Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. XVI
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Case Study
For this case study, I will use the case of “Lucy” and if you need background on Lucy, please read the introductory post from last Sunday.
This is the second of three final posts which will conclude this series on Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds. In the final three weeks, I will focus on these three claims:
- Darwinists ignore scientific evidence that refutes their theories.
- Darwinists create misleading pictures and icons in textbooks and museums to support their fallacious theories over actual evidence.
- Darwinists practice censorship to avoid debate that would reveal their theories to be baseless and fallacious
Point 2
FACT 1: Accurate renditions of actual finds and scientific facts do not reflect Darwinian interpretations.
FACT 2: Misleading renditions in museums and school textbooks amount to indoctrination, not valid information.
CONCLUSION: Darwinists create misleading pictures and icons in textbooks and museums to support their fallacious theories over actual evidence.
Supporting Detail: Darwinian evolution is taught as fact, not theory, in nearly ever scholarly venue. Charts, diagrams, artist impressions, statues, and the like are all carefully “spun” to reflect Darwinist beliefs, not facts.
When facts are presented without spin, critical thinking will lead reasonable human beings to their own conclusions which often differ from Darwinian bias and more accurately reflect truth.
The fact is, there is no foundational truth to Darwinism. Nothing cannot make something. Gas cannot condense in a vacuum. Lighter elements cannot “evolve” in situ into heavier elements. The earth is not billions of years old. Dirt and rocks do not make complex cells. There are no transitional forms. Belief in these things is not science, but rather faith.
When truth refutes belief, should we not adjust our belief? Shouldn’t truth have a higher importance in our lives than belief? The fact that Darwinists still fervently cling to antiquated beliefs — resorting to actions ranging from rationalizing and quibbling to outright and intentional fraud — doesn’t that demonstrate that Darwinism is simply a fundamentalist religion and not a scientific principle? Science, after all, has some integrity.
Darwinism, lacking a real foundation, relies on false “artist impressions,” fictitiously taxidermied dead things, and and literature that constantly begs the question spinning assumption as fact. They have, after all, no foundation of truth upon which to stand.
Textbooks
Darwinism has a long history of placing less than factual “interpretive art” that does not reflect reality in textbooks dating back a few centuries, now. It is a fairly well known fact, since Dr. J. Wells published his book Icons of Evolution which was later made into a film, and textbooks had to adjust in the wake of an informed public. Even so, the fraud and the evolutionist indoctrination continues to this day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, why do you suppose the feet of an australopithecine is shown to be a human foot? What do you suppose that means?
In these artist impressions of Lucy found in modern textbooks, she walks upright, has very human looking features, and has human feet.
Naturally, this is starkly inconsistent with the facts.
Lucy’s foot would have looked much more apelike than human.
It’s almost as if there is an agenda at work, here.
I think we must come to the inescapable conclusion that Darwinists create misleading pictures and icons in textbooks to support their fallacious theories.
But what about museums?
Museums
Museums exist to portray history, facts, items of interest and so on in an accurate way. We rely on museums to recreate historical moments with accuracy and an exactness that puts us right in that moment. With those high ideals in mind, one would expect to find depictions of Lucy hanging out in a tree, perhaps munching on some fruit, or tending her young who is clinging to her back, much like a modern chimp.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Since we now know, for a certainty, that Lucy nor any other Australopithecus africanus walked upright, why do you suppose not one of these museums has changed their display?
Since we now know that Australopithecus africanus had no part in human ancestry, why do you think the displays headline things such as “The Hall of Origins!” and “The Human Story Begins!”
Why don’t they say, “Here’s a fictitious depiction of an extinct monkey — who want’s to buy a dead stuffed frog playing a piano?”
I think we must come to the inescapable conclusion that Darwinists create misleading pictures and icons in museums to support their fallacious theories, as well.
The Truth
The obvious question to ask at this point is — Why? Why is SO MUCH fraudulent activity required to prop up this theory?
I am going to leave it there for this week and leave you with these thoughts: Jesus Christ believed in the six days of creation. Jesus Christ believed in the biblical Adam and Eve as described in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. And Jesus Christ believed in Noah’s global flood.
John 5:46-47 reads: “If you had belief in Moses you would have belief in me; for his writings are about me. If you have no belief in his writings, how will you have belief in my words?” See Genesis 1:1-31 and Exodus 20:9-11.
Mark 10:6 reads: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
Matthew 19:4-5 reads: “And he said in answer, Have you not seen in the Writings, that he who made them at the first made them male and female, and said, For this cause will a man go away from his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and the two will become one flesh?”
Matthew 24:37 reads: “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
As Christians, we must put it into our hearts that the Word of God is true. If anyone should assail that truth, then they are simply in error. God’s Holy Word is without error.
I will conclude this series next week.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
Here is a brief quote concerning Lucy’s ability to walk upright and what some creationists have said on the matter…I find it interesting and certainly seems to indicate there is more to the story than is being told.
.
“Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright
.
Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that “Australopithecus afarensis … demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking” is dismissed by Willis (1987) as “a preposterous claim”. Willis adds: “Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other “Australopithicine” [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk upright.”
.
Willis’ evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines “may have been knuckle-walkers”, and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, and A. afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before Lucy had been studied).
.
