God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Started by Lana37 pages

Okay, whob, you keep complaining about speciation.

Have you ever heard of the Galapagos finches? I hope you have, it's the first thing any biology student learns when studying evolution. On the Galapagos islands, Darwin discovered many (I believe 13) different species of finches. They were all finches, but had adapted to different niches -- one species had specialised for seed-eating, another for drilling holes in trees to find bugs, etc. They were all VERY similar and were all finches, but were different species. They had started as the same species who knows how long ago, but over time had adapted to live in a certain niche and eventually split into different species.

Originally posted by Lana
Okay, whob, you keep complaining about speciation.

Have you ever heard of the Galapagos finches? I hope you have, it's the first thing any biology student learns when studying evolution. On the Galapagos islands, Darwin discovered many (I believe 13) different species of finches. They were all finches, but had adapted to different niches -- one species had specialised for seed-eating, another for drilling holes in trees to find bugs, etc. They were all VERY similar and were all finches, but were different species. They had started as the same species who knows how long ago, but over time had adapted to live in a certain niche and eventually split into different species.

Why is the simple concept of Adaptation so hard to understand? I'm really glad you brought this point up..The finches did not in any way shape or form demonstrate the process known as speciation...in fact...they represented Adaptation at it's finest..The finches Adaptation wasn't any different than that of humans, dogs, cats, etc....By yours and others logic..we could also classify black people, white people, asain people mexican people, etc as different species as well..seriously....

I'm going to bed right now..I'll give you some more info on this topic later..

Ahh, but see, all humans are homo sapiens, the same species. Different dog and cat breeds are different species. The finches are all actually different species. I have the names of all of them, too, and I shall list them.

Small Ground Finch (Geospiza fuliginosa), Medium Ground Finch (Geospiza fortis), Large Ground Finch (Geospiza magnirostris), Sharp-beaked ground Finch (Geospiza difficilis), Cactus Ground Finch (Geospiza scandens), Large Cactus Ground Finch (Geospiza conirostris), Small Tree Finch (Camarhynchus parvulus), Medium Tree Finch (Camarhynchus pauper), Large Tree Finch )Camarhynchus psittacula), Woodpecker Finch (Cactospiza pallidus), Mangrove Finch (Cactospiza heliobates), Vegetarian Finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), Warbler Finch (Certhidea olivacea). And there is also the Cocos Island Finch ( Pinaroloxias inornata).

All are clearly different species. As are breeds of dogs or cats. All humans however, are homo sapiens.

Speaking of which, here is a very good page I found, from the Smithsonian Institute -- something I'd take to be a good source.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Whob, I like how you called UC Berkley approved evidence "A complete fallacy..."
Way to prove your stupidity

Pardon me, but do any of these finches know a sparrow who carries coconuts, or carry coconuts themselves?

Rex, go away.......😛 we're trying to have a serious discussion here, dear.

...so?

Originally posted by Lana
Ahh, but see, all humans are homo sapiens, the same species. Different dog and cat breeds are different species. The finches are all actually different species. I have the names of all of them, too, and I shall list them.

Small Ground Finch (Geospiza fuliginosa), Medium Ground Finch (Geospiza fortis), Large Ground Finch (Geospiza magnirostris), Sharp-beaked ground Finch (Geospiza difficilis), Cactus Ground Finch (Geospiza scandens), Large Cactus Ground Finch (Geospiza conirostris), Small Tree Finch (Camarhynchus parvulus), Medium Tree Finch (Camarhynchus pauper), Large Tree Finch )Camarhynchus psittacula), Woodpecker Finch (Cactospiza pallidus), Mangrove Finch (Cactospiza heliobates), Vegetarian Finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), Warbler Finch (Certhidea olivacea). And there is also the Cocos Island Finch ( Pinaroloxias inornata).

All are clearly different species. As are breeds of dogs or cats. All humans however, are homo sapiens.

Speaking of which, here is a very good page I found, from the Smithsonian Institute -- something I'd take to be a good source.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Semantics..we can debate this all day..Question...did the Birds evolve into an entirely different species of animal..like a lizard a cat..a dog...a fish? Answer....no. End of Debate..lol...

Seriously though..it's quite obvious that this is all Adaptation...
Here's a link..with sources...

