Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1215 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 81 of 104 (335307)
07-25-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
07-24-2006 11:01 PM


Re: here we go ...
I had prepared the following response, but have since noticed that this appears consistent with creationist positions elsewhere on the site so I hope it is not too repetetive. I suppose that happens commonly on forums like this, but I will continue to read to become more familiar with what is being said elsewhere.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their warm welcome including Faith and yourself (Razd). I hope to try to respond in a timely manner to these posts, but it will obviously not always be possible. Thanks for the tips on using the forum as well.
While I had considered a point by point response, I decided this would be long and fruitless (although I will make a few exceptions) because the majority of your counter discussion is simply the result of us not having a common understanding of each other’s positions and definitions. If we can’t even agree on what is Evolution and what is Creation, all of the debate in this forum won’t get us anywhere.
The first sentence in your response is much more appropriately applied to your position, not mine, so I’ll repeat it here with appropriate modification. “Of course [this is evidence for evolution], because you can define “evolution” any way you want to and make it fit.” It is intellectually dishonest to define Evolution as change over time. Who could possibly disagree with that? Your second definition from the dictionary (a.) is better, but you notice it also does not mention mutations as a mechanism (simply natural selection) which you scolded me for not mentioning.
Now, I realize there is a very broad range of beliefs across the entire spectrum on both sides. However, here is the definition of Evolution and Creation which in my experience are the most commonly accepted:
Evolution: ALL life has descended over millions of years by purely naturalistic means from a common ancestor which itself came from non-life. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The mechanism commonly proposed for evolution is mutations coupled with natural selection. In order for this concept to be valid it must account for the formation of new and different genetic information over time.
Creation - God created the universe and all life approximately 6000 years ago according to the historical account from the bible which includes the occurrence of a worldwide flood. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The original created kinds of organisms were genetically information rich allowing them to adapt successfully to diverse and changing environments through natural selection/mutation. This process entails the shuffling and loss of genetic information within their kind (to the point where many organisms can no longer successfully adapt to their environments and have become extinct).
Note that the initial axioms or presupposition are un-provable largely because they pertain to historical, not operational, science and no one was there to witness the actual events. However, Christians believe they do have an eyewitness account in the bible which provides a more logical foundation for their presupposition.
Whether you agree with those definitions or not, you can see that within their context, the finch article fits much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one, primarily since it demonstrates that change does not require millions of years to take place. It is not evidence for evolution since the change has not added additional genetic information that wasn’t already present but is required for true evolution to occur.
No one, particularly any informed creationist, is arguing that natural select and mutation do not occur. In fact, you notice that it is a foundational mechanism of both positions. However, there has NEVER been any observed change in the direction of adding new information that evolution requires. It is mere speculation and hopeful thinking that changes within species has been extended to account for the formation of entirely different type of organisms.
And make no mistake. This article, while it talks deceptively about “micro-evolution” is being touted as proof of the “real” thing to the uniformed - the evolution that changes a dinosaur into a bird (or the other way around, depending on what article you read).
That is why it is dishonest to call this type of change “micro-evolution” because it is only evolution in the general sense that we have begun to use the term such as in the statement “automobiles have evolved over time”. No one will argue that if I wait long enough my VW bug will change into a BMW. I say this merely for humor so don’t fixate on this statement if you decide to respond.
Now, I do need to respond directly to just a few of your assertions for completeness, but I will not expound upon them since this post is already getting long.
You say:
And that [finches turn into alligators] is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is.
No? Than it is not me that misunderstands what evolution is. I used a facetious example, but that is exactly the claim of evolution - that a single celled organism in some primordial soup eventually turned into a professor, creating all of life as we know it along the way.
You disagree that the foundations of modern science did not come from creationists? A large number of some of our most venerated scientists (including recent ones) that laid the foundations of most if not all of our major scientific disciplines found no conflict between science and creationism. Your assertion that geo-centrism or flat earth notions were perpetuated by Christians is false. These concepts are found no where in the bible. However, scientific thinking has always changed over time as more evidence is discovered or postulated. It is obviously how we interpret this evidence that accounts for our differences.
Lastly, you say the following:
Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.
Please! I am not trying to prove creationism, simply by this single post. The evidence in my opinion is simply overwhelming for creationist theory. Contrarily, evolutionists are experts at ignoring the evidence (i.e. it only takes 10 or 20 samples to find the one that will conform to the correct pre-conceived time when attempting to date them). Whatever happened to the concept that science was the search for truth? I am not aware of a single piece of evidence that “disproves” creationism. On the other hand, I challenge you to come up with any examples of observed changes in nature which increase informational (genetic) content. They should abound if evolution is true. Transitional forms in the fossil record should also abound, but evolutionists are hard pressed to come up with even a few controversial examples. And what about soft tissue which is now being found in a large number of fossils? It is simply impossible that they could be millions of years old. How about that for ignoring the evidence? Those are just a few of literally thousands of examples.
By the way, as we understand more about genetic theory, evolutionists are beginning to abandon the concept of natural selection/mutation as the mechanism for evolution so you may soon find yourself with a completely bankrupt hypothesis (I dare not call it a theory, since the evidence does not support it).
I hope I have addressed the bulk of your objections. These posts are supposed to be fun, so perhaps I’ve taken the liberty to be a little more “forward” than I might otherwise. However, I have attempted to be as accurate as possible. It is not my intention to offend (and I have taken no offense). We should all be searching for the truth, not just for a good argument (although I expect some are in it just for the argument).
Respectfully . mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2006 9:06 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 12:05 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1215 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 83 of 104 (335349)
07-26-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coragyps
07-25-2006 9:06 PM


Re: here we go ...
Thank you for your response. Man! I'm finding it almost impossible not to veer off somewhere. I think it is just human nature. I dispute your "sickle-cell" example as adding informational content. Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best. Rarely, a loss or re-shuffling of genetic content has some side benefit like the loss of wings being beneficial to beetles on a windy island preventing them from being blown out to sea. Your example is this type of change. I'll be more specific in a subsequent post since I really need to get to bed!
Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that my creation
"axiom" has been disproved by a couple of dozen or more separate lines of investigation from biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics. No flood. 45,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu and the Cariaco Basin. 700,000 layers in the ice in Antarctica.
This is blatantly false. On the contrary, the creation axiom has been overwhelmingly supported by ALL of these fields, particularly genetics, archeology, geology and physics. 700,000 layers don't correspond to years but to snowfalls. How else can you account for the fact that an abondoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice? I don't remember the exact details, but again, I need to hit the sack. I'll expound further, perhaps in another forum. Se ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2006 9:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 2:55 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2006 7:50 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 86 by capeo, posted 07-26-2006 3:24 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 88 by Belfry, posted 07-26-2006 4:16 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2006 4:41 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1215 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 94 of 104 (336331)
07-29-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
07-27-2006 9:54 PM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
I have responded here: My Response as suggested by AdminNWR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:39 PM MurkyWaters has replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1215 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 96 of 104 (336359)
07-29-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
07-29-2006 1:39 PM


Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
No, it is not resolved. Seems to me that 2 seperate issues are preventing it's resolution.
1) Your contention that change in species over time == evolution. Rather than debate that here, we can finish that discussion in the "great debate".
2) Change in genetic information over time. I agree that this has not been clarified sufficiently by me to provide a cogent argument. This has probably been debated in this forum elsewhere, so I'll come up to speed as to what's been said already by the time we get to this in the "great debate".
LOL, this "great debate" thing is cool. It sounds like we're getting ourselves into something very "special".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2006 7:30 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2007 1:51 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024