I base this on science and on what the Bible says which, in my opinion,
are not at odds. Some conclusions made by scientists are at odds with
my religious beliefs but not the discoveries themselves.

My ideas are still a work in progress. I believe that there may have
been about 2 or 3,000 common ancestors. Maybe a lot less. Maybe 500.
I'm not sure. I am inclined to believe that there are genetic
"islands" between which no evolution is possible.

I believe that these islands house similar types of animals. One for
dogs, foxes, wolves. One for rodents. One for small birds. One for
large birds.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that the DNA of a bacteria 2.5
billion years ago (or however long) could evolve into all life today.

Two large scientific reasons for this are:
1) Given the huge number of fossils discovered, I would have expected
to see more than the relatively few transitional types, which, in my
opinion, have not conclusively been shown to be transitional.

2) Given the supposed ability of bacteria DNA to evolve into all other
DNA (the supposed bacteria-to-human evolution shows that this is
possible), I expected to see more existing types of life. I am not
talking about minor variations between species (color distribution,
wing span, mating calls). I find it curious that there are not
millions more of species found on the earth...if speciation can account
for all life from a common ancestor.

- all, or nearly all, life on earth shares a common ancestry

I believe in common ancestry to a point within hundreds if not
thousands of genetic "islands" between which evolution is impossible.

Clearly stated. Now. What evidence leads you to think this? How do
you detect such an "island"? Can you give examples? Give an example of
some organisms that, in your opinion, have common ancestry, and other
organisms that do not.

I fumbled through my explanation of the reasons behind a genetic island
theory above. I would detect a genetic island: using a complete
mapping of all life forms' DNA including the ability of each life
form's DNA to evolve into something different; and look at the ability
of different life forms to reproduce with each (for animals).

As an example, in my opinion, all dogs, wolves, and foxes would have a
common ancestor.

In my theory, humans would not have any ancestor since I believe that
we were specially created by God. I believe that modern humans did not
evolve from Neanderthals or homo-erectus man, who may have themselves
evolved from apes.

When giving examples, try to stress "interesting" cases. If you think,
for example, there are instances of certain vertebrates and certain
invertebrates sharing common ancestry, tell us why you think so. If
there are specific groups of flowering plants that have a separate
ancestry from other flowering plants, please give reasons why.

I am not knowledgable at all about plants. Any attempt at giving a
theory about genetic islands within the plant community would be pure
speculation at best....

eyelessgame wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

eyelessgame wrote:

We're only seeing the most recent bit of the conversation on
talk.origins. I'd like very much to know what your position is on the
following statements. All of them are consensus positions of modern
science, and they deal with a wide variety of topics, not just that of
biological evolution;

- the universe is 13.7 billion years old

I don't know. Sounds reasonable if the measurements of the movement of
planetary and solar bodies away from a single point are to be believed.

There's a whole lot more to it than that, but if it's not something you
challenge, then there's no reason to browbeat over it.

- the earth is 4.52 billion years old

Agreed.

- there has been life on earth for close to 4 billion years

Not sure. I'll wait to see the rationale for this number. I'm not a
young-earth believer, so such a number is not unbelievable.

See, this is why I asked up front. :) :) So there's no point in
discussing old-earth evidence, because you'll just agree with me.

- the makeup of life on earth has changed dramatically over time

Agreed.

- currently-living organisms are arranged in a nested hierarchy of
similarity

To a point, based on morphological studies.

Right, but do you understand there's a whole lot more than
morphological studies involved? There is DNA study, and there is
paleontological study, and there is biogeographic study, and
mitochondrial study, and body-chemistry study, and a whole host of
other ways of measuring similarity besides just "that critter looks a
lot like this critter".

Agreed.

The fact that various life
forms appear similar should in no way cause an automatic assumption
that they had a common ancestor, although I an inclined to think that
there were common ancestors.

I'd like to start pinning you down on this. Which creatures do and do
not have common ancestry, and on what do you base your claim?

I base this on science and on what the Bible says which, in my opinion,
are not at odds. Some conclusions made by scientists are at odds with
my religious beliefs but not the discoveries themselves.

My ideas are still a work in progress. I believe that there may have
been about 2 or 3,000 common ancestors. Maybe a lot less. Maybe 500.
I'm not sure. I am inclined to believe that there are genetic
"islands" between which no evolution is possible.

I believe that these islands house similar types of animals. One for
dogs, foxes, wolves. One for rodents. One for small birds. One for
large birds.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that the DNA of a bacteria 2.5
billion years ago (or however long) could evolve into all life today.

Two large scientific reasons for this are:
1) Given the huge number of fossils discovered, I would have expected
to see more than the relatively few transitional types, which, in my
opinion, have not conclusively been shown to be transitional.

2) Given the supposed ability of bacteria DNA to evolve into all other
DNA (the supposed bacteria-to-human evolution shows that this is
possible), I expected to see more existing types of life. I am not
talking about minor variations between species (color distribution,
wing span, mating calls). I find it curious that there are not
millions more of species found on the earth...if speciation can account
for all life from a common ancestor.

