Another Proof of Evolution and Problem for Creationism: Ring Species

reply to post by solomons path


I guess you didn't click the blog entry. Craig Venter (of human genome fame) denies common descent.

Originally posted by painterdude
reply to post by solomons path

 

I guess you didn't click the blog entry. Craig Venter (of human genome fame) denies common descent.

Yes I read it . . . I didn't click the link to the debate, but I've seen parts of it previously. (While typing I clicked the link and there appears to be a problem with the server . . . I can't even get the home page to load.)

My question stands . . . What are you arguing for by simply posting a link to a philosophy website?

If you are simply showing Venter's developing view on common descent, that is proof of nothing. He is one scientist and bases his argument on incredulity and philosophy. While he may have been instrumental in compiling the human genome . . . he has no evidence to back his claims. He, like most ID/Creationists, simply points to what he calls "flaws" and "gaps" as evidence. Something yet to be discovered or missing from the record, does not invalidate all of the evidence for common descent. You have to show how common descent is not possible . . . not just say "Yeah, but what about this hole?".

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well most creationists don't really make a good argument because they misread the Bible, but none of this is really against what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't use the word species and there's nothing in the Bible that would prevent new species from popping up. Regardless of what the creationists tell you. The Bible just says that new animals won't be created in one single step.

A species isn't a real hard thing. It's a subjective classification system scientists made up for the purpose of organizing the animals how they wish to organize them. Currently they organize them into groups we call species and we draw that line over different things.

Like if two animals can longer mate, sometimes we'll say they're two different species. However, other times even though two animals CAN still mate we'll still call them a different species. Sometimes animals don't mate at all, but they're still a species based on other genetic traits. But none of that is really important. They could have divided them up based on size or color or whatever. They decided to go with this species classification system because that system was useful to them.

It doesn't mean it was some mystical magical truth to the universe. It's just a useful system.

This is how a classification system works. You look at different traits of things that you're trying to classify. You decide which ones are important. Then you use those to divide things into categories. Like books have categories like sci-fi, fiction, biography and so forth.

The point is, that it is YOU that's making up the classification system. When it comes to biologists they decided what an animal can and can't mate with is a good trait for their classification system. It may seem logical, but it's not even a prefect system yet. There's animals that can mate with each other that are actually considered different species still for example.

The point is, it's just a system we invented and it isn't perfect. It's not some mystical magical truth to the universe lol. It's not the only system that could have been used. For example I may choose to organize my books alphabetically by title, and not by category. It's just a different system, it's not wrong. It's just different.

For example, I highly doubt you have the files on your computer organized the same way I have the files on my computer organized. My file classification system suits my needs, and your system suits your needs. But that doesn't mean my system is wrong or your system is wrong. They're just different systems.

The scientists picked the species system because they're obsessed with dividing different animals into different groups. I don't know why they're obsessed with that, but whatever. As long as it works for them that's fine and all, but it has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible doesn't use the species system. It doesn't use any system at all. The closest the Bible comes to organizing the animals is by what type of feet they had or if they were ritually clean or unclean, sometimes based on their feet lol.

The Bible isn't obsessed with dividing the animals up like scientists are. They're all God's creatures. God knew new creatures would come, probably planned it that way so animals could adapt to different environments, and knew that some of them don't even have all the traits you would need to classify them sometimes. Like some animals don't mate. Some animals don't climb, some fly, some don't.

Any classification system you come up with probably has a flaw due to some missing trait in some animal. So, God didn't even bother trying to come up with some obsessive classification system. He just said, they're all animals. They're all God's creatures.

See the truth is, you don't have to go a million years to see evolution at work. Every single animal has genetic differences than its parent does. You could say that every single animal is like its own miniature species and example of evolution (adaptation) at work. Every single one of us has genetic differences. In truth, each person is really his own animal . No one else has your exact genetic make up. We're not clones of each other. Evolution happens every generation even if just on a very small level.

So why don't the scientists just say, we're all a different species? Every single human has genetic differences. Why aren't we all our own species? Well the answer is simple. Because scientists don't want to do that. It really is that simple. They're the ones that decide how much different you have to be before you're put into a genetic box of their liking.

But the truth is, it's not a box. It's gradient that changes gradually over time and we all fit on different spots on that gradient. The scientists for whatever reason are just obsessed with drawing lines on the gradients for whatever reason. Okay, sure whatever, but that stuff isn't really important to me. I don't give a crap where they draw the lines and the Bible doesn't either.

