Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

So, Tj3, would you care to clarify or amend your answer?

---

No. There are variant definitions and what you have posted is not complete with respect to the way in which biologists classify animals. But the classifications of convenience do not change the realities in nature. There are a number of reasons animals have been classed on they have in modern times, but as I stated before, just because you find a sub-classification between different types of dogs did not stop them from reproducing and producing viable offspring. That is why I suspect God chose the word "kind" in scripture. Dogs are dogs are dogs despite what artificial divisions man may add for convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3,
Post 89 was where I asked you the question.
Post 90 is where you answered it.

---

It comes up numbered differently on mine, but at least you finally found the answer.

Quote:

---

However it is NOT what professional geneticists consider to be a species.

---

See my response to Akoue on the same topic.

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).

Quote:

---

Hybridization, ecological races and the nature
of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation
James Mallet*
Galton Laborator y, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

Species are generally viewed by evolutionists as 'real' distinct entities in nature, making speciation appear difficult. Charles Darwin had originally promoted a very different uniformitarian view that biological species were continuous with 'varieties' below the level of species and became distinguishable from them only when divergent natural selection led to gaps in the distribution of morphology. This Darwinian view on species came under immediate attack, and the consensus among evolutionary biologists today appears to side more with the ideas of Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who argued 70 years ago that Darwin was wrong about species.

Here, I show how recent genetic studies of supposedly well-behaved animals, such as insects and vertebrates, including our own species, have supported the existence of the Darwinian continuum between varieties and species. Below the level of species, there are well-defined ecological races, while above the level of species, hybridization still occurs, and may often lead to introgression and, sometimes, hybrid speciation. This continuum is evident, not only across vast geographical regions, but also locally in sympatry. The existence of this continuum provides good evidence for gradual evolution of species from ecological races and biotypes, to hybridizing species and, ultimately, to species that no longer cross. Continuity between varieties and species not only provides an excellent argument against creationism, but also gives insight into the process of speciation. The lack of a hiatus between species and ecological races suggests that speciation may occur, perhaps frequently, in sympatry, and the abundant intermediate stages suggest that it is happening all around us. Speciation is easy!

---

Edit: "Sympatry" just means living side by side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).

---

Of course it is important to note that hybridization occurs where cross-breeding is already possible, thus we are talking about micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. As for transitions to something completely different, the abstract uses the word "may" and does not indicate that they have ever seen it happen.

asking,
Thanks much for that.
It is and eye opener about species.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The question of whether species are real entities in nature has been around for a long time. And it relates to what I said earlier about ideal types. It's extremely hard to resist the idea of species being real natural entities because we feel we know what a species is, as Tom argues strenuously.

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

I would say that if we haven't figured out how to define a species by now, we aren't going to--at least not in a way that is ever going to completely satisfy the longing for ideal types. Species are only approximate classifications--groups of unique individuals, many of whom can be sub classified into mosaics of ecological races. And two species may be so closely related that they can separate and come back together and then separate again. Biologists suspect humans may have done that with our ape ancestors 5-6 million years ago.

Nearly the same thing has happened with the word gene. It used to be thought that there was a gene for every trait and a trait for every gene. But it turns out that a stretch of DNA may code for several different proteins, each of which may be cut and spliced and folded differently, and of course, each resulting protein may do different things depending on context, what kind of cell it's in and when.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one."

---

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

Thank you all. This has been a very interesting reading.
I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?
In my opinion, all by the will of God.

asking,
Opps.
I see you have upset Tom Smith
I don't think you were talking just about him.
Years ago I felt that I knew one when I saw one and I'm sure many people did and still do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

---

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

CompsavvyImnot wrote:

Quote:

---

I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?

---

That is what most biologists think. (There is some argument for the existence of evolutionary jumps or "saltations," probably based on changes in the regulation of genes that influence embryological development.) But, yes, it's pretty clear that lots of microevolution adds up to macroevolution, and a lot faster than previously thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

---

This is, I think, a very trenchant diagnosis of some of the misapprehensions we've seen circulating. People do tend to revert to a kind of Platonism about natural kinds.

Fred,
Do you remember the optical illusion where a drawing looks like a piece of pie and then like a pie with a piece cut out?

That's how species are for me, flipping back and forth between ideal types (how I grew up thinking about them) and constellations of unique individuals (how I know I should think about them).
asking

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

---

Then once again, it appears that you have not been reading my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by compsavvyimnot

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

---

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

---

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

---

I answered that already. Post 89 (or apparently shows up as 90 on some computers) I believe.

But in any case, if one wants to provide evolution - i.e. single celled animals evolving into humans and other animals, surely we should be able to find something abundantly clear that would not require debate over how many strands of DNA are different. We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

---

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxonomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxanomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

---

It is a mis-characterization.

Changing names does not change biological reality. Hitler had the Jews defined as a different species. Did they suddenly change biologically because of a racially bigoted meglomaniac change their classification? No one in their right mind would say that they did. Man can apply classes for many different reasons and there is nothing wrong with that, but that will not stop a wolf from being dog (something which is widely recognized both within and outside of the scientific community).

Let me give you an example. In one debate that I had on this topic, one person showed me proof that science had just proven evolution. He found by an article by a scientist who put forward a proposed new definition for a species which would be much more narrowly defined than before, and in so doping he could now identify a number of specific proven examples of species change. Before he made that definition change, he could not prove it, and afterward he could. Did something change biologically? No. Were those organisms suddenly more evolved? No. it was a naming game. I don't care to play games with words - I want to deal with what is really happening in biology.

compsavvyimnot,
Yes.
I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

asking,
I thought so.
Fred

Interesting thought... I had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

My husband and I discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey...

