is it consistant or hypicritical to one's faith to believe that one exists but not th

[archaeologist]

okay it is moved so i am not accused of derailing a thread.

this question has to do with micro and macro evolution:

i do not believe in micro or macro evolution so here is a question for you all to answer:

is it consistant or hypocritical to one's faith to believe that one exists but the other?

 

[laptoppop]

They are imprecise terms -- so some folks really dislike the terms. As I understand it, "Micro" evolution is like a bacteria changing to adapt to have drug resistance. We've seen it. A mutation, replication, then natural selection to emphasize the resistant strain. Dr. Behe's new book describes HIV and malaria resistance in tons of detail. (Interestingly, there I have not found any cases of "purely positive" mutations -- all the ones I've looked at have had negative side effects.) His book also explains the limits of this mechanism.

"Macro" evolution would be one "kind" changing into another. Never actually observed. (the word "kind" has similar problems to the "micro" and "macro" labels)

Anyway - micro: Observed. Macro: nope. I believe in the first, and not the second. I also believe in a young earth, and a literal 6 days and global flood. I don't see any problem or conflict.

God did an AMAZING job of engineering. He made a set of resilient systems that have the ability to adapt within limits and recover afterwards.

 

[KerrMetric]

"Macro" evolution would be one "kind" changing into another. Never actually observed.

Not a real definition but one chosen by certain people to maintain a fiction.

(the word "kind" has similar problems to the "micro" and "macro" labels)

And here we see an admittance of the silliness of the above "definition".

What sort of logic defines something and then admits a sentence later that part of their definition is bogus in and of itself.

Is there a college class in this form of mental gymnastics and logical disconnect I can take?

 

[Hnefi]

Macro evolution is speciation, which has been observed. "Kinds" is not a meaningful concept, because kinds have never been defined - not even by exhaustive sampling. You might as well say that microevolution is true, but not macroevolution because there are no bworticords.

 

[KerrMetric]

They'll be busy Googling that. LOL.

 

[shernren]

(Interestingly, there I have not found any cases of "purely positive" mutations -- all the ones I've looked at have had negative side effects.) His book also explains the limits of this mechanism.

Really? You just need to look harder!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t_uids=9332013

Policies aimed at alleviating the growing problem of drug-resistant pathogens by restricting antimicrobial usage implicitly assume that resistance reduces the Darwinian fitness of pathogens in the absence of drugs. While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these genetic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity. We show that second site mutations which compensate for the substantial (14 and 18% per generation) fitness costs of streptomycin resistant (rpsL) mutations in E. coli create a genetic background in which streptomycin sensitive, rpsL+ alleles have a 4-30% per generation selective disadvantage relative to adapted, resistant strains. We also present evidence that similar compensatory mutations have been fixed in long-term streptomycin-resistant laboratory strains of E. coli and may account for the persistence of rpsL streptomycin resistance in populations maintained for more than 10,000 generations in the absence of the antibiotic. We discuss the public health implications of these and other experimental results that question whether the more prudent use of antimicrobial chemotherapy will lead to declines in the incidence of drug-resistant pathogenic microbes.

Where's the "negative side effect"?

 

[Impaler]

(Interestingly, there I have not found any cases of "purely positive" mutations -- all the ones I've looked at have had negative side effects.) His book also explains the limits of this mechanism.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

Yeast hexose transport genes duplicated several times in a low glucose environment. The duplicated genes were subject to point mutations forming new genes. This is impossible to describe as anything other than a gain.

God did an AMAZING job of engineering. He made a set of resilient systems that have the ability to adapt within limits and recover afterwards.

Is there any evidence of these limits or recovery?

 

[archaeologist]

As I understand it, "Micro" evolution is like a bacteria changing to adapt to have drug resistance. We've seen it. A mutation, replication, then natural selection to emphasize the resistant strain

this example provided by laptoppop is often championed by evolutionists as proof for some form and i use it here not as an attack on him but onthose who look to this as proof for evolution.

it kills me in a humourous waywhen i hear evolutionists cite this example. why? well when i person gets sick and recovers from the illness, never to have a reoccurrance of the disease again, we usually say they are immune tothe disease, never that they evolved to a higher level. we even take their blood to use in others to pass that immunity on so that others can avoid the effects of the crippling disease.

never do we claim we are evolving. YET when it comes to bacteria it is a different story. when a bacteria becomes drug resistant, it is called a super bug and it has miraculously 'evolved' into something more dangerous.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. i...

