Hi to all my Forum Friends,
In the Religion Forum discussion titled "Removing The 'Smoke Screen' From Alleged Bible Discrepancies" begun by me two weeks ago, and which has long since become way too long -- our avowed atheist and Darwinian Evolutionist Friend, Robust, tells me, "To biologists, the distinction between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is utterly arbitrary. Macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution."
If workers dig a hole deep, even several miles deep -- that is equivalent to Micro Evolution. If workers dig a hole completely through the earth, coming out on the other side -- that is equivalent to Macro Evolution.
Now, we know that those drilling for oil, etc., have drilled down several miles. That is a fact, i.e. Micro Evolution..
Yet, when have you heard of anyone drilling through the earth and coming out in China? That is fiction, i.e., Macro Evolution.
You tell us, "All species of organisms on earth have descended from a common ancestor. When scientists say that two species of apes, for example, such as humans and bonobos have evolved from a common ancestor -- it means that there have been successive and inherited changes/modifications in those two populations since becoming genetically isolated from one another.
To say that humans are related to bonobos does not mean that they are our ancestors or that humans evolved from bonobos. Our common human/bonobo ancestor, from which we evolved, is extinct. Every species living today is fully modern. No living species today is the ancestor to another living species."
First, let's define "species."
1: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.
A fish cannot breed with a horse or a dog. A fish cannot breed with a bird. A bird cannot breed with a dinosaur. An ape cannot breed with a human (although, at times our atheist Friends have made me wonder). You get the point.
But, Robust, then you state, "Our common human/bonobo ancestor, from which we evolved, is extinct. Every species living today is fully modern. No living species today is the ancestor to another living species."
Not so. If you take the definitions above: (1) Resemble one another. We humans do resemble Adam and Eve; although we may be taller, with lighter or darker skin coloring, and have a few other physical difference -- we are all still in the spiritual image of God and in the physical image of our first ancestors, Adam and Eve.
(2) Capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Most certainly true -- as long as we stay within the Traditional Marriage ordained by God - One Man and One Woman. Yet, except in fairy tales, I have seen no indication of any half fish/half humans, nor any half horse/half humans, not even a half ape/half humans.
(3) Adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies. This is a perfect definition of evolutionary adaptation, i.e., Micro Evolution -- a species, i.e., man, adapting to environmental, dietary, and location changes.
So, Robust, I descended from Adam and Eve. But, over a period of thousands of years -- my physical features and attributes have changed due to my family migrating to the Western Hemisphere, and due to the change in diet, etc. That is Micro Evolution.
You, according to you, descended from an ape. So be it! Over millions of years, once again, according to you -- your ancestors migrated from the jungle, stopped eating fleas from one another, learned to walk upright, and lost your body hair (well, at least, most of you did). That is Macro Evolution. Good luck!
Now, you tell us, "Modern fish don't become chickens or horses, but since life evolved from the seas, today's chickens, horses and fish (and humans, giraffes, shrews, etc.) have a common and extinct ancestor that was a sea-dwelling vertebrate (like a fish) hundreds of millions of years ago. If any one reading this can't grasp this concept and how it's different from a fish becoming a horse -- then it's incumbent upon you to ask questions and/or do some research online or somewhere."
And, you wonder why I sometimes slip and mistake you for our old atheist Forum Friend, Fish? Well, maybe there are a couple of reasons; but, this one has catapulted to the top of the heap.
Once again, I descended from Adam and Eve. But, over a period of thousands of years -- my physical features and attributes have changed due to my family migrating to the Western Hemisphere, and due to the change in diet, etc. That is Micro Evolution.
But, now, instead of your ancestors evolving from an ape -- you now claim a Fish, or sea-dwelling, ancestor? Wow! You, my Friend, are very confused. First, you are an ape! And, now, you are a Fish! What will you be tomorrow?
Then, you continue, "Darwin's research and conclusions were the beginning of our understanding and yet they have withstood heavy scientific scrutiny for over 150 years (...not 200 years) and they still manage to accommodate the latest modern findings. Nothing can top it. Why not? Because it's true.