Even in 1970, Zuckerman’s views had long since been largely abandoned. In what is obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey “referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright”, three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy “undoubtedly was a biped”. Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.
.
Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy’s locomotion. He quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality. Gish’s conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else:
.
“That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute.”
.
“… we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate.” (Stern, Jr. and Susman 1983)
.
“The most significant features for bipedalism include shortened iliac blades, lumbar curve, knees approaching midline, distal articular surface of tiba nearly perpendicular to the shaft, robust metatarsal I with expanded head, convergent hallux (big toe), and proximal foot phalanges with dorsally oriented proximal articular surfaces. (McHenry 1994)
.
Next, do you have the reference for the picture showing Haeckel taught as fact textbook 2001 ?
Thirdly, the light and dark moths are indeed an example of micro-evolution…who ever said differently?
I’ll try to get to the other “evidence” later in the week.
No one thinks Lucy walked upright anymore. Her knees, feet, and hipbones are completely imcompatible with the notion. If you watch the movie from last Sunday’s post you will see that Lovejoy even had to take a dremel tool to her hipbones to “fix” them to make upright walking remotely possible. Kind of laughable in my opinion.
Anyway, I am waiting for all that observed macro-evolution you promised.
Gregg
You said, “Next, do you have the reference for the picture showing Haeckel taught as fact textbook 2001 ?”
.
To which I say, “Seriously? How about ten? Will ten be enough?”
.
I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*
II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*
III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)
IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)
V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)
VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)
VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)
VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)
.
Don’t believe everything you saw in Flock of Dodos. Remember, Darwinists often lie, even to each other.
.
Now, a quick word about the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
.
Nah. Nevermind.
Thanks for the references, that will keep me busy for a bit…sometimes gets difficult to follow threads…I had asked for a definition of the biblical word “kind” as it refers to classes of living things, before delving into observed speciation, did I miss that post somewhere? If so, let me know where it is, so I can catch up.
I’ll just cut and paste:
.
It really isn’t that difficult and it isn’t at all unscientific. Being of a KIND simply means that members of that kind can bring forth. “Let [all created things] bring forth…according to [their] KIND.” (Genesis 1:24-25) I realize that Darwinists mock the use of the word “kind” because, I suppose, unlike nearly everything within Darwin’s idiotic theory, the word kind is highly accurate and very specific. Accurate terms and specific facts tend to threaten to destroy the foundation of fallacies upon which Darwinists base their religion of secular humanism worshiped through the dogma of methodological naturalism.
.
There are many different species of tomatoes. There are cherry and roma and heirloom and beefsteak to name just a few. Every species is all some KIND of tomato. They can all cross pollinate and bring forth more hybrid types of tomatoes.
.
There are many different species of pears. There are bartlett and d’anjou and comice and bosc and the list goes on. They are all some KIND of pear. They can all cross pollinate and bring forth more pears.
.
Likewise, in the animal kingdom, there are several different species of birds. There are giant ostrich and tiny hummingbird. There are delicious goose and less tasty crow. There are hundreds or thousands of subspecies of birds. They are all different KINDS of bird. There are several different species of fish and every species of fish is some KIND of fish. I realize that there may be some mechanical problems involved, but if those are overcome, they can bring forth according to their kind.
.
That should suffice as for a definition. What are not kinds are those which cannot bring forth. Men and apes, therefore, are not the same kind since we do not bring forth.
.
More information here: http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/2009/10/creation-micro-evolution/
———————————————————————————————————————————-
And of course, my questions still stand:
1) Please go ahead and provide any references where macro-evolution has been observed.
.
2) Please go ahead and provide any references where abiogenesis has been observed.
.
Or, you can admit that you lied and we’ll just move on. Your choice.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
I really am getting tired of you hurling personal insults and innuendos. Is this how you win arguments, by insulting people until they either lose their temper or leave because they tire of it.
I am trying to have a civilized conversation with you, and wanting to make sure we agree on what would constitute speciation before wasting time giving you a long list, only to have it dismissed out of hand because we’re talking apples/oranges in terms of what we are looking for in evidence.
In addition to the personal attacks, you also seem to like putting words in people’s mouths, I guess that makes it easier to accuse them of lying later. I never said anyone has “observed abiogenesis”, I said something to the effect that Dr. Jack Szostak has been doing some interesting research which shows how abiogenesis could have occurred. There’s a world of difference between the two statements.
So, to continue, if I understand your explanation of “kind” would you agree then that losing the ability to procreate with a prior generation would constitute speciation or is there more to it?
While we are on the definitions track…how about a definition of “religion” for me. You have made the statement several times that darwinism is a “religion”. I would disagree, so I’m curious how you define “religion”.
Hi Robert. This has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand and seems a little spammy in that context. I guess I am asking, what are you bringing to the table in this debate?
Point 1: The fact is that nothing in observed science supports Darwinism.
.
On 2010/12/15 at 16:35 kkemerait said, “Secondly, macro evolution most certainly has been observed and I will be glad to provide references if you’d like to see them. As far as abiogenesis goes, there is actually some very interesting research in that area, again, happy to provide a reference to some of Dr. Jack Szostak’s work if you like.”
.
Reading your remarks in context, the second sentence seems to piggy back the intent of the former sentence where you make the rather grand claim that macro evolution “most certainly has been observed” which leaves me to infer that something like abiogenesis has also been observed.
