by Elsewhere 39 Replies latest jw friends
Virtually all creation theorists assume that Noah did not have with him pairs of dingoes, wolves and coyotes, for example, but a pair of creatures which were ancestral to all these species, and probably to a number of other present-day species representative of the ‘dog kind’
Statements like that should be allowed to just shimmer in the air....
It doesn't matter how much evidence we can show them, some people are just to thick to get (or accept) the fact of evolution. It's great to post this information for those with an open mind, but it's a waste of time trying to debate the hard-core creationists with their closed little minds.
It doesn't matter how much evidence we can show them, some people are just to thick to get (or accept) the fact of evolution. It's great to post this information for those with an open mind,
Didn't you know that virtualy all informed creationists and creationist organizations accept the "fact" of the type of the observed speciation mentioned in the OP article?
but it's a waste of time trying to debate the hard-core creationists with their closed little minds.
But according to the materialist evolutionists our thoughts are the pre-determined products of brain chemistry responding (according to the laws of chemistry) to external stimuli. Hence, we have no free-will to open our minds any more than the atheists do. As the prominent materialist evolutionist Provine said:
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear
Read the words right there and try to comprehend them. Provine's views are simply not science, just his personal opinion.
- Lime
New Dino-Eating Pterosaur Evolved in Unusual Way
Modular evolution theory holds that entire modules, or groups of body features, evolve together within a relatively short period of time.
Lead author Junchang Lu told Discovery News that the pterosaur fills a gap between primitive basal forms of this animal and more advanced pterodactyl types.
Older forms had "small heads, short necks, short wrists, a long tail and a long fifth toe on the foot," he said. In later, more derived types, "the skull, neck and wrist became relatively long, but the tail became short and the fifth toe dwindled to a small nub or was lost altogether."
Lu added: "Darwinopterus captures a moment in that evolution from primitive to advanced forms. But contrary to what we expected, it has the head and neck of an advanced pterodactyloid while the rest of the skeleton is like that of the primitive rhamphorhynchoids (flying reptiles)."
....
Mark Witton, who is an expert on pterosaurs and is a University of Portsmouth paleobiologist, told Discovery News that he agrees with the findings and was very surprised when he first heard about the new species.
"While we could predict that intermediate forms between basal pterosaurs and pterodactyloids had to exist at one stage, the 'cut-n-shut' mechanism of this new critter is pretty amazing," Witton said, adding that he wonders why these animals evolved in such a manner.
"What selection pressures made the head and neck change without affecting the rest of the skeleton?" he asked. "Was it something to do with feeding, locomotion or any number of other things? At the moment, I don't think we really know, but it should be pretty interesting to find out."
http://news.discovery.com/dinosaurs/pterosaur-fossils-evolution.html
Would it then have become a boat..................or maybe a train?????!!!!!
Le sigh....hopefully you were joking with your response...just in case you weren't:
The point was "change (any change - motion, in my example, or genetic changes, as outlined in the OP) takes placevery slowly. But given enough time (lots and lots and LOTS of time), the change becomes striking".
You don't have enough time in your lifetime, or even in a thousand lifetimes, to see the vehicle move any appreciable distance. Likewise, you don't have time in your lifetime, or a thousand lifetimes, to notice a strikingly visible change in species.
....virtualy all informed creationists and creationist organizations accept the "fact" of the type of the observed speciation mentioned in the OP article?
Informed advocates of ID do recognize the reality of speciation, but they seem to me to have a hard time with the boundaries of this process. I understand that it's far easier for one who accepts evolution to simply say that ultimately there are no boundaries than it is for an advocate of creation to attempt to define them, so the situation is inherently unfair.
But at the same time, anyone publicly advocating a position which holds that an entire branch of science is flawed shouldn't be dancing around the boundaries of his or her position with fuzzy, indefinite statements like "....probably to a number of other present-day species representative of the ‘dog kind’ "
Those of us who have argued for creation in the past ourselves know the real problem here. The problem is that despite any protestations to the contrary, this is not a purely scientific discussion.
If it was, then advocates of ID wouldn't have a problem openly acknowledging that reproductively isolated groups, like many modern canids had a common ancestor. They wouldn't even have a problem with evidence that even more diverse groups, like the dog, bear and racoon also had a common anscestor. Since these animals are all very similar variations of the same mammalian theme, that idea does not in and of itself, violate the actual scientific argument intertwined in the creation position: That evolution simply scrambles and redistributes existing genetic information, producing endless variations on the same general themes found in nature, but does not ever produce anything fundamentally "new."
What is violated is the religious notion of immutability of Genesis reproductive "Kinds." Without that constraint, the ID argument would mutate into a hybrid, (Pardon the terminology) of the two current positions. But as it stands, it seems to me that this is the point where creationists lose credibility, because real scientific inquiry ends and faith begins at the point where preconceived constraints take precedence over evidence.
TD
But at the same time, anyone publicly advocating a position which holds that an entire branch of science is flawed shouldn't be dancing around the boundaries of his or her position with fuzzy, indefinite statements like "....probably to a number of other present-day species representative of the ‘dog kind’ "
The problem is, the term "species" is fuzzy to begin with, you would think evolution advocates would do a better job defining terms.
Every creationist is free to develop their own philosophy and religious convictions. I would not try to impose myself as either a spokeman for or authority in the place of any other creationist.
"After its kind" does not necessarily mean a law of immutability between present-day defined "species." The phrase may simply have meant that at the time of creation and at the time of preservation (the phrase is only used through Genesis 7) that trees would still produce seed-bearing fruit, birds would still lay eggs, and cattle would still bear young. In short, it may have been a simple statement of affirmation that life would go on replicating life in spite of the dramatic events of the moment.
It is probably a stretch to think that the phrase means very more than that.
On the other hand, it does imply that the origination of each kind (vegetation, birds, mammals, humanity, etc.) was a rather abrupt and instantaneous act of creation. So, let my ridicule continue...sigh...
Likewise, you don't have time in your lifetime, or a thousand lifetimes, to notice a strikingly visible change in species.So basically, you can claim whatever you want in the present, but we won't be around to see if you were right or wrong.
That's the way you guys get off the hook. Just stretch it out.
Judge Dread
