That sounds just like “Bantu Education”: the science-free educational system imposed on black South Africans by the white architects of apartheid.
1 Like
Now that I am at a real computer (instead of a smartphone), I hope to quickly re-direct you on your rather oddly derived conclusions:
You wrote:
“So if I am understanding this concept correctly…
If you had 100 fish, and those fish mated and made 200 fish, they would mate and make 400 fish and never change due to the large population.”
Response: Do you see the word “never” anywhere in my post? Your use of it seems intentionally flippant, rather than a sincere engagement of an idea. If you are here just to troll, pelase advise - - so I can get into the spirit of your intentions.
A better version of your first summation would be:
"If you had 50 males and 50 female fish, this would be a very small founder population, and (all things being equal) would make it possible for any genetic serendipity (or God’s genetic selection) to quickly promulgate throughout the next several generations. If the population was 100,000 males and 100,000 females, it would take many more generations for a favorable genetic adjustment to become dominant (because of :
(1) the usually subtle population response to genetic benefits, and
(2) the limitations inherent in transferring a mutation in a single individual to most of the kin groups of any large population)."
.
.
.
Then you wrote:
“But instead these 100 fish (few) change/evolve to a point were they can no longer mate with the original 100, and make a new species of 100 frogs. And those frogs evolve into a new species at which point they cannot mate with frogs and they become dogs?”
A better version of your second summation would be:
**"At a high view (usually involving eons, not just a few generations), to see populations separate and diverge these populations must - - by definition! - - separate!
"If there is still a broad reproductive exchange within a single population, it would not be possible for the population to simultaneously move towards “hippo-ness” and towards “whale-ness”.
“Rather than someone saying “… frogs evolve into a new species at which point they cannot mate with a previously compatible population, and they become dogs” (< Wow, the hypothetical person who wrote this was certainly confused!), a single population must diverge into 2 or more separate sub-groups.”
“These separated sub-groups are separating either because of geography, behavior, and bring the broad genetic exchange down past the threshold required to sustain ongoing reproductive compatibility. Once this threshold has been exceeded, the now separated groups begin their own unique patterns of adapting and mutating in response to the environment around them.”
The Curious Example of the Big Cats!
“The Big-Feline populations (like the Tigers of India and the Lions of Africa) are a curious exception which helps understand how the general rules of speciation can work:”
“These 2 different populations once shared a common ancestral population. But the Indian branch of the population specialized for the climate and ecology of India, while the African cats specialized for Africa. Tigers are solitary; Lions are very social. And of course, there are the notorious physical differences. All these distinctions are supported by genetic adjustments unique to the Tiger and Lion populations separated by continents and climate. So, by tradition, Biologists-of-Old felt compelled to label these two kinds of Big Cats as separate species.”
“However, based on a genetic definition centered on whether 2 groups can produce Fertile Offspring (please remember the Fertile part!) , Lions and Tigers are really sub-species of a single extended population that in the real world very rarely have a chance to cross-mate. But breeders have shown that Tigers and Lions can quite easily produce fertile hybrids. This is one of the reasons the YEC notion of “kind” lacks precision. Some preachers would consider Lions to be a different “kind” from Tigers; others would not.”
You conclude with this:
“Obviously I am skipping stages, but trying to sum it up to understand the big picture. I[f] nothing evolved, they would keep reproducing, which would lower their chance to evolve, and therefore never evolve. But since they evolve in smaller numbers, that evolves them into a new species, which reduces their numbers again, and allows to to evolve faster.”
@still_learning, go ahead, re-read the tom-foolery you have put into your concusion! Do you really think this is a fair way to treat my generous use of time? I sure don’t. And so I am inclined to think you are here to poke fun. So, Mr. Still, am I correctly understanding your concept for your participating in the BioLogos fora?
Ouch, that was s bit harsh…im on an smart phone at the moment… I’ll get to the rest of that later… But no trolling. I appreciate your time, i genuinely don’t understand this concept, it is new to me (the details, not the abstract). I didn’t intentionally mean to put never as to insult or make a point. " Nevet" was to just show that a long time without speciation and speciation actually makes sense (if that is how it works) that it would make evolution happen more rapidly, and without it, it would be so show as to be almost never.