.
But, since you and I have now, and at long last, established that abiogenesis has never been observed, I would like to move on to the original grand claim.
.
My position is this. Macro-evolution has never been observed. Never.
.
It is not up to me to prove your claim to be false. Aside from having to quantify a negative which is a logical black hole, it is incumbent upon you to prove your own claim to be true by substantiating it with evidence and/or proof. Otherwise, you commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is obviously in your court since you made the claim.
.
Therefore, for perhaps the sixth time, when has macro-evolution EVER been observed as you claimed?
.
If you lied, you lied. If you’re mistaken, you’re mistaken. If you have the proof you claim to have, then by all means habeas corpus. I would like to move past this.
.
Point 2: You asked, “So, to continue, if I understand your explanation of “kind” would you agree then that losing the ability to procreate with a prior generation would constitute speciation or is there more to it?”
.
There is more to it. Kinds are biblical. Species are not. There is not really an easy equivocation of the two terms since they have many senses in common but very different foundational senses.
.
The difference in sense is the distinction in the believed origin.
.
The point is, if you go to the Precambrian and then the Cambrian, during the Cambrian explosion, nearly every body plan or body type found on earth today suddenly appears in the fossil record all at the same time and the remaining three appear shortly thereafter. These body plans stay essentially the same throughout all of the fossil record with no transitional forms between body plans. There are so called micro-evolved examples of animals transitioning from say large to small, e.g.: dragonfly with a 10 foot wingspan v modern day dragonfly. But there is no so called macro-evolved transitional form between anything else and a dragonfly. This scientifically observed evidence closely mirrors the biblical model.
.
The Darwinian model has dirt and rocks creating a living cell out of nothing — a belief with no evidence that defies many Laws of science — and then more and more information being added to that original ancestor as its descendants “evolve” and branch out into the various body types in the great “tree of life!” Also not supported by observation or evidence. In fact, the observed evidence stands that fictional tree on its head. But the belief is that an amoeba like critter turns into, say, an insect like critter, then say a flying insect such as a dragonfly every time “unknown evolutionary forces” wave their magic wand, presumably. Thus all living things have a single common ancestor in the Darwinian religion.
.
I believe that every member of the dog kind DID have a set of common ancestors. Probably some kind of male and female dog. I believe that every member of the cat kind had a set of common ancestors. Some kind of male and female cat. I believe that every human being has a set of common ancestors. I beleive I even know their names.
.
In other words, I believe that God created the original common ancestors of every living thing all at once in a sort of creative explosion and that they have brought forth each within their own kind ever since.
.
Furthermore, where Darwinian evolution claims that “simple” life forms add more and more information to their genes and thus “evolve” into higher and higher forms of life (largely staking these claims on pure fallacies of reification), the biblical world view and actual science demonstrate that less and less information is found in subsequent generations. In truth, all living things are “de-volving” just as the entire universe is winding down in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
.
Species are difficult to nail down, anyway, where kinds are not so difficult. For example, a sound definition of both species and kinds might be a group of living things that actually (or can potentially) interbreed and reproduce. Seems pretty black and white, but it is not because in nature, there are lots of living things where it is difficult to apply that definition.
.
For instance, the reproduction might not be successful. For example, you have a clydesdale and a shetland pony — you are only going to have possible success one way in that equation. Does that disqualify?
.
Many bacteria reproduce asexually. How does one quantify species in that case?
.
Also, many plants, and some animals, can form hybrids. This doesn’t really present a huge problem for biblical Kinds but can be problematic for species. For example, hooded crows and carrion crows look very different, and largely mate within their own groups,but in some areas they hybridize. Should the hybrid bird be considered the same species or separate species?
.
Biblically, they are the same kind – they are some kind of Crow. So in this sense, species and kind have a different sense because species would most likely label that hybrid some different species of crow.
.
Same goes for horses and donkeys where you get Jacks and Jennys (mules). Is a mule a seperate species? It is still part of the horse kind.
.
The same scientifically observed effects of natural selection that can speciate affects kinds. Geographical seperation, reduction of gene flow due to fitness, food sources, temperature, and other environmental factors; all these affect populations and therefore affect kinds.
.
Does this answer your questions sufficiently? And I do hope you answer mine.
.
Point 3: You ask how I define a “religion” I think largely because you don’t like to think of yourself, a Darwinist, as a religious person.
.
I have written many posts explaining this but it comes down to this. Darwinists take many, many things on faith and fanatically deny facts that contradict those deeply held religious beliefs.
.
An example of the latter: Big bang as it presently stands. How does nothing create something? Law of cause and effect is violated. Many Laws of motion are violated. Laws of Thermodynamics don’t seem to apply. Light travel problem disqualifies basic assumptions. Despite all that — Big bang is a deeply held religious belief. It isn’t based on facts or scientific laws, therefore it is an article of faith.
.
