transforms.

---

BRAD McFall is a bot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think hes a crazy bot with intentions of world domination. i have not understood any of his posts. im not sure if anyone has.

​

---

JM: Like I said, if you think you start to understand him, check yourself into a hospital immediately.CheersJoe MEert

quote:

---

Personally, I think creationists will rue the day they coined the term "baramin", because they will be required to give their criteria to apply to organisms in order to place them in baramins. Their "science" is going to be shown to be blinkered & biased. How can you use genetically derived phylogenies, but then throw that same evidence away when it clearly & repeatedly shows common descent BEYOND family level?

---

JM: Well, actually if you go to the first post on this page you will see their wriggle room. Nevertheless, I agree completely. Creationists thrive on vagaries because specificity will cause them problems. In geology, no creationist is willing to tell us what strata marks the onset and end of the flood yet. Baramins will no doubt contain the same wriggle room.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'll be honest and agree that we leave some wriggle room. I'm actually a genomics researcher (but still a physicist at heart) and so I know a bit about the nature of comparative genomics. The best way for anyone (creationist or evoltuionist) to work out what has occured will be by comparing the complete genomes of many organisms. Just reconstructing phylogenies from limited protein/DNA data will always be a poor substitute. We don't have enough eukaryotes yet.

---

JM: Thanks for being honest, your bias shines through in the next statement.

quote:

---

However it is already clear that there is a core subset of all genomes which is either evidence for macroevoltuion or a common creator.

---

JM: This is a false dichotomy. It could be that neither of these are correct. This bias is quite common in creationist literature. Basically, the assumption is that if evolution is wrong, then a common creator is the default answer. It's a great emotional argument, but it is a very poor scientific argument.

quote:

---

As we go from genome to genome we then see entire extra sub-systems (eg the immune system) and also extension of existing repetoirs. Evoluitoists get so excited when they see that the ribosome of a cow is so similar to that of man or that the Hox genes of an insect are a simpler version of our Hox genes. Of course this is also evidence of a common creator and what the evolutionists especially forget to tell people is that in addition to these expansions of repetoirs is the entirely new sub-systems and organs - often involving proteins that bear no sequence similarity to other proteins in the genome.

---

JM: Again, this is a false dichotomy since similar structures and similarties do not mean a common creator. Do the spring-wound watch and the quartz watch have a common creator (singular)? You might say 'the common creator was man', but in this case it is not singular. Indeed, another option is that each of these life forms were created by different intelligent sources over time. One creator says "Hey that looks good", uses it, and adds something else. It flies off and a new intelligent being arrives, kills all the things he/she/it does not like and uses some of the old in creating the new.

quote:

---

It is here that a miracle has truly occurred for either evolutionists or creationists. There is no systematic mechanism for generating such new genes (let alone integrating them to do something useful) in the entire life sciences.

---

JM: There is no way man can fly! The moon is unreachable. The computer has reached its limit in terms of speed and power. If a man sails to far, he will fall off the edge of the earth. Your argument is one of personal incredulity. Science does not have an answer for many things, but a non-answer does not equate to a miraculous explanation!

quote:

---

The only ypothetical mechanism is duplication, drift and natural selection. It's not impossible but it has not been systematically shown that this could generate new genes in the time available. I have no probelm with this but don't try and tell us it is anything but evoltuonary expectation.

---

JM: See above. There are many unsolved mysteries of science. Lack of an answer does not mean that a miracle has occurred.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, as a genomics researcher, I can tell you that there will still be some difficult in retracing biological prehistory.

---

JM: No kidding! It will be very difficult due to the nature of the fossil record. I agree 100%.

quote:

---

It will be difficult to work out which systems were added/evolved vs which are due to loss. In some cases it will be easy to see that funcitons have been lost (rather than gained in the other) due the existnece of psuedo genes but in other s it will be difficult to decide. In any case it will certainly be possible to decide whether there are basic 'kinds' in most cases. The genomic data (we have almost 100 organisms I think) are consistent with the creationist kind conept at present.

---

JM: Well, we can use the fossil record in terms of morphologic new addition/evolution. Eyes are one example, but I am sure others more familiar with the biologic side of things can explain more.

quote:

---

With the man/ape issue it is becoming clear that the genomes will be very similar. But again the mainstream expectaiton is that there will be many new brain genes in man. A recent New Scientist article explains that while the liver and heart show similar protein expression levels in man and ape the brain expression patterens are very different.

---

JM: I saw that, very interesting. In my opinion, this is a good case of evolution in action. Obviously, you would disagree; however why would a common creator add this advantage to man? I have an idea of the typical creationist answer, but you seem to be approaching the subject a bit more cautiously.

quote:

---

In any case, I am trying to say that it will be comaprative genomics that will almost certainly revolutionize taxonomy for both evoltuionists and creationists.