Doesn't that sound a bit like natural selection?

 

[Impaler]

this example provided by laptoppop is often championed by evolutionists as proof for some form and i use it here not as an attack on him but onthose who look to this as proof for evolution.

it kills me in a humourous waywhen i hear evolutionists cite this example. why? well when i person gets sick and recovers from the illness, never to have a reoccurrance of the disease again, we usually say they are immune tothe disease, never that they evolved to a higher level. we even take their blood to use in others to pass that immunity on so that others can avoid the effects of the crippling disease.

never do we claim we are evolving. YET when it comes to bacteria it is a different story. when a bacteria becomes drug resistant, it is called a super bug and it has miraculously 'evolved' into something more dangerous.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

When you become resistant to chicken pox to you pass that onto your children? Either way there are way more examples of evolution than mere antibiotic resistance.

 

[Hnefi]

this example provided by laptoppop is often championed by evolutionists as proof for some form and i use it here not as an attack on him but onthose who look to this as proof for evolution.

it kills me in a humourous waywhen i hear evolutionists cite this example. why? well when i person gets sick and recovers from the illness, never to have a reoccurrance of the disease again, we usually say they are immune tothe disease, never that they evolved to a higher level. we even take their blood to use in others to pass that immunity on so that others can avoid the effects of the crippling disease.

never do we claim we are evolving. YET when it comes to bacteria it is a different story. when a bacteria becomes drug resistant, it is called a super bug and it has miraculously 'evolved' into something more dangerous.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

I interpret the above as an example of sarcasm. After all, you did claim to understand evolution, yet the above makes such a fundamental mistake that it's like claiming a car is actually a house, because it has a roof.

However, on the off chance that you ARE serious, let me explain: our immune system and evolution are two completely different mechanisms, but both can be used to fight disease although in different ways.

Our immune system works by detecting, through various means, harmful agents and producing antibodies. It has a system to learn to recognize unknown harmful agents, which means that once such an agent has been detected and adapted to, we are effectively immune to it (within certain limits). This effect is a function of the individual. It has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with our internal fauna of bacteria. Because it's not a genetic change, it does not get carried through to our offspring - our children are not immune to the same diseases we are, which is why children get all kinds of chicken pox and what not when they are young. The immune system learns like our brains do - with mechanisms other than gene alterations.

Evolution, however, works through natural selection. This means it does not affect the individual. Instead, when a population (such as a petri dish full of bacteria) gets affected by a harmful agent, evolution kicks in when a large portion of the bacteria die. Some of the bacteria might be more resistant to the agent than others and thus manage to reproduce, while others are not so lucky. Therefore, only bacteria that are naturally resistant will produce offspring. If this resistance is genetic, it will be carried on to the next generation of bacteria in a greater portion (since none - or few - of the nonresistant ones will survive). Every generation, the effect becomes more pronounced because those that are resistant survive and reproduce while those who are not die off. Voila - the resistance has spread, and the agent will no longer work to kill off this strain of bacteria.

If no bacteria is resistant to the agent and none of them happen to get an appropriate mutation to make them resistant while there are still any bacteria left, they will all die.

And that's why it's important to listen to your doctor and follow your prescription to the letter.

 

[notto]

never do we claim we are evolving. YET when it comes to bacteria it is a different story. when a bacteria becomes drug resistant, it is called a super bug and it has miraculously 'evolved' into something more dangerous.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

You are demonstrating that you don't understand what you are talking about.

When a population of bacteria become resistent it is due to genetic differences in the population.

When an individual becomes immune to a disease through antibody production, there genetics have not changed and it is not dealing with the population.

They only reason that you think the example is a bad one is because you obviously don't understand why it is used.

(I see that hnefi beat me to it but I'll leave this post as support for his points. The understanding of evolution reflected in archaeologists post is dismall an misinformed. I would encourage other creationists to take note of it)

 

[notto]

"Macro" evolution would be one "kind" changing into another. Never actually observed. (the word "kind" has similar problems to the "micro" and "macro" labels)

Where did you get this definition?

