Whatever-of-the-gaps?

[apothanein kerdos]

In the absence of selection, you have no force for change.

Correct, but there is nothing to lead us to believe this selection can lead to every single change that we have seen in the fossil record. I am thinking particularly of the Cambrian Explosion.

I presume you also claim there are no transitional species in the fossil record?

Nope, all fossils are in a transitional state.

[apothanein kerdos]

Is it possible that if a major change in environment happens through many slow minor changes, a species might be able to keep up with the changes through micro evolution? How long does this have to continue for to be classified as macro evolution? Surely it would happen eventually?

Your argument is based on the false assumption that change is either slow and small, or large and fast. Why can't the change be large and slow?

That's the point - if the environment constantly changes, than species that cannot adapt will die off. It is why mammals were able to survive the massive environment change that the dinosaurs could not survive. Mammals were already adaptable to a colder environment - dinosaurs were not.

Again, I keep explaining why this change will not come slow and large - if the environment does not change, there is no need for the species to change.

Evolution doesn't happen through major changes. Changes are always minor. I see your point, but macro evolution progresses at the same rate as micro, it's just a much longer process. Hence, the same mutations that cause micro evolution, can also cause macro evolution (eventually).

And there are many qualified evolutionists (the late Gould for one) that will disagree with you on your assessment. Punctuated equilibrium, for example, is a theory that contests that evolution is slow and progressive.

Again, and I don't know how much clearer I can get on this point, the same process that cause micro evolution do not cause macro evolution. Micro evolution is a response to the environment. The environment fluctuates back and forth, meaning the species will do the same. When it gets too drastic, the species simply dies out.

That's utterly ridiculous. So you're saying that genetic mutation is always negative, and therefore, that anyone who isn't deformed mustn't have any genetic variation from their parents? Large variations are more likely to be detrimental, true, but small variations (the only kind that have ever been touted as the cause of evolution) can go either way.

For a species to shift its taxonomy (such as a reptile becoming a bird), it requires a major variation in the genetic code, which IS detrimental.

Oh, and by the way, a child's DNA from his parents wasn't "random" - a geneticist could probably have predicted which genes would have passed on.

That's what I was saying.

When the weaker member of a heard dies, the strong are left to pass on their genes. Hence, the next generation is more likley to be strong as well, and the process would repeat (this is, of course, assuming that strength is genetic, and the process would take much more than just one generation in the real world).

Wrong, the average might go up, but the inherent strength does not. We go back to the classroom -

The D students have been removed. The three A students are left. They have kids, and now we have 6 A students. The strength has not increased at all, just the average. No one is smarter than they were before, there is simply no one to bring the average down.

[Scarletprayers]

Do you try to interpret Genesis?

Being a newbie, I'm sure this has been covered, but I'll give it a try. You don't believe in evolution. I am presuming your alternative hypothesis is creation. Can you defend factually?

Part of my research is obtaining all of the known human fungal pathogens, cataloging them, stocking them, and obtaing some sequence. Kind of a pain in the butt, and that's only a 1000 or so species. Given that the estimated number of species is 10-80 million, I have no clue how creationists get past the Ark. How do you propose he got everything that ever lived onto it, from large mammals, dinosaurs, to all the different insects, and all the different species of microbes and plants as well. Then he had to keep them alive for almost a year--caring for them and storing all the food. Heck, rounding them all up and getting them to walk onto the boat seems impossible. Whats the explanation?

horizon's so much smarter than me, so I'm sure he'll have so many more points to make, but I just can't pass this one up.............................take the dinosaurs off the ark.

[MorningGlory]

horizon's so much smarter than me, so I'm sure he'll have so many more points to make, but I just can't pass this one up.............................take the dinosaurs off the ark.

I was just thinking the same thing, Silentprayer! Since they became extinct, at a point in prehistory that only God can pinpoint exactly, why assume they were a viable species in Noah's time? Why assume time dictates events in the same way for God as it does for us mere mortals?

[Ovedya]

horizon's so much smarter than me, so I'm sure he'll have so many more points to make, but I just can't pass this one up.............................take the dinosaurs off the ark.

I was just thinking the same thing, Silentprayer! Since they became extinct, at a point in prehistory that only God can pinpoint exactly, why assume they were a viable species in Noah's time? Why assume time dictates events in the same way for God as it does for us mere mortals?

You guys need to work on your reading.

Job 40:15-24 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

He moveth his tail like a cedar...

I do a little reading ( ):

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

behemoth

--The description in part agrees with the hippopotamus, in part with the elephant, but exactly in all details with neither. It is rather a poetical personification of the great Pachydermata, or Herbivora (so "he eateth grass"), the idea of the hippopotamus being predominant. In Job 40:17, "the tail like a cedar," hardly applies to the latter (so also Job 40:20,23, "Jordan," a river which elephants alone could reach, but other hand, Job 40:21,22 are characteristic of the amphibious river horse. So leviathan (the twisting animal), Job 41:1, is a generalized term for cetacea, pythons, saurians of the neighboring seas and rivers, including the crocodile, which is the most prominent, and is often associated with the river horse by old writers. "Behemoth" seems to be the Egyptian Pehemout, "water-ox," Hebraized, so-called as being like an ox, whence the Italian bombarino.

