A helpful analogy to help people Creationists (or others) better understand how evolution works: Language.
A parent language will be split up into various dialects of the same language as populations of the speakers disperse. Pretty soon each population will have words that the others do not. Eventually the languages will become recognizably similar but too different to really be understood by the other population (eg> French and Spanish) but at a certain point the daughter languages are so different from the parent language and each other that they are all but unrecognizable as sharing a heritage (Eg> English and whatever the hell they speak in Boston).
All this to say that there are small changes over time and accelerated in isolated populations. These small changes compound to the point that the segregated population is dramatically and unequivocally distinct from the ancestral population.
So if the creationist can accept and recognize the concept that small, compounded changes result in dramatic, virtually unrecognizable change...what is causing them to reject this self-evident and proven principle as it applies to biological diversification?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
[quote]So if the creationist can accept and recognize the concept that small, compounded changes result in dramatic, virtually unrecognizable change...what is causing them to reject this self-evident and proven principle as it applies to biological diversification?[/quote]
A few things. Language is designed, it simplifies over time and even if your evaluation of language were correct it wouldn't mean that it would necessarily apply to theoretical evolution in a similar way. Biology and language aren't the same.
Language is not designed. At least not in the fashion that anyone set out to create language and then did so towards a predetermined end. Language arises on a very basic level (even in the animal kingdom) and grows in complexity as need arises and capacity allows. I have no idea why you would claim that language simplifies over time. Were that true, there would be fewer languages and fewer words over time. Instead the opposite occurs. Same with biodiversity.
See my first couple responses to IamCuriousBabe for an elaboration on how well the evolution of language stands as an analogy for biological evolution.
The mechanisms are incredibly similar. Can you offer specific criticism of that mechanism as described in either the context of language or biology? If i recall from our previous conversation, you were unable to address the problem of identifying where and how an organism can change [i]x[/i] amount but no more. That is to say, you seemed incompetent to explain why small compounding changes must stop compounding at a certain point.
Can you now explain what that point is in language vs what that point is in biology? Can you explain why the small compounding changes which ultimately result in significant differences which we see in language should not be applied to biological evolution?
@Pikachu Science Illustrated: “Older forms of the languages known today were far more difficult than their modern descendants ... man appears not to have begun with a simple speech, and gradually made it more complex, but rather to have gotten hold of a tremendously knotty speech somewhere in the unrecorded past, and gradually simplified it to the modern forms.”
Linguist Dr.Mason in Science News Letter: “the idea that ‘savages’ speak in a series of grunts, and are unable to express many ‘civilized’ concepts, is very wrong . . . many of the languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European ones.”
[quote]The mechanisms are incredibly similar. Can you offer specific criticism of that mechanism as described in either the context of language or biology?[/quote]
Specifically what "mechanisms" are you referring to?
[quote]If i recall from our previous conversation, you were unable to address the problem of identifying where and how an organism can change x amount but no more.[/quote]
Your failure to acknowledge my identification is just a symptom of the problem with science and theology. Language doesn't change into something that isn't language. Science is always speculating on things that are incongruous with reality as we observe it, as our previous discussion indicated. We see the Biblical kind in nature, not evolution. We see languages simplify. All you have to do is read Shakespeare or even just newspapers from a little over 100 years ago to see this obvious fact.
I think you'll find if you don't quote from a 1955 source, the nuances of the relative complexity of ancient and modern languages is far from your simple description. But we can even leave that aside because it still corresponds to biological evolution: Generalized forms diversifying into a series of more specific, specialized forms. lol i love how well this analogy works. The more one attempts to point out differences, the more one highlights the similarities.
[quote]Specifically what "mechanisms" are you referring to?[/quote]
Small, compounding changes over time resulting in fundamental differences. Descent with modification. We can see it happening with language and you. You can see that Latin gave rise to Spanish, Italian and French and you would never make the absurd claim that these languages were created independently because we can see the similarities and the history.
So when it comes to biological descent with modification, how do you identify the point at which small, compounding changes must stop? This is a challenge from which you and all creationists shy away.
[quote] Language doesn't change into something that isn't language[/quote]
lol and biology doesn't change into something that isn't biology.