An example of the former: Abiogenesis defies all known laws of probability. Borel estimated mathematical impossibility at 1 chance in 10-50 and Dembski raised the stakes in the last century to 1 chance in 10-150. That’s a 10 followed by 150 zeros. The odds of a single protein coming together in optimal circumstances in a “bucket” of amino acids the size of our planet, and given an infinite amount of time mind you, are 1 chance in 10-19,212. Darwinists believe, in defiance of science, math, and the laws of probability, that it not only happened once but thousands of times all at once, in conjunction with randomly derived information intelligent enough to assemble the protiens and store said information in DNA using histone, mDNA, chromosomes etc — and formed a “simple” life form complete and entire — like Venus stepping forth full grown from the clam’s mouth. In other words, Darwinists believe in an absolute miracle. That demonstrates a deep and abiding article of faith.
.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Well then…with that definition in mind, I have some speciation events for you. In addition, as promised, an interesting video on how abiogenesis could have occurred, just for consideration.
.
Abiogenesis – How it all could have started
.
I can see we are going to disagree on these events, especially given the broad umbrella created by the word “kind”…what I mean by that is for example, you might use the word “deer” to refer to a single biblical “kind”, while it encompasses roughly 45 different species.
.
.
Vertebrate Speciation
.
N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
.
G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
.
C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the
.
Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/…2dog/wayne1.htm
.
Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
.
Microorganism Speciation
.
Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms — a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
.
.
Plant Speciation
.
Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/…/061288698v1#B1
.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
.
.
.
General Reading:
.
M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE
.
Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
.
The abiogenesis thing — sorry, but that is balony. There are over 2000 amino acids (more than 4000 if you differentiate between left and right handed aminos), and only 22 all left handed aminos are used in the creation of the thousands of very specific and highly ordered proteins in, for example, the human body. Randomness doesn’t design useful proteins and neither did this experiment.
.
As for the speciation, how is it you think that this refutes the biblical account of creation? It supports it. Scripture makes it clear that each type of animal and plant will bring forth, each within its own kind.
.
If one kind brought forth another kind, that would be proof of macro-evolution. Anything else is not proof of evolution. It is only an equivocation based on micro-evolution which is simple inheritance of parental traits or adaptation.
.
In your first example, are the salmon still salmon? Second example, are the elephants still elephants? Are the dogs still dogs? Are the condors still condors? And on an on.
.
None of this supports the Darwinian evolutionary model.
.
My children are a combination of half of my genetic information and half of my wife’s genetic information. But my children are still human beings.
.
In short — so what?
.
And finally, for perhaps the seventh time, when has macro-evolution EVER been observed as you claimed?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
By definition, “macro-evolution” is change at the species level or above, micro-evolution is change within the species. It sounds like you are looking for one of Kirk Cameron’s “Crock-A-Ducks”.
.
Evolutionary theory does not predict transitional forms between currently living things. Rather it predicts that current living organisms share common ancestors. A poodle transforming into a porpoise is NOT predicted by evolutionary theory and in fact, should it ever happen would disprove the idea of common descent entirely.
.
The word “kind” as I suspected, is just a vague bucket based on a person’s perception of morphology and can be made large, small or odd shaped as necessary in order to avoid dealing with speciation.
.
Regarding amino acids, apparently, there is quite a bit of study on homochirality and it is not nearly as simple as you might like to believe. I have provided a short quote which is from one of many articles on the subject…I leave it to you to research further.
.
However, it is far from certain that homochirality on the molecular level was required before nascent biopolymers began to play a role in the growing chemical complexity that led to life. This leaves open the possibility that the prebiotic molecular pool need not have been enantioenriched. It has been suggested that in competition for growth, heterochiral chains containing both enantiomers would readily give way to homochiral polymers (Wald 1957; Kuhn 1972, 2007), and therefore selection of one hand of an amino acid over the other could have come with oligopeptides rather than at the molecular level (Zepk et al. 2002).
And the abiogenesis video by Dr. Jack Szostak, to which you have a one word description of “baloney”…
.
Jack William Szostak is an biologist and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and the Alexander Rich Distinguished Investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol W. Greider, for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres.
.
-United States National Academy of Sciences Award in Molecular Biology
-Hans Sigrist Prize, University of Bern, Switzerland
-Genetics Society of America Medal
-The 2006 Lasker Award
-The 2008 Dr A.H. Heineken Prize
-The 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine
.
While is isn’t correct just because of his credentials, I think he’s earned something more substantial than “Baloney”.
You said, “By definition, “macro-evolution” is change at the species level or above, micro-evolution is change within the species”
.
You do realize that you haven’t provided any examples of change above the species level, don’t you? Like, by your own definition?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
For your reading pleasure, actual macroevolution definitions:
.
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
.
large-scale patterns or processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations and extinctions
.
Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes, etc.
.
large scale change in organisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.
.
A vague term generally used to refer to evolution on a grand scale, or over long periods of time often used to refer to the emergence or modification of taxa at or above the genus level.
.
the origin of new large-scale features such as organs or body plans.
.
macro evolution – Evolution above the species level, as opposed to micro-evolution, which is evolution within or below the species level.
.
Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, such as the origin of new designs (feathers, vertebrates from invertebrates, jaws in fish), large scale events (extinction of dinosaurs), broad trends (increase in brain size in mammals), and major transitions (origin of higher-level phyla). This is one of two classes of evolutionary phenomena, the other being microevolution, which refers to events and processes at or below the level of species, such as changes of gene frequencies in a population and speciation phenomena.
Gregg,
.
Please re-read the definition I offered..it says “At the species level or above…”, not just above. The samples I gave you were species changing into a new species. That certainly qualifies as “at the species level”.