There's nothing wrong with all that. But the problem is when they try to project that on the Bible saying that the Bible should use the same classification system. That's where the problem starts. But that's nonsense.

When you try to mix classification systems you get into problems. When you try to say the Bible is wrong because it didn't organize the animals the same way we did, that's where it all stops making sense. That would be just like saying you organized the files on your computer system wrong, cause they're not how I would have done it lol. Neither one of us is wrong, we're just doing it two different ways. Who cares how I did it right?

It would be no different than organizing the animals by color and then saying the Bible is wrong because a green bird gave birth to a blue bird lol. So what? The Bible never said anything about what color birds would be. It didn't organize things by color.

It never said anything about species either. So where do they get off saying the Bible is wrong because new species form? So what? Show me in the Bible where it says new species wouldn't be born?

All it says is each animal will give birth to the same kind of animal as it. Now it's important you understand the context. The context is a FARMING context. This was information being given to the first FARMERS, Adam and Eve that were soon to be kicked out of the garden where they would have to FARM. Read the story again with this context in mind. The context of farming. That's what most people miss.

It doesn't mean new animals won't exist. The context of that is to show that each mother will be able to take care of
its offspring and be the same kind in the context of farming. That's all it means.

For example a humming bird wouldn't give birth to a panda bear lol. There is no way that a mother humming bird could take care of a panda bear. When it says the same kind, it means that your offspring will be the same kind as you, in that you'll be able to raise it. Or that if you take seeds from a plant you'll be able to grow more of that plant. It doesn't mean your offspring would wouldn't have any genetic differences whatsoever over the long haul.

It was just to teach people that reproduction isn't completely random. That animals didn't just pop out nowhere. If a farmer needed another goat, he had to mate two goats to get it. Not a horse and an antelope. If he wanted more of a certain plant, he had to use seeds from that plant and so on. That's is ALL it meant.

It doesn't even say that the grand child will be the same kind as the grand parent either. It only goes one generation deep. It just says the child will be the same kind as the parent in the context that a parent will be able to raise the offspring or that you could mate two animals and get another animal like it, in a FARMING context.

It doesn't mean the species won't have genetic differences over the long haul, like a million years. It just means that each direct parent, the creature that gave birth to you will be the same kind in the context of farming.

That's why these ring videos you post have nothing to do with the Bible. Sure they have two different lines that became a different species over time, but every single one of those birds, their direct PARENTS, the birds that gave birth to them, was the same kind. Sure bird 2,002 may have been a different species than bird 1, but it was still the same kind as bird 2,001. It's a gradient that changes over time. The Bible and science don't actually disagree here.

The Bible never says there won't be new animals, just that along the way, that each animal on that path will give birth to the same kind of animal. Now this is no different from what evolution says.

You could say, hey wait? How is it possible that an animal could always give birth to the same kind of animal as it, yet still end up with new animals in the end? Well see that's how cool God is. Even though two birds mate and pretty much always gives birth to birds he designed it so that we could still somehow get new animals out of it too eventually.

How does it work? Dunno, go ask the scientists because they're saying the SAME THING. Yes, that's correct, the Bible and evolution are in agreement on this issue.

It's no different than the ring video you just posted. Each mother bird gave birth to a bird of the same kind and could take care of its young yet in the end we still end up with two different kinds of birds. It's a magnificent miracle and in no way against what the Bible says. The Bible only goes one generation in. It doesn't say anything about what happens if the animals split off into two different lines.

It never says the offspring has no genetic differences. Just that for FARMING purposes that if you mate two animals you'll get another one of those, and not some other random animal, like a Panda bear out of two horses.

So you want to know what the Bible means by kinds? Here, I'll give you a good definition. A kind is how you would organize animals on a farm. You would put the sheep in the sheep pen, the horses in the stable and so forth. That's a kind. In the context of farming, no farmer is ever going to mate two horses and end up with something that goes in the sheep pen.

Now maybe after a few hundred thousand years you'll get an entirely different animal gradually that doesn't fit in the stables anymore, but the farmer will be long dead by the time that happens, and the farmers that come after him will never really notice. It'll just be this gradual thing as farming adapts over time as well and they find new uses for different animals.

reply to post by solomons path


Charles Darwin was also nothing more than a philosopher, yet you base your entire theory on his observations. Doesn't really seem fair to me. I'll wait for the gaps in the fossil record to be filled, and the human genome, before I declare anything as fact.

reply to post by painterdude


Actually he was described as a Naturalist, which today we would call a biologist or zoologist. He was trained as a medical doctor and as a Anglican parson. Not sure any of his work in entomology, taxonomy, or zoology would be considered "philosophy" since he actually went out collecting and comparing data.

