Yet ANOTHER "living fossil" ...

[Jorge]

Jorge - you've made many posts presenting this specific misunderstanding of Evolutionary theory. Why is it so hard for you to take a step back and think logically about why this is not the 'problem' you make it out to be. Over and over you have been given a sholarly, sufficient response to this particular objection to Evolutionary theory:

A) the entity in question has evolved - it's genome has changed.
B) its form is similar, even identical to from a standpoint of fossil preservation, that of its ancient counterpart. But this simply means it is well adapted to the environments it has been a part of over the time it has existed. Evolution does NOT require a species go extinct, or even that it change. Change comes when there are adaptations possible which enhance it's capability to survive. Change does not come when
a) the environment does not change
b) the species has reached a fitness plateau for that environment

A careful analysis of Evolutionary theory reveals that a FEW species that have been around millions, even hundreds of millions of years, are not precluded. They could even be said to be expected.

So what you need to do if you wish to proceed logically and if you wish to be 'honest' in your intellectual development is understand these issues, and then if you actually find some salient and robust contradiction to my points above, present THAT, and show using a robust and logical argument why such a 'living fossil' is in fact a problem having TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT the points made above.

This you have not ever done. You simply return to the same mantra without engaging in the slightest depth of mental exercise.

This is totally beneath you - unless you primary detractors are correct and you are a mental midget.

Jim

I already know what you think of me in terms of my knowledge / understanding of Evolution so no need to repeat yourself. Fine, forget about me. But you cannot forget about the multiple Evo-Faithful PhD's that are stumped by findings like this one. I mean, when they themselves hand out names like Enigmatinea glatzella ("enigma moth") then you can be 100% sure that they're scratching their head. But does that cast any doubt on their Sacred Beliefs? Never! My "never fear" comment is that the Evo-Faithful ALWAYS justify the observations in a way that retains the Evolutionary Paradigm. Heck, you do it right here in the above post.

In short, no matter what the observation is it will ALWAYS, NO EXCEPTIONS be found to "fit within the Evolutionary storyline". That's my point and you can huff and puff all you want, you won't be able to knock that one down.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Actually it isn't. The quoted text does not state that there is only a single moth "kind", only that each moth reproduces according to its kind, whatever that might be.

Roy

yes - it is not specific in that regard. The problem does still remains unless one presupposes that either moth 'evolution' does not include going from 1 (or a few) to over 160,000, OR one supposes Noah kept one of each where each of the 160,000 is a 'kind'. Seems all of the above are problematic.

Perhaps there is some way to subdivide the 160,000 into a "Noah's family" manageable set (likely <100 - there are other insects and animals to keep up with after all) where one could then make a case for the diversity resulting from non major changes that could then be classed as the YEC accepted variant micro-evolution, eliminating support for 'macro' evolution yet producing the set we have today.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I already know what you think of me in terms of my knowledge / understanding of Evolution so no need to repeat yourself. Fine, forget about me. But you cannot forget about the multiple Evo-Faithful PhD's that are stumped by findings like this one. I mean, when they themselves hand out names like Enigmatinea glatzella ("enigma moth") then you can be 100% sure that they're scratching their head. But does that cast any doubt on their Sacred Beliefs? Never! My "never fear" comment is that the Evo-Faithful ALWAYS justify the observations in a way that retains the Evolutionary Paradigm. Heck, you do it right here in the above post.

In short, no matter what the observation is it will ALWAYS, NO EXCEPTIONS be found to "fit within the Evolutionary storyline". That's my point and you can huff and puff all you want, you won't be able to knock that one down.

Jorge

Jorge, if the evidence strongly supports evolution in general, then the expected response to what appears not to be evolution is that it is an anomaly. Something either unexpected and/or rare.

Given there are potential reasons for stasis like this (given that the driving factor for change is Natural Selection) there is no reason to abandon the implication of that evidence relative to a finding like this. Specifically If NS always pushes back to the current form for a given set of environmental parameters, then there will no significant change, just oscillation within the survivable parameters around a given form.

Again, to make a legitimate case, then you must show the argument I make above is invalid. And further, you need to provide a VIABLE(robust, scientifically more concordant with ALL the evidence than the current) theory other than evolution. That is, one that explains not just the extant life forms but the many orders of magnitude more life forms we find evidence of in the fossil record (and the formation of that fossil record as well) + some significant subset of the known anomalous evidence.