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article02.html

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Whob, I like how you called UC Berkley approved evidence "A complete fallacy..."
Way to prove your stupidity

So I'll accept that answer as a non-response..and assume that your are unable to logically rebut what I've said...good debating skills there buddy...🙄...Seriously my friend..do some reading on Isochron methology and Carbon Dating..and don't except everything you get from your AP Bio book or From a College web site as the Bible...😆😆

good nite all....😖leep:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantics..we can debate this all day..Question...did the Birds evolve into an entirely different species of animal..like a lizard a cat..a dog...a fish? Answer....no. End of Debate..lol...

Seriously though..it's quite obvious that this is all Adaptation...
Here's a link..with sources...

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article02.html

No, it's not end of debate. You clearly don't understand what speciation is. It is simply when a population branches off and over time forms a new species (generally because having to adapt to a new niche). The 13 Galapagos finches are all seperate species, and aren't all even the same genus. It is a clear example of speciation. Speciation does NOT have to be something huge like a lizard evolving into a cat or whatever you said. The finches ARE completely different species, just as a bulldog is a completely different species from a poodle. If they weren't, they would all be one species, not 13 different ones. Just as humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutangs are all primates, in the family hominidae. Yet each still belongs to a seperate genus and are clearly different species.

Ever heard about stromatolites? They're the oldest known fossils that have been found, dating from 1.5 to 3 billion years old, and are known for how they are layered. Inside stromatolites are fossilized prokaryotes and they show the life processes of cyanobacteria. These were the ONLY living things present at the time, and it is theoried that all life has evolved from these prokaryotes (which by the way, still exist and live today).

Originally posted by Lana
No, it's not end of debate. You clearly don't understand what speciation is.

speciation:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.


It is simply when a population branches off and over time forms a new species (generally because having to adapt to a new niche). The 13 Galapagos finches are all seperate species, and aren't all even the same genus. It is a clear example of speciation. Speciation does NOT have to be something huge like a lizard evolving into a cat or whatever you said. The finches ARE completely different species, just as a bulldog is a completely different species from a poodle. If they weren't, they would all be one species, not 13 different ones. Just as humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutangs are all primates, in the family hominidae. Yet each still belongs to a seperate genus and are clearly different species.

source: http://www.alternativescience.com/speciation.htm

Before commenting on cases of speciation (one species turning into another species) it is first essential to define what constitutes a species. In biology there is a strong definition and a weak definition.

The strong definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) is, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."
(note*..the finches are capable of interbreeding...)

The weak definition (proposed by Ernst Mayr) is, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Notice that the strong definition is strong because it makes it unambiguously clear that one species cannot breed with another. The weak definition is weak because it does not spell out the meaning of "reproductively isolated". Does it mean "the two groups might mate if they had the chance but unfortunately are on opposites sides of the lake without a rowing boat"?

Darwinists protest that applying the strong definition, showing by lab experiment that reproduction is physiologically or genetically impossible -- in for example fruit fly breeding experiments -- is too difficult or time consuming to be practical. These objections are bogus since it is a relatively straightforward procedure to artificially inseminate females with sperm from a male of the claimed 'new species' and see what happens.


Virtually all the so-called examples of speciation (one species turning into another species) offered by Darwinists are in reality examples of them exploiting the ambiguity of the weak definition of species to suggest that what are no more than subspecific varieties are actually different species.

For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding.

The remaining examples of "speciation" offered by Darwinists are cases in the plant world where the number of chromosomes in a seedling spontaneously doubles (called polyploidy). This often produces a plant which looks different from its parents and is incapable of breeding with its parent stock. It was this process that botanist Hugo de Vries observed in the evening primrose and that he dubbed "mutation".

This process passes the strict test of "speciation" because the parent and offspring are physiologically incapable of interbreeding. But even the most enthusiastic Darwinist would not try to suggest that the process of polyploidy can be cited as the engine of evolution and would acknowledge that it is incapable of producing anything other than the odd freak.


"Speciation" in the Darwinian sense of one species gradually changing by selection into another has not been observed and no examples are known.


Ever heard about stromatolites? They're the oldest known fossils that have been found, dating from 1.5 to 3 billion years old

Tenous assumptions based on flawed dating methods...already adressed many times during the course of this thread....

