Evidence for macro-evolution

[Shemjaza]

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another

Fossils and genetics Pan, Australopithecus and Homo.

 

[Astrophile]

To create out of nothing means that Nature did not exist before creation occurred. So how can creation be anything but supernatural in its origins?

Time is part of nature. If there was a time before creation occurred, nature must have existed in some form. In my opinion, it does not make sense to speak of a time before creation occurred.

Even if your argument is valid and the origin of the universe was supernatural, it does not follow that the supernatural creator was the god of Christianity, or of any other of the world's religions, or that we are forbidden to make images, to work on the Sabbath day, to eat pork, rabbit or shellfish, to wear clothes made of mixed fibres, or to lend money at interest or at a discount. (I hope, by the way, that as a Bible-believing Christian you do not commit any of these vile sins.) All that your argument could prove would be that the universe had a supernatural origin.

 

[Astrid]

Good thing, too--because if it ever happened it would destroy the theory of evolution.

How is that?

 

[AV1611VET]

View attachment 342818

Fossils and genetics Pan, Australopithecus and Homo.

Which one is Haroldcookii?

 

[BCP1928]

How is that?

Evolution procedes by repeated speciation, producing a kind of "family tree," just like a real bush or tree grows by repeated branching. lf a twig on one limb of the tree branches into two twigs, can one of those twigs become a twig on another limb? Or do they both remain on the same limb?

But perhaps I didn't understand the question mindlight raised--Hans had a different and more articulate answer, so it could be that he understood it better.

However, I suspect that the basis of mindlight's issue is that he may visualize the higher taxa as pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve, rather than being formed ad hoc as speciation continues.

 

[driewerf]

Which one is Haroldcookii?

None of them. As you know very well Nebraskaman was hypothesized based on single tooth. While the picture shows skulls. And as you also know very well (and we know that you know) the error has been corrected. So as we know very well your depreciating remark is just to smear science, by lack of any serious argument. You can complain, as you did in the recent past:
"Now they want to sweep it under the carpet and make it look like anyone who brings it up is grabbing at straws to make science look bad."

Nebraska Man: What's Wrong with this Picture?

This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. What's wrong with this picture? Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?

www.christianforums.com

So yes, dear reader, taking into account that AV1611VET knows very well that his remarks are pointless, he just grabs at straws to make science look bad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

However, I suspect that the basis of mindlight's issue is that he may visualize the higher taxa as pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve, rather than being formed ad hoc as speciation continues.

This is an excellent point. (And the main part of effective communication is to recognize the different ways other perceive what you try to communicate so that they understand the ideas you are trying to communicate.)

 

[AV1611VET]

So yes, dear reader, taking into account that AV1611VET knows very well that his remarks are pointless, he just grabs at straws to make science look bad.

Believe me.

I don't need to grab at straws to make science look bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

While the picture shows skulls.

Yes.

Skulls passed off as missing links.

Except, I believe, for the upper right one (G), which, if my memory serves me correctly, is a bona fide chimpanzee.

Aside from G, every skull is a human being (or Homo sapiens for clarity).

Diseased human beings.

But human beings just the same.

 

[Astrid]

None of them. As you know very well Nebraskaman was hypothesized based on single tooth. While the picture shows skulls. And as you also know very well (and we know that you know) the error has been corrected. So as we know very well your depreciating remark is just to smear science, by lack of any serious argument. You can complain, as you did in the recent past:
"Now they want to sweep it under the carpet and make it look like anyone who brings it up is grabbing at straws to make science look bad."

Nebraska Man: What's Wrong with this Picture?

This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. What's wrong with this picture? Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?

www.christianforums.com

So yes, dear reader, taking into account that AV1611VET knows very well that his remarks are pointless, he just grabs at straws to make science look bad.

One gets the impression its quite difficult
to be a yec without being profoundly
ignorant or intellectually diehonest,
tho some may be mentally weak,
or simply insane.