.
The alternate definitions you gave, without checking the source, I assume are from the perspective of what the author was studying, since “macro” simply refers to at or above the level of species, in can and often does refer to higher taxa, and sometimes to changes over long periods of time etc. But again, that’s simply a reflection of how the term is used in a variety of situations.
.
It seems that many religious people, at least evangelical fundamentalists, as they are the only ones I am aware of who try to make a case for a literal, scientific reading of Genesis, have their own definition for macro evolution which says that “macro evolution” is evolution which we object to on theological grounds.
.
Wrong. Your watered down definition is very recent and probably copied and pasted from Wikipedia and TalkOrigins, neither of which is authoritative.
.
The actual definitions are from authoritative sources like UC Berkely and Princeton:
.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861627611/macroevolution.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com
.
The Church of Darwin had to alter the original definition so that they could claim that microevolution was macroevolution.
.
It isn’t.
.
Speciation is speciation. So-called micro-evolution is just micro-evolution. Neither is macroevolution. Nice try, though.
Forgot the encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Macroevolution
.
And the online Evolution 101 class.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
.
Gregg,
.
I enjoyed taking some time away from my work today in order to do this research. I have numbered the definitions which you provided in your comment dated 22 Dec 2010 at 08:47 and below I give the origin (as best I could determine) along with a brief comment. Beneath the last entry I make some comments on the reference you provide.
.
.
Ref #1: “evolution on a large scale…”
Ref #2: “large-scale patterns or processes…”
Ref #3: “Evolution on the grand scale resulting…”
Ref #4: “large scale change in organisms…”
Ref #5: “A vague term generally used to refer to evolution…”
Ref #6: “the origin of new large-scale features…”
Ref #7: “macro evolution – Evolution above the species level…”
Ref #8: “Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species…”
.
.
Ref #1: Seems to originate on a web store called “Quizlet” which sells flash card to aid students. It contains nearly 100 different definitions for macroevolution including this one; “evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth”. I think the “and so forth..eliminates this as a serious source of scientific info, don’t you?
.
Ref #2: Wiktionary, need I say more?
.
Ref #3: Now this one was a challenge, but not without its rewards. It is found on CreationWiki, a creationist web site, which cites the source as evcforum.net another website (evolution v. creationism) which was a continuation of a yahoo chat group. Ironically, when I found the quote on evcforum.net, it turned out to be a link to, your favorite site, talkorigins.org!! So does that mean you now consider talkorigins as authoritative?
.
Ref #4: Appears to come from a website called CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) on their terminology page, without citation or reference.
.
Ref #5: Seems to come from a PBS website’s glossary on evolutionary terms. While PBS isn’t always correct, they do make an effort. I have spoken with them on the phone and sent an email asking them to clarify their definition and supply references. I will provide them when they arrive.
.
Ref #6: Not surprisingly, comes from a proposed school textbook entitled “Explore Evolution”, written by creationists, and given a complete review by the NCSE, read here if interested: http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/preface
.
Ref #7: Ummm, the only direct quote I could find for this comes from, Northwest Gardening website. I hope it came from someplace else, but if so, you’ll need to help me out on this one.
.
Ref #8: My favorite of all time!! This quote comes directly from the New World Encyclopedia. If that doesn’t make your hair stand on end, maybe it’s because you didn’t realize that NWE is owned and operated by the Unification Church, more commonly known as the Moonies. It is a personality cult formed by and around “Reverend” Sun Myung Moon, who claims he is the second coming of Jesus!
.
.
.
Regarding your links for good definitions:
.
#1: Princeton at wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn – This is a purchased general dictionary definition used to create a lexical database for linguistics. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination a scientific or more appropriately an authoritative biology reference.
.
#2: Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution – Not a scientic source, however, it does says “large scale change in organisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.”, which you quoted, then apparently chose to ignore, since it obviously includes “new species” as a valid macroevolutionary event.
.
#3: UC Berkeley – Nice resource, I spent some time browsing through. Since you consider it a good resource, maybe you should do the same. They certainly support Lineage-splitting (or speciation) as a part of macroevolution and I agree with them.
.
#4: Encarta – yes again…general dictionary, but also includes changes in species as macroevolution
.
#5: Encyclopedia.com – doesn’t actually provide definitions, what it does do is provide a list of potential resources to read. So it is not a “reference” itself. Its validity and accuracy would be determined by your choice of reading material selected.
.
.
Karl
As a Christian sister, I would like to make a comment on your claims that evolution is a fraud. There are many of your Christian brothers and sisters who believe in a theistic evolution. Francis Collins, the greatest geneticist of our day and soon to be Nobel Prize winner, is a deeply committed Christian.
.
Christians are deeply divided on this issue. Those who believe in evolution are not idiots who believe in fraudulent science nor are they pretending to believe in evolution in order to stay in the scientific community. In fact, the vast majority of scientists who are Christians believe the earth is 4 billion+ years old. (approx 85%+)
.
I respect your right to believe as you will but I would be cautious about making broad statements that you can’t back up. Answers in Genesis is an embarrassment to the Christian community and the vast majority of Christian scientists reject the discredited science in the articles on that site.
.
