Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

The question is why do I need to accept all of a person's work in order to accept part of it? Your point makes no sense.

No, I'm asking why you accept some of Craig's arguments (the ones about the existence of God), but not others (about YEC). On what basis do you accept one but reject the other?

But let's get specific to one of the main topics of this thread....transitional fossils. If a Christian paleontologist like Robert T. Bakker says that transitional fossils exist, would you reject that? If so, on what basis?

I choose what I believe. Quite Armenian of me true. I answer for it as well. Could I be incorrect about something? Of course. I would like for you to admit the same, but no breath is being held.

Of course I could be wrong. I could be very, very, very wrong.

I hope the math is sound. You missed my point completely, I hope it is true. A nearly infinite universe in a few seconds? No light for a period of "time." Yea, let's hope it holds.

Ok, sorry 'bout that.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Because the cosmological, ontological and argument from morality positions make sense to me. Calling a large number of really good people an embarrassment somehow doesn't.

Okay everyone. I win. I was the one who made River admit that she is probably wrong.

Just kidding. A little humor there. Very little.

 

[Purity]

Is this discussion on a micro or macro setting?

It has been found that dolphins contain the genes necessary to smell on land, a feature that would be of no value to dolphins given that they spend all of their time in the water. In fact, these genes account for 3% of the entire genetic code found in dolphins. Yet despite having the genes necessary for it, dolphins are incapable of smelling on land, as the genetic code has become inactive: it is damaged and switched off due to many many generations of bad mutations. Anatomically, dolphins have the remnants of what we would consider to be a nose, but for them their nasal cavity is used as a blowhole for removing water to assist breathing - it does not have any of the components needed for smelling. From a creationist viewpoint, it makes no sense to have 3% of your genetic code dedicated to something that your species can no longer do, but from an evolutionary perspective, it shows that dolphins were indeed descended from land based mammals who were able to smell on land.

Source: Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

How would this example fit in with the suggestion that maybe damaged DNA actually has a God-given purpose that we don't know about?

The fact is that this code in all other mammals codes for smelling and yet dolphins are incapable of smelling. This section of code is comparable to an architect building a door in a new house that is glued / nailed shut and is therefore incapable of opening, thereby rendering its useless. Or it's like having an electric razor that has been made without a power source, whether it be a socket or a battery slot - without the power it is of no use to you. This section of the genetic code is not ambiguous, it is not a section of code where scientists are not completely confident about what it does. This is a very straightforward section of code that does one thing in most mammals, but has no practical purpose in cetaceans (dolphins, whales etc).

Purity

 

[KingJ]

1. Again, the only way a population doesn't evolve is if it replicates perfectly forever. Is that what you think happens?

2. Sure. Everyone interested in this subject should go look for themselves. Go look at fossils at a museum, go talk to the scientists who study them, take a university course where you get to conduct experiments for yourself, get out in the field and look at the geology around you, go talk to the scientists who study it....

3. You still haven't said what "uphill evolution" is.

1. You have been told what the bible teaches.
2. I am fascinated by fossils and dinosaurs. Always wanted to be an archaeologist. But I would be an honest one .
3. Opposite of downhill. A frog becoming a prince. Radiation turning me into superman.

 

[Purity]

2. I am fascinated by fossils and dinosaurs. Always wanted to be an archaeologist. But I would be an honest one .

So are we to read this as "all archaeologists are liars?".

Surely not.

 

[KingJ]

Honest archaeologist = 'oh look, a dinosaur fossil, wow...I am so excited. Let's date it as accurately as we can. Oh according to this unreliable method it is likely millions of years old.'' = Old or Young earth = Honest.

Dishonest = 'oh look, a fossil of our ancestors, wow...I am so excited. Let's date it, it is beyond doubt millions of years old'. Add a few more millions of years and we can make it a perfectly fitting missing piece of the puzzle between us and them.

Why in the universe not just leave it at....wow a dinosaur fossil. Dishonesty is so transparent in this field.

 

[River Jordan]

Because the cosmological, ontological and argument from morality positions make sense to me. Calling a large number of really good people an embarrassment somehow doesn't.

But what about Christian paleontologists who say transitional fossils exist? Do you believe them?

