That you think this relevant only demonstrates your poor understanding of evolution.
You clearly do not understand why birds are seen to be part of the same clade as dinosaurs.
1 Like
I am yet to see any data from you to support your assertions. Links to creationist apologetics websites simply don’t cut it.
And by research you probably mean swimming in the rubbish that fills the creationist sites you link to. That’s definitely not going to help you in any way.
The way to approach this is to ask what one would expect to observe in datasets if birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Have you asked this question?
The above paper summarizes some of the evidence in favour of theropod dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds.
2 Likes
Yes, and they would be right. But, this is include within the various species part of what makes up the different kinds of organisms.
And this is clearly demonstrated in God’s Word, because it tells us that there were various species that made up the different kinds.
For example.
" 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind"
Notice how it speaks about the “FRUIT TREE”,… ACCORDING TO ITS KIND.
So, here are the kind of organism being fruit, but, there are kinds of fruits, with in the fruit kind.
“and every winged bird according to its kind.”
Birds are the kind and those species of birds are kinds of birds within the bird kind.
The same would be for small and larger organisms in those of their own kind.
So smaller cats were created along with larger cats. Just as there are larger birds, and smaller birds.
Of course they weren’t met to mate, so when God created them, He created them male and female.
That you can not support what you claim is very revealing. All you keep doing is telling me how wrong I am. But, you produce no empirical evidence showing what I am saying is not scientifically sound.
When are you going to get around to this?
So there are kinds within kinds? But which kinds were created and which evolved within created kinds? This seems to remove all meaning, in terms of creation, from the word “kind”. Was the feline kind created, or were the individual species of felines created? If the latter, then felines aren’t even a kind, just a collection of species no more valid than any other collection. You seem to be saying below that each species was separately created. Do you mean that?
So far what you say isn’t even coherent, and it’s impossible to provide evidence against your claims until we know what those claims actually are. Here, you do seem to be saying that every species is created separately, so evidence of speciation would seem to be against you. Evidence that any two species are related would seem to be evidence against you. Agreed?
3 Likes
All of the different kinds were created to be the kinds of lifeforms they are.
What comes in between are the species that are speciated from within those kinds of lifeforms.
And how does it remove all meaning. Evolutionists use the term SPECIES in two different ways.
They use it in the way the term KINDS is used.
But, they turn right back around and use it, in the way it should be used.
This is why when a new species of organism is found they do not simply announce “A NEW SPECIES, OR A NEW SPECIES OF ANIMAL, OR A NEW SPECIES OF ORGANISM” has been found.
What they do, do, they announce, “a new species of cock roach, or rat, or octopus, or shrimp, or whale…” has been discovered.
What are they referring to? Of course, they are referring to both the speciation of the various species that belong to those kinds of organisms in question.
It really is as clear as day. And it truly fits better than common descent evolution, WHICH IS NOT OBSERVED.
How can you in see there are different kinds of lifeforms.
Even Darwin, Patterson, Gould and Eldredge recognized there are different kinds of lifeforms
If you can recognize a cat as a cat and a dog as a dog, you know there are different kinds of lifeforms. You just want to call them species.
But, you run into the problem because you know you also call species as those organisms that have speciated within the kinds.
As I stated, Darwin, Patterson, Gould and Eldredge recognized there were different kinds of lifeforms, because they confessed the failure of Darwin’s prediction of transitional fossils.
They admitted that the gaps within the fossil record, were not being observed.
What does that even mean?
But isn’t speciation common descent evolution? Again, what’s a kind? You say that cats and lions were separately created yet belong to the same kind, but speciation happens, so which is it?
You will have to back that up. They recognized nothing of the sort.
They did no such thing. Darwin didn’t predict that what you call transitional fossils, meaning, apparently, 3D movies of transformation, would be found. Patterson made no claims about transitional fossils, only that we are unable to determine whether fossils are ancestral or not, and Gould and Eldredge made claims only about the transitions between closely related species, exactly the sort of transitions that you have said do happen.
1 Like
Playing ignorant does not change the facts.
“Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2”
Source: 150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin | The Institute for Creation Research
" > Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1
Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2
The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist — see documentation) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3
And:
I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4"
Source: Refuting Evolution chapter 3: The links are missing
" Central to the punc eq model is the concept of allopatric speciation, where a portion of a population becomes geographically isolated. Because the “daughter population” may be small, it could potentially change rapidly in response to new selection pressures in its environment. When first proposing punc eq, Eldredge and Gould explained the implications of this mode of speciation:
(1) The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective.
(2) Paleontology’s view of speciation has been dominated by the picture of “phyletic gradualism.” It holds that new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record.
(3) The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated populations, then the expectation of insensibly graded fossils is a chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.
(4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of “punctuated equilibria” than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only “rarely” (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation.
