Age of the Earth 2

[Bread_of_Life]

OH man I can hear SA drooling.

No, I don't relish ignorance or paranoia, I despair at it.

Well you'll have to give me a hand. Define speciation for me. I've heard that term often as well as macro-evolution. Both I assume meaning a noticeable physical change in a creature. Some new attribute or appendage.

No, speciation isn't about new appendages or attributes. The word species is defined by the ability to breed and produce viable young. Two animals are of the same species if they can breed and produce viable young - simple as that.

There are two ways in which speciation can proceed. The first is anagenesis, and the second cladogenesis.

Cladogenesis is when a species splits into two, usually through some kind of geographical isolation between two groups of the species. One group evolves one way, one group evolves another, until they are sufficiently different that they cannot breed and produce viable young. This is what happened with Darwin's finches, and also usually what produces ring species.

Anagenesis is the transformation of an unbranched lineage (non-split lineage) of organisms to such an extent that it is justifiably called a new species - that is, that they couldn't breed with themselves in the past, if they were so transported. In other words, if we used a timewarp to take such an organism back to breed with it's ancestors, they would no longer be able to, thus it would be a different species.

Anagenesis is impossible to observe (because it would involve taking a trip to the past with a modern organism)- but from the fossil record (and deductive logic) we can be fairly sure that it does happen. Cladogenesis on the other hand involves a comparison between two species that used to be one. This is observable, as in the case of ring species.

[Guest yod]

Why do creationists find evolution so threatening? Evolution has nothing to do with disproving God.

Though I am in agreement with a of things you said, Cerran, the word "evolution" has come to be a buzzword that causes knee-jerk reactions when it needn't.

For instance, no one should have a problem with seeing the "evolution" of horses....or even the "evolution" of man as long as you don't say it started with a monkey.

However, the term "evolution" does have a connotation of denying the Creator....or at least denying the True and Living God as the word "Evolution" is used in most cases by public schools or scientific contexts.

Still, I agree that the way "new earthers" interpret the creation account forces a contradiction to what biblical text actually says by only allowing the hebrew word "YOM" be interpreted as a 24 hour day when it could be saying something else just as easily and the physical evidence of an old earth doesn't have to be such a problem.

I think Adam may have lived only 6,000 years ago....but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth is 6,000 years and 6 days old the way I read the Bible.

Oh no....now mscovil is going to start stalking me again.

[Guest mscoville]

Oh no....now mscovil is going to start stalking me again. 

HahahaHahaHaHahaha.. You better believe it. Show one other place where yom is used to mean an age or longer length of time in Genesis that sounds as if it should mean a singe 24 hour day, yet really means an age or greater length of time, and your argument will be made. But you can't because there isn't. Yadda yadda. Still love you though Yod. Hope you don't think I'm one of those guys who really is out there stalking you. HA.

I think Adam may have lived only 6,000 years ago....but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth is 6,000 years and 6 days old the way I read the Bible.

You know dern well that people have been around a lot longer according to the old earth theory and Adam was supposed to be the "first" person.

In summary why would God make everything "old" ?

I think functionally mature is the word Creationists use. Ha.

Anagenesis is impossible to observe (because it would involve taking a trip to the past with a modern organism)- but from the fossil record (and deductive logic) we can be fairly sure that it does happen. Cladogenesis on the other hand involves a comparison between two species that used to be one. This is observable, as in the case of ring species.

Hmmm.... I have to wonder if this is at all the addition of new information, which evolution requires? I mean I'm sure you're familiar with the Creationist argument that change occurs all the time in animals but isn't necessarily the result of "new" information appearing in their genes. So Macro Evolution is what causes speciation? The animals "evolve" so to speak and can't reproduce with animals of their former species.

You'll have to introduce me also to the "ring species".

Thanks man,

Martin

[Guest mscoville]

You can just give me a link on the ring species if you want.

Thanks,

M

[Guest yod]

Show one other place where yom is used to mean an age or longer length of time in Genesis that sounds as if it should mean a singe 24 hour day, yet really means an age or greater length of time, and your argument will be made. But you can't because there isn't. Yadda yadda.

I could mention more places...but of the word "yom" in the book of Zechariah is speaking of a period longer than 24 hours many times...an age....an epoch.