Okay everyone. I win. I was the one who made River admit that she is probably wrong.

Just kidding. A little humor there. Very little.

1. You have been told what the bible teaches.
2. I am fascinated by fossils and dinosaurs. Always wanted to be an archaeologist. But I would be an honest one .
3. Opposite of downhill. A frog becoming a prince. Radiation turning me into superman.

1. You didn't answer...do you think all populations replicate themselves perfectly, all the time?

2. Archaeologists study past human activities, not dinosaurs.

3. Oh, no wonder you struggle with this subject so much.

Why in the universe not just leave it at....wow a dinosaur fossil. Dishonesty is so transparent in this field.

And that's my point here....people like you, who know almost nothing about science, tying Christianity to "you have to believe scientists are liars". You're exactly what W,L. Craig described as "embarrassing" to our faith.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaking of transitional fossils and "kinds", I saw this today...


'Strange' dinosaur was closest thing to a bird without being one

"The fossil remains of an ostrich-size creature that roamed the riverine wetlands of North America some 67 million years ago is shedding light on one of the most mysterious groups of major dinosaurs paleontologists have unearthed.

Partial skeletons of the newly described creature, christened Anzu wyliei, came from two sites in the Dakotas. A composite built from the finds was formally described for the first time in a paper published online Wednesday by the journal PLOS ONE.

The animal – an intriguing blend of traits common to birds and to crocodiles – stretched some 11 feet from the tip of its beak to the tip of its tail. Researchers estimate that it weighed in at between 440 and 660 pounds.

...Among its birdlike traits, beyond the hollow bones: feathers, inferred from 125 million-year-old relatives found in China that are covered with feathers; a beak with no teeth; long arms; a bony crest on its head; and a tendency to brood in nests. On the other hand, the long, bony tail, the large hands, and the large claws associated with them are decidedly unbirdlike.

"It's a very strange bird-reptile hybrid," says Hans-Dieter Sues, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the National Museum of Natural History."

(the actual published paper is HERE)


What "kind" is this thing? And isn't it exactly what a transitional fossil should be (a specimen showing a mixture of traits from different taxa)?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Feathers inferred, tended to brood in nests.

"Liked its martini shaken, not stirred"

Quoted part mine. But hey, why not?

 

[River Jordan]

CJ,

I'm still wondering though, what "kind" is this creature? And isn't it exactly what a transitional fossil should be (a specimen showing a mixture of traits from different taxa)?

Also, do you believe Christian paleontologists who say transitional fossils exist?

 

[KingJ]

1. You didn't answer...do you think all populations replicate themselves perfectly, all the time?

2. Archaeologists study past human activities, not dinosaurs.

3. Oh, no wonder you struggle with this subject so much.

haha, yeah I did write archaeologist instead of palentologist. Rushed post and honest mistake from not being in the field...as I have a real job h34r: .

1. I answered it, read post #164
3. You no longer recall that link I gave you? It explained the superman analogy . What happened to the flatworm of 550 million years ago? Did it not become us? You don't grasp that is on par with a bug becoming spider-man? In fact its more miraculous! Prove me wrong!

I will bet 550 million dollars that someone who has NEVER heard of evolution will sooner believe a spider can become spider-man over a flatworm, us . Have to credit the devil for a sense of humour. Many of us are the fallen angels' live entertainment. 'Today on devil tv'....a worm becomes evidence of man-kinds' origin.

And that's my point here....people like you, who know almost nothing about science, tying Christianity to "you have to believe scientists are liars". You're exactly what W,L. Craig described as "embarrassing" to our faith.

I sympathize with you and pray common sense / sanity return to you soon. Believing we come from a flatworm 550 million years ago is madness my sister. Meditate on that today please.

As for Mister Craigy boy,he is a nutter to attack Christian faith with another faith. I would / did believe and say what current matter between brain grasps as sanity before, during and after my conversion to my faith. Debunking madness does not need to involve religion.

I have taken the religious approach with you because I care about you and other Christians. Respecting scripture should prick something inside you / all of us...just like shock treatment.

 

[River Jordan]

1. I answered it, read post #164
3. You no longer recall that link I gave you? It explained the superman analogy . What happened to the flatworm of 550 million years ago? Did it not become us? You don't grasp that is on par with a bug becoming spider-man? In fact its more miraculous! Prove me wrong!

