Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[Loudmouth]

I didnt say they demonstrate evolution I said macro evolution. however if you can prove ancestry between two genus level animals then you can prove it however you wish. as this is the definition of macroevolution according to most non generic (not wikipedia) sites. now it can be one or a million transitions in between as long as you prove ancestry to both.

What will you accept as evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

if evolution were true, we not see one transition for macro evolution,

Define "macro evolution".

Also, list the criteria that are used to determine if two species belong to the same genus.

 

[createdtoworship]

Define "macro evolution".

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:
"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

Also, list the criteria that are used to determine if two species belong to the same genus.

the criteria is sexual compatibility. If it can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, then it is a transition. The inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as
a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[createdtoworship]

If it is attacked, can you defend it? Or will you only cut and paste from other websites you don't understand?

have done so for nearly 10 years now on these threads

So you will actually respond with your own words, and address the words I write?

I am not a scientist, why would I post my own words? Thats like you posting your own words, without citation, which is pretty much useless.

 

[Loudmouth]

have done so for nearly 10 years now on these threads

I have yet to see you do it once. All you do is copy and paste from creationist websites, just like the post I quoted before.

I am not a scientist, why would I post my own words?

See, you are already making excuses.

 

[Loudmouth]

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:
"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

Then the production of new species is macro evolution.

the criteria is sexual compatibility.

You just said it was speciation. Please make up your mind.

If it can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, then it is a transition.

How do you do that with fossils?

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "

We already found fish that also have lungs. Linnaeus was wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then the production of new species is macro evolution.



You just said it was speciation. Please make up your mind.



How do you do that with fossils?



We already found fish that also have lungs. Linnaeus was wrong.

everything I posted states macro evolution is " above the level of species"

whether it involves speciation or not doesnt matter as I am sure it would play a part of macro evolution but speciation is not " above the level of species" it is at the level of species so macro evolution would logically entail something more than speciation. again please read what is posted. thank you for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have yet to see you do it once. All you do is copy and paste from creationist websites, just like the post I quoted before.



See, you are already making excuses.

sounds to me that you are too lazy to sift through the massive amounts of info i post. so you ask me to put it into my own words. in essence asking another poster to do your homework for you. again it boils down to laziness.

 

[Loudmouth]

everything I posted states macro evolution is " above the level of species"

Exactly. That's what speciation is. Below the level of species is gene flow within a population. Above the level of species is the production of separate populations where there is limited gene flow between the populations.

whether it involves speciation or not doesnt matter as I am sure it would play a part of macro evolution but speciation is not " above the level of species"

Yes, it is.

 

[createdtoworship]

Exactly. That's what speciation is. Below the level of species is gene flow within a population. Above the level of species is the production of separate populations where there is limited gene flow between the populations.



Yes, it is.

so speciation would logically then follow to become evolution between genra. . which we still have yet to see. being here ten years, still no sign of macroebolution. that is if you arecorrect that speciation is at a higher taxa than species.

 

[NannaNae]

This is a question for creationists, primarily young earth creationists.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that the scientific community - and the public more generally - accepts evolution as the prevailing model for biology and also deep time as the prevailing concepts for geology and cosmology?

Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position.

What I'm interested in is what reasons you think that evolutionary biology is the generally accepted explanation for the diversity of life and that there is scientific concordance about the ages of the earth and the universe.

It is a scientific conspiracy? The influence of satan or other supernatural forces? Is it man deliberately misleading himself?

What is your explanation?

well just self deception of course .... because no one is deceived unless they want to be.

the rest is a soap box..


They are passing on their right to do truth or find truth for themselves. it is not like there isn't enough truth to find.
yes usurpers ' or pied pipers are always involved to push people off the cliff... but the fact they were standing on the edge of the cliff is the issue.. , someone will be there to deceive them but no one is deceived unless they want to be.

People want to be able to pass the blame to others for their choices . I mean it is been that way since the tree....
" the snake made me do it " and " the woman made me do it " to anyone else but themselves. be it the golden calf for their orgies .... or to kill their kings for their own sins and lawlessness and crooked cheating scales . it is a just easier to pass the blame and to reject personal responsibility. Than to except the responsibility and punishment for personal choices.

and so irresponsible evolving slime fits that scenario so very well and relieves everyone of their guilt for what they do to others , because they can blame the others..

 

[Loudmouth]

so speciation would logically then follow to become evolution between genra. .

Evolution doesn't produce new genera (genus = singular, genera = plural), nor does it need to. Humans produce new genera. Genera are a human made grouping of species. Whether humans and chimps are in the same genus or in separate genera is an arbitrary decision made by humans.

being here ten years, still no sign of macroebolution.

Here it is.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

that is if you arecorrect that speciation is at a higher taxa than species.

There are no higher taxa in nature.

 

[createdtoworship]

so then is or is not macro evolution simply repeated rounds of microevolution? loudmouth? anybody?

 

[Loudmouth]

so then is or is not macro evolution simply repeated rounds of microevolution? loudmouth? anybody?

Speciation is macroevolution, and the production of human made taxons like Genus, Family, Order, etc are nothing more than successive rounds of speciation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The influence of satan or other supernatural forces?

This one.

I believe the Muses are fallen angels that are still working on us today.

The Muses in Greek mythology, poetry and literature, are the goddesses of the inspiration of literature, science and the arts. They were considered the source of the knowledge, related orally for centuries in the ancient culture, that was contained in poetic lyrics and myths.

SOURCE

 

[TLK Valentine]

This one.

I believe the Muses are fallen angels that are still working on us today.

IOW, you believe whenever someone gets an idea, it's demonic.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[AV1611VET]

IOW, you believe whenever someone gets an idea, it's demonic.

Why am I not surprised?

Is that what you heard me say?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that what you heard me say?

Literature, science, and the arts -- eliminate those, and what do you have left?

 

[AV1611VET]

Literature, science, and the arts -- eliminate those, and what do you have left?

Nothing?

 

[RickG]

I didnt say they demonstrate evolution I said macro evolution. however if you can prove ancestry between two genus level animals then you can prove it however you wish. as this is the definition of macroevolution according to most non generic (not wikipedia) sites. now it can be one or a million transitions in between as long as you prove ancestry to both.

besides evolution not occurring at the genus level, you are completely ignoring what I am saying. Explain the fossil record without evolution. If evolution has not occurred we would find all fossils in all layers of geologic strata, we do not. There are no Devonian rabbit fossils, there are no Cambrian crocodiles, there are no Silurian dinosaurs, There are no Archean trilobites, there are no Triassic camels. If dinosaurs, trilobites, rabbits, and crocodiles were all found together in any single layer of geologic strata, that would disprove evolution.