The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

How do you see a difference between those two statements? 

"reproduce according to kind" and "made according to kind." 

Phylogenesis is not reproduction.    God says that the Earth brought forth animals; he doesn't say that they reproduce according to kind.  

The creation of species is not reproduction whether it was poofed magically, or brought forth by the earth as God says.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I believe any fair search of the original terms will agree God made everything to reproduce it's own kind.

The fact that it doesn't say so, is a big problem for that belief.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

With all due respect, I don't give any credence to Darwin's theory of species to species evolution.

Well let's take a look.   His theory.

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.

2. Every individual is somewhat different than its parents.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

4. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and to preserve the useful ones, and over time, new species appear thereby.

1. has been repeatedly demonstrated

2. has been repeatedly demonstrated and genetics has shown us why

3. Even creationists now admit the fact of natural selection.

4. The change in allele frequencies is noted in all populations over time, and speciation is now admitted by many creationists, since it is directly observed.

Pretty much settled.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

The only reason anyone still looks at Darwin as a source of  data is he fits into their  narrative

Well, scientists are pretty one-way about evidence.   You have it, you get credibility.   You don't...

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I'm not embarrased about anything Darwin said because I don't take the man seriously.

Creationists are embarrassed at their failure to explain the fact of Darwin's predicted intermediate species and transitional fossils.   Even more embarrassing for them is the lack of any transitionals where there shouldn't be any.   No whales with gills, no mammals with feathers.   It all fits precisely as predicted.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I would agree that the word species has been raped seriously.

Which is one of the primary reasons we know creationism is false.  If it were true, it would be easy to define "species."   But it's really impossible to give a precise definition that covers everything.

As Darwin predicted.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Where does it support species to a different species? 

As you have seen, even many creationists now admit the observed fact of speciation.   But here...

After four generations, the island experienced a severe drought, which killed many of the finches. The two surviving descendents of the immigrant finch mated with each other, and this appears to have set the stage for speciation. In December of 2009, the Grants announced that, since the drought, the new lineage has been isolated from the local finches: the children and grandchildren of the survivors have only produced offspring with one another.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/

 

 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Phylogenesis is not reproduction.    God says that the Earth brought forth animals; he doesn't say that they reproduce according to kind.  

Not attempting to be facetious, but pigs always birth small piglets.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The creation of species is not reproduction whether it was poofed magically, or brought forth by the earth as God says.

Yes but to perpetuate a species we need baby animals..again not being facetious, but it's a fact.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The fact that it doesn't say so, is a big problem for that belief.

It does say so. God made everything after kind and everything reproduces after kind.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Well let's take a look.   His theory.

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.

2. Every individual is somewhat different than its parents.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

4. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and to preserve the useful ones, and over time, new species appear thereby.

1. has been repeatedly demonstrated

2. has been repeatedly demonstrated and genetics has shown us why

3. Even creationists now admit the fact of natural selection.

4. The change in allele frequencies is noted in all populations over time, and speciation is now admitted by many creationists, since it is directly observed.

Pretty much settled.

1. true

2.True

3.Possibly, all depends. Birth defects will be a problem.Everything else is just a variation.

4. Total quackery. I see what you did there, how many creationists is "many" like four ? Here we go with the "over time" thing again. What's it going to be this time 3 million years? Spin the wheel 

We are far from settled here bro.

[Starise]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, scientists are pretty one-way about evidence.   You have it, you get credibility.   You don't...

One-way. Yes. Like grave rut mentality to the inth.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Creationists are embarrassed at their failure to explain the fact of Darwin's predicted intermediate species and transitional fossils.   Even more embarrassing for them is the lack of any transitionals where there shouldn't be any.   No whales with gills, no mammals with feathers.   It all fits precisely as predicted.

No need to explain anything. We look at all of it same as anyone else and come to different conclusions.No embarrassment here. Transitionals? If there were true intermediate animals we could talk.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is one of the primary reasons we know creationism is false.  If it were true, it would be easy to define "species."   But it's really impossible to give a precise definition that covers everything.

I'm going to be point blank. How did you get here? Yeah there was your mom and pop, but they were humans and the bible tells us God directly created humans as a stand alone creation.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

As you have seen, even many creationists now admit the observed fact of speciation.   But here...

After four generations, the island experienced a severe drought, which killed many of the finches. The two surviving descendents of the immigrant finch mated with each other, and this appears to have set the stage for speciation. In December of 2009, the Grants announced that, since the drought, the new lineage has been isolated from the local finches: the children and grandchildren of the survivors have only produced offspring with one another.

Tower of babel, asians, caucasions, people of color etc. 