1. You posted, "You have been told what the bible teaches". The Bible teaches nothing about whether populations replicate themselves perfectly or otherwise. Care to try again?

2. No, the flatworm that existed 550 MYA did not become us.

I sympathize with you and pray common sense / sanity return to you soon. Believing we come from a flatworm 550 million years ago is madness my sister. Meditate on that today please.

Trust me, the feeling of sympathy is mutual. I pray that one day you'll drop your fear-based hatred of science and will learn to appreciate God's creation for what it actually is, rather than what you insist it has to be.

As for Mister Craigy boy,he is a nutter to attack Christian faith with another faith. I would / did believe and say what current matter between brain grasps as sanity before, during and after my conversion to my faith. Debunking madness does not need to involve religion.

He's not the only Christian saying that people like you are an embarrassment to our faith and/or are harming our cause of sharing the Gospel with the lost. I see first hand every year kids walk away because of the creationist nonsense they've been told is essential to Christianity.

I have taken the religious approach with you because I care about you and other Christians. Respecting scripture should prick something inside you / all of us...just like shock treatment.

Likewise.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Dear Dr. Craig,

I love your work and your tireless efforts to spread the message of Christ in a intelligent, articulate manner! You have personally brought me to faith in Christ and delivered me, through your various articles and debates, from an atheistic-induced existential depression ( I really contemplated suicide for I thought: Since there is no afterlife... might as well go into oblivion sooner..... ); and for that I cannot thank you enough!

I have 3 questions.

1) Regarding the theory of evolution, why is it so widely accepted in mainstream science? While I am steadfast in the fact that evolution cannot disprove the existence of God; I cannot seem to find any evidence clearly showing the general process of simple organisms evolving into more complex ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a consensus among geologists that the Earth is roughly 6 billion years old, whereas I hear Young Earth Creationists stating that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. Who is right?

2) If evolution is true, then why didn't God write Genesis differently? Just a simple " and little organisms changed over time " would certainly clear up all the conflict between Creationists and Evolutionists and prevent people from thinking that the Bible is against science or something. In line with this thinking, why didn't God put the Big Bang Cosmology theory in Genesis? " In the beginning, the universe was a hot dense state. Then, it expanded! "

3) What is going to happen to the Reasonable faith ministry should you retire or be called to be with Christ? Is it going to continue under another scholar(s)? Or will it ceased to exist? ( the horror! =D)

Please give me links or additional information regarding these topics

Once again, I really thank you for your work and pray that God blesses and keeps you, and everything you hold dear, well.

Warm Regards,

Timothy

United States
I’m thrilled to hear that your life is now on a good track, Tim! I’ll respond to your questions in order.

(1) Why is the theory of evolution so widely accepted in mainstream science? I think the short answer is that it’s the best naturalistic theory we’ve got. If, as a result of methodological naturalism, the pool of live explanatory options is limited to naturalistic hypotheses, then, at least until recently, the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution driven by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection was, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, the only game in town. Rival naturalistic hypotheses could not equal its explanatory power, scope, and plausibility. No matter how improbable it seems, no matter how enormously far the explanatory power of its mechanisms must be extrapolated beyond the testable evidence, no matter the lack of evidence for many of its tenets, it has to be true because there isn’t any other naturalistic theory that comes close.

It’s helpful to remind ourselves that the word “evolution” is an accordion-word that can be expanded or contracted to suit the occasion. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala points out that the word “evolution” can be used to mean at least three different things:

1. The process of change and diversification of living things over time. It is in this sense that biologists say that evolution is a fact. But obviously this fact, so stated, is innocuous and would not be disputed even by the most fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist.

2. Reconstruction of evolutionary history, showing how various lineages branched off from one another on the universal tree of life.

3. The mechanisms which account for evolutionary change. Darwin appealed to natural selection operating on random variations in living things in order to explain the adaptedness of organisms to their environment. With the development of modern genetics, genetic mutations came to supplement the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection by supplying an explanation for the variations on which natural selection works. Accordingly, we can call this hypothesis “neo-Darwinism.”