@Pikachu [quote]I think you'll find if you don't quote from a 1955 source, the nuances of the relative complexity of ancient and modern languages is far from your simple description.[/quote]
And you can demonstrate that? It isn't just speculative? If science in 1955 isn't science anymore neither is anything you say today because in a short time it will all be laughable. That's why I say science is like bell bottoms, bean bags and lava lamps. Here today gone tomorrow. I think that's because when people wise up to it then it has to evolve into something similar but not too similar. And nothing else really. So, the Bible kinds we see, the language simplifying we see. We don't need science to make up nonsense for profit, we already have religion for that.
Saying that language starts out simple and complicates in time isn't what we see . . . in historical record. Now, if you want to go by science fiction and pretend that language started out with grunts and farts that goes against what we observe. Fortunately for you and science the grunts come later otherwise people would know better and science wouldn't get any funding.
[quote]But we can even leave that aside because it still corresponds to biological evolution: Generalized forms diversifying into a series of more specific, specialized forms.[/quote]
As I said, even if it were true in language that wouldn't make it true in biology. In the real world, outside of the lab, we call that coincidence.
[quote]lol i love how well this analogy works. The more one attempts to point out differences, the more one highlights the similarities.[/quote]
Fantasy can be like that. The blind faithful in religion call that a miracle.
[quote]We can see it happening with language and you. You can see that Latin gave rise to Spanish, Italian and French and you would never make the absurd claim that these languages were created independently because we can see the similarities and the history.[/quote]
Now, science is inherently racist, so do you think that certain, shall we say, elements of society, evolved along with their language at different rates from different places? Non-white people evolved somehow (however science would say) less than white like in this video? You guys really still believe that, don't you. Eugenics, vaccinations, climate change, evolution, family planning, God is dead, destroy the family, let the racist elite take over the world especially the resources?
[media=https://youtu.be/nY6Zrol5QEk]
[quote]ol and biology doesn't change into something that isn't biology.[/quote]
That isn't what Rudolf Hess thought. There are countless examples where "biology" was something else indeed.
[quote]If science in 1955 isn't science anymore[/quote]
I think you misunderstand science. Science always makes a provisional conclusion based on current evidence and pending future evidence. I can give you some links to discussions if you want or you can google ancient languages being simpler without only seeking out sources from YEC publications. See what people have to say. See if the subject is as simple as the couple sentences you pulled from Watchtower.
But i'm happy to acknowledge that the language/evolution analogy is an [i]analogy[/i] and not a 1:1 comparison lol. It feels like you're trying to argue against the evolution of language in terms of it proving biological evolution...which it does not. To bring it back to the actual point of the analogy: Small, incremental changes over time result in massive divergence.
[quote] the Bible kinds we see[/quote]
And that's why you struggle to understand. You say "This is what i see before me. If i cannot see it before me then it isn't true". You reject without justification the scientific disciplines that reveal things that happened before we could see them. You're like a judge who rejects forensic evidence because you can't see it happening before your eyes.
[quote]even if it were true in language that wouldn't make it true in biology. In the real world, outside of the lab[/quote]
Without rancor or intent to offend, you're not a person i can convince with evidence because you're both ignorant of the evidence for evolution and dismissive of the means by which that evidence is achieved. Do you disagree? Genetics? Taphonomy? Geology? Ontogeny? You reject it all not because you understand it and find reason to reject the evolutionary conclusions but because you begin from a position where you cannot accept the synthesis of data. There's no way forward from there.
Nevertheless, here is my challenge to you: [b][i] Describe and justify the point at which small, compounding changes can produce no further change in either a language or an organism. And do please answer this directly because if you do not, i will ignore all responses until you do so.[/i][/b]
@Pikachu [quote]I think you misunderstand science. Science always makes a provisional conclusion based on current evidence and pending future evidence.[/quote]
Right. Like poodle skirts and leg warmers. Always wrong in hind sight. Except for the racist control mechanism.
[quote]I can give you some links to discussions if you want or you can google ancient languages being simpler without only seeking out sources from YEC publications.[/quote]
That's so kind of you. I'm not really interested in YEC, though. It's stupid.