ELDREDGE AND GOULD, 1972, PP. 83-84
So, was punctuated equilibrium developed as a model to explain the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record — aka the lack of transitional forms? The answer is yes—seen in what you just read, and also in many quotes you’ll read below… Why would Eldredge and Gould propose such a model? Because they knew the data showed that potential transitional fossils are an extreme rarity. Gould and Eldredge said this many times over the years. Here are a few notorious quotes:
- “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
- “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
- “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
- “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Gould and Eldredge readily admitted the commonality of abrupt appearances of new species and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. And they admitted this pattern with respect to the fossil record as a whole — not simply when discussing “preservational bias” for or against certain groups or something like that. They recognized the problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution across the board. Their model therefore sought to explain why abrupt change was the dominant pattern in the fossil record. The logic goes like this: We have a problem (abrupt appearance and stasis), and punc eq, in their telling, provides a solution. This alone tells us a major reason they proposed their theory was to explain the lack of transitional forms."
Source: Punctuated Equilibrium and Lack of Transitions | Evolution News
"But isn’t speciation common descent evolution? "
Only in the fantasies of the scientists who forget the use of the scientific method.
And they forget to remember we are talking about common descent evolution.
Speciation does not demonstrate the common descent evolution.
Speciation does not demonstrate where any two kinds of lifeforms share a common ancestor.
In speciation those species belong to within the same kinds of lifeforms.
This is why all of the canine kind are made up of species that always reproduce those descendant offspring of the same kind.
This pattern has never ever been observed to be broken.
What about this is not worthy to be posted?
The Bible does not use the word species, nor is the concept expressed. There is absolutely nothing in scripture that allows for speciation within kinds. The verses you cite do not support that idea. The offspring of animals look pretty much like their parents; you harp on that yourself like it is news. That is what reproducing after its kind means. That is how the Hebrews saw nature around them. Lions were lions and leopards were leopards, as they always were. The only way you get tigers, lions, cheetahs, house cats, panthers, saber toothed cats, lynx, leopards, or mountain lions, prowling the earth today is if they came off the ark as such, or there was no global flood.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I am so sooooo surprised at your willingness to be ignorant. Your post above shows you are dancing around the truth of the subject but, you refuse to step on the mine.
No, the Bible did not use the term or word species, just as it did not use the term kind.
The early translators of the text chose the word that more closely applied to the concept they felt the Bible was discussing.
Which is why the term KIND was used.
But, when the Bible speaks of the ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, it is referring to the species that would include those of the same population or even FAMILY, if you please.
And speaking of KIND, it is thought that those members of the same kind population are that way because they are of the same kind, but within this, there are the various species formed from the speciation of those first ever KINDS of lifeforms created in the beginning.
Some are identical, as are those which are formed from single celled organisms, DUE TO THE SINGLE SET OF DNA USED TO FORM THEM. And others are not identical to either parents because there are two sets of DNA vying to implant their own information, but both having the same KIND AS THE INFORMATION TO BE PASSED ALONG.
And within these there is room for the larger cats, and the smaller cats. Both designed to mate with one another of their own species, but meant to be different species of the same kind. .
That comment would be better directed towards some-one who refuses to read the books and articles they are citing.
1 Like
Plagiarised. You didn’t write this. Not one word of it.
1 Like
@rtmcdge a genuine question and not in anyway intended as some sort of dig at you - it is a question if often ask myself.
Do you think there is a possibility that the people you have listened to and read may have misunderstood or potentially misrepresented the science (even unintentional and perhaps just by omission)? Or are you sure that they are giving the best information? And I guess a follow on question - why do you think your answer is what it is to that question
I find that my trust in the experts I read or listen to often is grounded in my own biases rather than an objective reason.
I won’t go down a rabbit hole on this one, just curious as to your answer on it. You have enough people firing stuff at you without me adding one more for more than a quick question.
1 Like
I’ve seen two forms of the below quote, and I’m currently unable to confirm which is correct.
Could some-one with access to Paleobiology (vol 6(1) Jan 1980) please check whether the omitted word from this Gould extract is “gradualist” or “gradualistic”?
Thanks
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for ??? accounts of evolution.”
You have to stop using these creationist sources. They’re lying to you.
Yes, and then he dealt with the objection. This is a common rhetorical device in the Origin: raise an objection and then explain why it’s not a problem. And it’s a common rhetorical device of creationists to cite the first bit and ignore the second.
And that’s a quote-mine of Patterson. What he means is that there are no clear ancestor-descendant series, for the simple reason that we are unlikely to have found them, since most species are unlikely to have been found as fossils, and are unable to recognize them and distinguish them from collateral relations even if we do find them. He didn’t say what you think he said.