Now evolution in the senses of (2) and (3) is not an established fact, despite what is said and believed in popular culture. According to Ayala, “The second and third issues—seeking to ascertain evolutionary history as well as to explain how and why evolution takes place—are matters of active scientific investigation. Some conclusions are well-established. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others. . . remain largely unknown” (Darwin and Intelligent Design). With respect to (2) Ayala emphasizes, “Unfortunately, there is a lot, lot, lot to be discovered still. To reconstruct evolutionary history, we have to know how the mechanisms operate in detail, and we have only the vaguest idea of how they operate at the genetic level, how genetic change relates to development and to function. . . . I am implying that what would be discovered would be not only details, but some major principles” (Where Darwin Meets the Bible). As for (3), he cautions, “The mechanisms accounting for these changes are still undergoing investigation. . . . The evolution of organisms is universally accepted by biological scientists, while the mechanisms of evolution are still actively investigated and are the subject of debate among scientists”(“The Evolution of Life: An Overview”).

Once you realize that the word “evolution” can be used to refer to any of these three aspects, you begin to understand how misleading it can be when it is asserted that evolution is an established, universally recognized fact.

Indeed, there are very good grounds for scepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change. The adequacy of these mechanisms is today being sharply challenged by some of the top evolutionary biologists. In fact, I was intrigued recently to learn that Ayala has apparently since given up on the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Lyn Margulis, one of the so-called Altenburg 16, a group of evolutionary biologists who met in 2008 at a conference in Altenburg, Austria, to explore the mechanisms behind evolutionary change, reported, “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism, but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead” (Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16 [Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2010], p. 285).

Now it needs to be clearly understood that Ayala is not about to embrace some sort of creationism. Rather additional natural mechanisms will be sought to supplement genetic mutation and natural selection. These are already being suggested in the scientific literature. I have every expectation that during the course of this century the neo-Darwinian mechanisms, which have been long challenged by creationists of various stripes, will come to be recognized as inadequate, and new mechanisms will be recognized. The irony will then be that the community of evolutionary biologists, rather than admitting that the criticisms of the creationists were justified, will say, “Oh, well, we knew all along that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms were inadequate!”--this, despite the public posturing that goes on now in the name of neo-Darwinism!

So while evolution in an innocuous sense is well-established, belief in evolution in senses (2) and (3) is not universal among scientists, and the dominance of neo-Darwinism heretofore is due to the constraints of methodological naturalism and the want of a better naturalistic alternative.

2. If evolution is true, then why didn't God write Genesis differently? It seems to me that the answer to this question must be that the purpose of Genesis is not to teach science. Rather its purpose is theological; it demythologizes the pagan creation myths of Israel’s neighbors, so that the sun, moon, and stars are no longer deities but just things God made, like the plants and animals. It is the demythologization of nature and an assertion of God’s sovereignty.

3. What will happen to Reasonable Faith after I’m gone? Reasonable Faith will end when I do. I’ve no interest in building an organization. After I’m gone, perhaps there will remain an archival website, but that’s all. And hopefully some changed lives!

by William Lane Craig | Submit your question to Dr. Craig


77
More Q & A


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed#ixzz2wXbTPB9A


River,

Since you referenced Dr. Craig I would like your input on what he has to say here.

This is an example of what you asking me to explain.

You agree with Craig about the YEC's but obviously would disagree about darwinism.

 

[River Jordan]

Since you referenced Dr. Craig I would like your input on what he has to say here.

Actually, you brought him up first. I really didn't know much at all about him until you mentioned him. And now that I compare what he's written with what he's quoting, I think he's....um....well, not entirely trustworthy on the subject.

For example, he's misrepresenting how Ayala broke down the three parts of evolution. In his book Darwin's Gift, Ayala says...

"The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: 1) the fact of evolution, that is, that organisms are related by common descent; 2) evolutionary history--the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and 3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs.

The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty. Darwin gathered much evidence in its support, but evidence has accumulated continuously ever since, derived from all biological disciplines. The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established beyond a reasonable doubt, endowed with the kind of certainty that scientists attribute to well-established scientific theories in physics, astronomy, chemistry, and molecular biology. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a "fact"; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist."

Then, Craig omits the following from Ayala's description of the second statement in evolutionary theory...