And, my views on evolutionary biology have little to do with Darwin, other than he was the first to publish literature on speciation and common descent.

My accepting the evidence for evolutionary theory come from four places, mainly:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Genetics, paleontology, morphology . . . all things Darwin had no clue about 150yr ago. In that 150 years, there has been no discovery of data that goes against accepted evolutionary theory . . . At least, none that hold up to scientific inquiry.

Creator-less philosophies can never explain how the inanimate became living.
However, it can show us, clearly, that the Creator encoded us well.

Blind faith (blind understanding) can never explain justification/reason.
However, it can show us, clearly, that the falsely religious and also those who are anti-provision-from-God are equal.

Creationists, Evolutionists, two sides of the same nutty coin.

Life is Order, Life is Charity.

Do not listen to those who say Life is not alive (non-spiritual humanists).
Do not listen to those who say Truth is not true (spiritual humanists).

Dear madness, you are in danger of being the same blind zealot you hate, but with a different colored robe and crown.

reply to post by solomons path


I appreciate your reluctance to use personal attacks, as so many do, when these discussions are brought forward. My interest in evolutionary theory began thirty years ago in college. Geology was my only real science focus there, and that's about the only area I really feel qualified to comment on. The fossil record does not support the theory as it should, and many fantastic claims must be believed in order to support the geologic column in general, such as overthrust faulting/displaced fossils and entire fossil beds. I am foremost a catastrophist in the sense that Velikovsky was. One of his books was found open on the desk of Albert Einstein when he died. He was quoted earlier as saying he never got anywhere thinking inside the box.

reply to post by Dasher

Originally posted by Dasher
Creator-less philosophies can never explain how the inanimate became living.

Philosophies aren't what we're talking about here. Hell, I didn't even mention abiogenesis, which is the scientific side of things...oh, and abiogenesis (which doesn't require a creator) can explain how the 'inanimate' became living.

However, it can show us, clearly, that the Creator encoded us well.

Putting the cart before the horse much? I'm sorry, but where is the evidence of this 'creator'?

Creationists, Evolutionists, two sides of the same nutty coin.

...no such thing as an 'evolutionist' unless there is also such a thing as a 'circuitist' and a 'gravitist'.

Do not listen to those who say Life is not alive (non-spiritual humanists).
Do not listen to those who say Truth is not true (spiritual humanists).

Straw man straw man straw man...I'm sorry, but it's just so blatant I had to repeat it thrice. Who is saying that life isn't alive? And it's relativism that is saying that truth isn't necessarily true...not 'spiritual humanists'.

Dear madness, you are in danger of being the same blind zealot you hate, but with a different colored robe and crown.

Last time I checked, blind zealotry doesn't involve a system of testing your ideas as thoroughly as possible in the off chance that you're wrong...so...no.

reply to post by painterdude


And Francis Collins (of human genome project fame and of being Venters boss fame and of being an evangelical Christian who accepts both common descent and evolution fame) disagrees with him.

One scientist, no matter how prominent, disagreeing says nothing. You do realize that he actually has to justify his claim, which he cannot.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Philosophies aren't what we're talking about here. Hell, I didn't even mention abiogenesis, which is the scientific side of things...oh, and abiogenesis (which doesn't require a creator) can explain how the 'inanimate' became living.

Um, there is no evidence that life can come into being, without intelligent guidance.

None.

Spontaneous Generation or what ever you choose to call it is impossible.

Putting the cart before the horse much? I'm sorry, but where is the evidence of this 'creator'?

Ironic much?

Your discussion skips the horse (origin of life, that gets the cart rolling) and goes right to the cart (evolution).

This discussion is a cart with no horse.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You can click to the nine minute mark for justification to Venter's claim. How about some verification on what his boss believes? thesciencenetwork.org...

Hmm....maybe evolution is created.

Amazing.

reply to post by painterdude


I've seen the justification, it's still a bad justification. It doesn't fit in with the evidence nor does it add any additional explanation.

Oh, and not common descent doesn't mean not evolution...it might mean multiple strands of evolution. There may not be a last universal common ancestor, but there may be several different ancestors for different groups of life.

As for Francis Collins:

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

I got that here.
Though this is the original interview.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
Um, there is no evidence that life can come into being, without intelligent guidance.

None.

