Did Jesus create evolution?

[Lost Witness]

Hi, @J Mick

I hope you haven't forgotten about my last post to you, Post 68.

I provided the additional support you asked for that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and asked you again what process you think happens in macro evolution that does not also happen in micro evolution. I shall report that post so you don't have to go searching for it...

***


Given that you have no education or qualification in the field at all and have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your position that they are somehow different, I'd say my position is looking a lot better than yours.

But fine, you want to play this silly game?

"The main mistake creationist perpetuate when thinking about micro-vs-macro evolution, is that the two are somehow different and distinct physical processes. This is simply not the case, they are both just evolution." SOURCE The author works in the department of biology at the University of Pennsylvania.

On a page on Quora, where the question was asked, "What are the main and most important differences between macroevolution and microevolution?" These are some of the answers:

• "To be blunt, the spelling is the only difference." Written by an associate professor of anthropology.
• "Time. That is all. There really are no other differences... Scientists who study evolution see no actual difference between lots of evolution and little bits of evolution. THERE IS JUST MORE OF IT. But there is no difference between them, except for giving them time to accumulate. Let me emphasize that again, THERE IS NO BORDER, DIVISION OR BARRIER between these two ‘types’ of evolution..." Written by someone with a Bachelor's and a Doctorate in biology.
• "The same distinction as between a 10-mile hike and a short stroll. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolutions, stacked up." Author has a degree in biology.
• "Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution." Author is a zoologist and a geneticist.
• "Micro- anything is a little bit and macro- anything is a big bit. Micro-evolution is a little bit of evolution and macro-evolution is a big bit of evolution. Neither term is particularly useful." Author has a BSc in biology.
• "Just the number of generations involved." Author is a student of applied biology.

And also:

"...macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary events. In other words, microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution. So if microevolution happens, then, ipso facto, macroevolution also happens." SOURCE The author has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in biology, and is currently a post-doctoral researcher at a university. He has have over a decade of research experience, and has published multiple peer-reviewed papers, served as a reviewer for many journals, and presented his research at national, professional conferences.

So there you go. Multiple people all of whom have studied science and biology a lot more than either of us, and they are all saying that micro evolution and macroevolution are the same exact thing, just over different time scales.

Now, it's time for you to answer my question.

Tell me what process is required for macro-evolution that does not occur in microevolution.

Of course, I suspect that you will find some reason to ignore this and also refuse to answer the question I asked.

See no point in continuing a conversation with you in regards to what you've shared, Kylie.
it's a theory.
Not a "fact"
Evolution happens, Yes,
Micro Evolution, Yes,
Macro Evolution is a Lie,
Someone claiming to have found bones in one instance doesn't make it "fact"
I'm simply Finished with this conversation at this point, Kylie.
Was Fun though

 

[Kylie]

See no point in continuing a conversation with you in regards to what you've shared, Kylie.
it's a theory.
Not a "fact"
Evolution happens, Yes,
Micro Evolution, Yes,
Macro Evolution is a Lie,
Has yet to be proven,
Someone claiming to have found bones in one instance doesn't make it "fact"
I'm simply Finished with this conversation at this point, Kylie.
Was Fun though

Seems to me that you can't support your position, despite the fact I gave you exactly what you asked for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution whatsoever?

Absolutely I do.

Do you?

Biological Evolution = 1/7 Cosmic Evolution

 

[AV1611VET]

The search string I used was "cosmic evolution harvard" and then chosed images.
AV1611VET refers to this:

Thank you for posting this.

 

[Kylie]

Absolutely I do.

Do you?

Biological Evolution = 1/7 Cosmic Evolution

What does it say about a person when they say that they understand that biological evolution has nothing to do with cosmic evolution, and then immediately turn around and say that biological evolution is a component of cosmic evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

What does it say about a person when they say that they understand that biological evolution has nothing to do with cosmic evolution,

It says that, according to Harvard, their understanding is flawed.

... and then immediately turn around and say that biological evolution is a component of cosmic evolution?

It says they must have changed their mind.

 

[Kylie]

It says that, according to Harvard, their understanding is flawed.

Okay then, please tell me, what processes that are involved in biological evolution are there that influence the way stars change?

It says they must have changed their mind.

So then why didn't you go and delete the part of the post that you no longer agreed with?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay then, please tell me, what processes that are involved in biological evolution are there that influence the way stars change?

That would fall under Stellar Evolution.

So then why didn't you go and delete the part of the post that you no longer agreed with?

You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Kylie]

That would fall under Stellar Evolution.

You didn't answer the question.

Stellar evolution and biological evolution are two completely different processes.

You must have me confused with someone else.