"Some conclusions are well-established. One, for example, is that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than is either of those two species to baboons or to other monkeys, as mentioned above. Another conclusion is that natural selection, the process postulated by Darwin, explains the configuration of such adaptive features as the human eye and the wings of birds."

There's a lot more, but I think the point is obvious. W.L. Craig is not a reliable source for what scientists have to say about evolution.

This is an example of what you asking me to explain.

Not really.

You agree with Craig about the YEC's but obviously would disagree about darwinism.

Craig isn't a scientist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, so he's kinda out of his area of expertise (and he's been shown to be loose with the facts). OTOH, I'm asking you what you do when a Christian paleontologist says transitional fossils exist (the question is directly in their field of expertise).

See the difference?

Ready for another interesting nugget? The evolutionary biologist Craig is mis-quoting is Francisco Ayala, a former priest and current Christian. Do you reject what he wrote above? If so, why?

 

[Fred Lamm]

Hi River,
Just want to respond to as much of your post as time permits me. On the subject of the yeast paper, and yes I mistakenly called them bacteria when they are actually fungi, I found this definition of yeast:
"Yeasts are eukaryotic microorganisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of strings of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or false hyphae, as seen in most molds. Yeast size can vary greatly depending on the species, typically measuring 3–4 µm in diameter, although some yeasts can reach over 40 µm. Most yeasts reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so by an asymmetric division process called budding." So this guy wrote a paper describing a commonly observed behavior of yeast as evolution.
Tremendous motivation and pressure exist in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution; do something flashy enough and they might put you on the cover of a magazine or maybe even give you some air time on "Nova".
Publish nothing and you may find yourself out of a job or out of funding for your research, so there is a lot of incentive to promote darwinism. You seem to believe, River, that scientists are nobler than the rest of us, interested only in the pursuit of pure science so that they can enlighten the rest of us. Please wake up. Scientists have the same amount of corruption, selfishness and depravity as the rest of the population, and possibly more so because their leadership, mostly college professors, are a self-selecting group. If you espouse a Christian world veiw, you might not get tenure, you might not become a professor and most likely you will not even get a job at a major university. That is why most scientists today are no longer objective but politically and financially motivated to support darwinism.
There is a movement in the Church today that thinks, since they believe evolution is a fact, we must reconcile the Bible to it. These people are the unwitting tools of the atheist. The atheist knows that if he can make Christians think that the Bible is not historically and factually true, then what is left is pretty much just in your head, and while this generation may continue to believe, the next generation will say to themselves, if it's not correct about these things why should I believe any of it? I believe that they are right in this and that our religion could be wiped out in a generation if we allow this to continue unchallenged.
I am pressed for time now so please forgive me if i get right to the bigger problem for evolution as a theory, it's called "irreducible complexity". Charles Darwin wrote in 1859, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The cell is just one example of this. As Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, put it "In Darwin's day the cell was a "black box"---a mysterious little part of life that no one could see into. But now that we have the ability to peer into the cell, we see that life at the molecular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed. In fact, it is irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex system is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
You might want to read his book "Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical challenge to Evolution". In it he explains in incredible detail, functions in the body --- such as blood clotting, vision and cilia---require irreducibly complex system that could not have evolved because intermediates would be totally nonfunctional.
The presence of irreducible compexity in all living things is astronomical. DNA's genetic alphabet has four letters: A, T, C, and G. In each human cell there are about 3 Billion pairs of those letters, your body has trillions of cells and each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems.
God created the world in six days.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[aspen]

science relies on shared and repeatable human observation as its final authority. Fundamentalists rely on selected human observation that conforms to a literal interpretation of the Bible to define their reality and everyone elses morality, faith, intentions, and fan allegence. Scientists are interested in what humans can learn from the world around - fundamentalists seem to only care about what team everyone is playing for

 

[KingJ]

2. No, the flatworm that existed 550 MYA did not become us.

You don't believe in evolution? What of my bet? Evolution says we come from a flatworm 550 million years ago. The sooner you deal with the madness of your belief the better.