QUOTE 

I think Adam may have lived only 6,000 years ago....but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth is 6,000 years and 6 days old the way I read the Bible.

You know dern well that people have been around a lot longer according to the old earth theory and Adam was supposed to be the "first" person.

Ah yes!

But those were hominids. Not much different spiritually than a bird or a dog. They walked upright on 2 legs but were not made in the image of God.

The image of God is His Spirit....not his shape. Otherwise, one could make a case that apes are also made in that image.

[Bread_of_Life]

Hmmm.... I have to wonder if this is at all the addition of new information, which evolution requires?

I would say that the addition of genuinely new information into the genome is actually quite rare - and has happened very few times in evolution's history. The vast majority of evolutionary change is explainable with a core set of information that is changed from one form to another, or copied then changed, or partially deleted.

However, mutations can and do add new information, through copying, merging and transposition, these mechanisms are perfectly well known and understood - then evolution through natural selection can change this new information into more useful forms.

But the majority of evolution is about changing information. For example, if humans got a third arm - it would most likely be through changing a control gene for the number of arms we got, not through adding the information to build an arm again. Even brand new bones don't need a huge increase in information - they just require a mutated copy of a control gene for making bone material (is a copy really new information?) You get my point - you have to be very careful with how you define "new" and "information" if you're going to make an argument about addition or subtraction of information from the genome.

So Macro Evolution is what causes speciation? The animals "evolve" so to speak and can't reproduce with animals of their former species.

Not quite - speciation, otherwise refered to as macroevolution here, is really just a lot of microevolution. In anagenesis, it's a lot of microevolution within a single lineage leading to a creature that is speciated from it's past antecendants. In cladogenesis, a species splits when two groups seperate for a time, microevolve in different directions to such an extent that, when they meet again, so much microevolution has taken place that they are now too different to mate successfully.

Now, of course, I've used above my definitions of what micro and macroevolution are - but you might have significantly different definitions, which may lead to a misunderstanding of what I've just said. What would be useful is if you define what you mean by microevolution and macroevolution - and we can work from there.

You'll have to introduce me also to the "ring species

Ring species are really and truly incredible, they're just such a great example of how small and gradual changes can lead to speciation.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

Take a look at the map of the world, about a third or so of the way down this page. Along the top of the world there is a band of different colours from light green in north america to dark green in Eastern russia. This is the circum-polar Larus Gull species ring.

Each of the colours along the way represent a different sub-species of Larus Gull. Light green in America is different from Blue in Greenland and Britain, but not so different that it cannot interbreed. They are still technically the same species, but they are sub-species, different but interbreedable.

And in turn, the blue sub-species can breed with brown, the brown with cyan, the cyan with mauve, the mauve with purple and the purple with dark green. And this is where the ring closes, because dark green and light green are right next door. Only thing is, they can't interbreed, they are now different species, although connected by an unbroken line of interbreeding subspecies. In other words, the small differences in sub-species have accumulated to the extent that eventually, they have become a different species to the original.

Chances are actually, that the gulls originated in Europe, and spread both ways, becoming slightly different as they spread to each new territory. By the time the west-going gulls met their long lost east-going cousins, they were seperated by too much different evolution to breed with each other, and their genetic streams were forever seperated.

As you can see from the page, there are several famous case studies of this same effect occuring. Californian Salamanders are very interesting indeed, but I'll let you find out about them yourself

[artsylady]

Wait a sec. If there was a global flood, shouldn't we be looking at saltwater fish adapting to fresh-water, not vice versa?

No. If the flood waters covered up to the highest mountain, and even if the added water was completely fresh (free from saline), and assuming no salinisation from volcanic or geological activity, the composite water would still have been heavily saline.

But we were looking at fresh water fish adapting to salt water, when we should be looking at salt water fish adapting to fresh water, correct?

QUOTE 

Okay, I looked up some info and found that they estimate there are between 3 and 100 million species on the planet. That's quite a huge difference isn't it? 3 and 100 million??? They really have no idea do they? And scientists have named only 1.7 million. Hmmm. It's this all kind of strange? 

I don't think it's that strange at all when dealing with the unknown, that there may be different estimates. 100 million is the highest estimate that's ever been made, most scientists think the real number is between 10 and 30 million.