This would be very hard. I understand that. But this is what all extant theories have done to this point. And why they tend to be accepted and yours does not.


Jim

[rogue06]

Jorge - you've made many posts presenting this specific misunderstanding of Evolutionary theory. Why is it so hard for you to take a step back and think logically about why this is not the 'problem' you make it out to be. Over and over you have been given a sholarly, sufficient response to this particular objection to Evolutionary theory:

A) the entity in question has evolved - it's genome has changed.
B) its form is similar, even identical to from a standpoint of fossil preservation, that of its ancient counterpart. But this simply means it is well adapted to the environments it has been a part of over the time it has existed. Evolution does NOT require a species go extinct, or even that it change. Change comes when there are adaptations possible which enhance it's capability to survive. Change does not come when
a) the environment does not change
b) the species has reached a fitness plateau for that environment

A careful analysis of Evolutionary theory reveals that a FEW species that have been around millions, even hundreds of millions of years, are not precluded. They could even be said to be expected.

So what you need to do if you wish to proceed logically and if you wish to be 'honest' in your intellectual development is understand these issues, and then if you actually find some salient and robust contradiction to my points above, present THAT, and show using a robust and logical argument why such a 'living fossil' is in fact a problem having TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT the points made above.

This you have not ever done. You simply return to the same mantra without engaging in the slightest depth of mental exercise.

This is totally beneath you - unless you primary detractors are correct and you are a mental midget.


Jim

Exactly. If an organism has become completely adapted to a given ecological niche (one that has not changed in any significant time since that organism filled it) and nothing has come along that is better suited to fulfill that position, then there just isn't any evolutionary pressure on that organism to change (or be replaced) in any significant way. This concept is so simple to grasp that one would think that even your average Middle Schooler would have no trouble with it. Still, for whatever the reason, it does appear to confound a relatively large percent of YECs.

[HMS_Beagle]

yes - it is not specific in that regard. The problem does still remains unless one presupposes that either moth 'evolution' does not include going from 1 (or a few) to over 160,000, OR one supposes Noah kept one of each where each of the 160,000 is a 'kind'. Seems all of the above are problematic.

Perhaps there is some way to subdivide the 160,000 into a "Noah's family" manageable set (likely <100 - there are other insects and animals to keep up with after all) where one could then make a case for the diversity resulting from non major changes that could then be classed as the YEC accepted variant micro-evolution, eliminating support for 'macro' evolution yet producing the set we have today.

Jim

I still read it as implying a single moth "kind".

Since we've been told there was only one "horse" kind, one 'dog" kind, one "cat" kind, why would there be hundreds or thousands of "moth" kinds?

Maybe the "kind" can tell us.

[Roy]

Oh, and let's not forget his famous score on the "Science Test for Young Teenagers".

...that Jorge ed out on.

Roy

[nmanning]

Yet ANOTHER "living fossil", this one would have gone through hundreds of millions of generations with essentially no Evolution.
Jorge

It is pretty naive to be a person with a doctorate (albeit a fake one) who has spent years peddling nonsense about evolution to prop up his unyielding belief that the rants of ancient middle eastern numerologists are 100% true to actually believe that evolution posits the necessity and inevitability of morphological change over time.

Please demonstrate that nothing in its genome has changed over this time frame.

[nmanning]

WOW- the above, folks, is a "scholarly", "scientific" rebuttal! I feel faint ...

Jorge

There was nothing scholarly or scientific in your OP.

About what I expect from a community college math adjunct with a purchased phony "doctorate".

[nmanning]

I noticed your ICR clown, er, "scientist" referred to the moth "kind".

How did we get from the single moth 'kind" on the Ark to the over 160,000 known species of moths today in only 4500 years?

The Jorge doesn't think before he clucks.

Let us not forget beetles.

I find it funny that creationists were forced to admit there must have been at least 2 'turtle kinds' a while back. One has to wonder why Yahweh felt the need to make 2 turtle kinds in the first place.

[nmanning]

This is totally beneath you - unless you primary detractors are correct and you are a mental midget.


Jim

Come now..

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post180599