Posted on 02/27/2009 7:26:13 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Seeing how the Evos claim that the horseshoe crab predate the dinos by some 200 million years, and yet remain largely unchanged up to the present day, I say the evidence suggests that the horseshoe crab was created very recently. The fact that it shares some similarities to the modern spider is far better explained by a common designer than by Darwood's increasingly discredited RM+NS fairytale. It is also quite interesting to note that a number of spider specimens have been found preserved in amber that supposedly date back some 110-115 million years, and yet they too are virtually identical to modern spiders. This too suggests that spiders owe their existence to a very recent creation event, such as described in the book of Genesis.
Now let us, for the sake of argument, take the Wikipedia estimate for the average mutation rate for eukaryotes, which is somewhere between 1O-4 to 10-6 per base pair per generation. Let's further assume that the average generation time for a spider is one year. That means that the specimens mentioned above, supposedly dating back 110-115 million years, have had enough time for every single base pair in their genome to mutate. So how is it that the spider has remained largely unchanged for over a hundred million years?
==Yes GGG and all the ID'ers (Deists) believe in evolution. They claim that everything evolved from 'kinds' and that once you discover the original 'kind' there is no precursor to it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't believe in evolution. I believe in the original creation of each biblical kind at the apex of genetical richness, and then steady degeneration ever since the Fall. In a word, I believe in devolution, not evolution.
When was this period of 'genetical richness'? And just to clarify, you believe the fall took place in 4000 BC? Doesn't 'the apex of genetical richness' imply evolution, (the apex being the peak of the evolution)?
GGG - Yes, each biblical kind (each of which has since branched out into many species) was created separately by God, fully formed and fully functional.
Let me ask you once again. What are the original 'kinds' that have no common origin, and appeared fully formed and fully functional?
Thanks for the many posts.
I think they display great depth and breadth, and are clearly and well written. Most of the responses seem to be arguments (often in the worst sense of the word) by people who have not even read the posted article.
Ditto
==A curious conclusion. It’s not “evos” that claim that, it’s the data that claim that.
No, it is your interpretation of the data that causes you to claim that. Creation scientists are looking at the same data and interpret it to mean recent creation.
==We have many fossils of horseshoe crabs and, as you’ve been explained, dating methods are quite accurate and independently cross referencing.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said the dating methods are accurate, you did. There are many problems with the dating methods the Evos use. For a quick overview of the many problems of “deep time” dating, see the following:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
==By the way, if a species is successful in its niche, you have no reason to change all that much. But you knew that.
No reason? There is no “reason” in neo-Darwinian evolution. There is only natural selection working on random mutations. And I’d be curious to have you describe what niche is keeping spiders from mutating into something else, since they are found in almost every terrestrial niche on earth.
==Which spider “kind” resulted in all the spider diversity we see today?
Seeing how neither evolutionists and creationists can’t go back in time and observe the original creation, it is impossible to answer question. But the Bible tells us each kind was created fully formed and fully functional. And seeing how we don’t observe spider kinds evolving into non-spider kinds, or dog kinds evolving into non-dog kinds, etc, etc...the available evidence is much more in favor of the biblical description of creation than it is of Darwin’s tree of life. Indeed, as the creationists have been predicting ever since the publication of Origins, the Evos are finally being forced (by the evidence) to cut down Darwin’s tree...and on his bicentennial birthday celebration no less!
==Doesn’t ‘the apex of genetical richness’ imply evolution, (the apex being the peak of the evolution)?
No. Apex can also mean simply the highest point of something. For instance, a child can be born into a wealth family, and then squander his inheritance. In such cases, the child was born into the apex of his wealth.
==Let me ask you once again. What are the original ‘kinds’ that have no common origin, and appeared fully formed and fully functional?
That is the subject of a rather new, but rapidly growing field within creation science, called Baraminology. You can find out more about it here:
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
That means a lot to me. Thank you!
While telling people that the "old Earth" theories are invalid because the data has been extrapolated beyond what's been observed, they extrapolate variances in observed decay rates of fractions of a percent into theorical decay rates thousands of times faster than anything that's ever been observed to get it to fit a 6,000 year model.
Wow! Are you delusionary. First, you assert that GGG's posts are lacking any meaningful information while you participate in their discussion. Second the article is about information. You certainly deserved to be called on your comment. Be that as it may, my answer to you in no way indicates a fear of anything. You seem to be practicing the Darwinian art of drawing conclusions unindicated by the facts.
