Do you agree with these statements?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I always get the impression, when I read [stuff] like this, that at one time, "genus" was an acceptable term.

Until evolutionists started losing debates with creationists.

So academia has now watered-down this term of theirs in order to save face.

Notice you first said, "above the species level"?

What's the next thing above the species level?

"Genus"!

But then you quote something only a Philadelphia lawyer would understand.

And, right in the middle of the quote, is this doosey:

speciation has both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary aspects:

I'm not buying that.

It's an attempt to drag "genus" down one notch into the "species" category.

"Genus" is academia's (Satan's) cheap imitation for the Bible word "kind."

Try not to confuse taxonomy ranks with descriptions of the scale of the evolutionary process that may or may not be derived from taxonomy ranks.

BTW - there are plenty of sources that agree on the species-level boundary of micro-macro evolution, some of which explain how speciation has aspects of both (it's because all evolution is microevolution, so it continues on through and past the speciation process; but the change from one species to another is termed macroevolution; IOW macroevolution is the 64,000 ft view of microevolution, where the pixel resolution is whole species):

Learn Religions - Microevolution vs Macroevolution
BiologyWise - Microevolution Vs. Macroevolution – What’s the Difference?
Difference Between - Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Similarities & Differences
Etc.

It's entirely up to you whether you accept the popular definitions, but if you don't, it's worth bearing them in mind so as not to cause confusion when talking to people that do accept them.

 

[Kylie]

Then what's the herd you're talking about in Question 7?

They are a herd of the descendents o0f the original population of animals.

Thank you, Kylie.

I appreciate the warm welcomes back.

I had determined that I wasn't going to come back.

But had a change of mind!

I'm glad you did, this place just wasn't the same without you.

 

[Kylie]

#7 contradicts #1.

In what way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that a species giving rise to another species is an example of macroevolution?

If so, I disagree.

I can accept a lion (Panthera leo) and a jaguar (Panthera onca) being the same kind, since they are both Panthera.

But you seem to be saying lions and jaguars are examples of macroevolution.

In the sciences the person that invented the term is the one that sets its definition. So of course you are incorrect again. Ironically the person that invented the term did not accept natural selection. But he did define the term in such a way that he could be shown to be wrong:

Yuri Filipchenko - Wikipedia


In the sciences one can be wrong and still contribute to the advance of science. Creationists unfortunately fit into the category of "Not even wrong".

By the way, your argument backfires again because you are a member of the same kind as Hominidae Pan Troglodyte. You are a member of Hominidae Homo Sapiens. Both are Hominidae.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always get the impression, when I read [stuff] like this, that at one time, "genus" was an acceptable term.

Until evolutionists started losing debates with creationists.

So academia has now watered-down this term of theirs in order to save face.

Notice you first said, "above the species level"?

What's the next thing above the species level?

"Genus"!

But then you quote something only a Philadelphia lawyer would understand.

And, right in the middle of the quote, is this doosey:

speciation has both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary aspects:

I'm not buying that.

It's an attempt to drag "genus" down one notch into the "species" category.

"Genus" is academia's (Satan's) cheap imitation for the Bible word "kind."

The Linnaean classification system is based upon artificial man made classifications. Modern classification is more along the line of cladistics. As your good friend Aron could explain to you, not only are you an ape. You are a monkey too:

Systematic Classification of Life - YouTube

That 49 video series explains it very well for you. Don't worry. It is not an insult to call you a monkey since we are all monkeys. We cannot evolve outside of our lineage. Here is number one from that series:

 

[fwGod]

In what way?

I don't really think that you are not aware that #1 and #7 contradict. Numbers 2-6 are just a way to get from 1 to 7.

But in any case, my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate.

By the way, your last quote is missing the author. It's attributed to Mark Twain. But I suppose that it's easier to say that he said it, than to say to someone who believes it, that they've been lied to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really think that you are not aware that #1 and #7 contradict. Numbers 2-6 are just a way to get from 1 to 7.