As for Craigy boy and his ilk.....I am OPEN to correction and dealing with accusations. I judge myself and am able to stand before God with my beliefs. Can you do the same? Knowing that you urinate on scripture, insinuate God is evil, cross a joke and scripture recent dogma? I don't think you can and I don't think you are dealing with that as you should. Remember Phil 2:12.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

I guess my point is not as clear as I believe it to be.

You can say Amen or give a yes nod when Craig chastises YEC's, yet you would cringe at his other opinions.

It's the same for me. A Christian paleontologist who holds a Darwinian worldview, I would have issues with. However, we would no doubt agree on some issues.

So, the question then becomes, what is priority of belief. I am working on this and may keep the forum updated.

 

[River Jordan]

Fred,

You once again ignored almost everything I posted to you, and posted yet another series of empty assertions. I hope you understand that given this pattern of behavior, I really don't see any point in continuing with you.

You don't believe in evolution? What of my bet? Evolution says we come from a flatworm 550 million years ago. The sooner you deal with the madness of your belief the better.

As for Craigy boy and his ilk.....I am OPEN to correction and dealing with accusations. I judge myself and am able to stand before God with my beliefs. Can you do the same? Knowing that you urinate on scripture, insinuate God is evil, cross a joke and scripture recent dogma? I don't think you can and I don't think you are dealing with that as you should. Remember Phil 2:12.

When you're willing to discuss this in an adult manner, let me know.

You can say Amen or give a yes nod when Craig chastises YEC's, yet you would cringe at his other opinions.

Craig is a philosopher/theologian, so when he muses on evolutionary biology, he is far outside his field of expertise. Plus, given what I posted above (how he misrepresented Ayala's words), I'd honestly not take Craig's word on anything.

But look at how I came to that conclusion. I did a little work. I looked at how he characterized Ayala's words and compared it to what Ayala actually wrote, saw some obvious problems, and concluded that Craig isn't trustworthy on this subject.

It's the same for me. A Christian paleontologist who holds a Darwinian worldview, I would have issues with. However, we would no doubt agree on some issues.

But my question is, on what basis do you reject a Christian paleontologist's statements about the existence of transitional fossils? Is it like what I did above (do a little work), or something else?

 

[Fred Lamm]