Many of our young people are walking away from the faith due to the vocal minority who insist on only one way to interpret Genesis. There are many more scientists who are honest people who are seeking for the truth who believe they cannot be Christians due to an insistence that young earth be a criteria for Christian faith. Jesus should be the stumbling block, not the age of the earth.
Thank you for your comment, Dee,
.
As your brother in Christ, you should know that I have read Collins, specifically “The Language of God” in which he describes the impossibility of DNA having come into existence on it’s own via random processes, so yes I am very familiar with his science and his beliefs.
.
You mention that 85% of Christian scientists believe in an old earth and you mention that the vast majority of Christian scientists reject what you allege is the “discredited” science in articles found on young earth creationist websites.
.
I would like to gently rebuke you by pointing out that just because a “majority” believe something to be true, or an idea is popular, does not necessarily point to any kind of truth. Such an appeal is a logial fallacy called argumentum ad populum and, being fallacious, does not follow.
.
The “majority” of scientists in Ptolemy’s day, probably way more than 85%, believed that the entire universe circled the earth. In Galileo’s day, most believed the moon was a perfectly smooth sphere and that the earth was as flat as a pancake. Like modern Darwinists, the majority was wrong on a great deal of the science and all of the foundational truth while a tiny minority was much closer to the truth. In each of these examples, it took a revolution for clear thinking to assert itself. We are in the throes of such a revolution today.
.
You say that many young people are walking away from “the faith” which I assume you mean Christianity, due to the vocal minority who insist on only one way to interpret the holy word of God. I am not sure if you have any statistics to back up this claim.
.
The Barna group has statistics that back up the claim that more than 75% of college freshmen raised in Christian homes stop attending church during their first year of college and that this phenomenon is mainly attributable to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Young Christians are being indoctrinated in the secular world against having faith in the living God and they are being told that secular humanism, methodological naturalism, and atheism is a better — or somehow more rational — alternative.
.
This is the same lie that the serpent sold to Eve, that they can be their own gods. Since modern Christians deny the truth of God’s word themselves, what does it cost them to trade belief in the one true God in for belief in themselves?
.
I respect your warning to be cautious. I also respect your right to feel however you will about any earthly ministries, but personally I would be cautious about allowing any ministry on earth that preaches to Gospel of Jesus Christ to serve as an “embarrassment” to me. (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, Romans 1:16, II Timothy 1:8, II Timothy 1:12, II Timothy 2:15, Hebrews 2:11, 1 Peter 3:16)
.
In Matthew chapter 7, Jesus Christ tells us to build our house on the solid rock that is the holy word of God. I often remind myself of Matthew 7:15, and also II Peter 2:2, whenever fellow believers appeal to me to believe in something that is contrary to God’s holy word. The fact is, and scripture reinforces this over and over, fallible man isn’t going to be my ultimate judge. On “that day” I will be accountable only to the Creator of the universe.
.
I agree that the age of the earth should not be a stumbling block. The fact is that no human being alive or dead can tell you how old the earth is — atheist, old earther, or young earther. No one. We can only trust and believe in either 1) the infallible and inerrant word of God itself, 2) the interpretation by man in exegesis of that holy word, or 3) nothing but the word of fallible man. So, while you may disagree with the conclusions I have come to, you cannot really disagree with my logic.
.
I pray God continues to Bless you, and I pray God grants you revelation.
Gregg
It seems to me that the definition of “macroevolution” is in some dispute, then. The key is for you and I to find common ground.
.
You say: “#3: UC Berkeley – Nice resource, I spent some time browsing through. Since you consider it a good resource, maybe you should do the same. They certainly support Lineage-splitting (or speciation) as a part of macroevolution and I agree with them.”
.
I will use UC Berkeley since you state that you agree with them. I will assume that you and I can agree, then, that UC Berkeley is an authoritative source.
.
I did spend some time on their site and these are the definitions I found:
.
.
And this below a diagram explaining exactly what they meant by that definition:
.
.
So, since you and I both agree with these authoritative definitions as you said, then I still do not believe you have demonstrated that macroevolution has ever been observed.
.
I could also recommend that you read a book or see the film called Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph. D. of UC Berkeley who is a microbiologist there. It might enlighten you to some of the abject frauds committed by Darwinists in the name of their religion.
.
Thanks for your comment,
Gregg
.
.
“God is dead!” — Friedrich Nietzsche, (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft), section 108, first published in 1882
.
“Nietzsche is dead” — God, August 25, 1900 (Collage in Student Common area at UC Berkeley)
Yes Gregg,
I read that definition, and on the very next page it lists speciation as one of the patterns of macroevolution. I think it is reasonable to assume therefore, that when they said “above the species level”, they were simply saying that macroevolutionary events are changes which breech the species level, in other words change from one species to another or higher.
I’ll admit the wording was a bit ambiguous, so I have sent them an email, asking for a clarification.
More importantly, it seems we are debating solely whether speciation is classified as macro or micro evolution. Whichever term covers speciation, the point is, the evidence provided demonstrates that we have observed speciation in process.
I will attempt to track down the movie you mentioned, but I certainly am not surprised that from time to time there have been fakes, frauds and bad science engaged in, it is human nature. What makes pointing them out so interesting is that, it is the very process of peer review and science which has exposed many of these frauds.
