|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Limits of biological change - 10/14/2008 12:27:05 AM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 125
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
What are the limits of biological change according to a creationist perspective?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/14/2008 5:23:51 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
What are the limits of biological change according to a creationist perspective?
You probably couldn't differentiate between the potential of change between the Creationist and Evolutionist perspective. The limit is basically however much change the genetic material can support. Creationists take this by faith: all kinds were created originally and represented by 2 or 7 on Noah's Ark. Evolutionists take this by faith: All kinds have one common ancestor, Universal Common Descent. The great tree of life, some call it, looks like an orchard from the Creationist perspective. What are the limits, well we've got a lot of variety today from 2 dogs that were on the Ark so perhaps there are no limits.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/14/2008 5:26:30 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7623
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
I don't know specifically how creationists might deliniate it, but there is a limit to which any information system can change through unguided means.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/14/2008 5:36:47 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I don't know specifically how creationists might delineate it, but there is a limit to which any information system can change through unguided means.
With more complex organisms it may be less apparent, but with simpler organisms we see that, if a creature cannot use lactose for energy, it's not going to use lactose for energy, so you might say that that is a limit (without introducing additional genetic material to allow for it).
Also, a bit of uneasiness I have with the OP: I wouldn't really try to put a dichotomy between creationists and evolutionists in matters other than biological history. It gives the impression that Creationists just live in a different reality. I'm a creationist and I see the exact same information in my Genetics class as the person next to me. I just don't think that it arose from unguided means.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/14/2008 10:03:03 PM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
What are the limits of biological change according to a creationist perspective?
For this creationist the boundaries are what the bible calls kinds. Their can not be a overlapping of kinds in reproduction. What the original kinds in a pre-fall world were like and their purpose is beyond our ability to figure. After the fall like could be very variable within kind. For example the snake stayed in the snake kind though it lost its legs and developed a whole new lifestyle.
All creatures changed so much that one would not recognize them from the creation week.
Change within kind turned land mammals into sea mammals post flood as this creationist sees it. Placental creatures in some areas suddenly became marsupial creatures post flood. I wrote an essay on this called 'Post flood marsupial migration explained' by Robert Byers. Just google.
Biological change must be innate with only minor effects from selection.
I suspect dogs and bears were the same kind originally and more in that. We see the dog breeds and so their bodies can change and thrive as we now witness. So this could happen instantly without selection pressures.
The same with every one. of coarse we see human differences though all from Adam.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/15/2008 1:39:48 AM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 125
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
What exactly is a biblical kind? I'm just wondering because some evolutionists want to pin down creationists on a precise definition.
I have heard that all of the tortoises on the Galapagos Islands were descended from an original tortoise. I guess all of those tortoises would be of the same kind. Is this correct?
< Message edited by cih92 -- 10/15/2008 1:50:38 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/15/2008 2:28:12 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7623
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
What exactly is a biblical kind? I'm just wondering because some evolutionists want to pin down creationists on a precise definition.
I have heard that all of the tortoises on the Galapagos Islands were descended from an original tortoise. I guess all of those tortoises would be of the same kind. Is this correct?
I have always thought the notion of kind was too vague. But then again, so is the notion of species.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/16/2008 1:25:42 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
What exactly is a biblical kind? I'm just wondering because some evolutionists want to pin down creationists on a precise definition.
I have heard that all of the tortoises on the Galapagos Islands were descended from an original tortoise. I guess all of those tortoises would be of the same kind. Is this correct?
Only in areas where the voice of the evolutionist is unquestioned does it benefit the speaker to question the definition of a kind. It is a taxonomic term, therefore it is inherently cloudy. A kind could be thought of the daisy chain of animal groups that are capable of interbreeding. Genetic drift may make it difficult for an organism to produce gametes and are therefore sterile, but I think that DNA and enzyme analysis of gametes may reveal who the original kinds are. It's fuzzy now, but "kind" may turn out to be the only taxonomic group that ends up being definitively pinned down.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/20/2008 10:27:49 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 750
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:Jhudquote:
I have always thought the notion of kind was too vague. But then again, so is the notion of species.
I think the definition of kind that I have settled on is as precise as can be and it is equally applicable to both creation and evolution. Here it is:
"A kind is a group of organisms who share a common ancestor." Using that definition evolutionist believe only one kind exists and creationists believe several thousand kinds were created.
I agree though, that species is extremely vague. I figure that is why evolutionists make such a big deal about speciation as though creationists don't believe in it.