[quote]See what people have to say. See if the subject is as simple as the couple sentences you pulled from Watchtower.[/quote]
I think it makes more sense than the racist propaganda they peddle these days. I guess I'm old school. The stuff they taught me in school was better than this modern stuff, I think.
[quote]Small, incremental changes over time result in massive divergence.[/quote]
Still going on about those lava lamps.
[quote]And that's why you struggle to understand. You say "This is what i see before me. If i cannot see it before me then it isn't true".[/quote]
How myopic you must think me. To think I believe everything I can see? Optical illusions, hallucinations, camera tricks, magic, eyewitness testimony, posts about evolution vs. creation on social networking forums.
[quote]You're like a judge who rejects forensic evidence because you can't see it happening before your eyes.[/quote]
Like fingerprint reading, fire patterns, and lie detector machines? All failed science resulting in the imprisonment and capital punishment of - well - nonwhites, mostly. You don't talk about those though do you.
[quote]Without rancor or intent to offend, you're not a person i can convince with evidence because you're both ignorant of the evidence for evolution and dismissive of the means by which that evidence is achieved. Do you disagree? Genetics? Taphonomy? Geology? Ontogeny? You reject it all not because you understand it and find reason to reject the evolutionary conclusions but because you begin from a position where you cannot accept the synthesis of data. There's no way forward from there.[/quote]
Kind of like you going to a Bible study? Why do you post on forums, then? Always challenging so-called believers with your archaic uninformed theology and the suitable alternative of theoretical evolution? Ideological fixation?
[quote]Nevertheless, here is my challenge to you:
Describe and justify the point at which small, compounding changes can produce no further change in either a language or an organism. And do please answer this directly because if you do not, i will ignore all responses until you do so.
The ball's in your court✌️[/quote]
Well, I think that you are much more afraid to seriously discuss the Bible than I am science.
[quote] Like poodle skirts and leg warmers. Always wrong in hind sight. Except for the racist control mechanism.[/quote]
So...like heliocentrism is going to turn out to be wrong? A globe earth is just a fad? Both are racist mechanisms of control? Or does that only apply to science that bucks against your worldview? You're just raging against science but you're only raging against it where it contradicts your unjustified faith-based position. Like a said: You're not a person i can convince with evidence because you're both ignorant of the evidence for evolution and dismissive of the means by which that evidence is achieved, though you cannot justify that dismissal.
[quote]I think that you are much more afraid to seriously discuss the Bible than I am science.[/quote]
I have in the past made many threads wherein i am focused on discussing the Bible. So when i enter a thread you've made on Bible study and refuse to answer a simple question the way you've done here then you might have a leg to stand on. But i've asked you a straight question and you refuse for reasons best known to yourself to give me a straight answer.
@Pikachu [quote]You're just raging against science but you're only raging against it where it contradicts your unjustified faith-based position.[/quote]
Come to the wrong conclusion again, science boy. If you pay attention to me you will notice that I don't rage against science or God and even religion. I rage, or more accurately, explore and acknowledge the damage people have done to science, religion and God.
[quote]Like a said: You're not a person i can convince with evidence because you're both ignorant of the evidence for evolution and dismissive of the means by which that evidence is achieved, though you cannot justify that dismissal.[/quote]
No, I said that about you.
[quote]I have in the past made many threads wherein i am focused on discussing the Bible. So when i enter a thread you've made on Bible study and refuse to answer a simple question the way you've done here then you might have a leg to stand on. But i've asked you a straight question and you refuse for reasons best known to yourself to give me a straight answer. [/quote]
No, you've tried to use academia and intellectualism to shame me into confirming your "scientific" propaganda. You think anyone that can do that is - I don't know - liberated in some sense from religious lobotomy? You are very much like a religious zealot.
[quote]You've made your choice.[/quote]
We've both made our choices. You would go a great deal further with me if you could respect that rather than to change only one side of it as if the other were superior when the twain shall never meet. You can't do that though, because you are ideologically fixated. You are, in fact, a religious zealot.
Do you see? Asking me to explain your complex ideology without acknowledging its very real weaknesses - dogmatic, overconfident, racist - as if to do so would better me? Is insulting and stupid. Like religion. Like God.