River,
These quotes of Darwin, Gould and Behe are hardly empty assertions. Your manner of debate is to only offer criticisim of what your opponent has said in an attempt to make them look weak because they are always on the defensive. But I am not weak and my arguments are not weak, hence your unwillingness to continue. I will answer the kind question that you can't seem to get over. This is from the "Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2"
1 - IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES
PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS—The science of classifying plants and animals is called taxonomy.
"Classification or taxonomy is the theory and practice of naming, describing, and classifying organisms. " –*W. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.
All plants and animals have been placed by taxonomists in logical categories, and then arranged on several major levels, which are these:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Sub-species
It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing as a phylum or a family. Those are just convenient names, and are like rooms in a zoo or botanical garden; each one with a different collection of plant or animal species. It is the species which are alive; the room is not. The terms "phyla, classes, orders, families," and most of the "genera" are merely category labels. It is only the species (with some genera included, which should be labeled as species) which count, for they only have any real, living existence.
"According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion." —*G. W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477, (comment made during review of *Mayr's Authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology).
Here is an example of how classification works. This is the classification of the house cat:
PHYLUM Chordate—all animals possessing at some time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve cord.
"SUB-PHYLUM Vertebrate—all those animals that possess vertebrae.
"CLASS Mammalia—all those animals that have internally regulated body temperature, possess hair, and suckle their young.
"ORDER Carnivora—All those mammals whose teeth are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which are not insectivores.
"FAMILY Felidae—all those Carnivore with retractile claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.
"GENUS
Felis—the true cats.
"SPECIES domestics—[the domesticated cats]." —Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (1983), p. 37.
If you go to the zoo, you will see a sign on one cage, "Giant Panda," with the words, "Ailuropoda melanoleuca" just below it. The first line is the common name of this large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its "scientific name." These two-part Latin names (called binomials or binominals) are understood by scientists worldwide. The first word is the Genus, and the second is species. Sometimes the name of the discoverer or namer is added as a third word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this method of scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.
Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. His contention that the only practical solution was, first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to similarities between them, and, then, declare that, therefore, one must have evolved from the other, or from a common ancestor. From beginning to end, evolution is just theory, theory, theory.
"Darwin wrote a friend in 1861, 'the change of species cannot be directly proved, and . . the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains [disparate] phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way.' A few years later he wrote that he was 'weary of trying to explain' the point; most people could not grasp it." —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 436 (italics and brackets his).
Little wonder few could understand it. They saw that Darwin was basically trying to prove an assumption (that species evolved from other species), with more assumptions.
THE GENESIS KIND—Back in the beginning, the law of the "Genesis kinds" was established:
"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . . And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind." —Genesis 1:11, 12.
In the same way, the birds, sea-life, and animals were each to reproduce "after their kind" (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-25). This principle was not to be violated. And this is what we find in the fossil record, and in the world today. The "Genesis kind" is generally equivalent to the species level, but sometimes the genus level. This variation is due to flaws in our humanly-devised classification systems.
Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis for "create" and "kind" are bare and min, Frank Marsh, a careful research scholar in speciation, has suggested the term baramin as an identifying name for this "Genesis kind." (Min is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in the rest of the Old Testament.) It would be a good word to use, since it is more accurate than "species," which can at times be incorrect. Another important term is the "biological species."
BIOLOGICAL SPECIES—The term, "biological species," is increasingly becoming accepted as a basic reference point by scientists. Although there are instances in which obvious subspecies do not cross breed, biological species would normally apply to those species which do not cross-breed outside of their own kind. Here are some definitions of such a true species:
"Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." —*Ernst Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds" in American Naturalist, 74: 249.
"Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups." —*Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (1989).
"The largest and most inclusive. . reproductive community of sexual and cross-fertilizing individuals which share in a common gene pool." —*Theodore Dobzhansky, "Mendelian Populations and their Environment" in American Naturalist, 84:401.
"The sum total of the races that interbreed frequently or occasionally with one another, and that intergrade more or less continuously in their phenotypic characters." —*V. Grant, The Origin of Adaptions (1983).
"A genetic species is a group of organisms so constituted and so situated in nature that a hereditary character of many one of these organisms may be transmitted to a descendent of any other." —*George G. Simpson, "Criteria for Genera, Species, and Sub-species in Zoology and Paleozoology, " in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 44:145.
Marsh has studied the species question for decades. Here is his approach to trying to relocate the "Genesis kind:"
"Originally created kinds are distinguishable today in two ways: (t ) by the closely similar morphological characters of members of a basic kind, and (2) by true fertilization when eggs and sperms are brought together. In every known instance where true fertilization occurs, the mates are sufficiently similar in appearance to indicate membership in the same basic kind." —Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1978), p. 122.
MICRO VS. MACROEVOLUTION—Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties end new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.
FAMILY TREE—Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?
The truth is that the "Evolutionary Tree of Life" is just another fake, like all the other "evidences" of evolutionary theory.
One example of what you will find on one "limb" of this imaginary "tree" are a mutually diverse group of creatures called the "coelenterates" solely because they have a saclike body, tentacles, and a single mouth opening. Although coral and jellyfish are not a bit alike, they are therefore classified together. We are supposed to believe that, because coral and jellyfish are together on the tree, one evolved from the other! In the plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a waste-basket category that includes all the flowering plants that cannot be fitted in somewhere else. So therefore, they are supposed to have evolved from one another. This "tree" is a classificationist's nightmare!
In chapter 21, Similarities, you will find a number of similarities never discussed by the classification experts. If used, they would produce totally different "tree" relationships. Two such examples would be aortic arch groupings and chromosome count comparisons.
Evolutionists have tried to shoehorn species into various "families" of related species. But there are many creatures which have such unusual shapes, organs, or functions—that they fit into no particular pattern. The only reason the classification systems work as well as they do is because only a few surface distinguishing characteristics are used in the classification schemes
Hope this helps you understand what a kind is and why I do not subscibe to the arbitrary grouping and categorizing of animal groups.
Have a blessed day,
Fred Lamm

 

[KingJ]

When you're willing to discuss this in an adult manner, let me know.

When you're willing to discuss this as a Christian and not an atheist, let me know.

Believing a flatworm = us over 550 million years is what adults discuss? :lol: