All you can say is “potentially,” because, nobody KNOWS of any that ARE intermediate species! Again as ALL of the evolutionists at the Chicago convention admitted: “There’s nothing anyone KNOWS about evolution except it shouldn’t be taught in schools.” This statement stands on its own! And how did life start without God–nobody KNOWS!
This challenge was answered. Plenty are known to be intermediate species according to the diagram above in the research documented by the link. It is the challenge to you which has not been answered. What conference? When? Where in Chicago? So far it sounds like a complete fantasy. But we would love some real information so we can investigate to find out who these so called “evolutionists” really were and what they really said and how long ago.
2 Likes
Lol what? We are finding fish that are evolving lungs to breath air as we speak! If this isn’t a sign that evolution is happening in front of us then I don’t know what is. Lungfish - Wikipedia
Can you show a source of this claim or else it hold’s no value and will be disregarded. Also I feel safe to say that evolution should be taught in schools as it has more proof then YEC does.
Ever see how crazy some of the plant maps are? Where you have a subspecies that ends up after thousands of years breeding back with a parent species that the sub species cane from and how one species hits up with another species in the same genus and then later that new species hits back up with another and ect… it gets crazy. More like a spider web on a tree type of map.
1 Like
I think I have figured out the conference referred to:
November 5 1980 Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
It looks to me like the real issue of the conference is regarding that of gradualism which is something I have never believed in anyway. I think most evolution occur rapidly in small populations on the verge of extinction because that is where variations in the genome are likely to have the greatest impact. Sometimes this is referred to as “punctuated equilibrium” and the article complains that creationists misuse this to claim that God is intervening to make alterations as if God were some kind of tinkering engineer, which is absurd.
What remains dubious about this conference however is the lack of information like a list of those who attended or a publication put out by the conference to detail what they discussed or concluded. The lack of these strongly suggest that this was not a conference of any importance. And we would do better to look at the discussion topics, conclusions and attendees of other conferences.
The only fish that have lungs, as far as anyone KNOWS, always had them. No fish without lungs have EVER been found to develop them!
Why would fish have lungs?
The transition to land animals is well known to be amphibians, some of which do not have lungs and only breathe outside the water through their skin. Likewise not all amphibians have gills or only have them in the early stages of their life cycle. All this makes perfect sense for these species which live in shallow water with access to both water and air.
Oh and some amphibians also have an intermediate stage where instead of lungs they use air sacs to extend their ability to breathe through their skin.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be the first time that leaders in the young-earth movement have tried to use a straw man version of PE as some kind of “proof” that evolutionists don’t even think there is evidence for evolution. It’s pretty disingenuous.
There are two meanings of the word 'species" used today by both Creationists and evolutionists. 1. “A new species has exactly the same body-plan as the species it ‘evolved’ from, but cannot mate with it.” 2. And this is the “evolution” nobody has seen; an animal “evolves” a new body-plan. Experiments show this can’t happen, slowly (micro) nor quickly (macro). Evolutionist turned creationist, Carl E. Baugh, in 'Why do men Believe EVOLUTION Against All Odds?" (p. 80), conveyed, “In 1980 the University of Chicago hosted a conference of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists. The conference was entitled “Macroevolution,” and their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution…the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Lewin, Science Vol.210, pp. 883-7).
(Note this is not the same conference when evolutionists admitted there’s nothing they KNOW about evolution. I’ll post that information later today.)
Baugh added (p.81), "Wolfgang Smith held faculty positions at Oregon State, MIT and UCLA. His considered opinion is expressed rather forcibly: “There exists to this day not a shred of evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations ever occurred.” (Teildardism and the New Religion, 1988 p. 6). So evolution from an animal of one body-plan to another cannot happen, quickly or slowly.
Michael Denton said, “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, that so mitigates against the idea of chance.” (Evolution A Theory in Crisis p. 324).
I have not been participating on Biologos for a long time, but my credentials are this: Originally educated as a biological research scientist I was employed with NASA and worked on the Apollo Eleven Mission in 1968 and 69. My work involved experiments designed to determine whether there was life on the moon, and whether lunar “soil” could support life. (No and no.) I had slight exposure to Christianity as a child, but had no concept of its doctrines. I had no idea what role Jesus played in Christianity when I first began my own search to determine whether “God was real”. Somewhere in the Biologos records is my testimony as to how I found God.
For the past 50 years I have been a full time Bible scholar. For 46 years I have been a Pastor-Teacher Christian Counselor. I have 100% confidence that God is the Creator of all that exists, and that evolutionary forces, adaptation via genetic mutation has driven the expansion of Life. I am also convinced that Satan is just as real as God, and that while he has no creative power he is evil. He is the root of all evil including disease, and the genetic mutations which cause both hereditary diseases and the disease causing pathogens which evolved through mutation, from non-pathogenic organisms and viruses.