 

[AV1611VET]

One gets the impression its quite difficult to be a yec without being profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest,
tho some may be mentally weak, or simply insane.

If you're referring to me as being "profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest or mentally weak or simply insane" --- I'm not a YEC.

And if you keep referring to me as one -- (especially while having me on IGNORE and can't read my posts that say otherwise) -- I ask:

Who's the one who's profoundly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, mentally weak, or simply insane?

 

[BCP1928]

If you're referring to me as being "profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest or mentally weak or simply insane" --- I'm not a YEC.

And if you keep referring to me as one -- (especially while having me on IGNORE and can't read my posts that say otherwise) -- I ask:

Who's the one who's profoundly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, mentally weak, or simply insane?

I think the difference lies between those who think the theory of evolution is just wrong and those who think it is wrong on purpose because of some global atheistic conspiracy.

 

[Astrid]

Evolution procedes by repeated speciation, producing a kind of "family tree," just like a real bush or tree grows by repeated branching. lf a twig on one limb of the tree branches into two twigs, can one of those twigs become a twig on another limb? Or do they both remain on the same limb?

But perhaps I didn't understand the question mindlight raised--Hans had a different and more articulate answer, so it could be that he understood it better.

However, I suspect that the basis of mindlight's issue is that he may visualize the higher taxa as pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve, rather than being formed ad hoc as speciation continues.

The question / statement about nothing
evolving or "jumping" to a different genus
comes up often, along with its evil twin about
"fully formed / half formed".

Ive asked about the supposed mechanism
that sets limits to " microevolution".

Ive asked what they think is a "kind" , a species, a genus?

Ive sskrd what what a half formrd wing woul look like

Etc.

Theres never an actual response.

The which of why being they did not get to their
supposed killer gotcha by srudy of biology but by
memorizing quips on creationist sites.

So of course when asked for some depth to their
wise pronouncements, they cannot deliver.

I dont expect present creo- company to understand any
biology, and, they dont.

To their credit there os a touchung childish innocence
about it, to matching discredit is the refusal to grow up.

I think i could very adequately deecribe how one genus
by stages begets others, but i dont think its possible
to educate sealed off from understanding.


One little detail, aboutv "kind". By any definition of the
word, the bible actually does get it right, reproduction
after kind.

No generation is exactly like parents of cpurse; we all
know that.

Accumulated differences never involve a " jump", ;
offspring are always the same kind as parent.

 

[Astrid]

I think the difference lies between those who think the theory of evolution is just wrong and those who think it is wrong on purpose because of some global atheistic conspiracy.

Those who think its wrong are usually just
ignorant. The rest fall into divers other categories,
none of which are exactly admirable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ive asked what they think is a "kind" , a species, a genus?

...

There's never an actual response.

There is now.

I bumped one of my threads just for you.

You're welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who think its wrong are usually just ignorant.

What about those who aren't ignorant and think it's wrong?

 

[driewerf]

Skulls passed off as missing links.

And now they are found.

Except, I believe, for the upper right one (G), which, if my memory serves me correctly, is a bona fide chimpanzee.
Aside from G, every skull is a human being (or Homo sapiens for clarity).

You might believe so, but bemieve doesn't make true.

Diseased human beings.

No.

But human beings just the same.

No again. The worst types of lies you can tell are the lies you tell yourself and start to believe. You are telling yourself these comfortable lies, just to shield your precious but above all fragile beliefs from reality.

 

[driewerf]

What about those who aren't ignorant and think it's wrong?

They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.

 

[Astrid]

They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.

Who are "they"?
Its great to look for flaws in science.
"Just believe" and "faith in" are ruinous.

But as nobody is known to have ever
uncovered data that
is contrary to ToE, what is it you say
" they" can point to, as wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who think its wrong are usually just
ignorant.

What about those who aren't ignorant and think it's wrong?

They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.

Who are "they"?
...
But as nobody is known to have ever uncovered data that is contrary to ToE, what is it you say "they" can point to, as wrong?

This is what can happen when you put someone on IGNORE.