Sorry i got what i got from what you wrote… Hence my background and attempting to verify with you before believing/considering this.
1 Like
Oh? Let’s spend a moment on your grand finale, so we can assess how you analyze evolutionary scenarios:
Your intro; good start:
[1] “Obviously I am skipping stages, but trying to sum it up to understand the big picture.”
Your First Premise:
[2] “I[f] nothing evolved,” < Where did you get this idea? Firstly, everything is evolving everywhere all the time… because genetic replication is not 100% reliable (and/or because God is constantly working on the dynamics of “change”). So your premise is wrong. Which means everything else is wrong. Can we salvage your thought in the next phrase?
Your deduction from the First Premise:
[3] “…they would keep reproducing, which would lower their chance to evolve…” < Didn’t you just come from the premise that nothing evolved? How can you lower the chance from no evolution to “lower than nothing”? Perhaps what you meant to say was, the larger a population becomes, the more slowly genetic changes are promulgated throughout the population? That would at least be similar to what I wrote in my original posting.
Your corollary deduction from the Premise and your Deduction:
[4] “… and therefore never evolve.” < Didn’t you already say this in the First Premise? Would you like a second attempt to come up with something coherent, or which at least doesn’t sound like you are mocking evolutionary theory?
Your First Conclusion:
"But since they evolve in smaller numbers, that evolves… [?that?, by the word “that”, did you mean “the population”?, but let’s not digress too far]
…[that evolves] them [by ‘them’ you mean the individuals of the population] into a new species…"
^^ So how, exactly do you get from a triple statement of no evolution to your blinding insight, out of the blue, that they are now evolving in small numbers? Where did you get the new dynamic of “small”? In the beginning, it sounded like you were attempting to grasp that large numbers slow down shifts in population genetics. And now, we are discussing “smallness”.
Your Final Conclusion:
“…which reduces their numbers again, and allows to [your first “to” must mean “them”] to evolve faster.” < What? Reduces their numbers again? Again from what or where? Followed by “Evolving faster”. What?
[End of Your Final Paragraph]
Hmmm… @still_learning, may I ask how much of a science background you have?
I would very much like to help you get over the hump on the basics. If I wrote something that was too confusing, or took too many “leaps” in my transitions, my sincere apologies. Please let me know where I went wrong!
However, if there is nothing specific you can relate back to me on your misunderstandings, perhaps you can read again my second long posting [in the thread above].
Unless you can give me a glimmer of what I’m explaining poorly, I fully intend to let someone else step in for me.
That is false. Those atomic clocks can only move at one speed due to the basic laws of physics. The only way that they can have different times when they are brought back together is if time itself was different in those different frames of reference.
[quote=“still_learning, post:99, topic:36495”]
Being that actual time is relative (God being outside/the being time revolves around), not just he measurement of it, God can create the universe in 6 days, and and allow it to be measured to 13.7 billion years.[/quote]
You could argue that God can do anything. You could argue that God created the world 5 minutes ago, complete with a false history and false memories. It isn’t enough to say that God is omniscient. You have to come up with evidence and reasons to back you claims.
But time is moving differently on the Earth and on the Moon due to the difference in gravity. That is what multiple experiments have demonstrated.
That doesn’t change the accuracy of atomic clocks. Just because one clock can tick at different rates does not mean that all clocks can tick at different rates. Atomic clocks have been shown to tick at one speed, and one speed only. That is why they are used.
1 Like
A civilization builds its educational system to fit is basic principle. The cradle of civilizations (Babylon) loved mathematics, but not for science. They used mathematics for their 7000 omens. They used these for determining what the planet gods might do. We have a clay tablet that explains their basic assumption. “The signs on earth, just as those in the heavens give us signals. Sky and earth both produce portents. Though appearing separately, they are not separate. Sky and Earth are related.”
When Daniel attended the Babylonian temple school system at Esagila he became wiser than his teachers. He did not compromise the Word of God with the educational system of that era. So God gave the four Jewish friends wisdom. The king found that they had 10 times the wisdom of any of the other learned people in his realm.