Just a thought... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Str8stack71

interesting thought..... i had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

my husband and i discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such.... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey......

just a thought..... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

---

I used to believe in evolution, and when that did not hold up, I transitioned to what you describe, theistic evolution. I found that, as a person with a background in science, as well as my faith in Christ, theistic evolution is the least defensible position of all.

There are not a lot of good books for children on the topic of creation that I am aware of, but here is one that I would highly recommend:

Dinosaurs By Design: Duane Gish, Earl Snellenberger, Bonita Snellenberger: Amazon.ca: Books

This is another one worth considering:

http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0890511128?t...W7G5JC1R3RJMX&

Str8stack71,
If you read all the posts on this here I think it will be of great help to you as it was for me.
The evolutionary belief is not that man came from a monkey but is more related to an ape.
The apes evolved into intermediate species which eventually became man.
I believe that God gave Man a soul and self awareness, determination and recognition.
That is what make man so much different than other animals.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

This is another one worth considering:

Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record: Duane T. Gish: Amazon.ca: Books

---

The very first Amazon review of this book by Duane Gish is an excellent rebuttal to Gish's book and was written by someone who says he is a born again Christian.

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

Of course, I am interested in what others have to say as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.

---

The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is not as clear and unambiguous as you seem to think, nor is the distinction between organisms that are "different kinds" and populations that are "the same kind", but with variation between individuals. Your argument against macro-evolution depends on these distinctions being sharp and clear, but in actuality they are fuzzy, more like a probability distribution than a bright line.

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

---

That is a whole topic all on its own as I am sure that you know, because of the number of potential aspects to the fossil record (i.e. dating, layers and their placement, rate of fossilization, etc.). I am also not in a good position to put together a lengthy response on something like that right now because I am doing some project planning this afternoon also, and can only take out a few minutes from time to time until I am done this planning. But I have looked at this over the years and have found little to bring comfort to evolutionists. Darwin agrees BTW - have you read his book?

Quote:

---

Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

---

As stated above, I do not have time today to put together a detailed summary, but as I have stated previously, I have many concerns with respect to evolution from a scientific perspective, and when you look at theistic evolution, most of those concerns remain (the evidence does not change). In addition to those remaining concerns, theistic evolution now adds in additional problems such as the clear contradictions between scripture and evolution. Not just the timeframe and sequence but some important concerns with respect to the gospel.

This may not concern you because if I remember correctly, you are not a Christian, but they are important for Christians because I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong because of some assumptions that have been made by some scientists who hold to a specific hypothesis of creation? Do you see what I am saying - from what I have see, the science behind evolution is weak, and in theistic evolution, it is combined with a weak theological explanation.

I was an evolutionist for many years, but a theistic evolutionist for only a brief period due to the difficulties in defending the position even to myself. I am a person who follows truth wherever it leads and if the facts won't support it, then I cannot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

---

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.

Tom,
I was busy most of today too and I totally understand. I am happy to wait until you have some time to explain in more detail about what the fossil record says (as opposed to what you think it does not say). I want to know why you think it's there and why it takes the form it takes. I will just listen.

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

---

Pretty close. I might not have worded it that way, but I think you have the general idea.

I think I might want to agree with STR8stack71's 8 year old.:p
Because Macro evolution takes such an amount of time,we as mere humans with a life span may never get our hands on "proof". After all, there has never been any discoverys that have lead to any proof of Adam and Eve. It's based on our faith. Adam nor Eve kept a log for us to follow, the bible is purely based on our faith to believe that the accounts of God was passed on centuries later.
Why can't it all fit together?
God's "days" may not have been the same 24 hours that we as man appointed. Can any one say that men have found all accounts of life form in all era of the earth life?
It is proven that micro evolution exists, amazing as that is, why can't macro evolution have existed too, and may happen again in our far future?
Tj3, you keep speaking about "proof"... but as Christians we can't "proof" to a non believer that God exist. Is it that impossible to have faith in the Lord that he when willed can make wonders happen? Even wonders such as macro evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.

---

My point was that the concept of "species", as well as the type and degree of differences required to qualify an organism as "completely different" are both in the eye of the (human) beholder.

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong

---

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

---

There were those on this thread who claimed that macro-evolution was "proven". That is why I am asking for the proof.

I would disagree that proof has no basis in science,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

---

I note how you took that out of context ignoring what I said about science. I also note that you ignored the fact that this was to do with theistic evolution which by definition says that God created evolution.

Quote:

---

And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

---

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.

Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven. Where is that proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.

---

So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right. Yours is "what God said", and theirs is a misconstruction at best, or a deception of the Evil One, at worst. It doesn't get much simpler than that, I guess.

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

---

Isn't this the essence of faith?

Tj3,
You said, "Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven"
Once again I ask you to quit twisting what I say.
I never said that macro-evolution has been proven.
I agreed that there is so much micro-evolution shown in nature that that may indicate macro exists.
Please quit trying to put words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
That has been a bad habit of your for years and often pointed out to you by many.
So PLEASE stop it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Isn't this the essence of faith?

---

Boy, I sure hope not. I like to think that faith can live harmoniously alongside doubt, humility, intellectual rigor, and, at times, deference. I'm not an astronomer, but I believe them when they tell me that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. The Bible says otherwise (I cited several passages in an earlier post, but Ps.104.5 sticks out in my mind). I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right.

---

I am not interpreting it. There are very specific statements made in scripture regarding creation. Either they occurred or they did not. I accept what scripture says. If anyone feels that it is subject to interpretation, let them bring forward their private interpretation of it and we can certainly look at it and discuss.