Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

Was my post addressed to you or to DH?

You are making the exact same kinds of requests to DH as you did to me. And DH seemed to answer it in much the same way as I did.

I apologize I didn't realize this was YOUR PERSONAL BOARD.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So science......is for scientists.

No, critiquing science based on one's personal ignorance of the science should be applied the same way across all sciences.

You and others here are not scientists

You are incorrect. I am a PhD geologist with 20+ years of R&D chemistry under my belt. I have numerous peer reviewed publications in chemistry, many presentations nationally and internationally in geology and chemistry as well as several patents in chemistry.

Does it feel bad to be so grossly mistaken about a point you didn't seem to know anything about?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I agree, but questioning is hardly arguing. I will remain a skeptic until all my questions are answered. Sadly we can't get past the defensive stances to the real questions.

And yet you don't hold quantum mechanics to the same level of questioning? You aren't going to become a "latex paint skeptic" because you don't know anything about DLVO theory, stabilization of colloidal dispersions or latex chemistry?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yup.

So you are stating that your critique of evolution is not based on the same level of acceptance of science you have for many if not most other sciences?

Why is that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it feel bad to be so grossly mistaken about a point you didn't seem to know anything about?

I don't think you're guilty of this, but what do you think of scientists who come here and tell us how we should interpret the Bible?

Furthermore, what do you think of scientists who say we should interpret the Bible the way they interpret(ed) It ... and they are atheists!?

Just wondering.

 

[xianghua]

Please explain how macro evolution does not follow on from microevolution when the processes of both are precisely the same.

it's not. there is a difference between a variation and by adding new complex system that need at least several parts.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you don't hold quantum mechanics to the same level of questioning? You aren't going to become a "latex paint skeptic" because you don't know anything about DLVO theory, stabilization of colloidal dispersions or latex chemistry?

I'd be more concerned with asbestos, if I was you.

 

[xianghua]

I believe you can take 7 steps, but not 100.

Same logic.

not at all. what if you have a big hole in the middle?

 

[xianghua]

Living things aren't just "similar".
The fall in a hierarchically nested pattern of similarity.

Exactly the kind of pattern that should exist, if life shares ancestry.

No "created" or "designed" product, falls into such a pattern.

why not? a car--> a fighter jet--> a space shuttle. very simple. but doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'd be more concerned with asbestos, if I was you.

I am concerned by asbestos. And what I don't understand about carcinogenesis of certain of these mineral phases doesn't keep me from being concerned. I have a relatively easy time accepting how science (even science I don't fully understand) works and a relatively easy time in accepting it when it is presented.

I'm not immune to being frustrated by how things change in science, but I also am aware that all knowledge is provisional on more and more data. The fact that people in the not-too-distant past were exposed to things we now know are dangerous is not an indictment against science, but rather a race between what we find on the planet and how quickly we come up to speed on understanding it.

But understanding these things comes from science. We can't rely on religious inspiration to answer these questions.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I don't think you're guilty of this, but what do you think of scientists who come here and tell us how we should interpret the Bible?

If they have read the Bible then they should be free to comment on it.

What I don't like is when someone of faith says you cannot understand the Bible's teachings unless you come at it with belief in them before you approach the verses. That makes a mockery of any value the Bible can have. Truth should never require blind acceptance. (Not that it doesn't require work to understand, but it should never require blind acceptance out of the gate). If one cannot formulate a valid critique of something and are unwilling to put in the legwork then, indeed, their critique would be of limited value overall.

Furthermore, what do you think of scientists who say we should interpret the Bible the way they interpret(ed) It ... and they are atheists!?

That's a good question. It comes down to the question of "Do the words of the Bible say what they mean and are they true?"

This is usually where literal Genesis breaks down. YEC will often tell us that Genesis is literally as written and accurately reflects reality. But if one of us atheists dares interpret any of the words of Christ or later in the Bible based on what the words explicitly state we are often accused of misinterpretting, taking out of context, or otherwise mangling the underlying truth.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

Which is Genesis? Metaphor or literal truth? Who sees while not seeing?

 

[tevans9129]

You are making the exact same kinds of requests to DH as you did to me.

Not true and that is why I pointed out that the question to you and to DH was not the same. Since many of you make such a big deal about "kind" and "transitionals" etc.. I even provided the biology definition that I am using for DH, something you conveniently ignore, but it seems to matter not. It is nothing more than a diversion tactic, IMO. When I say a different "kind" it is not a huge mystery what I am suggesting but it is an opportunity to throw in semantics to deflect the conversation.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not true and that is why I pointed out that the question to you and to DH was not the same. Since many of you make such a big deal about "kind" and "transitionals" etc.. I even provided the biology definition that I am using for DH, something you conveniently ignore, but it seems to matter not. It is nothing more than a diversion tactic, IMO. When I say a different "kind" it is not a huge mystery what I am suggesting but it is an opportunity to throw in semantics to deflect the conversation.

You call it "semantics", but if you actually read the post wherein evidence of SPECIATION EVENTS was provided you'd see that it is so much more than mere semantics.

Creationists hide behind some vague definition of "kind" but indeed the concept of species is much, much more detailed. And in science you NEED to understand the specific terminology and all that is implied by it.

If I were to make cavalier comments about electromagnetic radiation and I somehow conflated microwaves with X-rays and said they are all the same, would you allow me to be so overgeneralized? Or would you think there's actually some pretty important differences between the two and I should be more clear if I wanted to discuss microwaves?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, critiquing science based on one's personal ignorance of the science should be applied the same way across all sciences.



You are incorrect. I am a PhD geologist with 20+ years of R&D chemistry under my belt. I have numerous peer reviewed publications in chemistry, many presentations nationally and internationally in geology and chemistry as well as several patents in chemistry.

Does it feel bad to be so grossly mistaken about a point you didn't seem to know anything about?

My apologies.

Now that you've made your credentials known walk me through the molecular/atomic changes necessary in order for evolution to occur.

 

[Obliquinaut]

My apologies.

Now that you've made your credentials known walk me through the molecular/atomic changes necessary in order for evolution to occur.

This looks promising: Evolutionary biochemistry: revealing the historical and physical causes of protein properties

 

[Obliquinaut]

...

 

[tevans9129]

If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?

 

[Speedwell]

View attachment 205925

If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?

Ask, "To which taxonomic rank do both of these creatures belong?"

In this case it would be the phylum Chordata.

 

[tevans9129]

Ask, "To which taxonomic rank do both of these creatures belong?"

In this case it would be the phylum Chordata.

OK, thanks, therefore, it seems to me that asking that would result in most everything being of the same "kind". Is that not very convenient for those who promote evolution as there is no need to explain how any one entity evolved into a totally different entity because they are all the same?

"Chordata is a familiar phylum that includes organisms like mammals, fish, birds,reptiles, and amphibians (all vertebrates); sea squirts (tunicates); and lancelets (cephalochordates). All chordates have a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, and pharyngeal slits at some point in their development.Jan 20, 2016"

What about using "Species" or "Genus", when would they be used and can you provide an example?

With the chicken and horse example, would it be appropriate to ask if they were of the same "species"?

 

[Speedwell]

OK, thanks, therefore, it seems to me that asking that would result in most everything being of the same "kind". Is that not very convenient for those who promote evolution as there is no need to explain how any one entity evolved into a totally different entity because they are all the same?

None are "totally different" as they all have characteristics in common. Grouping creatures into categories based on common characteristics requires no "explanation" as it sets up no barrier to evolution.

"Chordata is a familiar phylum that includes organisms like mammals, fish, birds,reptiles, and amphibians (all vertebrates); sea squirts (tunicates); and lancelets (cephalochordates). All chordates have a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, and pharyngeal slits at some point in their development.Jan 20, 2016"

What about using "Species" or "Genus", when would they be used and can you provide an example?

Species are comprised of creatures with similar characteristics which are completely interfertile. It is the fundamental classification of biology. Genera are groups of two or more species, Genera are grouped into Families. Families into Orders, Orders into Classes, Classes into Phyla, Phyla into Kingdoms and Kingdoms into Domains.

Taxonomy | Basic Biology

With the chicken and horse example, would it be appropriate to ask if they were of the same "species"?

Although it is risky to attempt to classify creatures based on so little information as is supplied by no more than two photos, I think even a layman would be able to tell that the two creatures depicted were not the same species, without asking.