Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution For Whatever, etc...
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 37 (81882)
01-31-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
01-31-2004 7:56 PM


I would think a lion and a tiger are the same kind, but a snake and a tiger are two different kinds of creatures, a zebra and a donkey are the same kind, but a donkey and salamander are two different kinds of creatures, the whale and the fish are two different kinds of creatures, the fish and birds are two different kinds of creatures, etc...
Those may be examples but they hardly explain what it is that makes you think that they're different kinds. How do you come to know that lions and tigers are the same kind, but fish and birds are different? (Haven't you heard of flying fish?)
That's basically what I'm asking, and what you haven't really answered: what's a kind? How do you know if two animals are in the same kind or different kinds?
Not sure this helps, but no new kinds of creatures are being formed
I don't see how you can know that if you don't even know what a kind is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 01-31-2004 7:56 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 01-31-2004 9:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 17 of 37 (81890)
01-31-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
01-31-2004 8:46 PM


In a sense I too agree with the principle of a common ancestor, but only within kind, but agree at times it seems hard to define kind, yet seems easier than trying to define different species as a new kind of creature, however, all other similarities between kinds, too me, are due to a common designer, reposting this link, supporting different species within kind, etc...
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My! | Answers in Genesis
P.S. I feel that too much differences between obvious different kinds of creatures, for them all to have the same common ancestor, so I'm just going to agree to disagree, that we all came from a common ancestor, but agree that there are many different species within kind, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 9:57 PM johnfolton has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 37 (81894)
01-31-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
01-31-2004 9:39 PM


but agree at times it seems hard to define kind
Hard? If you were able to do it, you'd be the first that I'm aware of. If you can find a useful definition, or make one up, I'll literally PayPal you $5. Seriously! If you can provide a functional definition of "kind" - one that allows me to determine if two arbitrary animals are in the same kind - then five US dollars are yours. And unlike Kent Hovind and his little bet I actually have the money.
I feel that too much differences between obvious different kinds of creatures
I don't feel that there's anything obvious about kinds, because I don't know what they are. As far as I know, there's only one kind, and we're all species within that kind: life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 01-31-2004 9:39 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 12:13 AM crashfrog has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 19 of 37 (81914)
02-01-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
01-31-2004 9:57 PM


crashfrog, It sure does make one think, this is how at this point in time how I would define kind, making reclassification possible, as more information of the creatures genonomes becomes available.
Defining Kind
Defining different kinds of creatures are expressed through visual design information and by the creatures genetic blueprint expressed within its chromosome bundles, if both visual and genetic information are similar, it suggests common ancestry, if not, an uncommon ancestry, as more genetic information becomes available, it will define common & uncommon ancestry.
P.S. When God created man, molded our face, to be in his image, gave us special abilities, to beable to subdue the earth, which is visual designed information, that shows were a different kind of creature, from all the other creatures, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 9:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2004 1:11 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 1:22 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 02-01-2004 9:32 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 37 (81920)
02-01-2004 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 12:13 AM


deleted
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-01-2004]

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 12:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 37 (81921)
02-01-2004 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 12:13 AM


Defining different kinds of creatures are expressed through visual design information and by the creatures genetic blueprint expressed within its chromosome bundles
Hrm, nice attempt, but the definition is non-functional. For instance what is "visual design information", and how is it classified and measured?
Your definition is also self-contradictory. Visual design criteria and genetic evidence don't always agree, so which is to be taken as more important? Canis lupis and Thylacinus cynocephalus are strikingly similar visually but vastly different genetically. Are they in the same kind, or not?
The problem for this definition ultimately is that the genetic evidence for almost all organisms points to common descent. By your own definition all living things are in the same "kind", so you've essentially proven evolution, not creation, with this definition.
No $5 for you, I'm afraid. Your definition is nonfunctional and contradictory.
When God created man, molded our face, to be in his image, gave us special abilities, to beable to subdue the earth
What about my face allows me to subdue the Earth? And what about the human face is unique, exactly? Have you ever seen young chimpanzees or ourangutans at the zoo? Very human-looking indeed.
There's just not that much difference in between organisms. That's why it's so easy to construct evolutionary trees, and so hard to find these supposed barriers that creationists "just know" are there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 12:13 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 9:36 AM crashfrog has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 37 (81940)
02-01-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by johnfolton
01-31-2004 8:43 PM


The flood waters could of piled up the trees, like snow drifts as the waters washed over the Rocky Mountains.
1. It's impossible for there to be enough trees to pile up. The Earth isn't big enough to support that much vegetation.
2. You've forgotten that by your theory the Rocky Mountains didn't exist until after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 01-31-2004 8:43 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 23 of 37 (81941)
02-01-2004 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 12:13 AM


Defining different kinds of creatures are expressed through visual design information and by the creatures genetic blueprint expressed within its chromosome bundles, if both visual and genetic information are similar, it suggests common ancestry, if not, an uncommon ancestry, as more genetic information becomes available, it will define common & uncommon ancestry.
Therefore, Man and apes and monkeys are the same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 12:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 37 (81942)
02-01-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 1:22 AM


crashfrog, Canis lupis and Thylacinus cynocephalus are not the same kind of creature by my definition, there genetic information suggests a different ancestorial root(a different kind), though like the platapus it suggest a common designer. The dolphin, the Ichtyhosaur, the shark also have similar design but different genetic information suggesting different ancestrial root, but a common designer.
jonF The apes are too bent over, different rib cage, too long of arms, curved hands for climbing, they were designed differently, there facial features are different, too. If you look in the mirror they are a different kind of creature, visual design differences, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 1:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 9:46 AM johnfolton has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 37 (81944)
02-01-2004 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 9:36 AM


Canis lupis and Thylacinus cynocephalus are not the same kind of creature by my definition
Ok, so then the genetic evidence trumps the visual evidence. So what about humans and chimpanzees? Vaguely similar visual forms, very similar genetics. Same kind, right?
The dolphin, the Ichtyhosaur, the shark also have similar design but different genetic information suggesting different ancestrial root, but a common designer.
I don't think similar forms is an argument for the same designer. I mean, Dean Kamen is the designer both of the kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter. Do they seem similar to you?
On the other hand, most helicopters look more or less the same; yet many of them are designed by very different designers. Apparently similarity of design is not a good predictor of a shared designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 9:36 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 10:06 AM crashfrog has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 26 of 37 (81946)
02-01-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 9:46 AM


crashfrog, I feel chimps show a common designer, but not a common ancestrial root, when they map the chimp genonome, they will likely find intelligent designed information differences, genes not shared by any other creature, to explain our facial features, intelligence, our upright bearing, and defining what makes us a different kind of creature, new genes are not being created, so different genes will eventually define the different kinds of creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 9:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 28 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2004 10:31 AM johnfolton has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 37 (81948)
02-01-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 10:06 AM


I feel chimps show a common designer, but not a common ancestrial root, when they map the chimp genonome, they will likely find intelligent designed information differences
Well, one of the differences they found was that one of our chromosomes appears to be a fusion of two chromosomes apes possess. Is that a difference you feel is "intelligently designed"? Because it seems rather random and evolved to me, and evidence that we share a common ancestor.
Now, the question is, are you still using your definition? Because it doesn't sound like you are. If you're concluding that dolphins and whales are from the same kind because they're within some kind of genetic similarity threshhold, then you have to conclude that humans and apes are, because we're within the same threshhold (I think. Not sure.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 10:06 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 28 of 37 (81952)
02-01-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 10:06 AM


Whoa there, Whatever!!
Do you realise what you've just said in your post? If humans and chimps indicate a common designer because of their similarities, what do very different organisms suggest? Surely you're not suggesting that there is more than one Creator? That is the logical corollary to your theory. One Creator made whales, another made rats, yet another made limpets. On this basis, how many Creators do you think there were? If you can accept evolution from the date of the Flood to account for all the differences "within kind" that we see, why can't you accept that evolution over a much greater length of time would result in even bigger differences. If you accept that there are species within "kinds" such as the horse and the donkey, then you are suggesting that these two different species arose from a single common ancestor of the "horse kind". So already you're accepting that speciation can occur within a very short space of time since the Flood. I don't see how you can say this, yet still maintain that a much longer time isn't long enough!!
Can I suggest that you sit down offline and compose your theory, then read it through to look for inconsistencies like this. Your theories would hold together much more if you didn't contradict yourself all the time.
Many of the problems that you're having in comprehending what everyone is trying to say are because you don't actually understand either the subject you are discussing or the objections that others are raising. The bottom line is that your grasp of the subjects is shaky. I would suggest that you maybe take some time to look into the background of DNA, how it works, what it does and doesn't do. Then hunt down some good evolution information so that you know exactly what it is you're trying to argue against. Go to evolution sites, not Creation sites as you will find out what evolutionists believe, not what others say evolutionists believe. There's no point in arguing against a position that you think evolutionists take when it turns out that they never believed that in the first place, for the very reasons that you have pointed out - you just end up reinventing the wheel again and again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 10:06 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 11:05 AM Trixie has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 37 (81958)
02-01-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Trixie
02-01-2004 10:31 AM


Re: Whoa there, Whatever!!
Trixie/crashfrog, I feel that in time they will map the chimp genonome, whatever, I take the bible to mean that our kind came into being with Adam, I believe in only one God, that the Word of God is God, so by Jesus Christ all things came into being, if he rearranged the chimps genetic blueprint to create man, the rearrangement would be the point in time man came into being, a new kind of creature, leaning when the chimps genonome is mapped, you will find different genes to define their a different kinds of creature, as they map all the different creatures genonomes, they should have more needed information to define kind, etc...
P.S. Its like they can tell by your genes if your a Jew, or an Arab, etc...even though you have the same genes, if they determine this, they should in time beable to determine the different kinds of creatures by the genes, chromosome bundles, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2004 10:31 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2004 4:08 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 30 of 37 (81998)
02-01-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by johnfolton
02-01-2004 11:05 AM


Re: Whoa there, Whatever!!
Whatever, they've already done a four-fold sequence of the chimp genome, they announced it on Dec 10th 2003. Analysis from comparisons with human genes is expected March/April 2004.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say
they should in time be able to determine the different kinds of creatures by the genes, chromosome bundles, etc...
. Surely we don't need genome sequencing to tell us that a whale and a bat are different species? As for using this sort of data to tell the difference between very closely related organisms, it began quite some time ago and is a standard technique used on a daily basis in all sorts of areas. The technique used is PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and little "starter" bits of DNA (primers) which will only recognise a chosen target are used to amplify the piece of DNA in question. So, for example, if I want to know if my fungus on my potato is a Colletotrichum coccodes or another species of Colletotrichum, I use primers which will only recognise Colletotrichum coccodes and not the others. If I get an amplified fragment of DNA and its the predicted size then I know my fungus is Colletotrichum coccodes, if I don't get the product, I know it isn't.
This sort of technique is only possible because of the amount of gene sequencing that's been done over the last decade or so since PCR was developed. From this it's possible to pick a gene and compare the sequence of it to the sequence of the same gene in other species. What's interesting is that you can align these sequences so that the second sequence has only one difference from the starting sequence, the third has two differences from the starting sequence (the original difference and another one), the fourth has three differences (the first two and another one) and so on. From that you can see a gradual progression and accumulation of changes in the DNA sequence for a particular gene and you can also see what order it happened in. Funnily enough, the order that appears is the same as the proposed evolutionary route.
Back to the chimps. Now, what you seem to be saying now is that evolution happened, but God made the changes in the DNA sequences, yet previously you seemed to assert that there was no way that the DNA could change enough to give rise to different species or "kinds". If God took the DNA of the chimp and changed it to make humans, then surely, by definition that would mean that one of your "kinds" arose from another of your "kinds". Doesn't that go against everything you've argued before? Surely the transition from chimp to human qualifies as macro-evolution, whether by natural selection or the Hand of God? Aren't you yet again, contradicting yourself?
Evolution itself doesn't claim that humans came from chimps, but that they shared a common ancestor, the branch of the tree split before chimps were chimps and after the split we evolved along different lines. And yet, even along those different lines, the DNA of chimp and humans has on the surface a 98.8% similarity. It remains to be seen where the similarities and differences lie, but I think we'll find that some genes have huge differences and others have very little or no difference - it'll be "lumpy".
I think you'll understand all of this better if you learn something about genetic code and how DNA actually codes. That will help you to understand how very small changes, such as a single base change (either substitution, deletion or insertion) can have such widespread consequences within an organism.
Not all changes within DNA are random, for example mobile genetic elements such as transposons or retroviruses have a preference as to what sequences they insert themselves into and how accurately they manage to remove themselves. This increases the mutation rate for certain genes, by splitting them on insertion or deleting bits if and when they excise themselves, taking a bit of the flanking DNA with them. Add to this mistakes made when DNA copies itself, physical damage to DNA which results in a mutation (UV light, chemical carcinogens, radiation) and the real biggie, sexual reproduction which alows the mixing of genes from different individuals and you can see that the opportunities for DNA change are numerous.
Most of the changes are detrimental and not conducive to life (about 50% of all human pregnancies end in the first few days because of genetic problems). A few are neutral, they neither harm nor help, but some help an organism compete much better so the one with the mutation has more chance of reproducing.
Again I urge you to find out about how DNA actually works and codes and we can take it from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 11:05 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2004 5:19 PM Trixie has replied
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 02-01-2004 5:28 PM Trixie has replied
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 02-01-2004 11:36 PM Trixie 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