Gould wasn’t a Marxist, exactly, but never mind that. Now in fact we have found some of those major transitions that Gould was unaware of or, in some cases, misinterpreted. (Think of Hallucigenia, for example.) I recommend Budd G.E., Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295. In general, most fossils in the Cambrian explosion are stem members of their phyla or classes, and some bridge multiple phyla. As for the “vector of progress”, how do you define “progress”, and what would it even mean to see such a vector? What we see, quite clearly, is that the biota of the Cambrian is quite different from the modern one, and becomes more similar to the modern one as we approach the present day.
Punk eek has nothhing to do with the Cambrian explosion, and what it tries to explain is not the major transitions but the minor ones involved in speciation, which you ironically think actually happens. Now, there’s always been a disconnect between what paleontologists call “species” and what biologist do, and this accounts for some of the problem. Eldredge and Gould applied Mayr’s concept to paleontology, and Mayr was a biologist. Note that “real” here doesn’t mean the transitions didn’t happen, only that they happened rapidly in geological terms and in places we are unlikely to have found fossils in. As far as biologists are concerned, at least, “phyletic gradualism” was always a convenient strawman.
I note that you are repeating the same quote mines in this post, probably because the creationist sources you cut and paste from also do that. They generally don’t quote this:
That depends on just what “kinds” are, doesn’t it? And you still won’t say. I also note that Punk Eek is all about speciation. The transitions you keep quoting them on are in fact the transitions between species. If you agree that these transitions happen, you can’t use the fossil record as evidence that they don’t.
Don’t they always produce descendant offspring of the same species, not just the same kind? Do you have any examples of a dog giving birth to a fox? And yet you think the difference between dogs and foxes is due to speciation. If you count this as evidence, then dogs and foxes must be different kinds. Nor has a dog ever given birth to a wolf, or a coyote, or anything other than a dog. Every species, by your logic, must be a different kind.
How do you know that? “Kind” to you seems flexible enough to expand or contract as it suits your fancy of the moment. I see that “population” for you works the same way.
How does speciation work? Does a cat give birth to a male lion, and another cat gives birth to a female lion? Why don’t we ever see that happening?
2 Likes
There is one, the tuatara. That’s all. I know you didn’t write this, but do you have any idea what it means? Do you know that “genera” is plural?
Need a citation for that one. I’m dubious.
I prefer to call it the Duck Kind. Isn’t that a rather big kind with lots of evolution going on? How could that happen in a mere 6000 years?
Do you happen to know who “Motterpop” is? It would be good to know who we’re actually arguing with here, since it isn’t you.
1 Like
That is made up. Bible kinds were just animals such as named throughout the Bible itself. Speciation is a concept not found in any way in scripture.
Name one Biblical verse, church father, creed, or reformer, which even alluded to the idea that species descended from kinds, rather than God just having created them directly. That whole line of interpretation is invented whole cloth by modern YEC as a way the get around the difficulties of dealing with the vastly larger number of species now known compared to what the ancient Hebrews would have thought to be on the ark. What you are saying is just as unbiblical as it is unscientific.
2 Likes
… said there were transitional forms, and gave multiple concrete examples.
Why do you regurgitate those talking points as if you have not already had explained to you why they are wrong?
What use is it to discuss anything with you if you are not willing to acknowledge that the people you are misquoting do not share your view of what their quotes are intended to convey?
Once again, they were criticizing a particular version of the theory of evolution, and none of their criticisms undermine common descent, nor evolution more broadly.
As explained already, it’s like a dispute between two different theories of gravitation(Newtonian vs general relativity). Arguing that the data does not support one of the two theories does now show there is no such thing as gravity.
That is directly analogous to what you are doing. You are taking Gould and his colleagues statements, offered as criticisms against one of many different theories of evolution, to be somehow proving that the fossil record does not support evolution or common descent. But the very same authors whose arguments you are misappropriating are also on the record as giving examples of fossils they think are examples of both transitional species, and gradual evolutionary change.
All you’ve done is to change the goalposts every time this was brought up, and offered the most cataclysmically stupid point of all creationistic apologetics: The claim that if you didn’t see it happen directly then ya can’t know nuffin.
So you are wrong about what Gould and colleagues thought about the fossil record.
You were wrong about common descent.
You were wrong about information and mutation.
You were wrong about complexity.
You were wrong about how historical inference works and the role of observation in scientific inference.
You’ve been hilariously and embarrassingly wrong from start to finish about literally every single topic or point you’ve brought up.
Kids, rtmcdge is your brain on creationism. Just say no!
4 Likes
While I’ve seen people this badly misinformed before, I can’t recall another one who explicitly stated that instead of studying actual evolutionary theory he’d only studied the “fake” version of the theory. Usually if one realizes that, one realizes that it may be necessary to study the real version instead. But evidently that’s not yet happened.
7 Likes
Please cite a source for your statement. and then I’ll talk to Crisp about tone.
1 Like