Later God gave Daniel the interpretation to a vision of the four sequential kingdoms that would rule the Jews until the Messiah. Yet the vision has them all being destroyed together when God sets up his kingdom. How can you destroy a sequence of past kingdoms? You destroy their heritage. The Western civilization was built on principles from those four historical kingdoms. From the Babylonians, we inherited the notion of precision measuring. We still use their sexagesimal system to measure precision angles. From the Persians we inherited federated, multicultural governments that coin money and regulate economies. Form the Greeks we got the pursuit of science. Form the Romans we inherited three-part republics and lawyers. According to the vision, the dust of the great image will blow away.
Think about those living during Jesus’ kingdom. They do not need to go into debt to get an education in order to get a job. They have different kinds of economies and can’t imagine technologies. Everyone lives in a land of green prosperity without politicians, police or religions. The Bible says no one will teach “know the Lord” because they will all know him from the least to the greatest.
Victor
@gbrooks9 first of all, it a mildly embarrassing to make an honest attempt and the result be percievd to be so stupid, it is assumed trolling. But I can laugh at myself. And I wasn’t trolling.
Second, just because someone isn’t as well versed/educated as you in a particular field doesn’t mean they are stupid. I have a much better understanding and can grasp better mechanical things. If you want to talk about turbine engine theory or ICE theory or fuel or oil chemistry, then I might seem a bit more educated to you.
I grew up with the dogma that evolution is the devil. So I have come a long way. But it is difficult to learn it on my own with so many on the opposite side extreme, where evolution is the only truth and we must manipulate studies and findings to fit that narrative. I can’t trust all sources. Or there are those that refuse to discuss this and treat you like a Moron and mock with FSM rhetoric and that gets me no where. But it seems like some people on this forum are quite knowledgeable and less biased to a certain paradigm, and more truth seekers. And some with great knowledge in hermeneutics here too. So I am attempting to learn more from them. But I do not have the biological background as many do here, and some of these concepts are foreign which makes others things harder to grasp.
Some want to help me, great. If you don’t want to, no one is forcing you.
But as I am sure you know how communication works, here is a sender, and a receiver. But there is also interference that can occur. One tactic is to give feedback to ensure the message was received correctly. So arhat is why I back briefed you. Apparently it wasn’t correct. Although I think there was much interference in what I wrote to you, as it appears to me like much or your feedback is what I was attempting to say and that verifies it for me, so thanks.
You basically provided a dumbed down version to me, as my version was too dumbed down and had you perceive it as inaccurate.
Thank you. That is what I was trying to say.
Again I dumbed it down too much much, I realize eons, not generations. I was trying to simplify it to understand the concept.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:107, topic:36495”]
Rather than someone saying “… frogs evolve into a new species at which point they cannot mate with a previously compatible population, and they become dogs” (< Wow, the hypothetical person who wrote this was certainly confused!), a single population must diverge into 2 or more separate sub-groups."
[/quote]
Again too simplified. I was trying to go from water to half land half water, to land only with fish, frog, dog. I don’t rally thing it is that quick or simple…[quote=“gbrooks9, post:107, topic:36495”]
Do you really think this is a fair way to treat my generous use of time? I sure don’t. And so I am inclined to think you are here to poke fun. So, Mr. Still, am I correctly understanding your concept for your participating in the BioLogos fora?
[/quote]
Again, though I do appreciate your time, I am not forcing spen shout precious time here. I assumed like many, have some free time to kill, and don’t mind pointing someone in the right direction. If you enjoy debating, great, you. Night have some things I can learn. But if I am taking too much of your time, no need to respond.
But I promise you I am not poking fun.
It sounds to me like you didn’t understand at all what I was doing as you might debat emuch higher biologically educated people and get into the weeds often. It when someone simplifies it, you loose you mind.
But basically what I was saying was an argument for evolution hat I never thought about before. How if something changes/evolves past a certain threshold, it can no longer mate with its old speciecies, and therefore makes it a smaller population…which as you explained allows it to evolve faster…which allows it to change into a new species and it is a snowball effect of evolution.
And if evolution didn’t work and we didn’t change, we would have such a large population, that we would never change, and that would snowball into no evolution ever.
If I was to attempt my next journey, it would be, learning more about this threshold. At what point do we change that doesn’t allow us to produce fertile offspring anymore?
