Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Ok. Go to the sources. Some will likely have pictures.
Give me the sources and I'll go there.
Originally Posted by gluadys
You know it is not.
Considering that I don't believe that it has happened, I don't know why you'd say that.
Originally Posted by gluadys
What if the difference is a difference in digestive chemistry? How would that show up in a picture? What if it is a matter of slightly different pheromones that the ladies find attractive? How will pictures demonstrate an olfactory attractant?
I guess what you're really saying is that speciation has only been observed via data, chemistry and other non-visual changes that are not respresented by an outward change. Am I right?
Originally Posted by gluadys
Pictures will only help when the change is to a visible body part. But morphology may be the least of the changes.
Maybe, but that type of change would certainly be convincing.
Originally Posted by gluadys
I have provided the key to the door. You need to use it to access the evidence as originally provided by the researchers.
Keys are nice if they lead somewhere, the ones I have just lead to dead ends.
Originally Posted by gluadys
Observed evidence does exist. You only need to remove the blinders that prevent you from seeing it.
If I'm called to continuously look to the periphery, somehow that seems what I'm looking for really isn't there.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
If you accept microevolution, you also accept macroevolution even if you don't know it, as they are just different phases of the same process. If microevolution occurs, it is inevitable that macroevolution also occurs.
You are probably saddled with an inaccurate concept of macroevolution that prevents you seeing this. From a scientific perspective macroevolution (speciation) has been observed and is not in question.
Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.
Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.
Speciation and macro-evolution are the same thing to evolutionists. If you have a different meaning for macro-evolution, it is one that is different from what evolutionists use. It would help if you used a different word so that we could discuss these things with some precision.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.
From the study introduced by gluadys, speciation can come about from all kinds of genetic change including increase, decrease, and change without increase or increase in the information.
But you are correct that the formula is not speciation=macroevolution
The formulas are
microevolution + time* = macroevolution for a species
and
microevolution + time* + speciation = macroevolution of many new species
* (how much time depend on the amount of environmental change and mortality during that time)
__________________ RELSPACE is the name of a physics of space-flight simulator I wrote to demonstrate relativity on the stage of nearby planetary, stellar and galactic space
Speciation and macro-evolution are the same thing to evolutionists. If you have a different meaning for macro-evolution, it is one that is different from what evolutionists use. It would help if you used a different word so that we could discuss these things with some precision.
I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!
I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!
I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.
Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Domestic Dog-Canis familiaris Wolf-Canis lupus
I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!
Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Domestic Dog-Canis familiaris
Wolf-Canis lupus
use dogs to discuss the specifics of YECist kinds.
where is the kind boundary?
does the "dog kind" contain:
jackals? foxes? wolves? coyotes?
fertile hybrids are known within these groups.
but the groups are defined by a family: Canidae.
whose boundaries are not all that well defined scientifically. a family is a taxonomic division higher than genus.
if the dog kind does contain some or even all of these other genus, then did hyperevolution since Noah create all the various "dog kind" subgroups we now identify as various branches of Canidae?
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
Mosquitoes also have a much shorter generation time...
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.
Well, he didn't jump on it, so I'm going for the gold here:
expediciation: used to define any manner of ad hoc conceptulizations for psuedo-scientific processes that seem to serve as a refutation to strawman concepts of evolutionary theory and 'macro-evolution', especially that of speciation. Includes, but is not limited to 'kinds.'
Example: We have never visually witnessed the expediciation of one dog kind into another dog kind; therefore evolution is false.
__________________
I use the black cross, because at heart, I'm Johnny Cash.
Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Linear Mode
