One common argument against evolution that we hear from Creationists is that organisms can change over time through speciation, but because these "different" species can interbreed still, they fit the Biblical definition of "same kind" (Genesis 1 states that plants and animals produce according to their own kind), and so that's micro-evolution; it is not macroevolution. So because these organisms can still interbreed, Creationists argue, they do not provide evidence for evolution.

However, there are at least two demonstrated cases where this argument CANNOT hold true.

At the southern end of the Tibetan plateau, we find a type of bird called the Greenish Warbler. As members of this species traveled northward, some of them went Northeast around the plateau and the rest went Northwest around the plateau. These birds adapted to their surroundings and changed in incremental amounts, which could fit the Biblical definition of "same kinds." However, as members of these new Greenish Warblers from the West side and from the East side continued northward around the plateau, they eventually met up with each other. At the north end of the Tibetan plateau, the members from the West side CANNOT breed with members from the East side. This means they must be different kinds.

The second case is of salamanders traveling around the Central Valley of California where the same thing is observed.

The existence of ring species is evidence that macro-evolution can and does happen when members of a species are geographically isolated from each other.

References
"Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation" D. Irwin et al, Genetica, 2001
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic635410.files/Irwin%20et%20al%202001.pdf

"Speciation in the round" D. Wake, Nature, 18 Jan 2001
http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/wake/2001_Nature_SpecInRound.pdf

you need to lose your 10% ,and post in the christain forum
even pard would be good , id like to see some of the reactions

Before this turns into a Evolution vs Creation point by point debate, there is alot of science on both sides of the issue. Each side will of course try and dispute the other sides point of view as dogma (yes both sides), but it might be best to look over the views of each side and render your own opinion on the FULL package instead of one line item at a time on an issue most of us would have no real understanding of.

In my point of view either the Universe is either a cosmic coincidence and therefore has no deeper meaning than the here and now, or it came about from intellegent design, created for a purpose. I don't see how evolutionary theory removes the possibility of creation, nor do I see Creation as preventing evolution. I just personaly see the idea of Only Evolution and Random chance for life as trying to say that something as complex as a 757 Jet could randomly come together fully functional if you dropped all the pieces on the ground enough times. It might work out mathematicly like one in a Elevendy Billion-Zillion-Trillion times, but in reality it would never happen. Given that a single cell is more complex than a 757 Jet, how is it that it is comprehendable to come about by the same cosmic chance?

Anyway, it is for each of us to form our own opinion on the matter. And like George Carlin once said, "I'd rather go my whole life believing in GOD only to be proven wrong, than to go my whole life not believing only to be proven wrong".

References for your concideration:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

This is not Passages from the Bible, but evidence of problems with evolutionary theories.

Interesting find.

One thing I've noticed too, which is similar but kind of contrary to that, is it seems as though God put all of these things here on earth fully developed as they are, for example,

We have the cat form... which ranges from the common housecat to the lions of the African Savannah. (Still cats, just different size and color, shape/build is still the same)

Then we have the horse form for example, from your everyday standard bred horse, to the zebras of the African Savannah.

Also take spiders for example, thousands of different species all over the world, but they're all part of the spider "kind" or "form".

To the evolutionist, its almost as if a base model or "form" was put here, then it branched off into all the different species of it's "kind"

Let me know your thoughts on this.

This post was edited by Torm1 on Jul 2 2011 12:55pm

all the animals u said are actually the same basic " form " ( body plan ) , called a chordate

(snipping quotes for brevity's sake)

I got that 10% for trolling the Christian forum in the first place I'm not likely to do that again. If they see this and take issue about it, they're free to post in here. I didn't post it in PaRD because this is neither political nor religious. This is science.


Evolutionary theory doesn't remove the possibility that a being designed everything, but it does make it entirely unnecessary, since everything is explicable through natural processes.

As for the probability of a cell coming together, that's irrelevant. There are trillions of stars spread across over one hundred billion galaxies, just to give you an idea of how many planets there are where the ingredients can be "tossed up in the air" repeatedly to end up in the form of a cell. Even if life coming together is highly improbable, it happened, so no matter how unlikely it is for it to happen, we know it did here (and took ~1 billion years for it to happen). However, the origin of life is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution describes how species change over time.