I fumbled through my explanation of the reasons behind a genetic island
theory above.

I would detect a genetic island: using a complete
mapping of all life forms' DNA including the ability of each life
form's DNA to evolve into something different;

and look at the ability
of different life forms to reproduce with each (for animals).

As an example, in my opinion, all dogs, wolves, and foxes would have a
common ancestor.

In my theory, humans would not have any ancestor since I believe that
we were specially created by God.

I believe that modern humans did not
evolve from Neanderthals or homo-erectus man, who may have themselves
evolved from apes.

When giving examples, try to stress "interesting" cases...

I am not knowledgable at all about plants. Any attempt at giving a
theory about genetic islands within the plant community would be pure
speculation at best.

Interesting cases? Hmmm...I guess the most interesting case would be
human beings as they are very similar to homo erectus, yet are not
evolved from them, in my opinion.

Let's say organisms A and B have a common ancestry, and organisms C and
D have different ancestry. What is the determining criteria? How do
you tell? Is it based on degree of genetic dissimilarity? If so,
where are you drawing your line? If not -- i.e. if there are cases
where C and D are *more similar*, genetically, to each other than A and
B are to each other, tell us what your determination was. It's okay to
list hypothetical determinations if you haven't done the work yourself.

I would base my beliefs in common ancestry on the ability of a life
form's DNA to evolve.

Upon mapping the DNA, if I can't get a life form
to forcefully evolve through manipulation of its genes, then we can
pretty much rest assured that it couldn't happen naturally.

Morphology is nice starting point, but genetics is the basis for
identification.

I honestly do not know how this would turn out. The starting basis for
my genetic island theory is how the Bible describes each animal
reproducing "after its kind".

I will say, however, that your belief seems a tad idiosyncratic. There
is virtually no one I know who seriously puts forth a similar position
-- the order of 1000 different "separate ancestries" for all living
organisms.

I know. It's cool. I've never been one to go with the flow. I always
seem to take controversial positions and defend them not because I like
controversy or being different but because I agree with many of them.

Do you want perhaps to revise that to 1000 different vertebrate
animals? I think it might be more in keeping with a creationist
perspective.

I can easily revise the amount up or down as scientific discovery
dictates.

- there was no geologically-recent worldwide flood

I believe in a global flood about 4,500 years ago. Did this cause the
Grand Canyon? I doubt it, but really don't know for sure.

As I know some geologists, have read a fair bit of basic geology, and
understand their methodology, I can say for sure that it didn't.

There are a large number of insurmountable problems with the hypothesis
of a geologically-recent great flood -- unless you're prepared to say
that evidence of the global flood was miraculously erased from the
planet's surface and from DNA.

I think that there is evidence. Skeptics and I disagree about what the
evidence means, not that the evidence exists.

In which case, we're reduced to disagreements in basic epistomology and
are forced to stop talking, because the logical conclusion of this kind
of erasure is a supreme being who is whimsically erasing evidence to
prevent us from learning the truth of matters, and the
comprehensibility of the universe (which is the sole assumption of
science, and indeed of all rational thought) goes out the window.

Well, I can't assume that God would or wouldn't erase evidence. He
didn't seem to do so in the Bible, and I don't think that He did in the
case of the global flood.

I agree that any assertion of God's erasing evidence would render this
discussion moot pretty quickly.

Incompatible with a literal reading, yes. But many parts of the Bible
can be taken in other ways than literally.

I am glad that you said that because skeptics have complained that many
Christians take the Bible too literally. Then, when certain passages
are analyzed figuratively, skeptics quickly jump on the Christians and
say that Christians are changing the meaning of the passage to suit
their cause.

And if those sections of the Bible are proven
false, then the entire Biblical account and its divine inspiration
aspect is then called into question.

It's unfortunate you think so. I consider such faith to be fairly
unsophisticated and brittle, and former adherents of such faith often
become the most strident of atheists. (My father was one.)

My faith is quite solid. Yet, my faith is ultimately in Jesus'
sacrifice on the cross for my sins.

If a literal Jesus did not
literally die on a literal cross for my very real sins, then all of
Christianity breaks down and becomes meaningless. So, some aspects of
the Bible can be taken figuratively, even if figuratively they become
in error, without destroying the basis for Christian belief. Some,
however, are essential in their literal interpretation.

What would happen if Darwin's Origin of Species were to read in more of
a figurative manner than literal? The whole evolutionary theory would
cease to exist as we know.

The Bible, for example, is quite clear in its implications that the
moon and sun are quite close and quite small compared with the Earth --
read the precise descriptions of the "stopping" of the Sun and Moon
over specific valleys during the time of Jericho. (And an
understanding of modern physics renders the sudden stopping of the
Earth's rotation even more ludicrous than a global deluge.) Do
heliocentricity and Solar System physics not undermine the inerrancy of
the Joshua account?

I disagree with your conclusion about that Biblical passage.

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the
book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and
hasted not to go down about a whole day." - Joshua 10:13

Please let me know why you concluded that the Bible indicates that the
sun and mo