All the definitions I can find refer to speciation which is an observed and well documented occurance.

Was it the dictionary? A scientific journal? Where did the definition you are using come from?

 

[kagol]

Evolution, however, works through natural selection. This means it does not affect the individual. Instead, when a population (such as a petri dish full of bacteria) gets affected by a harmful agent, evolution kicks in when a large portion of the bacteria die. Some of the bacteria might be more resistant to the agent than others and thus manage to reproduce, while others are not so lucky. Therefore, only bacteria that are naturally resistant will produce offspring. If this resistance is genetic, it will be carried on to the next generation of bacteria in a greater portion (since none - or few - of the nonresistant ones will survive). Every generation, the effect becomes more pronounced because those that are resistant survive and reproduce while those who are not die off. Voila - the resistance has spread, and the agent will no longer work to kill off this strain of bacteria.

But it is still a bacteria!!

I can't put things in the way that you may be able to.

If I had to come up with a description of macro-evolution it would be, adaptation-evolution.
I have no problem with all animals adapting to their environments. If all dogs came from one common dog ancestor, then as time pased, climate changed, geographical location changed etc., the dog adapted to their own particular conditions, natural selection being part of this, interbreeding another. So we end up with many different breeds of dog.
But they are all still Dogs.

They don't mutate into a different animal type. This is what I would describe as macro-evolution.

I believe that God coded into the DNA, of all life, all the computaions that would be needed for each particular life form for it's continued survival.
He didn't create life for it just to die out because it couldn't survive in the conditions it found itself.

Please don't ask me to prove that this is what God did, as you know that is not possible. But I also will not ask you to proove evolution to me, as that is not possible either.

Although having said that, I believe it more possible for my theory to be correct than I do yours.

So I am sure we will continue to debate such.

Thanks

 

[notto]

But it is still a bacteria!!

Bacteria isn't a species name.

Your comment is like saying 'It's still a mammal' and discounting any change that would create a new species of mammal.

Speciation is observed and well documented.

Macroevolution is defined at evolutionary change above the species level (new species being created)

Therefore, new species of bacteria = macroevolution.

But they are all still Dogs.

Technically by your description, they would still be considered wolves.
Do you consider wolves and dogs to be the same kind?
How about wolves and foxes? Why or why not?

 

[Hnefi]

They don't mutate into a different animal type. This is what I would describe as macro-evolution.

Well, that's not the definition the rest of the world uses. You are free to invent your own language, but I don't see why you would want to do that.

What you describe does not happen in nature, nor does evolution say it does. Allow me to explain.

I'm sure you have heard of the term "tree of life". Well, this is a better analogy than one might think. Imagine an oaktree. Each branch can divide into smaller branches into smaller and smaller subgroups of branches, until we reach a leaf. But nowhere - absolutely nowhere - on the tree does one branch connect to another. Two branches can have the same parent branch, but once a branch has diverged its child branches can never "remerge", so to speak.

An similarily, evolution never makes a population go from one family to another. A mammal population will never evolve to become reptiles. However, mammals and reptiles have the same origin - the same parent branch. They were connected at one point, but they will never connect again. Yet this is what many creationists demand from evolution, which demonstrates their lack of understanding of the subject.

I believe that God coded into the DNA, of all life, all the computaions that would be needed for each particular life form for it's continued survival.
He didn't create life for it just to die out because it couldn't survive in the conditions it found itself.

Then why do lifeforms who can't survive in the conditions they find themselves overcome their difficulties? You are saying God did not intend for things to happen that are observed every time something dies. Is your God inept?

Please don't ask me to prove that this is what God did, as you know that is not possible. But I also will not ask you to proove evolution to me, as that is not possible either.

You are right, and I won't. I will, however, ask that you provide a test with which I can reliably falsify God if He didn't exist. I will do the same with evolution, in the spirit of good will:
If you can show that a naturally occurring biological feature could not have risen through small changes in the genetic code over time, evolution is false.

If you cannot provide a test that can falsify your hypothesis, it holds no practical truth value and is therefore essentially useless as a statement about our reality. It becomes a question of philosophy, not science.

