Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by sonship
..
This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around today. .... The dogs stay dogs. The pigeons remain pigeons....We can breed one kind of dog into another kind of dog. Can't so far, breed the dog into a sheep.
You cannot trumpet the triumph of Evolution theory by conveniently limiting the definition just long enough to argue that we have seen it.

Infantile misrepresentation is not an argument.

This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around today.
Step one - admits that change does happen. The species living today are different to those alive in the distant past.

That is all evolution is. It is a term to describe how the natural world has changed over time. It is a term to describe the variation and diversity we actually do observe in nature.

Step two - for changes that we do in fact observe in nature, then seek explanations. For example, explain why species alive today have genetic links to show they share common ancestors.

The dogs stay dogs. The pigeons remain pigeons.
Dachshunds are not poodles and neither of these are wolves, yet all have a common ancestor that was a wolf.

The fossil record is problematic.
Yawns.

Ever see a non-pigeon give birth to a pigeon ?
We're talking about that kind of Evolution too.
No we are not. In each generation, any offspring must be able to function and reproduce with members of its own species. There will never ever be a transition from one species to another within one generation because that would imply the birth of a monstor and it would neither survive nor reproduce.

Remember on page 1 your wrote: With respect to creation I can see life changing over time, after all it is put together and maintained by genetic codes which could vary yet not cause death, if the changes are bad then life would or could end. If the changes are not life threatening we could see a variety of things a little different than the creature looked like in the beginning on the day of creation. Over time, a succession of small changes can produce a massive gap from the start to the end of the chain of changes: the more time passes the greater the gap can become. This is all you need for evolution to take place. Your own words make a mockery of your argument.

Evolutionary theory does not have to explain how a sheep might turn into a dog or a virus become an amoeba because we do not observe that in nature and would not have any reason to expect it. We already know the genetic tree and the ancestry for each of these species and they are not capable of being produced as offspring of each other. Their ancestry is what it is and what it is is what requires explanation.

Instead, take changes we do in fact see in nature, including artifical changes from breeding procedures, and then start discussing possible explanations. If you woudl like a highly detailed description of the ancestry of humanity, then read "The Ancestors Tale" by Dawkins. He has his weaknesses but in basic biology he is a professional and this book supplies an unbroken chain of ancestry through evolution that leaves no missing links. He gives a species name, biological description and date for every creature in the ancestry. Now we have this detailed description, you will see that it is this which requires an explanatory theory. Denying that this evidence even exists is demented and lacks credibility.

As long as you refer to changes that are absurd and have no examples in nature, then you are spouting nonsense.

We do not require a theory to explain things that never happen.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Maybe, but I think rather that altering any life form to much would cause damage beyond
it being able stay alive. That isn't an immune to alteration, just a don't break what is not
broken type of thing.

I see. Wouldn't you expect an organism which has suffered "to[o] much" damage to have a tough time reproducing and indeed go extinct, perhaps in favour of organisms which did not experience the same harmful mutations but instead some beneficial ones?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Wouldn't you expect an organism which has suffered "to[o] much" damage to have a tough time reproducing and indeed go extinct, perhaps in favour of organisms which did not experience the same harmful mutations but instead some beneficial ones?

Yeah

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yeah

Okay - we have a name for this process: evolution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Okay - we have a name for this process: evolution.

You have a point, I've agreed to that already?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You will note that I made no such claim.

[b]So, although it is undeniable that the categories have been invented by man they do reflect actual properties of the beings they categorize.
Not so with dogs. We call all dogs, dogs, mostly because we know they are related, not because we looked at any particular characteristics they have. If we found th ...[text shortened]... ies.[/quote]

Whereas the domestic dog is a subspecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae[/b]

Yes you did:

But we have to remember that the categories are man made, not actual properties of the life forms.

I don't see any other way of interpreting this sentence.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?

No, and no.

Only Biblical literalists would say so. You know, people like RJHinds who believe creation occurred in only 6 24-hour days. People who make assumptions about what the Bible says to fit their own dogma and people who say the Bible tells us everything.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes you did:I don't see any other way of interpreting this sentence.

Twhitehead

But we have to remember that the categories are man made, not actual properties of the life forms.

DeepThought

So, although it is undeniable that the categories have been invented by man they do reflect actual properties of the beings they categorize.

Reflecting actual properties and being actual properties are quite different things. Our categories are based on observed properties amongst other things, but our categories are not properties. A person who had never been exposed to our category system would never be able to find the 'dog' property on a pet. It is not a feature of the object, it is a name we give the object.

And the actual sentence I disputed was this one:
DeepThought

I don't agree that categories like mammal or bird are something arbitrarily imposed on the animal kingdom by biologists.

I most certainly never said the categories were arbitrarily imposed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have a point, I've agreed to that already?

Right. So you agree that every aspect required for evolution does occur, you just think that 4 billion years is not enough time for the diversity of life that we see today to develop?

Originally posted by finnegan

Infantile misrepresentation is not an argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So you start your response with one. Got it.
Must be weak in substance to follow if you have to start with an insult.

me: This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around today.

you:
Step one - admits that change does happen. The species living today are different to those alive in the distant past.

Step one - What this definitely admits is that a lot of animals are extinct.
That is the only thing this evidence tells us for certain.

If change and they are ancestor animals gradualism is one possibility,
I think a very sudden change at the zygote level may be another instead of gradualism. I realize that you could call a sudden change a form Evolution too.

That is a speculative theory.
Just noticing species in the past are different from those alive today does not in and of itself prove a relationship of descent.

That is all evolution is. It is a term to describe how the natural world has changed over time. It is a term to describe the variation and diversity we actually do observe in nature.

Variation in terms of snap shots of pre-history could also be explained in a common design scheme.