…”…you should know that I have read Collins, specifically “The Language of God” in which he describes the impossibility of DNA having come into existence on it’s own via random processes….”
.
I think you over simplify what he said here.
More debate later…now a message from your friendly neighborhood atheist…
Merry Christmas!!
A little gift to enjoy by the fireplace…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAH0qm6OWKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYEK-pxs_A&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmuPJvr89Jw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E-47VmFopE&feature=youtu.be
Enjoy
Merry Christmas!
Shall I quote the entire book for context?
Speciation does not contradict the biblical account of creation. Speciation is one kind bringing forth within its kind. If that is your only definition of macroevolution, then obviously the definition has been heavily watered down since I took biology.
.
Macroevolution events that change a fish into a salamander into a hamster, e.g.: Steve J. Gould’s neo-Darwinian theories of punctuated equilibrium are the unobserved impossibilities I am referring to.
.
I do not believe that it is “human nature” to engage in bad science. I believe it is secular human nature to engage in bad science. Secular peer review took over 200 years to finally admit that Earnst Heakels embryo’s were utterly fraudulent, and a few more decades after that to finally remove them from most textbooks only under pressure from CREATIONISTS, so they are really doing a bang up job. The integrity on display there is really amazing.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
A few pages would help.
Sorry – I meant a few page numbers. I have the book but it’s been a long time since I read it. Page 90 seems to be related to what you said.
HA!
I really feel that my summary was sufficient.
And Merry Christmas from another nonbeliever (who grew up Christian).
.
I won’t post the link, but I liked the youtube video of the food court Hallelujah Chorus.
That video made me cry. I was surprised that it elicited such an emotional response in me. I don’t typically cry like that.
Cool video hd, a great idea! I didn’t cry, but I enjoyed it! Now, Dead Poet’s Society, when they all stood on their desks at the end … THAT made me cry!
Enjoy!
also on youtube, The Roches, Star of Wonder
Gregg, you said “Speciation does not contradict the biblical account of creation. Speciation is one kind bringing forth within its kind.”
.
As I pointed out before, the word “Kind” is no more than a polymorphic bucket that people use to escape facing the fact that we have indeed observed speciation. The word itself, makes it fairly clear that it refers to one species evolving or changing in a new species.
.
I’ve provided the links (many) to current observations of speciation. It happens, you may not like it, but you cannot, with any integrity, deny that it occurs. To talk about fish turning in hamsters, or crock-a-ducks, or some other bizarre transformation, which evolutionary theory itself says couldn’t happen, and to then try using those absent transformations as evidence against evolution, is disingenuous.
.
It is dishonest to say that speciation has never occurred, knowing that the scientific definition of speciation has nothing whatever to do with transformations between Biblical “kinds”.
.
Science doesn’t teach it, evolution doesn’t predict, or even allow for the possibility. Yet you continue to stand in the pulpit, so to speak, and proclaim that evolutionists are all either liars, dishonest or are in some type of conspiracy when they talk about speciation.
.
Since you are a programmer, it is tantamount to trying to convince me that database normalization doesn’t do anything to mitigate update and delete anomalies, but in trying to make your case, you bring your own definition of “normalization” to the table (one which no other programmer or DBA would agree represents normalization), and then claim victory after logically “proving” that normalization does not help (using your definition of course).
.
That entire last paragraph is what is known as a straw man fallacy. I never made that claim, never made that argument, and do not subscribe to that analogy.
.
Regardless, I understand that your world view prevents you from understanding the sense of kinds. You can only appreciate it by equivocating by seeing it only through the lens of Darwinism.
.
I will try to explain one more time. Dogs turning into dogs, elephants turning into elephants, and beetles turning into beetles does not contradict the biblical account of creation. Furthermore, and this is not just my opinion, if that [speciation] is the best “evidence” there is for punctuated equilibrium and so called macro-evolution, then I honestly feel sorry for Darwinists.
As I understand it, ‘macroevolution’ is not referring to a different process, but to a greater evolutionary distance between two types of organism. Dogs and cats could be considered to be two different biblical kinds and they are taxonomically different at the family level (canids and felids). Would you say that the difference between wolves and jackals is an example of microevolution, while the difference between wolves and lions is an example of macroevolution? (What about wolves versus foxes?) If so, do you think there is a fundamentally different evolutionary process that is thought to happen between wolves and lions versus wolves and jackals?
My understanding is that the same types of events are thought to have taken place in the evolution of wolves and lions versus wolves and coyotes: a series of mutations happened over time which were able to have been spread through the populations by reproduction, and the animals carrying those mutations were successful enough in their environments that they were able to pass on those mutations. In each example it was a series of microevolution events or what you could call speciation events; the difference in macroevolution is that a longer series of microevolution events has summed together over time to make the difference between wolves and lions greater than between wolves and coyotes.
In the case of wolves and lions, it is thought that a previous now-extinct species of carnivore was the ancestor of both genetic lines. The ancestor of wolves and jackals was closer genetically to wolves and jackals – maybe it even was a wolf or jackal (don’t actually know what the thinking is on this).