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Behemoth

signifies beasts in general, but must here be meant of some one particular species. Some understand it of the bull; others of an amphibious animal, well known (they say) in Egypt, called the river-horse (hippopotamus), living among the fish in the river Nile, but coming out to feed upon the earth. But I confess I see no reason to depart from the ancient and most generally received opinion, that it is the elephant that is here described, which is a very strong stately creature, of very large stature above any other, of wonderful sagacity, and of so great a reputation in the animal kingdom that among so many four-footed beasts as we have had the natural history of (ch. 38 and 39) we can scarcely suppose this should be omitted. Observe, I. The description here given of the behemoth. 1. His body is very strong and well built. His strength is in his loins, v. 16. His bones, compared with those of other creatures, are like bars of iron, v. 18. His back-bone is so strong that, though his tail be not large, yet he moves it like a cedar, with a commanding force, v. 17. Some understand it of the trunk of the elephant, for the word signifies any extreme part, and in that there is indeed a wonderful strength. So strong is the elephant in his back and loins, and the sinews of his thighs, that he will carry a large wooden tower, and a great number of fighting men in it. No animal whatsoever comes near the elephant for strength of body, which is the main thing insisted on in this description. 2. He feeds on the productions of the earth and does not prey upon other animals: He eats grass as an ox (v. 15), the mountains bring him forth food (v. 20), and the beasts of the field do not tremble before him nor flee from him, as from a lion, but they play about him, knowing they are in no danger from him.

[Ovedya]

No one in their right mind would argue a hippo or an elephant has a tail like a cedar tree.

Obviously you are not familiar with poetic imagery.

Take a few moments to read the ENTIRE articles linked in the source text above. There's a lot more in the Matthew Henry commentary that I did not paste here, for the sake of room.

[Ovedya]

Obviously you are not familiar with poetic imagery.

Can I invoke that explanation whenever I need to, or are only you allowed to use it?

I see that this is not going to be a battle of wits here. Do you have anything to offer with regard to the sources that I cited above, or you only interested in creating issues that are not pertinent or the least bit important?

[Ovedya]

Creationism argues they must be on the ark.

No. Some creationists argue they must have been on the ark.

You say they are extinct, but have absolutely zero evidence of any such fact...

I say....what? When did I say dinosaurs are extinct? Besides, do you believe that they are not extinct?

...yet the bible contains multiple references to animals that could indeed be a dinosaur.

Could be, but are? Could be but could be, depending on which school of thought you belong to with regard to creationism?

Lets set aside the argument that if dinosaurs became rapidly extinct in a catastrophic event as is often hypothesized, man would have gone with them, you now must claim that what the bible is saying is actually that there are no dinosaurs without any evidence at all except "poetic imagery". You can use it, but I cant?

This makes no sense to me. It appears that you are attempting to construct a straw man argument here (Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html ). Your statement above with regard to Job 40 indicated your assertion that dinosaurs existed post-flood, yes? My answer to you pointed out that the word usage and the poetic imagery involved in the verses points to an existing land mammal - an animal that was known to have existed during the writing of that book. Did you also know that Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It is claimed to have been written before the flood. So even if Job was writing about a dinosaur, there can be no claim that such an animal existed after the flood.

But in fact, it is most likely that Job was writing about either a hippopotamus or an elephant. I really care very little for what other creationists argue with regard to their being dinosaurs. There are some people out there that still believe the earth is flat. They may be Christians also. Yet that does not mean that I have to believe the earth is flat also.

Unfortunately, theres a bigger problem. You don't find dinosaur fossils and human fossils together (the reports of a footprint here and there have been very well discredited), which again supports evolution. But thats a different thread.

There's a problem when you use such definitive terminology, friend. There's an old adage in the scientific community. That is, "Never say always and never say never." There are exceptions to every rule, and not every situation is identical. So just because they have not found any human and dinosaur footprints together yet does not mean there is no possibility of some out there yet undiscovered.

[MorningGlory]

Obviously you are not familiar with poetic imagery.

Can I invoke that explanation whenever I need to, or are only you allowed to use it?

I see that this is not going to be a battle of wits here. Do you have anything to offer with regard to the sources that I cited above, or you only interested in creating issues that are not pertinent or the least bit important?

Yes. My hands would get tired from copying and pasting arguments in favor of dinosaurs being reported post-Noah (i.,e http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml).

Creationism argues they must be on the ark. You say they are extinct, but have absolutely zero evidence of any such fact, yet the bible contains multiple references to animals that could indeed be a dinosaur. Lets set aside the argument that if dinosaurs became rapidly extinct in a catastrophic event as is often hypothesized, man would have gone with them, you now must claim that what the bible is saying is actually that there are no dinosaurs without any evidence at all except "poetic imagery". You can use it, but I cant?

Unfortunately, theres a bigger problem. You don't find dinosaur fossils and human fossils together (the reports of a footprint here and there have been very well discredited), which again supports evolution. But thats a different thread.

Obviously, man wasn't created until millions of years after dinosaurs became extinct. And, yes, the fossil record would support that statement. So what's the problem???

[MorningGlory]

Well I have only been here a short time, yet I've had my faith challenged because I believe in evolution. So that I can narrow it down, which school are you from? Are dinosaur's here? Did they get on the ark? Could the ark hold two of every specis that is alive now?

I was under the impression you are a nonbeliever. What faith of yours is being challenged here?