Macroevolution:

[USincognito]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record. Period. Human origins gets into philosophy, which is not science.

No, that would be paleontology. Evolution incorporates evidence from living beings and genetics as well.

 

[USincognito]

Soft tissue in Dino bones means they are not 50 mil years old.

That's correct. There are no non-avian dinosaur fossils that are 50,000,000 years old.

 

[Jimmy D]

That sounds very convenient to me but the bottom line is there is no evidence for a species that evolved into the Eohippus. Just one species adapting to the environment. Ok, I can agree with that "evolution" because in the Creationist's vernacular, it is still the same "kind".

My previous post was going to be my last but I just noticed this, it seems that you're happy to accept the horse sequence posted as "adaptation" if it will fit into your "still the same kind" mantra - despite the fact that the sequence includes not only the emergence of new species but entirely new genus as well. Seems they fit the definition of evolution you provided a few pages ago.

Well done, you're an "evolutionist"!

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that so? Why don't creationists say "genus" then, instead of trying to muddy the waters?

For the same reason they don't say "so be it" for "amen," or "truly" for "verily"?

 

[xianghua]

Because nested patterns are inneficient in designed product lines.
But inevitable in an evolutionary process.

and yet this is what we found in a designed objects like vehicles.

These things don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

why not? they appearing according to time scale abd get more complex. this is a nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

So, any differences are the result of common designer, any similarities are the result of common design.

the same with evolution- any similarity is the result of evolution and any difference is also the result of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Is that so? Why don't creationists say "genus" then, instead of trying to muddy the waters?

Because AV1611VET is just making it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because AV1611VET is just making it up.

Keep embarrassing yourself.

genus (n.)

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene-* "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

 

[lesliedellow]

For the same reason they don't say "so be it" for "amen," or "truly" for "verily"?

Because they are deliberately obscurantist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they are deliberately obscurantist.

Maybe "kind" came first?

Remember Adam?

He wrote it.

Then Satan had it changed later.

 

[pitabread]

Keep embarrassing yourself.

If anyone should be embarrassed it's creationists because of the lack of any sort of agreement on what 'kind' is supposed to mean.

You say genus. Some say species. Other creationists have come up with their own interpretations which tend to correspond with higher taxa like family or orders. And on it goes.

 

[USincognito]

I wonder why the evolutionists want to argue about meanings of “evolution, transitional, speciation, adaptation, etc. and the changing of one breed of horse into another breed of horse but never want to start “in the beginning”.

Life from Nonlife
“Life comes from life” is a fundamental law of biology, and yet formation of the first living thing must violate this law. How this could happen still stumps scientists.

by Kevin Anderson


Information of Life
Life consists of more than all the physical parts working in unison—it requires the information to run the parts. Scientists still don’t understand where this information could have come from.

by Brian A. Catalucci


Irreducible Complexity
Darwinian evolution requires that every complex component of life arose step-by-step. The discoveries of genetics and cell biology have highlighted this impossibility, which scientists still can't explain.

by Nathaniel Jeanson

What's funny about this post is that the origin of life on earth in no way effects evolution and that the origin of life is a God of the Gaps/red herring used by Creationists to avoid the massive amount of evidence supporting 3.5 billion years of evolution.

 

[USincognito]

I try to stay away from Christian sites when in discussions with non-Christians but since I am inundated with information from sources that I do not agree with, at least not all of it, I see no reason why I should not present some information from sources that I do agree with...mostly.

[Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

SIMPLE, CONSERVATIVE ARITHMETIC REVEALS CLEAR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC FOR A YOUNG AGE OF THE EARTH.

One Plus One Equals Billions
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.]

I really wish you guys would do ALL the math, not just the final calculation and actually think about what you're claiming. Depending on when you date the Flood there would be a world population of between 67,000 and 500,000 in 1 CE when the population of Rome alone was 1,000,000.

 

[USincognito]

IF, one has a case, motherboard, memory, hard drive, power supply, video card, monitor, a CPU, a connected power source and it is all connected correctly, can any information be extracted from that system? If not, why?

What if it remained in that condition for four billion years, what, if anything, would evolve?

Are you seriously suggesting that computers reproduce and pass on genetic material to offspring?

 

[AV1611VET]

You say genus.

Do you still think I'm just making it up?

 

[lesliedellow]

IF, one has a case, motherboard, memory, hard drive, power supply, video card, monitor, a CPU, a connected power source and it is all connected correctly, can any information be extracted from that system? If not, why?

What if it remained in that condition for four billion years, what, if anything, would evolve?

If doesn't contain any recoverable information, I would like to know how it gets even as far as trying to load the operating system.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you still think I'm just making it up?

Yes.

 

[pitabread]

Do you still think I'm just making it up?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I can look up a dictionary definition for species for example, which also references the term 'kind' as a synonym.

At the end of the day, glomming onto dictionary definitions isn't particularly useful as far as biological criteria go.

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe "kind" came first?

Remember Adam?

He wrote it.

Then Satan had it changed later.

I thought Moses was supposed to have been the author of the Pentateuch. Although, if he was, he had a curious habit of always referring to himself in the third person.

 

[tevans9129]

Are you seriously suggesting that computers reproduce and pass on genetic material to offspring?

Not in the least, the point is that the most complex computer in existence cannot accomplish the simplest of tasks without first being programed. Where did that programming come from for complex life? Is it your belief that with enough billions of years, programming will evolve from nothing to an information system?