I wonder if you can even name more than 3 dating methods based on chemical facts

I know what speciation is, thanks. And it's not as simple as them not being able to interbreed. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, as can horses and zebras, yet they are different species. The thing is, their offspring is sterile. As the offspring of any of these finches would be, should they interbreed. They're not even all classified under the same genus, as you can clearly see when I listed out all the Galapagos finch species. They are all different species. Closely related, yes. But still different.

And yerss, I really doubt it.....

that reminds me, silver.
A liger should be mentioned here: the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. Sterile as hell, and of course clearly not the same species

I forgot about them...but yeah, definitely.

Happy 101st birthday, btw 😛

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay lets do a little summary of what we have learned in this debate kiddos...

2. Darwinism is theistic, and in actuality is a form of Humanism..a monetheistic(one god worshiping) religion which deifies man, meaning it essentially makes man the primary source/originater of his own existence. Unlike Buddhism/Christianity or other higher moral belief based religions, its principles are based on the concept of "Survival of the fittest" meaning those able to adapt to their environment the quickest are those who are the most fit to live.

This doesn't really apply - nobody worships Darwin. And it is not monetheistic, since many people who agree with his theory also have religions.

4. Recorded history spans well over 3000 years, more than enough time for any type of Macro Evolution to have taken place within animals, however, nothing in recorded history has ever sited anything resembling the process of speciation.

I apologise if I don't know the correct scientific terms. But, I do know that during the industrial revolution in Britain, a type of peppered moth adapted to its surroundings. It was a pale white, so it could blend in with lichen on the trees. However, due to the amount of soot pumped out by factories, the trees became black. A mutation caused some moths to be black, and these moths could camouflage themselves against the trees. The white moths died out as they were being eaten, but the black offshoot propsered and numbers rose.

When the Clean Air Act was passed, some of the trees returned to be covered in pale lichen again. This stopped the white moths from becoming extinct, but the darker version had now adapted to survive in urban environments.

Another example is MRSA in hospitals - bascteria becoming immune to anti-biotics.

6. Creationism is supported by historical evidence found in Dead Sea Scrolls, and many historical texts found in Asia, Egypty, and Africa.

Historical texts based and written in religous cultures. Did they know more than we do now?

7. We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention

But, if you think about it, we have no idea how many times a big bang came and went, before reaching the state we are in.

11. Darwin was a racist. He believed that the caucasion race was the highest form of the evolved modern man, while blacks, indians, and other minorities were the lower forms, a step above modern apes.

That is entirely redundant in the conversation.

12. Creationism supports the exploration and study of all earth/natural sciences. The Creationist prinicipals make Science more tangible, by simply acknowledging that an intelligent being exists that created all forms of Natural Science, and of the Universe as a whole. The concept of Science in itself can not be proven by anything tangible..so it takes some degree of FAITH to believe in any theory applied to the origins of life.

*note 7 and 8 were direct quote from Digimark's post..excellently summarized by the way.

Where was the intelligent being sitting as it created all of this?

I missed out the points I do not know the answer to, simply because I am not grounded in science, and they relate to things I don't completely understand

Lana - like Ligers!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Great deductive logic there buddy...🙄

My point is that I can't post a link to a book. I love the way you take sentences... No, wait, parts of sentences, and then riducle them completely out of context.

Adam Poe doesn't seem to agree with you...😆😆

And you don't agree with Adam PoE. Which means you agree with me, yes?
Okay..but how are we to know your telling the truth..lol...

What would Adam Poe do in a situation like this..oh I know...

...logic fallacy of exclusion..😆😆 😆

Well, you could go outside and buy the Oxford English Dictionary, but then that would mean moving from the chair you are stuck onto.

I don't know what all this logic fallacy stuff is, but it looks to me like you don't know either, and are intentionally making yourself look like an arse. Is that true?

You gave me 7 definitions..and then you stated...

I think that statement says it all..lol...you know..I think you did a better job debating when I wasn't responding to your posts.....

No, because actually I go on to explain why. Wait, I'll show you what I mean.

logic fallacy of exclusion...😆😆😆

Word of advice..sometimes the best thing said..is nothing...

😆 <----- You have managed to make yourself look like the biggest tard on the net b continually using those smilies.

The way you manage to turn even what could be construed as an offensive statement into self-ridicule is truly amazing. Say, when does your circus visit town?