You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but there is an immense amount of evidence that this is the case.Here's some.Hell, RNA has developed independently.

Soo...you're wrong.

All that took was a really, really cursory Google search.

Spontaneous Generation or what ever you choose to call it is impossible.

Straaaaaaw maaaaaaan. Sorry, I'm using those words so often that I have to change my usage up. Abiogenesis. Dusty, you're lying now. You know what we call it because it's been explained to you repeatedly. Well, you might not be lying, you might just not have been listening or you have a really, really bad memory.

Putting the cart before the horse much? I'm sorry, but where is the evidence of this 'creator'?

Ironic much?

Your discussion skips the horse (origin of life, that gets the cart rolling) and goes right to the cart (evolution).


Oh, then I guess I must have to start with the origin of photons to make a lightbulb.
I'm sorry, but understanding the function and interaction of objects in the universe doesn't require going all the way back to their origin.

And there are people working on the origin of life, we've made immense leaps and bounds to human understanding.

This discussion is a cart with no horse.

No, this discussion is a legitimate point being ignored by people who'd prefer to stay ignorant.

reply to post by Turq1


Alright, provide some evidence for that. Also, demonstrate how a universe in which evolution occurs naturally differs from a universe in which evolution is created by some outside force.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Nice reply madness...I really do appreciate it. Saying that his evidence is bad however is off base. Saying it was good evidence would necessarily justify your "more than one ancestor" comment, which you didn't have to make if it was all that bad. Thanks for the fun thread, btw.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dusty1

 

Originally posted by dusty1
Um, there is no evidence that life can come into being, without intelligent guidance.

None.

You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but there is an immense amount of evidence that this is the case.Here's some.Hell, RNA has developed independently.

Soo...you're wrong.

All that took was a really, really cursory Google search.

Spontaneous Generation or what ever you choose to call it is impossible.

Straaaaaaw maaaaaaan. Sorry, I'm using those words so often that I have to change my usage up. Abiogenesis. Dusty, you're lying now. You know what we call it because it's been explained to you repeatedly. Well, you might not be lying, you might just not have been listening or you have a really, really bad memory.

Madness, the article that you used for your rebuttal proves my point. Intelligent guidance is needed to create even the basic building blocks of RNA called ribonucleotides.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland.

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

Intelligent scientists re-CREATED ribonucleotides, which are a basic building block for RNA, in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions.

According to your cited article, RNA did not develop independently in the experiment, as you asserted.


Madness, from reading your article I am further convinced that an Intelligent Synthesizer was necessary for life to come into existence.

I grew up attending a creationist church. And, not to make your head explode or anything, but I first learned the theory of evolution in sunday school as a child, and evolution was presented in a neutral or even positive light. The two were never considered mutually exclusive in my church. I honestly don't see why people continue to believe that they are.

Couldn't God have created life AND given living things the ability to evolve? I mean, why WOULDN'T God give life the ability to evolve, to adapt, to continue to LIVE even if it's habitat changes (for example)?

I believe the "creation vs. evolution" conflict is a false dichotomy. I think that it's basically devolved into a team sport. "Team Science" can quote fact and supply evidence. "Team Religion" must rely upon faith in things which cannot really be proven or disproven, even by science.

God forbid the two competing teams ever actually find themselves playing the same sport, the Human condition might actually improve. But no, we mustn't have that because it would take away all the fun of unilateral victory.

No stars of flags for any of you.

Species are not created by natural variation over time. The video the OP posted makes massive assumptions on how the warbler species came into being. He assumes that all varieties were created by adaptation and breeding patterns. This is incorrect, this is not the process by which new species are formed.

Selective breeding does not create new species, it only creates slight variations in the existing species, and will not alter the actual features of the species, regardless of time span.

You call it ring species, I call it a theory desperately piled on another theory.

Originally posted by sinthia
Thats not proof of evolution, its proof of natural selection, which no-one denies.
Natural selection is exactly that, it selects from information already there, not adding additional information, which is what evolution cannot explain. A bird evolving into a bird is not evolution, just as e.coli evolving into e.coli is not evolution

You don't know what evolution is.

Evolution is a change in the allele frequency in a population over successive generations. Natural selection can cause this. The process of evolution isn't always so drastic as you wish it were. Populations can technically evolve with only 1 gene being affected, and it can be something as small as eye color. As long as the allele frequency changes in a population over successive generations, the population is evolving.

What you said about natural selection not "adding additional information" is true. Thankfully, we have mutation and other processes (viral insertion being one) to do that.