---

JM: Given that creationists had none, anything would revolutionize their taxonomy! However, as with all science new data are always welcome.CheersJoe Meert[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]OK Joe, why is that a false dichotomy? Is there seriously an alternative to creation/macroevoltuion? I do know of the recent book by that chemist who presents a case for the independent genomic evolutiuon of each creature. I haven't read it but have read critical mainstream reviews of it. Tell me about it if you know how he can possibly get hemoglobin for man and cows to be independently similar. Does he propose horizontal transfer? If he's arguing physi-chemical determinism he is wrong. I work in protein design and artificial evoltuion (of all things ) and I can tell you that there would be millions of differnet seqeunces that could do what hemoglobin does (and hundreds of protein folds). Any other alternatives? Seeding?I'm quite happy for you to believe that gene duplication/drift/natural selection can lead to proteins with new protein folds in the time available. Didn't I say that already? Please don't tell me stories of moon trips and such. What I said was that it is no more than evolutionary expectation. The public has the impression you guys know how it all happened - they really do. You don't have any evidence for the actual macroevoltuionary steps. That's my point. [/QUOTE]JM: My point is simple. You take a lack of knowledge as an immediate need for an intelligent creator. You further assert that this creator is a singular being. There are many scenarios beside the single creator! Therefore, you have created a false dichotomy by saying it is either/or. It most certainly is not. I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend that a single intelligent creator is part of a larger subset of alternatives to evolution.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Come on Joe - do you really think I'm that silly? Of course I acknowledge that there may be other possibilities but given the ones that we have, I, as a sceintist, find macroevoltuion and creation to be the most plausible. You haven't even suggested any others!

​

I know that you think that the possibility of God is silly, sentimental and non-scientific but I, as a fellow human being, and a scientist, do not have a problem logically with the idea of a creator. I agree with the the book of Romans (1:20) that the creator is strongly suggested by the creation no matter how sophisticated we think we are. You obviously disagree, that's fine.

---

JM: No, I don't think that the possibility of God is silly. Please show me where I have made such a claim. I have said that there are many other possibilities which you have not explored. While it is satisfying to rely on the bible for evidence, you must first show, that the bible is a scientific text. It is not. Your creator could have created via macroevolution. That is also an alternative possibility that many find plausible and supported by BOTH science and their Faith. In fact, that is also different from your either/or proposition.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Fair enough.

​

I agree theistic evoltuion is a possoble scenario. But that viewpoint of scipture suffers from the problem of not knowing where to stop allegorizing. It trivialises Solomon's writings where Father and Son are described as craftsmen together (Prov 8), some of Jesus' references to Genesis and certainly the writer of Hebrew's references to Noah's role in 'condeming the earth'.

​

It's a liberal possibility but I find it implausible that God either directed or watched evolution and still got man in his image. I put it in the same boat as macroevolution and am aware that mny Christians subscibe to this point of view. You still haven't provided any mechanistially different alternatives.

---

JM: Sure I have. You say that God created each organism in a special way. I am sure you would argue that evolution says it happened by the mechanisms cited above. Theistic evolution says God created those mechanisms and allowed them to act. Look, we can go back and forth on the semantics, but your either/or assertion is false. As for your biblical arguments, they are just that. You are trying to turn the bible into a scientific treatise. In doing so, you necessarily limit God to your interpretation of the bible. I've said this often in the past that you worship the bible as God rather than the God of the bible when you limit his power through your interpretation of the Bible.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Isn't a matter of extents? If the Bible talks about a global flood is it silly to go look for that evidence if that same book tells us about salvation?

---

JM: Well, let's use your logic. What does the book tell us about Virgins in Numbers?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You tell me. (I feel an OT/NT law/grace discussion coming on).

​

---

JM: You'll get no further discussion. My point has been made. You will no doubt interpret those verses as the commands of a loving god, but that's the key point!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.

​

To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud' and the bats as fowl is fine if fowl are defined as 'flying animals'. Not everyone is only interested in classifications that distinguish whether the animal has a placenta or not!

---

JM: What translation 'issues'? You mean that the English bible may misrepresent the actual text? GASP!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'. [/QUOTE]JM: I thought you were a "phded' scientist (biology part of your emphasis no doubt) and you can't distinguish between 'cud' and 'feces'CheersJoe Meert

Thanks for the info MP!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What you're saying is very compelling but it's not absolute proof that the term wasnt use to indicate that, either way, these animals redigested their food! Your 'meaning of the words' comes from usage of course - or do you have an ancient Hebrew dictionary written back then? Common usage dictates meaning and now it may be actual cud regurgitation, at an earlier point it may have been more incusive regardless of the sub-meanings of parts of the word.

​

Words become definitions that are only as useful as their common usage.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

---

JM: Fine, the same could be said about the words in Genesis 1 and 2. The same could be said about the words used in the Noachian flood story. I think you should have held back before posting this one . Or are you gonna give the 'it's only true for some parts of the bible' defense?CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]