How do we know it's true? Because Darwin's central ideas have generated testable predictions that have been borne out by mountains (of) evidence and discoveries accumulated over a wide spectrum of sciences for a very, very long time. And to this day, every new discovery and surprise finding in any of the life sciences supports and gives more validation to Darwin's theory, while continuing to extend our understanding of all life on earth."
Yet, in over 150 years since Darwin wrote his atheist/secularist bible, "On the Origin of Species" -- not even one transitional fossil has been discovered -- by science, or by anyone else. This is the "missing link" we always ask about -- and which no one has been able to provide.
Why? If all those species did evolve into others -- there should be at least one transitory fossil -- somewhere. Obviously, if we accept Darwinian Evolution, i.e., Macro Evolution -- even science will tell us that a bird did not just change immediately into a dinosaur; an ape did not just suddenly become a man.
No, the transition process, again, according to what evolutionary science tells us -- took took millions, or billions, of years to complete. So, there had to be a lot of in-between species as the ape was moving toward becoming Bill Gates. And, there would have been millions, or billions, of these transitory creatures -- leaving millions, or billions, of transition fossils, i.e., the "missing links."
In our museums around the world -- there are millions of fossils. Yet, not even one of those transitory fossils is to be found. Now, how can that be -- that man found millions of fossils -- but, lost all those billions of transitory fossils? How can any rational person believe this?
Robust, regarding the "200 since Darwin's book" comment -- that was one of "your" people who wrote that. Yes, I noticed the error -- but, then, I am accustomed to so many erroneous statements from atheists -- so, I just walked on past it.
I have often quoted Charles Darwin with the paraphrase, "If modern science does not find the "missing link" fossils, at least one -- then Darwinian Evolution is dead." And, I have always concluded, "RIP Darwinian Evolution!"
But, to be more specific, so that I do not confuse our atheist and secularist Friends, I submit this from Charles Darwin:
+++++++++++++++++++
Transitional Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.
+++++++++++++++++++
"RIP Darwinian Evolution!"
You continue, "As has been demonstrated on this forum so often, those who reject the scientific fact of Evolution always reference a severe misunderstanding (or purposeful misinformation) of what Evolution actually is. They can't deny something that is actually explainable, demonstrable, and testable -- so instead they resort to illogical and unscientific straw-man caricatures to attack
(and look ridiculous in the process)."
So far, we have seen no "missing link" transitional fossils which are "explainable, demonstrable, and testable." Therefore, Robust, the rest of your statement is merely atheist huffing and puffing.
You quote, "Is man an ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence those newfangled theories." -- Benjamin Disraeli, 1864 (or Bill Gray, 2011)
Well, we know, from common sense, that man is not an APE! And, we know, from the Bible, that man is not an angel.
God created both angels and man for different purposes. We both were created to have a love relationship with God and to worship God. Yet, man was created just a wee bit higher -- to have a personal love relationship with God, to be His special children. And, all who, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- believe and receive Him as Lord and Savior -- have this special love relationship as children of God.
One major difference between man and angels is that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) -- but, the Bible does not say this about angels.
Another major difference is that mankind can marry and bear children; angels cannot (Matthew 22:30).
And, yet another: Man can be forgiven by God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; angels cannot (2 Corinthians 5:21, Matthew 25:41).
Angels, besides worshiping and serving God -- also bear special revelations from God to humans (Hebrews 2:2, 13:2) -- and as the angel, Gabriel, did for Joseph and Mary (Matthew 1:20,21, Luke 1:11-13).
And, we read in Hebrews 1:14, "Are they (angels) not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" Who is to inherit salvation? Those humans who, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ -- have become children of God.
So, Robust, man is not an ape -- nor is he an angel. He is the special creation of God, created in His image, created to be His very Personal Friend. Praise the Lord!
And, finally, Robust, you quote, "...ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin, 1871.
Charles Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." In other words, to paraphrase Darwin, "If modern science does not find the 'missing link' fossils, at least one -- then Darwinian Evolution is dead."
And, I have always concluded, "RIP Darwinian Evolution!"
Robust, this has been an interesting dialogue and I thank you for giving me the platform from which to explain the most obvious, Biblical, view of man and Creation vs Darwinian Evolution.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bil