Although having said that, I believe it more possible for my theory to be correct than I do yours.

Yes, but since your hypothesis is both unfalsifiable and unable to make any actual predictions, it is useless and impossible to draw any conclusions from it.

 

[Impaler]

If I had to come up with a description of macro-evolution it would be, adaptation-evolution.
I have no problem with all animals adapting to their environments. If all dogs came from one common dog ancestor, then as time pased, climate changed, geographical location changed etc., the dog adapted to their own particular conditions, natural selection being part of this, interbreeding another. So we end up with many different breeds of dog.
But they are all still Dogs.

If a wolf can evolve into all the species of dog we see today in the last 10,000 years, or worse 4,000 if the flood were true, why can't something like a chimp evolve into a human over 6 million years? It's been proven that with the current rate of mutation 6 million years is more than enough time to cover the genetic differences between us and chimps.

They don't mutate into a different animal type. This is what I would describe as macro-evolution.

What is a different animal type? Is eusthenopteron a different type from osteolepis? Panderichthys and eusthenopteron? Tiktaalik and panderichthys? Ancanthostega and tiktaalik? Ichthyostega and ancanthostega?

The lines between "kinds" are clearly blurred, if existant at all.

I believe that God coded into the DNA, of all life, all the computaions that would be needed for each particular life form for it's continued survival.
He didn't create life for it just to die out because it couldn't survive in the conditions it found itself.

This sounds more like a form of Lamarckian evolution, something long since falsified. If this were true we should be observing this adaptation directly, in individuals as well as populations. Having entire colonies of bacteria die out, and one surviving because it had the right genes hardly shows that the DNA, or the mechanisms to modify it based on experience, were there from the start.

 

[kagol]

Bacteria isn't a species name.

Your comment is like saying 'It's still a mammal' and discounting any change that would create a new species of mammal.

Speciation is observed and well documented.

Macroevolution is defined at evolutionary change above the species level (new species being created)

Therefore, new species of bacteria = macroevolution.

Technically by your description, they would still be considered wolves.
Do you consider wolves and dogs to be the same kind?
How about wolves and foxes? Why or why not?

Thank you for that it has helped me understand the correct use of the terminology.

 

[archaeologist]

Populations evolve, not individuals

and who makes up these populations---individuals. obviously it is future generations that do the changing but guess what, it is the indiviual that changes first thenthe population.

this kind of statement is just another game evolutionists play to try to bring credibility to that which has no credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------
BUT to get back to the question titling this thread, yes such a question does target those who believe in a literal creative act as stated in genesis. i do believe it is hypocritical to say one thing, God created but thenacccept that some form of evolution exists and is functioning in the world.

the two are not compatible, and have two seperate origins, creation is of God while evolution is not, and the two have different agendas. Creation points to God while evolution points away from Him.

compromising and adding God to evolution does not make things better but shows the character of those who accept such alternatives. they want the benefits of the kingdomg of God but they also want acceptance of the world and its respect. which in the long run is not a smart thing to covet.

when one becomes a Christian/believer they leave the world's kingdom behind and join God's kingdom. as a member of that new kingdom , one has to preach/proclaim that message and not the one the world declares as true.

it is not about the evidence but what God says to preach, after all it is His kingdom and not ours or the world's. thus the believer must reject what the world says (does not mean we ignore what God has done like creating DNA or orbits and so on, though that does not open the door to listening to secular thinking).

it must be remembered that the world is deceived and deceives and great care and caution must be used when participating in the field of science. when the evidence goes against scripture, believers are not allowed nor have permission to change or fit scripture to the evidence but the evidence must be analyzed inlight of what scripture says.

if it goes against scripture thenthe interpretation of the evidence is wrong or the evidence is wrong. scripture is never in error.

it is also not allowed to take a phrase and manipulate it to provide proof for one's theory given the fact that the rest of the Bible speaks against that manipulation. poor exegesis, interpretation , etc., do not over-rule scripture but must be trashed so one can see the truth:

God created it all in 6 24 hour days and what we see take place in the world is not the by-product of evolution or natural selection but is the result of God's creative act corrupted by the fall of man.

 

[crawfish]

I propose that gravity doesn't exist because the bible doesn't say God created it.

Neither does electricity.