What we do not see what I would think we should see much much more of , if macro evolution is true, in between predecessor and successor links. We have instead snap shots of fully formed species rather than millions of fossils of links between.

The links are overwhelmingly the products of artists providing pictures of what Evolutionists imagine. The public mind is saturated with artistic depictions rather than actual fossil evidence.

Archeoptryx may be an exception - a dino bird. I think we need to be on guard for people for financial or other reasons providing forgeries of what science long to fine.

I am just saying that we need to be cautious. And that goes for Creationists and Evolutionists alike. When people know that people want to find something real badly, beware of fakes.

I do not know yet of Archeoptryx can be trusted for sure. I have to read up on it from both sides. Do you disagree? Does history suggest that this is true what I say?

Step two - for changes that we do in fact observe in nature, then seek explanations. For example, explain why species alive today have genetic links to show they share common ancestors.

The dogs stay dogs. The pigeons remain pigeons.
Dachshunds are not poodles and neither of these are wolves, yet all have a common ancestor that was a wolf.

Not good enough.
When you show Wolf to Walrus or Dog to Porcupine or Zebra to Gazelle I think that would shut my mouth.

Many people ask us the question: what is the difference between a wolf and a dog? Since all dogs are descended from wolves the two species share some similar characteristics, such as their sense of smell and even behavioral things like putting their ears back to show submission. That being said, their similarities are few. Dogs have spent hundreds of years living amongst humans and thus have evolved to be very different from their wild ancestors.

Differences Between Wolves and Dogs
My bolding on http://missionwolf.org/page/wolf-dog-difference/

Though the author does use the term "evolved" I think the difference is not as pronounced as saying, ie. apes evolved to humans or land cows evolved into ocean swimming whales.

The fossil record is problematic.

Yawns.

How did the Yawn evolve ? I wonder.

Ever see a non-pigeon give birth to a pigeon ?
We're talking about that kind of Evolution too.

No we are not.

I am. You wish to limit the term perhaps.

I see Evolution to mean three things mainly, or at three levels:

What do we mean by Evolution ?


1.) Organisms CHANGE when they go to new environments - evidenced.

IE. Brown rabbits living generation after generation in white snow will give rise to more white rabbits. This is not disputed.

2.) A Thesis of Common Descent - some evidence

Living things appear on earth in a sequence of simpler life to more complex life.
This occurred in a sequence of steps from single celled organisms up to human beings.

I think there is some arguable evidence for a thesis of common descent.

3.) A Blind Watchmaker Thesis - The processes that gave rise to living things are totally naturalistic processes - a blind, unintentional, purposeless, goalless, (random mutation + natural selection ) unguided, no purposes in mind, no room for God or any intelligence, purely material and physical processes.

IMO there is no evidence for this third definition of Evolution.

In the first definition I admit solid evidence.
In the second definition I admit some arguable evidence.
In the third definition I think there is no evidence.

In each generation, any offspring must be able to function and reproduce with members of its own species. There will never ever be a transition from one species to another within one generation because that would imply the birth of a monster and it would neither survive nor reproduce.

You speak as if that's my problem.
That is a problem for the second and third definition of Evolution I gave above.

And whether increasing the generation number from 1 to 1,000 helps.
Can the problem be "gradualized" away ?
That's hard to reproduce in any lab.

The millions of generations of E. Coli have not shown it a problem that can be "gradualized" away in thousands of generations.

Remember on page 1 your wrote: With respect to creation I can see life changing over time, after all it is put together and maintained by genetic codes which could vary yet not cause death, if the changes are bad then life would or could end. If the changes are not life threatening we could see a variety of things a little different than the creature looked like in the beginning on the day of creation. Over time, a succession of small changes can produce a massive gap from the start to the end of the chain of changes: the more time passes the greater the gap can become. This is all you need for evolution to take place. Your own words make a mockery of your argument.

My bolding above

This doesn't remind me of anything I wrote - after the word "time".
Perhaps you mean someone else.
Or you are adding your comment after the word "time" ?

I stop here on this submission.

Originally posted by sonship
What we do not see what I would think we should see much much more of , if macro evolution is true, in between predecessor and successor links. We have instead snap shots of fully formed species rather than millions of fossils of links between.

And what would these links look like that would distinguish them from 'fully formed species'?

All I see is links.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Right. So you agree that every aspect required for evolution does occur, you just think that 4 billion years is not enough time for the diversity of life that we see today to develop?

I think you should follow along a little better. No that is not what I've said, and I'm not going
to repeat myself.

Does evolution contradict creation? The official Vatican position is that the two are compatible.

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. "

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Originally posted by sonship
[b]Infantile misrepresentation is not an argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So you start your response with one. Got it.
Must be weak in substance to follow if you have to start with an insult.

[quote]
me: This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around ...[text shortened]... e.
Or you are adding your comment after the word "time" ?

I stop here on this submission.[/b]

That is a speculative theory.
Just noticing species in the past are different from those alive today does not in and of itself prove a relationship of descent.

What I meant was it could be sabartooth tiger may be an ancestor of some modern mountain lion or a mammoth may have a descent relationship with a modern elephant. But the sabartooth tiger a ancestor of some non-feline or mammoth ancestor to a rhino, I don't believe descent relationship.

Originally posted by sonship

That is a speculative theory.
Just noticing species in the past are different from those alive today does not in and of itself prove a relationship of descent.

What I meant was it could be sabartooth tiger may be an ancestor of some modern mountain lion or a mammoth may have a descent relationship with a modern elephant. But the saba ...[text shortened]... ncestor of some non-feline or mammoth ancestor to a rhino, I don't believe descent relationship.

Do you believe hippos and dolphins have a relatively recent common ancestor?