| 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. |
 | | 
14th July 2006, 01:07 PM
|  | 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  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
Because I don't need to know everything to know something. Specifically, I have a pretty good idea of what a species is and what macroevolution is (for any scientifically meaningful definition of the word). If you mean something besides speciation for macroevolution, why don't you tell me what that is. Be specific. How can we identify a boundary?
__________________
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, 04:41 PM
|  | Legend
   
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | 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.
As I said, you have an incorrect definition of macroevolution. As far as science is concerned speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution at and above the level of species.
Whether information is increased or decreased or merely changed is irrelevant. Where you have speciation, you have macroevolution.
Microevolution is evolution within the species.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th July 2006, 04:49 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by relspace 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.
That's correct. Speciation is a different matter than information. They have little to do with each other. 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)
No he is not correct. Of course it takes time for a population to speciate. But time is not an "ingredient" that makes speciation happen. The only things needed to make speciation happen are mutation + natural selection + sexual isolation.
Sexual isolation may be a consequence of geographical isolation (allopatric speciation) or it may occur without geographic separation (sympatric speciation).
Furthermore, the sexual isolation is a consequence of mutation + natural selection occurring independently in the divided population. So actually all you need for speciation is micro-evolution occurring independently in two different segments of the population.
Hence macro-evolution is speciation.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th July 2006, 04:51 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | 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!
Yes it is. That is if you really mean species. If you just mean a new breed of dog, that is microevolution. But a new species is defined scientifically as macroevolution.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th July 2006, 04:55 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves 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
And the domestic dog is a descendant of a species of wolf. Speciation. Macroevolution. The various species in the genus Canis came about through macroevolution aka speciation. This is what all macroevolution is: speciation after speciation after speciation.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th July 2006, 04:59 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by xpiotosaves Dog kind do correspond to Canidae. It is possible that many species of dog could arise in 5000 years (more or less) because a new species of mosquito have risen in about 60 years which is about 1/83 of that time.
That is just one new species of mosquito. There are many more than one species of Canidae. And, as pointed out, canids have a longer generation span.
btw---this topic is not appropriate to this thread which is simply for indicating where one is on the spectrum of origins beliefs. Shall we ask a mod to put this part of the discussion in the OT forum where it can continue without taking this thread off track?
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th July 2006, 05:39 PM
|  | 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) | | *bows* As you wish, master.  
__________________
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, 06:41 PM
| | Back in Town
26 
| | Join Date: 5th May 2005
Posts: 9,324
Blessings: 194,598
Reps: 70,872 (power: 86) | | 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!
Macroevolution is speciation. There's no way around that. That's the way it was originally defined, that's the way scientists continue to use it today. From the Wikipedia.org article on macroevolution: Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org
You can say it's not speciation all day long, but as long as you accept that speciation happens, you accept that macroevolution happens. Heck, as long as you accept microevolution, you accept macroevolution. |
14th July 2006, 06:45 PM
|  | Veteran
| | Join Date: 21st May 2004 Location: NC, USA
Posts: 1,716
Blessings: 58,638
Reps: 8,988,775,626,484,747 (power: 8,988,775,626,493) | | Originally Posted by vossler I keep hearing you say this, but I've yet to see you prove it. Please show us the observed macroevolution you elude to.
You should be more careful not to get into "definition" arguments. Basicly evolutionist believes there's no limit what evolution can produce while creationists argues there are. We know there are limit on mutations in the early development of the embryos which where the major changes in forms. So there's scientific reason to believe these limits are very real.
__________________
Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;" |
14th July 2006, 09:47 PM
|  | The Rapture can take a hike
35  
| | Join Date: 30th October 2003 Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,669
Blessings: 133,470 My Mood 
Reps: 5,038,481,752,567,930 (power: 5,038,481,752,583) | | | If there's one things that is truely futile on this forum it's expecting a Creationist to properly analyse the evidence for speciation. They cannot accept it without abandoning special creation, so they aint about to change their position anytime soon.
__________________ simul justus et peccator | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