That is false. Atomic clocks is basically an extremely accurate measurement of quartz vibrations. Vibrations change in mediums, like water. We know how to keep the measurement accurate, but there is a factor that could change they way we measure it.
Just like he moon and the earth. An hourglass work off of gravity, and the calibrated size of the hole to he size of grain s of sand. So if you change gravity, you alter the hourglasses measurement of time. It you aren’t altering the time of happening, way it is measured.
You could do the same with an atomic clock. It is a measurement of time, that is very accurate, and we want it to be accurate, so we have no need to change it. Just like we have no need to put an hourglass on the moon. But if you did, it would alter the measurement. Just like if you put the quartz of an atomic clock in water. The atomic clock isn’t measuring time as it happens, it is a measurement of e vibrating frequency of quartz, which is supplemented with the closed loop like re-stimulating of the cesium atom. But still a measure, t of something…that could be altered.
Sure one could argue anything…but why 5min? My time warp theory isn’t based on a random, " what if". It’s based on the other parallel uses of 7 days in the Bible and he literal interpretation of the genesis account.
Surely you don’t believe that do you? Gravity doesn’t make/effect time. Do those on the I.S.S age slower or not at all due to the lack of gravity?
Gravity could effect the way we measure time…like if we used an hourglass to measure time, sure. But it can’t/doesn’t effect time of happening.
During. Constant conditions, you are correct, they “tick” /are measured at one speed/rate. But if you changed certain conditions, that rate would change.
So if the earth sped up and moved sun twice as fast…we wouldn’t age any faster. Sure our number age would go higher, but we would all live to 160 as opposed to 80. The time of happening doesn’t change, just the way we measure it. I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
Like if you watch a time lapse, your world of happening is 5 min, yet you watch a tree grown over 5 years. Fast forward, time warp…I don’t know how more clearly I can explain this.
I don’t think all agree with me on this theory of mine, but I think most understand what I am at least hypothesizing. It seems you either don’t get it, or are so intent to poke holes in this therory (which I would welcome), but you are using non-understanding logic to attempt to poke holes.
Just because someone used something is a “bad” way, doesn’t make that thing they used bad.
Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge…
That is the first time I heard that passage interpreted like that. Interesting theory…
I agree with no politics, police, or religion. i know that math and science can be used to see echos of God, like sex or marriage is an echo of God. And in heaven, we won’t need echos of God, because we will see Him and be with Him. So I don’t think they will be necessary, like food won’t be necessary. But I do think there will be food and math there.
That wa typed on my iPad, so pardon the many errors, I tried to fix most of them
Time will tell, Mr. Still. You either really don’t have your heart in this effort, or … well, frankly, I just don’t see how anyone could put those words together like that and not think something was wrong.
So, my first observation is that you think there is something so wrong with Evolution, you were unable to determine whether you were
[A] correctly describing a wrong-headed process; or
[B} incorrectly describing a process that you are convinced is wrong anyway.
Work with someone else for a while. And when I see that you are capable of distinguishing between your own confusion vs. the confusion inherent in a wrong-headed discipline, then we can talk again.
Looking forward to it.
As to your paragraph:
My modifications are in bold:
(1) How if something changes/evolves past a certain threshold, it can no longer mate with its old speciecies,
No. That’s not it:
A. if 2 populations get separated, they are more likely to change independently of each other.
B. This happens because without a free exchange of gentic material, changes in one population don’t get shared with the other one.
C. And when changes that affect reproductive compatibility reach a threshold, 2 or more populations, large or small, lose (more or less forever) their ability to stay in sync with each other. One population becomes a modern hippo; the other population becomes a modern whale.
(2) and therefore makes it a smaller population…
No. That’s not it. What makes a population smaller are changes in the environment that kill off the least “adapted” members of the population. Sometimes it’s a small percentage; sometimes it’s a big percentage, even 100%.
(3) which as you explained allows it to evolve faster…
Yes, a smaller population, fortunately for many kinds of life forms, is able to more quickly adapt to a changing environment. But there is a countervailing factor to consider! Large populations may have more un-tapped variety in “alleles” (the various versions of the same gene), which give a larger population a nice jump-start as the ecological shifts start to hit it. A large population may have a nice bank of potentially valuable variations. While a smaller population may be stripped down to bare bones when it comes to banked-and-not-yet-needed variations.