If I didn't say anything, you'd think that you had convinced me you were correct, and I just cannot agree with you.

You know what?
I'm over it, You can believe whatever the hell you want, and I'll just take the knowledge that since EVERYTHING else in science is based on evolution, it becomes a moot point. Evolution does exist, and I really don't have to prove it to you. You can go on believeing that we were sneezed out of a giant ape-like thing, and fear th coming of the giant tissue for all I care.
Its either your right, with your crazy ass, everything is wrong simply because I say so. Or everyone else who has any credibility in the scientific community is right. Ya know what? I'm gonna go with them.
Cuz ya know what they say, "Ignorance is bliss" Hope your pretty damn happy then...

If Ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face!

Originally posted by Lana
I know what speciation is, thanks.

Your welcome...😄


And it's not as simple as them not being able to interbreed. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, as can horses and zebras, yet they are different species.

Hybridization amongst animals of in the same "family" is not new concept, and supports Creationist arguments of various species of animals within a particular family, being of one particular kind.
It can not be duplicated between animals coming from different "families" (ie cat cross breeding with a dog...Human crossbreeding with an ape)
The fact that animals of the different kinds can not breed and produce intermediate offspring, and that "no intermediate forms" have been found..essentially defeats any relation between hybridization..and the concept of Macro evolution.


The thing is, their offspring is sterile.

Incorrect..hybridization has been known to to produce fertile offspring. Anyway..using yours/others assumption that hybridization more than likely causes sterility...you are essentially defeating the argument of hybridization producing sexually functional intermediates capable of producing new species of plants/animals/etc....


As the offspring of any of these finches would be, should they interbreed. They're not even all classified under the same genus, as you can clearly see when I listed out all the Galapagos finch species. They are all different species. Closely related, yes. But still different.

taken from: http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin%27s_finches.htm

On this key issue, Jonathan Weiner seems entirely unconscious of the scientific significance of his own reporting. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Beak of the Finch, he wrote; 'Back in 1983, for instance ... a male cactus finch on Daphne Major, a scandens, courted a female fortis. This was a pair of truly star crossed lovers. They were not just from opposite sides of the tracks, like the Prince and the Showgirl, or from two warring families, like Romeo and Juliet: they belonged to two different species. Yet during the chaos of the great flood, they mated and produced four chicks in one brood.'


Not only did the finches in question mate successfully, their offspring proved to be among the most fertile that the Grants recorded during their twenty years on the islands. The four chicks of this mating produced no less than 46 grandchildren.

The Grants recorded many other pairings of 'different species' of finch, which, like Lack before them, they dubbed 'hybrids'. But of course the central significance of this finding is that the identification of the thirteen varieties as different species is impossible to maintain once it is admitted that they can interbreed and produce fertile young.


The fact that different varieties prefer not to mate is very different from saying that they are unable to do so. Great Danes do not usually select toy poodles as potential mates (and vice versa) but they are capable of bearing fertile young if mated and are members of the same species, Canis familiaris. Arab stallions do not normally select Shetland ponies as mates, but they are members of the same species, Equus callabus.

Moreover, the Grants' observations undermine another myth about Darwin's finches - that individual species are 'confined to certain islands'. In order for different species to mate, they clearly have to occupy the same territory. Other visitors to the Galapagos have confirmed that this is this case. Television documentary filmmaker Gillian Brown spent a year working at the Darwin Research Station on the islands. It is common, says Brown, to find the different species all over the archipelago, rather than obeying the colored territorial maps drawn up by Darwinist ornithologists.


In almost all respects, the finches of the Galapagos are so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart. Indeed, Weiner himself remarks that, 'Some of them look so much alike that during the mating season they find it hard to tell themselves apart.' This mirrors David Lack's observation that 'In no other birds are the differences between species so ill-defined.' The finches all have dull plumage, which varies from light brown to dark brown, all have short tails, all build nests with roofs, and lay white eggs spotted with pink, four to a clutch.

It is very difficult for an objective observer to see how a group of finches who 'find it hard to tell themselves apart', and who do in fact interbreed, can legitimately be called different species.

What is the scientific basis of this identification?

see Tpt, that's why they win: you let them
so what if he counters every cold hard fact with "you're wrong cause I say so"? I found it particulary handy to have this talk, it brushed up my old archaeology