Define evolution

[Split Rock]

ja exept that macro-evolution has never been seen and never will be by a human so how does one know that it can happen.

Define "macroevolution," in the context you are using the term. Because we have observed speciation, and that is the only definition of "macroevolution" I am aware of.

if you dont believe in Genesis or parts of it as it does clearly teach that the earth was created in 6 days. then what other parts of the Bible dont you "have" to believe?

That's not my problem, though it seems clear to me that GEN 1 and 2 are allegorical stories, not history.

 

[Dannager]

ja exept that macro-evolution has never been seen and never will be by a human so how does one know that it can happen.
if you dont believe in Genesis or parts of it as it does clearly teach that the earth was created in 6 days. then what other parts of the Bible dont you "have" to believe?

Macroevolution has been observed by humans. Many times. Please check out some of the instances of this at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Dannager]

it seems clear to me that GEN 1 and 2 are allegorical stories, not history.

Agreed.

 

[Skaloop]

yes because it takes supposedly "millions and millions" of years and no man has ever stayed allive for that long in recorded history.

That's a reason we can't directly observe it. I want a reason why it can't happen.

 

[Split Rock]

That's a reason we can't directly observe it. I want a reason why it can't happen.

You don't get it, do you? s41nn0n is defining "macroevolution" as that which is supposed to occur over millions of years, precisely so that it cannot be directly observed. If it cannot be directly observed then he can claim there is no evidence for it. Whether it can happen or not is irrelevant to him, since he doesn't even really know what "macroevolution" is.

 

[Dannager]

You don't get it, do you? s41nn0n is defining "macroevolution" as that which is supposed to occur over millions of years, precisely so that it cannot be directly observed. If it cannot be directly observed then he can claim there is no evidence for it. Whether it can happen or not is irrelevant to him, since he doesn't even really know what "macroevolution" is.

Woah. That's devious. No wonder creationists manage to hook so many. Hey guys, how can we use this tactic to further our own evil atheistic goals and ambitions?

 

[Baggins]

ja exept that macro-evolution has never been seen and never will be by a human so how does one know that it can happen.

Just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

ja exept that macro-evolution has never been seen and never will be by a human so how does one know that it can happen.

Well, it depends on how you define macroevolution. Most scientists define macroevolution as evolution above the level of species. This means that speciation is macroevolution, by definition. Speciation has been observed. Therefore, macroevolution has been observed.

The problem for any creationist is that any taxonomic division above the level of species is inherently arbitrary. The only objective division in biology is at the species level. Genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, etc. are all human constructs used to group species into meaningful groups that make them easier to study. Before Linnaeus there was no such thing as phyla or genera, just interbreeding populations.

If creationists want to claim that there is some barrier beyond which accumulated microevolution can not go then it is up to them to demonstrate it. Scientists have already observed life crossing the only barrier known to be out there, the barrier of speciation.

 

[s41nn0n]

Has anybody seen macro-ecvolution as macro-evolution is when a species changes to a completely different species over "millions" of years.
Micro-evolution is when a species changes a slight thing on its outwards appearance.
and yes I know micro-evolution does exist, and does happen. but macro-evolution cannot as scientists cannot prve that it is true.
and then "evolutionists" as yourself try to trick people into believing macro-evolution as they say that because micro-evolution can happen, and has been proven, macro-evolution can happen as a result of that.

 

[lemmings]

Why can’t macro-evolution exist? Because it has only been seen in the geological record?

What about other things that have never been seen such as magnetism, gravity, or the atom? People have seen the effects of these, just as we see the effects of billions of years of evolution in nature, but no one has ever been able to see them with their own eyes.

 

[notto]

Has anybody seen macro-ecvolution as macro-evolution is when a species changes to a completely different species over "millions" of years..

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. It does not take millions of years.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=37191108

Where did you get your ideas about speciation? Why do you think it takes millions of years? Scientists certainly don't claim that. What is the source of this claim?

 

[FishFace]

Has anybody seen macro-ecvolution as macro-evolution is when a species changes to a completely different species over "millions" of years.

Yes, we have seen species change into completely different species in the fossil record.

and yes I know micro-evolution does exist, and does happen. but macro-evolution cannot as scientists cannot prve that it is true.

Let me restate your argument again, more clearly: Macro-evolution cannot happen, because scientists cannot prove it has happened. In other words, everything is impossible unless it is proved that it actually happened! Nonsense!
No-one has proved that the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066 - all we have are documents and evidence suggesting it did. But it's still very much possible that the Battle occurred as we believe it did.

and then "evolutionists" as yourself try to trick people into believing macro-evolution as they say that because micro-evolution can happen, and has been proven, macro-evolution can happen as a result of that.

Yes, macroevolution can happen, because microevolution can happen.

