Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Astrid]

The fossil record can't speak since its not a living thing. The record is nothing more than a collection of bones (ie facts), and theorists speak on its behalf via their hypothesis. So, lets unpack this.

The fossil record doesn't have transitional forms present, what it does have is numerous examples of hundreds of closely related animals, then big gaps until the next cluster of closely related animals. Quoting Steven Gould from that famously authoritative Wikipedia we have The evolutionists Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

So, Gould proposed "Punctuated equilibrium". Basically, no evolutionary change takes place for 10's thousands of years, punctuated by "super-fast" evolutionary events over just a few generations followed my more 10's thousands of years of nothing happening. Because most dead animal never fossilize, the transitional fossils that Gould says should exist but don't, are missing from the record because they didn't fossilize. In effect Steven Gould has proposed a step change theory not a gradual change theory. Far be it for me to disagree with a world leading expert.
***
My view: At least Steven Gould is being honest (he was a very honest evolutionist researcher). His theory stands up to scrutiny at the first pass in that its a valid explanation for the facts seen in the fossil record. The process of what "turns on/off evolution" is an interesting but unanswered question.

Our takeaway is that Steven Gould, an honest evolutionist researcher, accepts that there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and that an explanation was called for. The debate is not about whether the evidence is lacking but why. The debate is not about whether the evidence is lacking but why.

You introduced the word "say", I asked what
what the record "says". Good to,see you
correct your own usage, let's see if
you can correct anything else you got
wrong.
I am well aware of what Gould wrote.
I didn't ask for a precis of his observations.


You are definitely confused as to what
Gould had to say, going by your distorted
and withal rather weird description.
No new ground was broken by his naming
of something already long and well
known.
Namely,
-that some life forms remain
more or less unchanged for long periods of time, others
do not.
-that datum points on a graph
are sparse at first, with gaps that the
benighted, or those only wishing to
find conclusion that suit them, would
choose to interpret as unexplainable leaps.
As time goes on, more gaps are filled.
Surprise?


Not long back there was a remarkable dinosaur
find, just forelimbs with enormous claws.

By your figuring, this might be all there ever
was, no complete animal, no parents or
cousins or sisters or aunts.
To say there is no evidence of evolution
in the fossil record is simply false.
We are amused by your attempt to,slip
in the knife with calumny re all scientists
in the world whose work touches on
evolution.."at least honest".
Especially, as it is textbook projection,
in that it is an impossibility to be an
informed and intellectually honest creationist.

Make it an infinitely repeating
loop in glowing multiculture, but your
" the debate" line is only in your head.
Its no more "the" or even it is 'a" debate
why some animals may be presently known
from as little as only a fragment of bone.
Or why portions of evolutionary sequences are
missing, or why missing parts keep getting found.

"No transitional forms" is plain false.

We observe that you have no formal
training and rely on creationist sites for
your (mis)info, BUT, observing again as I
have elsewhere, IF you'd a valid argument
anywhere, no distortions, misrepresentations
or plain falsehoods would be necessary,
far less relied on for the substance of argument.

 

[May the facts be with you]

" .... why some animals may be presently known from as little as only a fragment of bone. Or why portions of evolutionary sequences are missing, or why missing parts keep getting found. ...."

I attach my evidence for a 7 legged carnivorous reptile that once stood 12 feet tall. It had a blowhole similar to whales and was able to breath efficiently when swimming or on land. It had a club tail with electric generating organ with which it was able to stun it's prey and an armored frontice shield with 5 horns to protect the skull. It is unknown why it went extinct.

 

[Astrid]

" .... why some animals may be presently known from as little as only a fragment of bone. Or why portions of evolutionary sequences are missing, or why missing parts keep getting found. ...."

I attach my evidence for a 7 legged carnivorous reptile that once stood 12 feet tall. It had a blowhole similar to whales and was able to breath efficiently when swimming or on land. It had a club tail with electric generating organ with which it was able to stun it's prey and an armored frontice shield with 5 horns to protect the skull. It is unknown why it went extinct.

Who knows what this dim humor is intended to parody.
Me, I guess? For attempting to take you in any way seriously?

 

[Chi.C]

in many cases the largest/ strongest in a gene pool might have the reproductive advantage ...up to a point, because of course with increased size comes an increased demand for food, likelihood of injury etc- one reason species remain range-bound

Hello Guy,
Let me just say you are a very patient man. Your speech was eloquent in face of such evolutionist fanaticism. Scientism seems to have gripped old and young, atheist and theist alike these days, like a pandemic of inchoate ignorance.
Just wanted to say.

Cheers

 

[Shemjaza]

" .... why some animals may be presently known from as little as only a fragment of bone. Or why portions of evolutionary sequences are missing, or why missing parts keep getting found. ...."

I attach my evidence for a 7 legged carnivorous reptile that once stood 12 feet tall. It had a blowhole similar to whales and was able to breath efficiently when swimming or on land. It had a club tail with electric generating organ with which it was able to stun it's prey and an armored frontice shield with 5 horns to protect the skull. It is unknown why it went extinct.

Analysis of bones and structure is not mere conjecture.

It is built from comparison and gathered data. There are related species and common structures that can be used to clearly define why one inference or another is concluded.

Your ignorance of the field is not evidence that the field of study doesn't exist.

 

[Astrid]

Hello Guy,
Let me just say you are a very patient man. Your speech was eloquent in face of such evolutionist fanaticism. Scientism seems to have gripped old and young, atheist and theist alike these days, like a pandemic of inchoate ignorance.
Just wanted to say.

Cheers

We note that when a person begins
to swear, its a sign that they've not the
means to attempt reasoned discourse.

The same applies to those who level outlandish
charges against the motives, mentality and
character of people they knoweth not.

 

[Astrid]

Analysis of bones and structure is not mere conjecture.

It is built from comparison and gathered data. There are related species and common structures that can be used to clearly define why one inference or another is concluded.

Your ignorance of the field is not evidence that the field of study doesn't exist.

Ha. Its evidence of the absence of something!

 

[Chi.C]

We note that when a person begins
to swear, its a sign that they've not the
means to attempt reasoned discourse.

The same applies to those who level outlandish
charges against the motives, mentality and
character of people they knoweth not.

I was not aware I swore in the text. What scatological term offends you?

I merely admired Guy's patience in the face of such willful obfuscation of a rational conversation. Making statements of ignorance and feigning to be scientific, is a clear sign of the futility of any meaningful argument. It is name calling without the fun.

Do not take offense to this. I don't know who you are but from the words you have said, you are not worth knowing.

Have a good day.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was not aware I swore in the text. What scatological term offends you?

I merely admired Guy's patience in the face of such willful obfuscation of a rational conversation. Making statements of ignorance and feigning to be scientific, is a clear sign of the futility of any meaningful argument. It is name calling without the fun.

Do not take offense to this. I don't know who you are but from the words you have said, you are not worth knowing.

Have a good day.

Repeatedly asserting that you are right while being unable to provide objective and consistent definitions of your terms and concepts hardly seems to be the height of rationality.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Analysis of bones and structure is not mere conjecture.

It is built from comparison and gathered data. There are related species and common structures that can be used to clearly define why one inference or another is concluded.

Your ignorance of the field is not evidence that the field of study doesn't exist.

Oh dear, sense of humour reboot required !

 

[Astrid]

Repeatedly asserting that you are right while being unable to provide objective and consistent definitions of your terms and concepts hardly seems to be the height of rationality.

Only 21 messages to earn a ticket to ig city

 

[May the facts be with you]

Ha. Its evidence of the absence of something!

Absence is definitely provable. When my children were young ice-cream covered faces plus sticky fingers were good evidences of the absence of ice creams which had just been eaten and no longer existed

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh dear, sense of humour reboot required !

Your attempt at humorous hyperbole is still a wrapper around the central idea that analysis of fossils and body plans is just a guess flavoured by bias... this is false and I don't find spreading misinformation funny.

The truth is important.

 

[Frank Robert]

Your attempt at humorous hyperbole is still a wrapper around the central idea that analysis of fossils and body plans is just a guess flavoured by bias... this is false and I don't find spreading misinformation funny.

The truth is important.

The only arguments that creationists make are arguments of denial, i.e. fake experts, impossible expectations, misrepresentations, logical fallacies and cherry-picking.

 

[Astrid]

Absence is definitely provable.

Of course.
Kinda like the absence of evidence for ye
Biblical flood.

 

[Astrid]

The only arguments that creationists make are arguments of denial, i.e. fake experts, impossible expectations, misrepresentations, logical fallacies and cherry-picking.

Well, there's a couple more. SEDI.." same evidence
different interpretation " is strong with them, as is
simple falsehood.
Why those presemptive good Christians are so
light fingered with the truth is a question
they likely cannot answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kinda like the absence of evidence for ye Biblical flood.

Do you think maybe God cleaned up His mess?

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

In your opinion, did Adam have a scar?

 

[May the facts be with you]

The only arguments that creationists make are arguments of denial, i.e. fake experts, impossible expectations, misrepresentations, logical fallacies and cherry-picking.

People don't get to be university Professors by being fake Experts. Many Creation scientists are University Professors. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe we agree - impossible expectations, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. As for cherry-picking, that's a whole new thread.

We are going around in circles though so I'll sign out of this thread.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Analysis of bones and structure is not mere conjecture.

It is built from comparison and gathered data. There are related species and common structures that can be used to clearly define why one inference or another is concluded.

Your ignorance of the field is not evidence that the field of study doesn't exist.

 

[May the facts be with you]

It’s not ignorance but knowledge. The bone marrow remnants / blood cell components and other soft tissues that Mary Schweitzer found, allowing her to compare her dino with an ostrich and prove the dino was pregnant is an example.

When she presented her landmark work the entire evolutionary community rebelled on the basis it was impossible for these materials to survive that length of time. A few other paleontologists were sacked for reporting these finds.

No doubt the next post will no doubt recite the well-worn reasons and cliches why the complex molecules don’t disintegrate after all, even though such disintegration was well proven, to the extent that disintegration half-lives have been measured and determined. The just so stories get ever more far-fetched.