It is the consensus among nearly all genuine Bible scholars that neither Genesis 1 or 2 was “dictated” by God; that Moses did not write any part of Genesis, and that the Creation stories are myths. The entirety of the book of Genesis was written during the latter years of the Babylonian captivity, 526 BCE – 455 BCE. Members of three tribes had been taken captive: Judaites, Benjamites, and Levites. All three had versions of their own word-of-mouth folktale versions of “The Beginning”. There is no record of how many people were involved in writing the chapters, but Bible scholars are unanimous in agreement that the first and second chapter were written by different cultures, i.e, members f different tribes. Writing styles are different, words used are different, the creation process described is different and the timing of events is entirely different. Everything was completed before the end of the first week in version one, but neither plants nor man was created until the second week in the second version. It baffles me when other evangelical and fundamental Christians claim there are no inconsistencies in the Bible, and say “there could not be because God wrote it”. I am evangelical, fundamental and have experienced the power of a miracle-working Jesus for more than 50 years, but I can read. Nothing before Abraham in the Bible should be taken as literally real. Science has proven everything from Abraham forward, but nothing prior to Abraham.God is the Father of all science. Science did not exist outside of the Church until recent times. (Atheists deny much, demanding specific concrete evidence which does not exist). More important, the existent facts, are proof that the creations stories are simply myths made up in exactly the same was every other ancient culture made up creation myths. We humans “need to know” our beginnings. I have faith that God created my soul, for his purpose. I don’t care how he did it.
2 Likes
Ok… I see the tactic here. Just like with the insects where the species are too numerous and they leave so few fossils, once again you make this bizarre argument that anything unknown about anything somehow proves something and you prop it up by looking for cases where difficulties make answers hard to come by. Fossils are rare and thus it is unreasonable that you are going to find fossils of every creature that every lived.
The most obvious question about lungfish is why do they have lungs at all? Well of course they are fresh water fish and thus adapted to conditions where the quantities of water might vary in conditions of drought and would thus have a survival advantage if they could breathe air.
1 Like
I agree with basically everything except I don’t think viruses or genetic mutations that result in diseases and ect… are a byproduct of the devil. I think they were created and evolved all the same.
Type in: Colin Patterson “Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?”
And with that evolution is refuted? Sorry, but the science is backed up. I took a long time in the last leg days of being YEC looking into the evidence and found the evidence of evolution as over whelming and it seemed to answer problems that YEC couldn’t answer. There were other issue with YEC that made me leave but I can leave it as that. If evolution is a fraud then the science should back the YEC claims but it doesn’t. Instead science backs up the claims of evolution. Asides the evolution of modern humans, the evolution of the whale and other mammal species led me to see that evolution is true as that all mammals come from a common ancestor.
Just to toss this out there I hope it’s known Colin Patterson did not support creationism. He was against it and often spoke against it and voiced he hated that they used his words out of context.
In the intervening forty years, lots has happened in science. Did you hear entire genomes have been sequenced? And now we have the internet, so there really isn’t the same excuse for ignorance. Here’s a summary of the scientific discoveries of the last decade and what “evolutionists” know.
1 Like
They still do not KNOW what animal any species “evolved” from, according to the top entomologists I’m in touch with!
They still do not have the slightest clue how any life could get here without God. As far as they KNOW, it’s impossible! The chances are a statistical zero!
I’ve asked evolutionists many questions in the past year and they were unable to answer a single one! There’s still nothing they KNOW. How did honey bees form new colonies “before” they learned how to swarm?
I have a feeling you are using a very idiosyncratic definition of the word “know.”
You should show these top entomologists the nice phylogenetic tree Mitchell posted above in #35 then.
Not quite the truth, there. But in any case, lack of knowledge about the origin of life does not negate or erase all the mountains of knowledge about evolution that do exist.
Well, now we know you aren’t being honest because you asked Mtichell a question, he answered it, and you carried on pretending he didn’t. So I’m skeptical. Seems to me you are more interested in spreading your false narrative that scientists don’t actually know anything about evolution than you are in learning the answers to your questions about it.
Social behavior evolves over time. I don’t understand what the problem is. Just because an observed behavior now is contingent on another observed behavior doesn’t mean it always was.
Here’s a paper about the evolution of bee’s social behavior: Social molecular pathways and the evolution of bee societies - PMC
“The recent development of powerful genomic tools and resources has set the stage for studying the social behaviour of bees in molecular terms. We review ‘ground plan’ and ‘genetic toolkit’ models which hypothesize that discrete pathways or sets of genes that regulate fundamental behavioural and physiological processes in solitary species have been co-opted to regulate complex social behaviours in social species. We further develop these models and propose that these conserved pathways and genes may be incorporated into ‘social pathways’, which consist of relatively independent modules involved in social signal detection, integration and processing within the nervous and endocrine systems, and subsequent behavioural outputs. Modifications within modules or in their connections result in the evolution of novel behavioural patterns.”
So evidently the evolutionary model uses genetic comparison between related species and find co-opted genes regulating the social behavior. What does the Creationist model propose to explain why it is that the “bee kind” evidently got off the Ark and some bees developed into species that form colonies and the vast majority of bee species are solitary?
2 Likes