I think it's funny that you would bring up George Carlin since he was a profound critic of religion and was definitely NOT a Christian (IIRC he was raised a Catholic and then left the religion at some point along the way). As to your attributing that quote to him, I can't find a source so I really don't think he said that. The principle that the "quote" is describing is known as Pascal's Wager and that's an idea that completely and totally any and all scrutiny. It's really the worst possible reason that anyone could give to believe in the Christian God.

I'll have to look at that source you posted, but I doubt it has anything that evolution truly can't explain. Even if it does, there is no scientific evidence for Creationism, however. Creation and Intelligent Design are not default positions that are automatically true if evolution is ever disproven.


The problem with that idea is that we have an extremely detailed fossil record that links all of these different "forms" and "kinds" together. We can see the point where a common ancestor branched off into different genera. We don't have ALL of the transitional fossils, per se, but in a way every single species we find is transitional from one species to another, with exceptions for species that just died off altogether. That necessarily includes species currently alive today, as well.

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on Jul 2 2011 02:01pm

lol , you would probably end up getting banned posting this in the christain forum
but really , you would get a good discussion going in pard , and it would be a good " popcorn " thread to watch

Sorry to be nit-picky, but not all of the 3 animals he mentioned are chordate forms.

Like I was saying in my other post, most of this is beyond laymen such as myself, but......

See article: "Explain the aranea of arthropoda which belongs to non chordate phyla?"

http://www.thebigger.com/biology/non-chordate/explain-the-aranea-of-arthropoda-which-belongs-to-non-chordate-phyla/

my bad , i was really just looking at the cats and horses

I agree that Evolutionary THEORY doesn't remove the possibilty of creation, but it does not make it unnecessary. As with all Science, Evolutionary Theory uses science on faith. We posit a theory, and until it's disproven, we have faith that it's true. If the mathematics work out, then it's true. Until it's proven to be untrue... That is how Science should be, explainable by natural proccesses by our best knowledge at the time.

Your description of the process of a cell coming together perfectly demonstrates what I was trying to say. First dismissed as irrelevant, then a lot of big numbers tossed in, then accepting that no matter how unlikly it just happened anyway, and wrapping it up with the origin of life not being part of evolution, when the origin of life is key to evolution since it had to be the beginning of all life to evolve from. How exactly is this different from other Dogma? I don't dispute that Natural Selection exists, I just can't grasp the Lightning striking the pimordial ooze, and "Poof" life is born and evolution begins. come on, Really???? and this is more plausable than intellegent design? Or is it more convienient?

After looking into it, Albert Camus was the person originaly credited with the aforementioned Quote. It came to my attention in a list of Carlin quotes in a Email some years ago, and we all know everything in Emails is true

Pascals wager asks the reader to analyze the position of mankind, this crisis of existence and lack of complete understanding. While Mankind can discern a great deal through reason, it is also hopelessly removed from knowing everything through it. He describes Mankind as a finite being trapped within an incomprehensible infinity. Thrust into being from non-being for a brief life only to go out again, with no explanation whatsoever of "Why?" or "What?" or "How?". The finite nature of our being constrains reason with respect to every form of knowledge. Now, assuming that reason alone cannot determine whether or not God exists, the ontological question is reduced to a coin toss. However, making a choice to live as though God exists or does not exist is unavoidable even if the ontological question is inconclusive. In Pascal's assessment, participation in this Wager is not optional because Mankind is already thrust into existence. So even if God's existence cannot be independently confirmed or denied, nevertheless the Wager is necessary and the possible scenarios must be considered and decided upon pragmatically.

I don't think anyone should use that as the sole reason to believe in any particular religion, but to perform some due dilligence of your own before jumping on someone elses idea of there is no meaning to your existence hypothosis.

And I love your closing argument, "I doubt it has anything that evolution truly can't explain. Even if it does, there is no scientific evidence for Creationism". The proof for me is in the Science itself. But it would seem to some that no proof is possible because there would always be doubt. This brings another quote to mind (porbably not George Carlin) "To one who has Faith, no proof is neccesary, to one who has no faith, no proof is possible".

Be it Religion or Science, you have to take a leap of faith either way. Granted Science is built on Man's best knowledge at the time and that kind of faith is easy for most. I certainly don't endorse you blindly selling off all belongings and following the first religious group that comes along. I only mean to suggest keeping an open mind and each of us reasoning your own opinions after giving your own concideration (hopefully not overnight).