Someone else wrote post 183 then, did they?

 

[All Becomes New]

Instead, I hold the position, "I don't have a belief in God, but if sufficient evidence were provided to me to show that God exists, I will accept that evidence and change my beliefs accordingly."

That's going to depend on what you consider the evidence. Is philosophy evidence? Such as the Kalam? Actually, the Kalam is both scientific and philosophical. You have evidence for God. It just doesn't satisfy you.

 

[Kylie]

That's going to depend on what you consider the evidence. Is philosophy evidence? Such as the Kalam? Actually, the Kalam is both scientific and philosophical. You have evidence for God. It just doesn't satisfy you.

I consider something to be valid evidence if:

1. It is not based on a logical fallacy
2. It can be tested and has withstood that testing.

With regards to the Kalam cosmological argument, it is built on an assumption (that whatever begins to exist must have a cause) when this is just an argument from incredulity. "I can't comprehend how something could begin to exist without having a cause, therefore it doesn't happen." In any case, this claim really only can be said to apply in cases where our current laws of nature apply, and there's no evidence that this was the case at the Big Bang. In fact, what we understand of quantum level events indicates that our current laws of nature break down at that kind of scale. The argument also assumes that the universe began to exist, when the only thing we know is that it began to exist in its current form. The universe could have existed in some different state prior to the Big Bang (in whatever sense the word "prior" can be said to apply), and so the argument may not even need to apply. So, the Kalam cosmological argument fails on point one. It also fails on point two, since it is inherently untestable.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't answer the question.

Actually, I did. You just don't know it.

Stellar evolution and biological evolution are two completely different processes.

You're kidding!

Where did you get that idea?

From Harvard?

Someone else wrote post 183 then, did they?

Would you know it if they did?

 

[Kylie]

Actually, I did. You just don't know it.

Sure you did.

You're kidding!

Where did you get that idea?

From Harvard?

Maybe you should get that idea too.

Would you know it if they did?

No, because it's got your name on it.

Now maybe you can stop playing childish games.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now maybe you can stop playing childish games.

Ladies first.

 

[Kylie]

Ladies first.

I'm not playing games, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not playing games, AV.

Then I'll quit too, Kylie.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution whatsoever?

I don't know how Cosmic Evolution and Biological Evolution can be separated. The only way I can think of is if the Earth was not in the Cosmos as a part of it. With out the Cosmos evolving the Earth not be here for the Biology of the planet to even happen let alone evolve.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know how Cosmic Evolution and Biological Evolution can be separated.

According to evolutionists, biological evolution didn't begin until after abiogenesis kick-started it.

And abiogenesis would fall under Chemical Evolution -- which is the stage just before Biological Evolution.

In fact, abiogenesis is probably the dividing line between the two stages.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know how Cosmic Evolution and Biological Evolution can be separated. The only way I can think of is if the Earth was not in the Cosmos as a part of it. With out the Cosmos evolving the Earth not be here for the Biology of the planet to even happen let alone evolve.

I think you misunderstand my point.

Cosmic evolution is a colloquial term given to the way stars change over their lives (I use the term loosely), from when they first form, to how they spend most of the time (such as being on the main sequence) and finally to how they cease to exist, such as a supernova, collapsing to form a black hole, or how the universe changes over time, from the Big Bang, inflation, to the eventual heat death of the universe, that kind of thing.

Biological evolution is a completely different idea that deals with how variations that exist in a population of individual organisms can become more or less prevalent in that population over many generations due to various selective processes, like natural selection, sexual selection, etc.

My two big issues with saying that the two are part of the same process are:

Firstly, evolution when applied to stars talks about how a single star changes over the course of its existence. If this is evolution, then I evolved from a child into an adult. That simply is not how evolution works.

Secondly, the processes are entirely different. The processes that govern how stars and the universe change over time are not related in any way to the processes that govern biological evolution. Biological evolution relies on genes that are passed on through inheritance, cosmic evolution doesn't deal with inheritance at all.

Putting them both into the same category is like putting submarines in the same category as airplanes simply because people can ride in both of them, and even then I'd argue that's a more rational decision than putting cosmic evolution and biological evolution in the same category. About the only thing they do have in common is that they both talk about things that change over time, but if we're going to do that, then my bread cooking in the toaster is evolution as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Putting them both into the same category is like putting submarines in the same category as airplanes simply because people can ride in both of them, and even then I'd argue that's a more rational decision than putting cosmic evolution and biological evolution in the same category. About the only thing they do have in common is that they both talk about things that change over time, but if we're going to do that, then my bread cooking in the toaster is evolution as well.

If you're so scientifically-minded as I think you are, why aren't you taking it up with Harvard?

Or are you?