But in any case, my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate.

By the way, your last quote is missing the author. It's attributed to Mark Twain. But I suppose that it's easier to say that he said it, than to say to someone who believes it, that they've been lied to.

Then they do not contradict. You may have a misunderstanding.

And if you are not interested in a discussion or debate why even post here? There really is no debate about whether life is the product of evolution any longer. It is a done deal. Now all we have are corrections of misconceptions at best.

 

[Kylie]

I don't really think that you are not aware that #1 and #7 contradict. Numbers 2-6 are just a way to get from 1 to 7.

But in any case, my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate.

It would seem you aren't even interested in actually explaining yourself either, it would seem.

If you can't explain how 1 and 7 are contradictory, then I am just going to ignore your claim. A claim without support is worthless.

 

[Jok]

not only are you an ape. You are a monkey too

Do you think that if a human specific virus ended us all it would be just a matter time before monkeys or apes became like we are today? Do you think it’s at all possible that only one species becomes enlightened at a time, then destroys themselves, and then another one takes over? I suppose if several became enlightened at once it might even resemble a world like in Star Wars! Is there any evolutionary tendencies as to how many species would by chance become enlightened (like humans) at the same time, like would there be a technical explanation among biologists why it might only be one genus that is enlightened? Deep questions no matter what a person’s belief system!

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you think that if a human specific virus ended us all it would be just a matter time before monkeys or apes became like we are today? Do you think it’s at all possible that only one species becomes enlightened at a time, then destroys themselves, and then another one takes over? I suppose if several became enlightened at once it might even resemble a world like in Star Wars! Is there any evolutionary tendencies as to how many species would by chance become enlightened (like humans) at the same time, like would there be a technical explanation among biologists why it might only be one genus that is enlightened? Deep questions no matter what a person’s belief system!

Well, in the past there were sever species of hominids of various intelligence and technological ability... then there was only one left. With the barest traces of limited inter breeding as the legacy of the extinct varieties.

Once they were capable humanity spread over the entire world... if this happened again there wouldn't be much space for a second species.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

It's not a single thing. It's lot's of single things adding up over time.

Hope everything is good with you.

It is impossible in some (Cretaceous) drill core to fit a razor blade between few if any flowering plant fossils (microscopic spores, often prolific in black shales) and avalanche style abundance of the pollen and seeds of flowering plants. A similar scenario almost certainly exists at the base of the Cambrian -- but the strata of the Cambrian are not so amenable to fossil preservation. Further, the (mostly marine) Cambrian fossils are not air borne nor potentially airborne. Radiometric dating within the Cambrian is difficult bordering on impossible due to unsuitable dating materials. (The Cambrian is an exceptional system -- gives food for thought.) Without controversy there is evidence of the sudden abundance of complex life being close to instantaneous in real time. Every phylum of complex life, with its future specializations demonstrably inherent within itself, sprang into existence in a geologic instant. Every phylum. No new information was emplaced in the biosphere subsequent to that event. Excepting in the case of Man.

Species in the fossil record as a rule (the geologic record of course can be plagued with gaps) as a rule appear abruptly, bursting on the scene with almost shocking verve and vitality, no hint of gradation from any other species, no evidence of development upwards during their tenure on Earth. You may dig in the marine sands for a shell called Lingula which has remained unchanged since at least the Ordovician -- stratigraphically only a little above the Cambrian. There is close on zero evidence of what Darwin suggested, (other than that life was evolved) but a mountain of evidence for what the Creator of heaven and earth states. Organisms reproduce after their kind. End of story. Not quite. The scriptural message is that species were transformed. New DNA, new immune progamming. Necessarily, effectively instantaneously in terms of geologic time. It is now as simple as ABC to see how it was presumably done --- science has advanced. No direct divine action. Pre-programmed, quantum category information technology. Physics. The one thing missing from Darwinism. