| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |  | | 
26th November 2006, 12:30 AM
|  | bel esprit 29  | | Join Date: 28th October 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,802
Blessings: 103,761
Reps: 45,671 (power: 65) | | Originally Posted by Horab hmmmmm
to me micro is more like walking next door
and macro is like teleporting there.
That would be a bit of a flawed comparison because teleporting doesn't actually consist of walking.
The main point here is that the macroevolution is just a continuation of microevolution - heritable, genetic changes within a population operate on the exact same mechanisms whether it's a slight genetic change, a single speciation event, or a clade's billion-year-long evolutionary history.
The creationist mantra of "micro, not macro" is like saying that planes can fly across the state or across the country (depending on the creationist) but not across the world.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit. 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.
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.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Hydra009; 26th November 2006 at 12:46 AM.
| 
26th November 2006, 12:43 AM
|  | Senior Veteran 21  | | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,251
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | Aggie, I can't rep you for some reason but I would if I could. Great, great post showing the logic (or lack of) of the creationist side. They accept everything up to a point (the kind barrier) but refuse to see beyond it. But it's right there in front of them. A paleontologist friend of mine has studied the hollow spaces inside the bones of theropods pretty extensively, though, and this theory is what he arrived at based on that.
Is he by any chance the guy who published this in Nature?
__________________ Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton. | 
26th November 2006, 01:21 AM
|  | Soldier of Knowledge 28 
| | Join Date: 18th January 2004 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,720
Blessings: 59,512
Reps: 18,604,695,596,698 (power: 18,604,695,606) | | Originally Posted by Nooj Aggie, I can't rep you for some reason but I would if I could. Great, great post showing the logic (or lack of) of the creationist side.
I’m pretty sure it isn’t possible to raise someone else’s reputation score here unless your own score is 1000 points or higher. Thanks anyway, though. Originally Posted by Nooj Is he by any chance the guy who published this in Nature?
I don’t think so. The paleontologist who I discussed it with is the curator of the New Jersey State Museum, where I worked for a little while before I started college. I’d rather not give out his name, since he already has a bit of a problem with the quantity of spam e-mail and unsolicited phone calls he receives, but he’s the person who Mr. Pardalis in my comic series is based on.
I’m also pretty sure that the time when I discussed this with him was quite a bit longer ago than 2005, which is when the article you linked to was published. But I guess it’s possible he described his idea to someone else, and they ended up researching it and publishing it on their own.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | 
26th November 2006, 01:51 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE 57 
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,163
Blessings: 2,934,947,657 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Aggie I’m so glad that YECs at this forum are able to engage in such thoughtful, mutually constructive debates.
If you’re going to reply again, please read my post carefully and specifically address the point I’m making in it. Why can’t small changes add up into large changes, as appears to have happened in the transition between dinosaurs and birds?
Because it violates Scripture.
All these small things adding up into big things is not how the Creator of the universe operates.
In fact --- thanks to Adam --- just the opposite occurs.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT | 
26th November 2006, 02:02 AM
|  | Senior Veteran 21  | | Join Date: 9th January 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,219
Blessings: 2,067,251
Reps: 67,527,722,863,596,368 (power: 67,527,722,863,607) | | I don’t think so. The paleontologist who I discussed it with is the curator of the New Jersey State Museum, where I worked for a little while before I started college. I’d rather not give out his name, since he already has a bit of a problem with the quantity of spam e-mail and unsolicited phone calls he receives, but he’s the person who Mr. Pardalis in my comic series is based on.
I’m also pretty sure that the time when I discussed this with him was quite a bit longer ago than 2005, which is when the article you linked to was published. But I guess it’s possible he described his idea to someone else, and they ended up researching it and publishing it on their own.
Well, even so. That link establishes a link from birds to theropod dinosaurs. I don't expect creationists to respond though.
__________________ Credit for avatar art goes to Kate Beaton. | 
26th November 2006, 02:15 AM
|  | bel esprit 29  | | Join Date: 28th October 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,802
Blessings: 103,761
Reps: 45,671 (power: 65) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET Because it violates Scripture.
All these small things adding up into big things is not how the Creator of the universe operates.
In fact --- thanks to Adam --- just the opposite occurs.
Thank you for this admission. No beating around the bush, no vague terms or hiding behind a veneer of science, just straight up "It's against my religion". If only other creationists were as straightforward, the crevo controversy would have been over long ago.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit. 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.
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.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | 
26th November 2006, 02:16 AM
|  | Member
 | | Join Date: 15th February 2006 Location: Calgary
Posts: 77
Blessings: 90,483
Reps: 652 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Hydra009 That would be a bit of a flawed comparison because teleporting doesn't actually consist of walking.
okay but both involve travel to the same destination
how about walking next door and leaving tracks in the mud v. walking 1000 miles and leaving footprints in the mud....still too linear.
how about digging a hole in the ground to plant some herb
and digging a hole to China? they both involve time Originally Posted by Hydra009 The main point here is that the macroevolution is just a continuation of microevolution - heritable, genetic changes within a population operate on the exact same mechanisms whether it's a slight genetic change, a single speciation event, or a clade's billion-year-long evolutionary history.
then all macro is micro but all micro isn't macro? Originally Posted by Hydra009 The creationist mantra of "micro, not macro" is like saying that planes can fly across the state or across the country (depending on the creationist) but not across the world.
yeah but you already know about planes. nevermind. | 
26th November 2006, 02:24 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE 57 
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,163
Blessings: 2,934,947,657 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Hydra009 Thank you for this admission. No beating around the bush, no vague terms or hiding behind a veneer of science, just straight up "It's against my religion". If only other creationists were as straightforward, the crevo controversy would have been over long ago.
My mom sat me down once a long time ago and said, "Son, it's a big world out there --- full of atheists and scientists; and if you're gonna make it, you're have to learn your Bible. You can't just go out into this world calling yourself a 'Defender of the Faith' with a Sunday-school mentality. No, you're gonna need much more than that!" --- and she gave me a 1611 King James Bible.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT | 
26th November 2006, 02:36 AM
|  | bel esprit 29  | | Join Date: 28th October 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,802
Blessings: 103,761
Reps: 45,671 (power: 65) | | Originally Posted by Horab then all macro is micro but all micro isn't macro?
Microevolution is about heritable genetic changes at or below the species level. (ex. lactose tolerance among humans)
Macroevolution is about heritable genetic changes above the species level. (ex. the adaptive radiation of mammals ultimately giving rise to monotremes, marsupials, and placental mammals.)
The crucial thing to understand is that small genetic changes can accumulate into large genetic changes down the road - macroevolution is a function of microevolution.
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution yeah but you already know about planes. nevermind.
Probably a wise call.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit. 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.
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.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Hydra009; 26th November 2006 at 02:44 AM.
| 
26th November 2006, 03:12 AM
|  | Member
 | | Join Date: 15th February 2006 Location: Calgary
Posts: 77
Blessings: 90,483
Reps: 652 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Aggie Why can’t small changes add up into large changes, as appears to have happened in the transition between dinosaurs and birds?
The crucial thing to understand is that small genetic changes can accumulate into large genetic changes down the road - macroevolution is a function of microevolution.
okay from that wikipedia source, it said: Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic
reductionism in science they call: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_reductionism
holism in science is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
and: But scientists who find themselves unable to explain the behavior of their systems from the properties of elements may falsely call upon holism even if the system in question happens to behave completely in accord with a conceivable (but unseen) statistical explanation.
is that what you're doing? |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |