So precious - the fellow that claims he is here to learn, wrote the above one-liner in response to this (and check out my prediction):
I provided the actual biological definition of animals, and we meet it -
here it is again since
your programming forced you to ignore it:
Any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia that are generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking cell wall, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development
Ignore it if you wish, but that is the definition, and only the indoctrinated will reject it.
Humans have an inherent difference from that of animals
Other animals, you mean - yes, and other animals have inherent differences from each other as well as us.
You just want there to be SPECIAL , GOD-GIVEN differences because, well, that is what your
indoctrination demands of you. But you cannot demonstrate this, you just 'feel it.'
which is hard to describe
So hard, it is apparently impossible for you to do so.
and only Genesis (and not science) can explain it – that is God created us.
And you want to ignorantly claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution, even as you accept, without question or caution, such purely religious tales.
Surely you must realize that such simplistic 'just so' "explanations" are not only unimpressive, but come across as naive to those that do not accept your idiosyncratic interpretations and unwarranted applications of ancient tales.
It is strange that you expend so much energy on these forums to try to justify your mere beliefs by attacking as false, with disingenuous 'questions' and 'arguments', that which you simultaneously feel the need to present as strawmen (e.g., the whole 'morph/'chart' thing, for one).
But, you won’t let yourself see it or accept it as an explanation.
Correct - for it explains nothing - it is a mere assertion.
Summarize the ‘difference’ as ‘imagination and the ability to reflect,’ whatever, and although science accepts many other things on the grounds that it is plausible, it refuses to accept this great divider. Blinders responsible, I think.
So - tell us how you
know that no other animals do that? What
evidence is there? The mere assertions found in ancient tales?
I do not know if other animals do those things or not, and thus I am not prepared to deny them that.
I do know that other animals are capable of doing things that for decades - no, centuries - it was claimed that they could not ever do. Things like pointing at objects - even the great Steven Pinker had claimed that chimps do not do this in the wild (claimed they only did it via mimicking us). Then I attended a meeting at which Roger Fouts presented video tape of wild chimps not only pointing, but teaching their children to do so. Chimps and some other primates recognize themselves in mirrors - something that even human infants take time to understand. Chimps cooperate and plan. They have the ability to recognize representations of other other objects via the use of symbols and through viewing scale models of real things, like rooms. As I have written previously in this thread - it was common sense to Rush Limbaugh that dolphins cannot be intelligent because they cannot speak English. This, to me, matches the level of sophistication that your 'we are not animals' and 'we are SPECIAL' assertions do.
As I've repeatedly said, it's not a question of more or less, better or worse... just a difference.
But that is just equivocation.
A difference in extent (more or less)? A difference in quality (better or worse)? Those ARE differences - you just want a "special" difference.
I am comfortable accepting that other primates/animals are
less able to engage in the same level of deep self-reflection that (at least some) humans are, but this is a characteristic we possess largely, IMO, due to our expanded neocortex. Chimp neocortices have the same 'foundation' that ours do, the same basic structure, it is just not as extensive. And it is pretty clear that the neocortex, especially the frontal lobe/prefrontal cortex, where these sorts of abilities appear to reside -those you naively refer to as "God given" - are 'brain given.' The case of Phineas Gage all but proves this.
Yours is a rather naive argument.
And, BTW, there is no definitive evidence for macro evolution.
Since you are afraid or unable to even define it, once again, let me help you out:
Macroevolution
Definition
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene.
It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
You could, if you actually wanted to know, read a bit about it here - a site for those unfamiliar with the science:
Evolution 101: Macroevolution
From that site, we also see:
Defining Speciation
Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species.
So - speciation is the production of 2 or more species from an ancestral stock, and macroevolution is "
an area of study concerned ...
with speciation events..."
So speciation IS, in effect, macroevolution, thus you could (since you claim to have studied evolution) search for the evidence you claim does not exist yourself:
Google Scholar search for evidence for macroevolution
Lots there for you to ignore or dismiss for no good reason.
Funny how CreationWiki defines macroevolution:
Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".
No wonder you reject it - your sources misrepresent it, laughably so.
Of interest, we also see this on CreationWiki:
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Well now - since dogs and 'all other canids' encompasses multiple (13) genera and (34) species, it seems the creationist scientists EMBRACE macroevolution!
I find it exceptionally entertaining when creationists argue against each other without even knowing it.
I did also come across an interesting paper while looking up macroevolution:
I only read the abstract, but I noted something interesting in it:
"We found significant gains in knowledge of microevolution and macroevolution, and found that both prior knowledge and acceptance of evolution were important in facilitating students’ conceptual growth."
IOW - creationist kids were less likely to learn much when being taught about the evidence for evolution. Imagine that.
Also, there is this:
Catarrhine primates are African monkeys, baboons and apes. Dozens of distinct genera and species and several families. Rejecting this evidence for macroevolution is mere denialism regarding 3 distinct types of data for no good scientific reason. So, I'm sure that is what you will do.
Eagerly awaiting some snarky retort that ignores 99% of this post.
And, BTW, there is no definitive evidence for macro creation.
I love it when creationists use falsehoods to cover their lack of intellectual abilities.