Those finches- still finches with a new genetic track due to the reduction of population. Call it anything, but it's not a new species.

 

[teddyv]

38 minutes ago, Starise said:

One-way. Yes. Like grave rut mentality to the inth.

No need to explain anything. We look at all of it same as anyone else and come to different conclusions.No embarrassment here. Transitionals? If there were true intermediate animals we could talk.

I'm going to be point blank. How did you get here? Yeah there was your mom and pop, but they were humans and the bible tells us God directly created humans as a stand alone creation.

Tower of babel, asians, caucasions, people of color etc. 

Those finches- still finches with a new genetic track due to the reduction of population. Call it anything, but it's not a new species.

 

If those finches do not interbreed or do not produce viable young, then they are separate species.

[teddyv]

51 minutes ago, Starise said:

how many creationists is "many" like four ?

Also, this is the general position of the major creationist organizations like AiG, CMI and ICR. Definitely those in the "New" Creationists (i.e. Dr. T. Wood).

AiG has attempted to assign all animals to progenitor "kinds" from which various species subsequently arose (i.e dog king, cat kind, etc.). They needed to do this in order to fit everything on the ark. The problem is that these "kinds" are effectively arbitrary decisions not really based on scientific evidence, but a convenience.

[Starise]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

If those finches do not interbreed or do not produce viable young, then they are separate species.

Would you define species as a common type or kind of animal?

[teddyv]

41 minutes ago, Starise said:

Would you define species as a common type or kind of animal?

I would use with the current biological definition of species. Must be capable to interbreed and produce viable offspring.

[The Barbarian]

Well, scientists are pretty one-way about evidence.   You have it, you get credibility.   You don't...

4 hours ago, Starise said:

One-way. Yes. Like grave rut mentality to the inth.

Yep.   No evidence, no theory.   That's the way it works.   Tough game, but nothing else man can do, is better at explaining the physical universe.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Transitionals? If there were true intermediate animals we could talk.

Let's see what an informed YE creationist says...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But let's test it ourselves.   You can name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.    Let me know what you pick.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

I'm going to be point blank. How did you get here?

I did a search for "christian forums."

Or you mean my physical body?   Should I make stork jokes here?    My soul?    Given directly by God.   You mean where I live?     I-35.   What?

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Yeah there was your mom and pop, but they were humans

That would explain why I'm a human.    I have their genes mostly, plus a few dozen mutations neither of them had.   Evolution, you know.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

and the bible tells us God directly created humans as a stand alone creation.

No, in fact our bodies came from the earth like the other animals.   The stand alone was our immortal souls.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Those finches- still finches

Just a newly-evolved species of finches.   That's how it works.    Over time, new species, genera, families, and so on.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Call it anything, but it's not a new species.

By definition, that's what it is.   

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

AiG has attempted to assign all animals to progenitor "kinds" from which various species subsequently arose (i.e dog king, cat kind, etc.). They needed to do this in order to fit everything on the ark. The problem is that these "kinds" are effectively arbitrary decisions not really based on scientific evidence, but a convenience.

And there are lots of problems with transitional fossils between "kinds."   Like therapsid reptiles and primitive mammals.  It's difficult to draw the line between them.    Like fish and tetrapods.   There, it's really almost impossible.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Not attempting to be facetious, but pigs always birth small piglets.

So is this a pig?

The fact that scripture doesn't say animals reproduce according to kind, is a big problem for that belief.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

It does say so.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.  25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So nothing about reproducing after a kind.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Possibly, all depends. Birth defects will be a problem.Everything else is just a variation.

No "possibly" about it.   Some will aid survival and some will endanger survival.   Scientists call variations "mutations."   Most don't do much, some are harmful and a few are useful.

Natural selection sorts it out.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Total quackery.

Nope.   Speciation is an observed fact.   It's just what we see going on in nature.

From the Institute for Creation Research:
Speciation may be defined as the separation of populations of animals or plants that resemble one another closely and originally able to interbreed—into independent populations with genetic differences, and sometimes not able to interbreed with other populations to which they are directly related. Put another way, speciation is when one creature becomes two or more species. However, according to a respected evolutionist, “Speciation remains one of the most controversial and least understood topics in evolution.”¹ The main problem is that the use of the term ‘species’ can be arbitrary and non-definitive.

Remember, Darwin predicted that it would be very hard to identify closely-related species because the process of evolution would produce all sorts of transitional forms.  If creationism were true, this would not be the case, and species could easily be defined.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

We are far from settled here bro.

Even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation.    They simple declare that it's "not real evolution."  (remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population)