But the real number known is 1.7 million. And yes, since we're dealing with the unknown, if the numbers of the UNKNOWN are that high, how do we KNOW that some of those ancient fossils won't resurface as living? It's certainly very possible. I mean, we've already seen two that were supposedly extinct millions or billions of years ago. Two out of a possible hundred thousand? Sure!!! And we don't know if new species are evolving quickly! We really know very little, correct??

Essentially, scientists take the rate of discovery in a year, and estimate the total land mass thoroughly searchs and surveyed, and the total yet to be surveyed, and try to estimate given assumptions about biodiversity how many have yet to be found. Of course, this is going to give a rough idea. However, the 1.7 million already discovered are still far too many to be explained by Noah's ark.

Your last statement depends??? We don't know how quickly new species evolve! IT's another unknown! A huge unknown! If there's only 1.7 million known and as much as 100, 000 out there, we've studied or named only ONE PERCENT!!!! What does that tell you??

QUOTE 

And they find 13,000 new ones each year? How do they know these species aren't being produced rapidly??? Sounds like they may very well be.

Produced rapidly by what, pray tell? A species producing machine in the jungles of the amazon basin?

By evolutionary changes?? Sufficient adaptational changes enough to warrant new species? Who knows? That's my point - we know so little!

Evolution doesn't work on the scale of a year - it works of thousands of generations -

How do you know. I thought science is about observation. We haven't observed evolution. We have clues, but we only have ONE PERCENT OF THE CLUES!!!!

[artsylady]

Said it elsewhere, I'll say it again, this is a lie. I have never refused to respond because I claimed that it was "below me", or any such nonsense.

If I have missed a question of yours, or missed a post, then link me in, or PM me, but don't tell lies about what I have and havn't said.

I apologize. I know you didn't say but that was the feeling I got, but looking at the post again, I don't know why. Again, my fault. I'm sorry. Forgiven? :il:

QUOTE

[Guest mscoville]

I could mention more places...but of the word "yom" in the book of Zechariah is speaking of a period longer than 24 hours many times...an age....an epoch.

And we know that because it is in CONTEXT!!! Ha. I'm starting to think you can't read. Because you deny the context in Genesis, yet you follow it everywhere else! Geez Louize mac and cheese!

Ah yes!

But those were hominids. Not much different spiritually than a bird or a dog. They walked upright on 2 legs but were not made in the image of God.

The image of God is His Spirit....not his shape.

WHAT?!?! Do you think modern Humans only appeared 6 thousand years ago? You're disagreeing with your own old age theory. How do you know when God gave those cave folk spirits? Do you see the amount of conjecture and storytelling you have to do to make up something consistent? Then you have the problem with figuring out if Adam really was the first person? Were there a generation of first people? Was he the first one? If he was, who was Eve? If Adam was first, did he have to go around looking through neighboring tribes to find a female with a soul? Geez... I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a smart Aleck, that's not how I'm typing, these are real questions and problems.

~ Old Suspended Brain

[Guest mscoville]

SA,

I would say that the addition of genuinely new information into the genome is actually quite rare - and has happened very few times in evolution's history. The vast majority of evolutionary change is explainable with a core set of information that is changed from one form to another, or copied then changed, or partially deleted.

It is quite rare or you'd say it is? I mean where are the specific examples? Changes or Micro-evolution are not something that Creationists disagree with as I'm sure you're aware of. It's the HUGE amount of added information that it would take to make a human out of a once single celled organism. I understand the breadth of time you're proposing that it took place, but you're making that assumption based on indirect evidence.

Now, of course, I've used above my definitions of what micro and macroevolution are - but you might have significantly different definitions, which may lead to a misunderstanding of what I've just said. What would be useful is if you define what you mean by microevolution and macroevolution - and we can work from there.

I think our definitions are in sync for micro evolution and speciation. Creationists observe and agree with speciation and microevolution. As far as macroevolution goes however I think our terms are a little different, the addition of information has to come like a shot doesn't it? Rather suddenly, through mutation? It's not the accumulation of microevolution as you seem to be stating. Slow adaptation is one thing, through mutations or copying mistakes in genes, but that copying mistake represents a net loss in gene information, not an addition, and again it seems like common sense that we've added a ton of information to our genes since we were amoebas. Sorry if this sounds elementary to you, trying to understand it all.

Thanks for the link on ring species, I'm going to print it out and read it later.

~ martin