(4) which allows it to change into a new species and it is a snowball effect of evolution.
No. That’s not it. The only thing that allows a population to become a different species, per se, is when a population is divided into 2 or more groups, and separated (virtually or physically). The 2 sub-populations can both be large, both be small, or one or the other. But when they separate:
The 2 or more sub-populations are:
A. subject to different environmental forces; or
B. unable to share genetic changes with the previously related population; and/or
C. both (A) and (B).
A Completely Separate Topic: How many species can a single population be?
The completely separate topic of whether a single undivided population, that runs for 60 millions years is really a single species or multiple species depends on whether you are defining species by their anatomy and their behavior … or by reproductive compatibility. Unfortunately, the latter is very hard to determine, since not only do genetic factors rarely become fossils … but it’s very difficult to get a modern life form to attempt to mate with a fossil.
Convinced is too strong of a word. My current beliefs are not that, no. But I am open minded and on a journey.
Fair enough. Do you have links on where this threshold is talked about more. The “difference” between Micro and macro evolution. Where they change “kinds” and can no longer produce fertile offspring with their former species they evolved from.
1 Like
Not enough attention is spent on Ring Species. So read up on them… and it will (as investors sometimes say) into the project at a 45 degree angle!
I hope to be able to dig up more material on those genes that affect reproductive compatibility the most. I have been given some links on the topic… but I haven’t been able to sink my teeth into them quite yet!
Post deleted
First, the terms micro and macro evolution are inventions of YEC. They are both the same thing.
Second, the threshold is not a line drawn in the sand. If you will read up on ring species you will discover you can have 3 groups, let’s call them A, B, and C. A and B can produce fertile offspring. B and C can produce fertile offspring. But A and C can not produce fertile offspring. Sometimes the threshold is due to a genetic difference. Other times it is due to simple behavioral differences.
If you want some resources to help with the basics of evolution you can check out these BioLogos resources.
How Evolution Works, Part 1
How Evolution Works, Part 2
These also contain links to additional information.
Really, wow. I thought for sure you were pulling one of these https://youtu.be/rLDgQg6bq7o. And using a bunch of fake calculations and made up terms to show how stupid my theory was. That math is way above my head, but sorry for the mis-interpretations and kudus for that knowledge, but still even further above my head than some of those evolutionary terms.
Would you be able to work that formula out backwards and plug in 13.7 billions years and what would it give in place of that 6000 value?
Ok, I understand the ring species and speciation concept now…I think. So with a mountain cline, the lizard at the bottom of a mountain is a magenta species, then the first quarter mountain, the condition/environment changes so the lizards there are adapting and purple. And half way, same thing, so blue lizards, and at the top quarter, bark green lizards, and at the top, there is a light green lizards. The purple and magenta can interbreed, and the light green and dark can interbreed. But the light green and agents won’t be able to interbreed. Though in the mountain cline which is linear, they will never meet, so will never know they can’t interbreed, but in the ring cline, these costal species can and do meet (light green and magenta), but they still can’t interbreed.
But they are still lizards, or birds with the ring species. This still seems like the same type to me.
And if I understand right, do we have any evidence of this occurring enough times for a fish to spectate and grow arms and turn into a frog?
Like the wiki article said. “if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species’ distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.”
So if I am correct, we have no link( referred to as the missing link) that connect a type to another type. E. We have magenta fish and light green frogs, but we are missing the purple, blue and dark green species right? This is a theory to reconcile the observable micro evolution, and say this proves macro evolution. And hide it behind the fact that it’s a really long time 4.5 billion years. Being that modern man only lived 100,000 at lion is so unfathomable, making it seem plausible.
How long is the Larus gulls sceciation measured to have taken place. Because maybe in DNA that is a great change, but in the end result is really not THAT different. From a herring gull to a black-backed gull is such a minute change.
I just think it is still too large of a leap to go from a magenta fish to a light green fish, and a light green fish to a yellow frog (or whatever fish “turned” into.
