Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
CabVet said:
Same kind of animal, wouldn't you say? Still looking at micro-evolution aren't we?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
CabVet said:No, it is not. It is a straw man.
Really? Isn't that the evolutionary process? Getting more and more complex from the first cell? Or are you changing definitions?
There are thousands of transitional fossils, you have to be a bit more specific. Just "any" transitional? If that's the case, here is a transitional between lemurs and monkeys, 47 million years old:
Loudmouth said:That is a mischaracterization of the actual science.
The wiki page has plenty of pics and a ton of references for the actual fossils:
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you really think that these drawings are just made up?
This site also has some good pics of fossils:
Fossil Horses in Cyberspace Exhibit Menu
Same kind of animal, wouldn't you say? Still looking at micro-evolution aren't we?
Loudmouth said:That is a mischaracterization of the actual science.
The wiki page has plenty of pics and a ton of references for the actual fossils:
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you really think that these drawings are just made up?
This site also has some good pics of fossils:
Fossil Horses in Cyberspace Exhibit Menu
Guy1 said:Can you stop using buzzwords? It's been shown on this very forum that "kind" has no definition. It's just a word used to arbitrarily reject any evidence of speciation creationists don't like.
Ok, checked your links, just more drawings, but I appreciate the attempt.
Same kind of animal, wouldn't you say? Still looking at micro-evolution aren't we?
Why wouldn't I like the evolution of lemurs and monkeys? Pretty close to the same animal aren't they?
That barrier is in the genetic information of the animal. You can breed every known type of rabbit from now till eternity, and you'll never get anything but a rabbit, and certainly nothing like a horse or a dog. Other than that, you and I agree 100%.OllieFranz said:Exactly! I agree that "macro-evolution," as Creationists define it, is absurd. Only "micro-evolution" exists.
However, once you agree that speciation has been observed, then "micro-evolution" is all you need for anything included in the Evolutionary Model. If there is no barrier to speciation, there is no "kind" barrier at all.
OllieFranz said:Macro-evolution as briefly used by evolutionary scientists before the word was co-opted by Creationists, was simply a short-hand way of discussing the large-scale differences (a result of many, many generations' accumulation of smaller changes) seen when discussing evolution on taxonomic levels above species.
Guy1 said:They share a common ancestor, so we expect there to be similarities that fall into a nested hierarchy.
That barrier is in the genetic information of the animal. You can breed every known type of rabbit from now till eternity, and you'll never get anything but a rabbit, and certainly nothing like a horse or a dog. Other than that, you and I agree 100%.
I don't follow...how is our use of the same word co-opting it? Like I said, when it comes to Micro, only a blithering idiot would say it doesn't happen. But like I said, you can't get from one cell that magicked its way into existence to everything else alive today.
No, its not absurd, unless you agree that macro-evolution is in fact absurd. According to evolutionists, all life came from a single cell that got more complex and gained information right? So then why now is every living thing losing information? What possible mechanism gave rise to everything on the planet, and then suddenly switched off? No matter what is put forth it is always a decrees of information, whether its natural selection, speciation, mutation, genetic drift, its all a loss of information or a scrambling of some part of existing information. There is no increase, so how did that first cell increase in information?OllieFranz said:Thank you for providing yet another example of the absurdity that is the Creationists' definition of "macro-evolution."
That barrier is in the genetic information of the animal. You can breed every known type of rabbit from now till eternity, and you'll never get anything but a rabbit, and certainly nothing like a horse or a dog. Other than that, you and I agree 100%.
I don't follow...how is our use of the same word co-opting it? Like I said, when it comes to Micro, only a blithering idiot would say it doesn't happen. But like I said, you can't get from one cell that magicked its way into existence to everything else alive today.
Well gee, now you're getting closer to "kinds" aren't you! They very well might be offshoots of the primate kind from the ark right?
It would still be a rabbit yes? Then your macro-evolution definition is a fail.Loudmouth said:Macroevolution would the the production of a new species of rabbit. Macroevolution will not change one living species into another living species (e.g. rabbit into dog).
Loudmouth said:We are a primates. Macaques are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. Does this mean that humans evolving from that common ancestor is just microevolution since I can call all of the species "primates"?
Loudmouth said:Is your definition of macroevolution nothing more than a name game?
Show me one difference between the DNA of chimps and humans that could not have been produced by microevolution.
Guy1 said:You're not really saying much here. Unless you can give a rigorous, testable definition of "kind", you might as well not bother using it. If you don't believe creationism has any basis in science, you can just go ahead and ignore my demand.
Once science drops the "naturalistic only" trend its in (at least in terms of evolution) then we may have a scientist who can define kinds from the biblical starting point. Until then, anyone who even attempted it would likely be ostracized and black listed.
No, its not absurd, unless you agree that macro-evolution is in fact absurd.
According to evolutionists, all life came from a single cell that got more complex and gained information right? So then why now is every living thing losing information?
What possible mechanism gave rise to everything on the planet, and then suddenly switched off?
No matter what is put forth it is always a decrees of information, whether its natural selection, speciation, mutation, genetic drift, its all a loss of information or a scrambling of some part of existing information.
There is no increase, so how did that first cell increase in information?
Loudmouth said:If God is a part of creating nature then God is part of naturalism. "Naturalistic only" includes actions of deities that change things in nature.
Except that God created that nature.
I'm talking about the idea that if it didn't create itself, then its ignored. As it stands now, because of these blinders placed on the scientific community, things like what may constitute a kind are ignored.
There may well be a host of insights and knowledge to be gained by studying this, yet it sits untouched for fear of being shut down, and any grants you may have revoked or not renewed. It's sad really...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?