There is far too much empirical evidence for speciation to deny that it occurs. However, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that a reptile can speciate to the point of becomming a mammal.
The point here being that creationists accept what the empirical evidence supports while evolutionists accept whatever their belief requires.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/20/2008 1:21:41 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4156
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Using that definition evolutionist believe only one kind exists and creationists believe several thousand kinds were created. Scientists have identified over a million species of just insects. Many believe that over 10 million actually exist.
A creationist (like myself) would believe that means 10 million acts of creation just to make bugs.quote:
The point here being that creationists accept what the empirical evidence supports while evolutionists accept whatever their belief requires. Many creationists reject an old earth even though empirical evidence points to it. I lean toward a creation of all species about 6 thousand years ago, not the millions of years indicated by carbon dating and other dating methods.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/20/2008 10:54:15 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 750
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:DaveWquote:
Scientists have identified over a million species of just insects. Many believe that over 10 million actually exist.
A creationist (like myself) would believe that means 10 million acts of creation just to make bugs.
ONLY if species was the same as kind. About 100 years ago a species of mosquitoes moved into the tunnels in London. That species has since branched into at least 13 species, yet they are all one kind.
quote:
Many creationists reject an old earth even though empirical evidence points to it.
No. What we reject is the old earth interpretation of evidence.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/21/2008 12:43:57 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4156
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
If those mosquitos can interbreed, they are not distinct species but sub-species. There are dozens of different breeds of dogs, but they are all sub-species canis lupus familiaris, of the wolf canis lupus .
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/23/2008 12:46:16 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
If those mosquitos can interbreed, they are not distinct species but sub-species. There are dozens of different breeds of dogs, but they are all sub-species canis lupus familiaris, of the wolf canis lupus .
Well, that's only very recently. When I was in high school there was Canis lupis and Canis familiaris. Taxonomy may be getting better, but I don't think that our system is a definitive way to determine what the original kind was. A parasitic plant for instance may very well be a cousin of a non-parasitic plant, yet they can't make offspring. Interbreeding therefore (even with my daisy chain definition) may not be a good way to define species or kind. And while I agree that God may have designed many different kinds of insects, we definitely don't have a reason to believe that he created all ten gazillion species.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/23/2008 12:59:37 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4156
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
And while I agree that God may have designed many different kinds of insects, we definitely don't have a reason to believe that he created all ten gazillion species. Why not?
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/23/2008 1:49:19 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
And while I agree that God may have designed many different kinds of insects, we definitely don't have a reason to believe that he created all ten gazillion species. Why not?
Well because a change in convention could easily change the species, or genus, or family into which the cricket or grasshopper is place. Yet they're both orthopterans. Natural selection may have moved all of the orthopterans from a single ancestor into the myriads we have now. I'm not saying it happened, I just don't think we have a reason to believe that it didn't. I know that the Bible claims that God created the creatures according to their kinds, and we have since labeled species according to certain criteria. All of the orthopterans MAY have had a single ancestor, yet they are different species. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/24/2008 6:30:42 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4156
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
we definitely don't have a reason to believe that he created all ten gazillion species. I was looking for a biblical reason.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/24/2008 5:14:03 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
we definitely don't have a reason to believe that he created all ten gazillion species. I was looking for a biblical reason.
Then let's do that. The verse is Genesis 1:25: "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds."
This was how they were created. Afterwards God gathered them onto the ark according to their kinds.
Genesis 7:1 "The Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, for I consider you godly among this generation. 1 7:2 You must take with you seven 2 of every kind of clean animal, 3 the male and its mate, 4 two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 7:3 and also seven 5 of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, 6 to preserve their offspring 7 on the face of the earth."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the animals that were on the ark were genetically identical to the ones that were created. After they got off of the ark, they spread, and were isolated, and natural selection set in. This is a process that can and does happen. The horse-like animals that got off of the ark separated into Equus caballus (wild-type and domestic horse), Equus asinus (wild-type and domestic donkey), and Equus zebra (wild-type zebra). Sometimes these guys can reproduce, sometimes they can't, but they're different species none the less. The bible uses the word "kind" to refer to the taxon of different animals that were originally created, and is therefore a different taxonomic term than species because the breeding of a new species doesn't change history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Limits of biological change - 10/29/2008 11:55:16 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
What are the limits of biological change according to a creationist perspective?
From a creationist perspective biological change is limited the Bara-minimum.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