I can’t list all of the types/kinds of animals. But a type or kind is for example, a canine, and a species would be a wolf, a beagle, Dalmatian maybe even a fox. Feline- lion, house cat, tiger, panther. Equine- horse, donkey, zebra, impala.
That is what I understand to be micro-evolution. But to make the jump from sea creatures only, to half sea and half land, to land creatures only. Or an even larger leap, from a few cells of and bacteria to a to an animal/fish etc.
Speciation I can get on board with. But the evolutionary theory that we evolved massive leaps in kinds/types…I don’t see enough evidence for that, nor does it sound that logical, not does it sound like interpretation error or literature type could sound remotely like that.
I can even see how a pakicetus could evolve to become a whale over 50 million years.
Just like you probably couldn’t fit every animal on the ark, but if you got the types, it wouldn’t be a problem, and afterwords when they go to different environments, they speciate to give us what we have today, some 3000- 4000 years later. Or is that not enough time for speciation to occur?
Part of the awkwardness of this model is that the oldest writings of scripture, like the book of Job for example describe creatures exactly in the modern sense besides a few debatable ones that may have gone extinct (like Behemoth/Leviathan). For example,
Or an entire archive of articles on hyper speciation required by the YEC model:
2 Likes
Hmmm, some good points there, thanks.
The thing about it is, that evolution still fits my time warp theory perfectly. And I probably mentally cross the fence at times. It just has other holes/unexplainable challenges in it that bring me back to the other side.
But I that is why I think evolution should be its own thread, original purpose of this thread was the time warp theory, which again, has no beef with evolution.
1 Like
Feel free to start a new thread, but could you summarize again for me:
-
what do you mean by time warp? The number of times I’ve seen Christians abuse Special Relativity has been too much to count
-
what kind of holes/challenges do you mean? All theories will always have some gaps. But what is most important is not whether gaps exist, because they always will but whether the idea explains the non-gaps well which evolution has done an amazing job at
1 Like
Oh my, I can try to sum it up.
Basically God is outside of time, so time is whatever he wants it to be. So He assigned the time of 7 days to creation. However, from the time that we know and our reference, the universe was created in 13.7 billion years.
Like I can watch a tree grow over 5 years, in a 5 min time lapse. God “watched” the universe be created in 5 min, though, it grew over 5 years. Or, God created the universe in 7 days, though it grew in 13.7 billion years.
So every Big Bang event that scientist speak of of evolution happened as we measure it, same as EC believes, but it also only took a literal 7 days.
Like if a human was sitting next to God watching this happen, they would see plants whizzing around and colliding and explosions and God would be like superman or the flash when a bullet is fired where it is in super slow motion, able to effect the most minute details.
Some here called it time warp for lack of better term, I think time lapse theory sounds closer.
If want to believe in the genesis account not being literal, that makes sense in so many areas. But then you have parts like. Putting Adam to sleep to take a rib. If this was figurative or symbolic, why write a completely unnecessary detail like that.
Or if 900 some years is symbolic of age, they why set a limit on it later to 120 years.
There are so many (what seems to be) unnecessary details placed in there.
That is like saying " Pharos heart was hardened, so they hooked him up to a blood circulation machine" Using a symbolic thing, and then assigning literal detail to it confuses.
In Gen 6, if the flood was just a story or used hyperbole, I think it would be written " God told Noah to build an ark and to bring 2 of every animal". That is a story about what God told them to do and I could take that to be a hyperbole.
But it says " the Lord said to Noah, you do this, this will happen" and puts it in quotes, as if this is what God said. You dont tell a story with quotes from someone and add hyperbole within he quotes. At least in this literary society. Maybe there’s was different?
You make it sound that if something isn’t literal history it has no purpose in the narrative. I don’t think that is how the original audience would have approached things at all. Here are two old threads with some thoughts on the Adam’s rib thing, because I don’t have time at the moment to re-type all the things I and others said in those threads.
Thanks, that is reasonable to me. What about the flood ( as I added into my post above.)
Why change someone’s quotes?
Or the reason for a 120 limit? If ages were symbolic?
I should start a thread were I can lob one down and y’all can knock it out of the park and lob another one and you might just have a global to regional flood and evolutionary ‘convert’.
1 Like
Yes, pick your favorite and start a new thread. 
1 Like