My last statement also indicates a disagreement I have with Darwin. I also don't think just-so stories are an argument to establish a fact.
If Feynman did his best work in strip joints we should have had many feather dancer Nobel laureates.
I read the article and it said nothing.
Well then you don't know what you are talking about. I find it hard to believe that it is common knowledge that the Uroctea spiders have 1500 spinnerets, or that the maximum deviation of the grid of scales on the Morpho rhetenor butterfly is only 0.00002 mm.
Saying someone is wrong is not showing someone is wrong.
Care to be more specific?
I at least understand that it is a meaningless discussion. I told you my reason, I get a good laugh : )
Be that as it may, my answer to you in no way indicates a fear of anything. You seem to be practicing the Darwinian art of drawing conclusions unindicated by the facts.
I didn't say you had a fear of something. Cognitive dissonance is not fear, it is closer to anger and angst. Reading comprehension is your friend.
If Feynman did his best work in strip joints we should have had many feather dancer Nobel laureates.
Do you really think he discussed physics with strippers? Hmm, maybe he did : ) See how these discussions can be funny?
Well then you don't know what you are talking about. I find it hard to believe that it is common knowledge that the Uroctea spiders have 1500 spinnerets, or that the maximum deviation of the grid of scales on the Morpho rhetenor butterfly is only 0.00002 mm.
That is meaningful information to you? Do you know what a typical refraction grating's dimensions are?
Saying someone is wrong is not showing someone is wrong.
Yes, saying and showing are different things. What is your point? I am perfectly capable of doing both : )
I am still waiting for your original 'kinds'?
No. Apex can also mean simply the highest point of something. For instance, a child can be born into a wealth family, and then squander his inheritance. In such cases, the child was born into the apex of his wealth.
Where did the genetic richness come from? when and how?
That is the subject of a rather new, but rapidly growing field within creation science, called Baraminology. You can find out more about it here:
I looked at the creation wiki reference, it didn't list any original kinds the the varied species evolved from.
Is it really that hard to list the different original 'kinds'?
They submit that observed variances of 0.2% in the decay rate of uranium are sufficient to call radiometric based on it into question.
That is used to assert that the current 4.5 billion year estimate of the age of the Earth, based on measurments of uranium decay aren't reliable, and the age may actually be 6,000 years.
Sorry, I do comprehend what I read and I also make mistakes. I was called that by whattajoke on this thread and confused your comment with his, despite that, you still have no reason to suppose any cognitive dissonance on my part since you have no idea exactly what I think. I have not told you.
Feynman discussing physics in strip bars? Did I ever mention what I thought Feynman's best work was? I merely expressed what I thought should be observed if his best work was done in such a locale.
Do you know what a typical refraction grating's dimensions are?
Do you? I think frequency figures in there somewhere.
What is your point? I am perfectly capable of doing both : )
Well then do the showing part.
“Cute. I DO tend to ignore people who pretend the title of the book isn’t actually “The Origin of the Species” and who have never read it to learn about the various “races” of moths, barnacles and worms Darwin discusses in it.”
I read the book, contrary to your assertions. It has two titles, separated by “or.” I quoted the second title, which I think is no worse than quoting the first title. At least doing so adds a little information. Are you certain he didn’t intend for his readers to consider human races when he chose his title? Darwin discussed the races of man in the Descent of Man. He certainly believed some were inferior and some superior.
From what I have read, it seems that many terms are not as firm as we might want. I often take species to be a group that can interbreed sexually and have offspring that are themselves fertile. By this definition, are bacteria, viruses, some plants, and other forms of life species? If not, should they be excluded from the scope of Darwin’s (or Gould’s) theory of evolution? I think standard terms are often tweaked at convenience, broadened or narrowed, to make a particular point, to express a particular view, of a particular author. Do we even have a hard and fast and consistent definition for “life.” “Race” is at least as problematic as species. I gather that “kinds” has a clear meaning, but that it is not easy to identify kinds. Should we throw out the words “species,” “race,” “kinds,” and ignore anyone who uses these terms, simply because the terms lack consistent definition (intensive or extensive) within a particular community? I think that would be too rigid. To do so may serve as a “put down” but that is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.