| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
13th July 2006, 02:53 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
51     
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by gluadys 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." |
14th July 2006, 02:40 AM
|  | Member
| | Join Date: 12th July 2006 Location: In your yard
Posts: 93
Blessings: 90,399
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by gluadys 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. |
14th July 2006, 02:50 AM
|  | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30   
 | | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood 
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves 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
|
14th July 2006, 03:09 AM
| | Senior Member
50 
| | Join Date: 18th March 2006 Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 701
Blessings: 71,094
Reps: 991 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves 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 |
14th July 2006, 03:33 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 12th July 2006 Location: In your yard
Posts: 93
Blessings: 90,399
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Willtor 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! |
14th July 2006, 03:51 AM
| | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30
| | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves 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
|
14th July 2006, 04:08 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 12th July 2006 Location: In your yard
Posts: 93
Blessings: 90,399
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Willtor 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 |
14th July 2006, 04:27 AM
|  | avid reader
 
| | Join Date: 19th March 2004
Posts: 6,058
Blessings: 98,885
Reps: 9,718 (power: 23) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves 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.
|
14th July 2006, 11:02 AM
|  | Miserere mei, Domine
21   
| | Join Date: 8th June 2005 Location: Florida
Posts: 23,517
Blessings: 14,200,496
Reps: 383,611,451,375,944,256 (power: 383,611,451,375,974) | | | Mosquitoes also have a much shorter generation time...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
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
|
14th July 2006, 11:11 AM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 22nd December 2005
Posts: 7,349
Blessings: 42,940
Reps: 1,170,005,508,018,711 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Willtor 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. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
