Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[keith99]

Actually Wiki has a good reputation for science based material

Wiki is not as accurate on articles on individuals.

I have heard this from more than one source but as you wish.


Grady, you have a bee in your bonnet on this and nothing on God's green earth will change your mind in any way. It is the world of science on one side of the macroevolution question and you on the other.

Again to quote from the Princess Bride, "As you wish"

Dizredux

The Mail article was intentionally twisted. There sample seemed to be current entities. E.g. things where there very likely is no other encyclopedic source.

Given that little bit of selection bias I wonder just what they count as errors. Let me give you 2, from a few years back. One near exact the other I'm going to have to use fictional fillers.

The First:

'If there had been a white jersey for best young rider Eddy Merckx would also have won it'. That is reference to the 1969 TDF. Eddy Merckx did win the white jersey that year, but at the time it was the combination jersey.

Is the statement an error?

The second:

He is only the second rider to win Race A and Race B the week after.

Don't remember the rider or the races, they were important races and winning both back to back was significant.

The issue was that using "is" implies that there are still only 2 riders who had done this. That was false, a few had done it since then.

Was this an error?

BTW last time I checked both misleading statements were corrected. Wiki has improved considerably over the last 10 years. I'd say at this point enough that a Wiki cite is enough to put the burden of proof on the disagreeing side.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have given it to you and supported it but you simply reject it,

Macroevolution is speciation and above. If you have speciation you have macroevolution as scientists use the term which is not often.

Dizredux

you have a self contradicting statement. first you say macro evolution equates speciation and above. then you say "when you have speciation you have macroevolution". they are not the same statement.

 

[Naturalism]

you have a self contradicting statement. first you say macro evolution equates speciation and above. then you say "when you have speciation you have macroevolution". they are not the same statement.

Actually it's perfectly consistent. Macroevolution is typified as being any sort of evolutionary changes at or above the species level, thus any evolution where new species occurs we're talking about macroevolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually it's perfectly consistent. Macroevolution is typified as being any sort of evolutionary changes at or above the species level, thus any evolution where new species occurs we're talking about macroevolution.

actually you are holding a non professional view of macroevolution, this is your problem.


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_&_Development

 

[Naturalism]

Evolution 101: Macroevolution[/url]
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

That is fine. Macroevolution would just be any evolutionary evidence where changes are evidence between higher than the species level (Genus or above). In that case the both the fossil record and genetics support macroevolution at that level. If you ask how/where, refer to the example I provided earlier in human chromosome 2 fusion evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is fine. Macroevolution would just be any evolutionary evidence where changes are evidence between higher than the species level (Genus or above). In that case the both the fossil record and genetics support macroevolution at that level. If you ask how/where, refer to the example I provided earlier in human chromosome 2 fusion evidence.

how does chromosome fusion evidence refer to macro evolution, evolution between genra. How does it prove ancestry to both genra thus proving evolution between the two? And we are not talking changes at the genus level, but a complete transition. - From one to the other. you now, monkey to man type transitions. Now it can be as many intermediaries as you need, and as much time as you need. Still evidence will come up short for macroevolution. In 10 years I haven't seen any.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a question for creationists, primarily young earth creationists.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that the scientific community - and the public more generally - accepts evolution as the prevailing model for biology and also deep time as the prevailing concepts for geology and cosmology?

Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position.

What I'm interested in is what reasons you think that evolutionary biology is the generally accepted explanation for the diversity of life and that there is scientific concordance about the ages of the earth and the universe.

It is a scientific conspiracy? The influence of satan or other supernatural forces? Is it man deliberately misleading himself?

What is your explanation?

The earth was created fully functional. Just as Jesus didn't insert the eye of a fetus into a blind man face, or graft the leg of fetus onto a lame mans hip, God did not set down Adam as a fetus onto a cooling slab of Lava and expect Him to grow his own food.

As we can all read, the world was not created "young". I'm not claiming it was artificially aged to fool anyone. I'm claiming it was appropriate for the purpose, just as ALL the miracles found in the scriptures are.

If a scientist wishes to imagine he can see into the past, that's his stupidity, and his alone. I don't have a problem with that. I give a scientists view into the past about the same as his view into ther future of the weather. 4 hours of accuracy and 10 day forecast, pretty dim.

 

[Loudmouth]

how does chromosome fusion evidence refer to macro evolution, evolution between genra.

Genera do not exist in nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

actually you are holding a non professional view of macroevolution, this is your problem.


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

The production of a new species is "above the level of species". Below the level of species would be mutations that spread within population.

 

[createdtoworship]

The production of a new species is "above the level of species". Below the level of species would be mutations that spread within population.

oh, this is a new one for you well,
all you need to do is cite a scientific journal that agrees with you. Or many for that matter, since I provided many myself.

above the level of species, is higher taxa, that is the most straightforward rendering of it.

you have to stretch it to make it fit your view.

I recognize this tactic in debating liberal christians, they too will stretch the verses that don't agree (beyond the context) to read into the text. it's called eisegesis.

"The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants."

above quote from:

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

 

[createdtoworship]

Genera do not exist in nature.

neither do species,

so the term "origin of the species" is actually false. right? According to your view.

 

[Loudmouth]

oh, this is a new one for you well,
all you need to do is cite a scientific journal that agrees with you.

"Testable predictions about pollinator-driven speciation can be derived from the theory of ecological speciation, according to which adaptation (microevolution) and speciation (macroevolution) are directly linked. "
Pollinator-driven ecological speciation in plants: n... [Ann Bot. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI

Peer reviewed article equating speciation with macroevolution and within species adaptation as microevolution.

above the level of species, is higher taxa, that is the most straightforward rendering of it.

Genus and taxon above genus do not exist in nature.

I recognize this tactic in debating liberal christians, they too will stretch the verses that don't agree (beyond the context) to read into the text. it's called eisegesis.

Says the person stretching the definition of macroevolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

neither do species,

Species do exist in nature. We can demonstrate that there are populations that do not interbreed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Species do exist in nature. We can demonstrate that there are populations that do not interbreed.

but that would also be the definition of genus, populations that don't interbreed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Species do exist in nature. We can demonstrate that there are populations that do not interbreed.

What about separated populations that enjoy sex with each other but turn out to be nearly always infertile? What about ring species? What about parthenogenic species, that are all female and have no interbreeding ever? What about long extinct species, for which we cannot derive DNA results or mating habits, but only ancient fossils?

How do you define them in such cases?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you have a self contradicting statement. first you say macro evolution equates speciation and above. then you say "when you have speciation you have macroevolution". they are not the same statement.

Utter nonsense. Both statements are saying the same thing. Saying macro evolution equates speciation and above implies that if you have specieation you have macroevolution.

Please try to argue in a way that makes sense.

 

[createdtoworship]

Utter nonsense. Both statements are saying the same thing. Saying macro evolution equates speciation and above implies that if you have specieation you have macroevolution.

Please try to argue in a way that makes sense.

look at the statements again, one says "above" and the other does not. Not the same statement. One is above speciation, the other is equal to speciation. They contradict.

Thank you for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

actually you are holding a non professional view of macroevolution, this is your problem.


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_&_Development

please see this post naturalism, it may answer your questions about macro evolution

 

[Loudmouth]

but that would also be the definition of genus, populations that don't interbreed.

There are species in the same genus that do not interbreed. You are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

please see this post naturalism, it may answer your questions about macro evolution

Too bad that you don't understand your own posts.