Origin of Man and Woman

Also, earlier.

And...

I am not sure where you get your views of evolution, but they have shortcomings. Nowhere in evolutionary theory does it suggest that any animal has ever given birth to an animal of a different species. The long line of ancestors that connect you back to single celled life essentially had no more difference from one generation to the next than the difference between you and your parents. It is a very gradual process powered by the incrediable might of cummulative selection.

You strawman of evolution bears no resemblance to the actual theory of evolution and is ceratinly much harder to knock down.

 

The conference was outstanding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The hopefull monster "myth" was not a "Creationist myth" it was an evolutionist one.

The REASON that it was promoted is the SAME REASON that S. J. Gould promotes "Punctuated Equilibrium".

And that is the problem that the fossil record shows "staisis" not "smooth transitional forms" as predicted by evilutionism.

The Cochroach of 30 million years ago - is the cochroach of today. "Pretending" that you have the needed transitional forms showing all stages of complex systems evolving from simple ones - is pure evolutionism pablum for the novice. Rather you have massive gaps.

In Christ,

Bob

 

If the fossil record actually supported that myth - S. J. Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory would have been stillborn.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan

If you take a look at S. J. Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium you will see that it is merely a minor variation on the gradualism of Darwinian evolution. The best way I have heard to sum up PE is that most evolutionary change takes place within small groups and over geological short periods of time, that is periods of a few tens of housands to a few hundreds of thousands of years. Because of the rarity of fossilization to begin with combined with most change occuring in small populations and over geological short periods of time helpds explain what we see in the fossil record. Having said that, there are plenty of examples of very finely graduated changes documented in the fossil record and many examples of transitional froms.

And I don't think any real evolutionists teach hopeful monsters.

-----------------------

jcrawford

The Great Chain of Being is incompatible with evolutionary theory so I don't know why you make the comparison.

Let me give you an axample to show what I mean. According to evolutionary theory, all mammals share a common ancestor with fish. So, all mammals are equally evolved away from fish. Not a chain but equal lengths of rope. The Great Chain of Being would say that certain mammals are "better" than others and therefore higher on the chain. This would mean that some are closer to fish while some are further away.

Evolution also predicts the nested (actually twin nested) heirarchy we see in nature while this is not the case for the Great Chain of Being. If applied to evolution, it would predict something more akin to progressive evolution not Darwinian. Maybe you are thinking of Lamarck for there is not any sense of the Great Chain of Being in modern evolution.

Interestingly enough, YEC would not predict a nested heirarchy since the "kinds" (Can you give me a definiton of kinds such that we can figure out what the original kinds were?) were created separately. That we see a nested heirarchy is an indictment against YEC. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

I've already said that I don't believe in evolution so this shoudn't shock anybody.

If you believe in evolution, you might as well believe in reincarnation; it makes about as much sense!!

Working for Him,

Tam,

 

I don't believe in reincarnation but I do believe in resurrection!

 

I do believe in resurrection too!!!

Tam

 

Then quit asserting and do so. The strawman can be described any way you please. The real thing is well supported. mature theory that is what holds modern biology together.

 

Gould was trying to "explain" WHY we DON't find smooth transition in the fossil record (take the squid eye for example or the compound eye of a trillobite)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Right. And the reason is that most change takes place in small groups and in short periods of time, tens to hundreds of thousands of years. You take the rarity of fossilization and add to it a small group and change over a brief time, and together it explains why you do not get a lot of smooth fossil transitional series at the species level. But we do get them, many in fact. Here is such a series.

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

But we have many transitionals above the level of the species. Since you brought in Gould, I'll quote him on the matter.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.

 

What did GOD evolve from? What is your scientific proof?

 

God didn't evolve. He simply is.

Man, on the other hand, evolved from apes. Well is an ape. Well, shares a common ancestor with the other apes.

Look at the shared mutations, the shared endogenous retrovirus DNA long term repeats, the fossil record, etc.

 

How do you know GOD simply is?

 

Faith.

How do you dismiss the evidence that shows we are apes / evolved from a common ancestor of the other apes?

Simply dismissing the data doesn't work. You have to show conclusively that it is wrong or provide a better explanation of the data. So, why do we share genetic mutations and retroviral LTRs with the other apes? Why does the fossil record show a series of intermediates between the LCA of humans and the other apes and modern humans?

 

Because, I KNOW that there are many species that once existed that simply have gone extinct. What I dismiss, is that GOD works through evolution. I do not believe, as you do, that GOD devolved into a man and is evolving man into gods...

There are many fish who went extinct.
There are many kinds of plants that went extinct.
There are many forms of animals that went extinct.
There are many monkeys and apes that went extinct also.

 

Yes, extinction. Fine.

You know, all this extinction would give you some predictions about what should be found in the fossil record under recently created kinds. The further back you go, the more of these things you should find. And if you go back far enough, you should find that all "kinds" were alive at the same time and living together.

But you do not find this. You find that only a narrow slice of life was alive at any given time. This fits perfectly with common descent but not at all with created kinds.

How do you dismiss the evidence that shows we are apes / evolved from a common ancestor of the other apes?

Simply dismissing the data doesn't work. You have to show conclusively that it is wrong or provide a better explanation of the data. So, why do we share genetic mutations and retroviral LTRs with the other apes? Why does the fossil record show a series of intermediates between the LCA of humans and the other apes and modern humans?

Look at the shared mutations, the shared endogenous retrovirus DNA long term repeats, the fossil record, etc.