Maybe the idea of macroevolution includes the idea of significant structural differences? And maybe the mutations which have to occur to produce those differences would be on regions of DNA expressed duting embryological development? In that case maybe there is an elemnet of macroevolution which is not necessarily presnet in mircoevolution. But the process is the same – mutation and selection. Macroevolution is not, to my knowledge, thought to be a fundamentally different evolutionary process from microeveolution. It is not a single event in which, for instance, a dog gives birth to a cat. The very fact that it is a longer series of evolutionary events means that we would NOT expect it to be observed in real time.
.
From things I have read, when people talk about a biblical ‘kind’ they often are talking about taxonomic family level, not the species level.
For instance I’ve seen claims that ark was able to hold all the animal kinds because it only had to carry one dog ‘kind’. It didn’t have to carry a pair of wolves, coyotes, each kind of jackal, or dogs – dogs being a special case since they are a subspecies of wolf. Some people include foxes in the dog ‘kind’ and some don’t.
I’ve wondered if the people holding this view think there were only wolves (no dogs or coyotes etc.) or alternatively only dogs (no wolves, jackals, etc.) in Eden and outside of before the flood.
.
I don’t know how creationists classify ‘kinds’ for animals with more similar forms, like fish and birds. Suppose there is a difference in fish at the family level – would you say a fish is still a fish?
Gregg, you said a beetles turning into beetles is okay for the biblical version. Some creationists use the example of the bombadier beetle as something that in their view could not have evolved from other beetles. So if you agree with that idea about the bombadier beetle, even among the beetle ‘kind’ there are differences which are too great to have occurred by evolutionary processes?
.
(Sorry this is rambling.)
Gregg,
.
I agree with you that the concept of biblical “kinds” producing offspring within their own “kind” does not contradict the Bible. No one’s “world view” prevents them from understanding that simple idea, but that isn’t the point.
.
Creationists, and I believe this is a fair statement, in general, like to point out that speciation has never occurred, they do this by pointing out that no one has ever seen a dog change into a swan or a fox morph into mosquito or a crock-a-duck! However, by framing speciation in the context of biblical kinds, it is the creationists who are making the straw man argument. No scientist familiar with evolutionary theory would ever claim such a thing is possible, in fact, evolutionary theory and common descent would actually argue against it happening.
.
Creationists, when speaking in public, in churches or on blogs, try to make it appear that scientists are lying about speciation, yet their audience (the general public), rarely has sufficient scientific background to realize that the definition of speciation being attacked is not the speciation of evolutionary science, but rather a hybrid or chimera of evolutionary terminology blended with creationist theology.
.
This truly irritates me about many in the creationist movement. They are perfectly aware that the scientific community does not support the idea of speciation as morphing between “Biblical kinds”, yet they persist in using that “criteria” to prove speciation has never happened, relying on the fact that their audience isn’t aware of the deception.
.
In my book, that is being outright dishonest and deceitful. It’s as though the ends justify the means (the deception is justified, ’cause in the end we can bring em to Jesus and save their souls, or at least bring them into the creationist camp).
.
I have many born-again Christian friends and acquaintances. I enjoy discussing both science and theology with them. The conversations are challenging and in many cases eye-opening on both sides because both sides have integrity and are honest both about what they know and what they don’t know. I have found very few in the creationist camp who I could honestly describe the same way.
.
.
There is a set of videos online from a symposium on evolution at Rockefeller University May 2008 which includes a talk by Szostak and also a related one by Joyce. It might help to listen to Szostak (and also Joyce) actually talking about the work (or maybe not).
(I liked listening to some of these talks but not others. I suggest skipping the one by Coyne because it is specifically anti-creationism (and I didn’t like it, FWIW).)
You say, “Creationists, and I believe this is a fair statement, in general, like to point out that speciation has never occurred, they do this by pointing out that no one has ever seen a dog change into a swan or a fox morph into mosquito or a crock-a-duck!”
.
This statement is either intentionally obtuse or a genuine misunderstanding. In the unlikely event that it is the latter, I will state again that OF COURSE speciation occurs. All dogs (for example) on earth probably had a set of common ancestors — presumably some kind of dogs. That big daddy and big mommy ancestor dog “brought forth” within the “dog kind” and so did their descendants and today we have timber wolves, foxes, and poodles. Comparing a poodle and a wolf seems almost silly, but they are each a kind of dog. Now, if I am not mistaken, foxes and wolves cannot interbreed anymore due to genetic drift. Does that mean they aren’t dogs anymore? If you want to call that macro-evolution, then by all means go ahead.
.
Horses are horses whether they are Clydesdales or Shetland Ponies. Turtles are turtles whether they are taraupins or snapping turtles.
.
If you are saying that the best evidence of macro-evolution, particularly in the punctuated equilibrium model proposed by neo-Darwinism and made popular by Stephen J. Gould, is dogs turning into some other kind of dogs or horses turning into some other kind of horses, then I restate again that such evidence is pretty radically insufficient as a means of explaining the model.
.
Which Darwinist or neo-Darwinist model adds additional information to the genome? How do you go from a fish to a salamander to a reptile to a bird inside of even a million years?
.
Thanks for your comment,
Gregg
Gregg, you said this:
….”Which Darwinist or neo-Darwinist model adds additional information to the genome? How do you go from a fish to a salamander to a reptile to a bird inside of even a million years?”
.
Same old model: mutation plus selection. Remember that mutation can add information in various ways. One way is by gene duplication, after which one of the genes is able to mutate without a loss of function to the organism.
.