In the same way, you can walk from Dover to John o' Groats, because you can walk from your front door to the newsagents. Microevolution shows that macroevolution can happen, not that it did. To show that it did happen, we have other pieces of evidence, like the fossil record, genetic evidence and so on.

 

[Elduran]

Where did you get your ideas about speciation? Why do you think it takes millions of years? Scientists certainly don't claim that. What is the source of this claim?

LCWs?

 

[Loudmouth]

Has anybody seen macro-ecvolution as macro-evolution is when a species changes to a completely different species over "millions" of years.

Evolution is "descent with modification", not "change into something completely different". Nothing ever evolves into something other than what it's ancestors were. Under the strong breeding selection produced by humans, wolves evolved into very different populations such as chihuahuas and great danes. However, these are just modified wolves, not something completely different just as evolution states. Humans are modified apes, and we are apes. Humans are also modified primates, modified mammals, modified vertebrates, and modified eukaryotes. We are what our ancestors were, just modified.

Micro-evolution is when a species changes a slight thing on its outwards appearance.
and yes I know micro-evolution does exist, and does happen. but macro-evolution cannot as scientists cannot prve that it is true.

Again, macroevolution has been observed. You admit here that microevolution occurs within species. This is correct. This is the definition that scientists use. This would mean that, by definition, change above the level of species is macroevolution. The production of two divergent species from a single species is therefore macroevolution, by definition. This has been observed.

and then "evolutionists" as yourself try to trick people into believing macro-evolution as they say that because micro-evolution can happen, and has been proven, macro-evolution can happen as a result of that.

Wrong. Because microevolution and speciation occur, macroevolution is unavoidable. After speciation occurs the mutations that occur in one species can not be spread to the other population. This means that different mutations are going to accrue in each species. The process of microevolution in each species causes the two species to move away from each other. This is called divergence.

 

[s41nn0n]

But you can create a fossil in a very short time.
some intresting sites.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13
http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/Creationism.htm

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

But you can create a fossil in a very short time.
some intresting sites.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13
http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/Creationism.htm

These sites have no evidence to back up their claims, just proper gander. If they want to be taken seriously they have to have some evidence for their stand point.

At this point I would like to bring in another line of evidence. If you look at the inner planets, there seems to be an anomaly in their densities. That is the Earth seems to be too dense and the moon not dense enough. The evidence suggests this is due to a large body colliding with the early Earth, with the denser materials of that body being incorporated into the Earth and less dense material for both the Earth and Moon being expelled and forming the moon.

If god created the universe, why would she do this, to confuse people. I think not, it is YEC that are confused and they will remain confused until they give up their form of mysticism.

 

[BVZ]

But you can create a fossil in a very short time.
some intresting sites.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13
http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/Creationism.htm

The speed at which a fossil is created has no effect on the age of the fossil.

 

[s41nn0n]

OK but how would a fossil be created Quickly in natural
circumstances without decay taking place or other animals eating it?

 

[FishFace]

But you can create a fossil in a very short time.
some intresting sites.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13

This site doesn't give any evidence at all, it simply mentions it as a "by-the-by." As such, it's worthless - if you want to make a claim about fossils, give us some evidence and we'll listen. No evidence - no case.

Just as an aside, the article mentions gigantic "fossil graveyards," but this is not what we find. Fossils of land creatures are very rare in comparison to the number of animals that have died, and generally occur in isolation, not in big heaps.
The article also has a go at explaining how fossils show an obvious evolutionary progression - but fails. Firstly, there are many, many fossilised sea creatures above fossilised land creatures in the rock record. (A quick google for "fish fossil" and "reptile fossil" for example would sort this out) There is simply no reason for an evolutionary progression to appear in the fossil record if all fossils were deposited within a short length of time - you also have to contend with the fact that rock deposition takes absolutely ages. You are trying to tell us that sedimentary rock formations miles high were created within the space of a year! It's simply impossible.

http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/Creationism.htm

Neither does this article really attempt to explain how creationists can honestly believe that fossils form quickly, or how they form in order.
The article lists three ordering factors. All of them have counter-examples in the rock record. I say that without checking, simply because I have confidence. I've already checked for fish above reptiles - that was vindicated. Fish are less dense than land animals, so we've already sorted that one out (to check this, throw a mouse and a fish into water and see which one sinks to the bottom quickest...) and finally, I assume that all of those fossilised trees and other plants managed to outrun all the creatures fossilised below them? Right.

EDIT:

Oh, P.S. You've not actually tried to address any of the points raised against you, just tried to divert everyone away from the original argument. Well done, you nearly succeeded, but I personally would like you to respond to this post before you raise other points, and I'm sure other people have similar wishes. It's only polite to respond to other people's responses to your claims.

 

[RomanumCatholicam]

How do evilotionist date fossils?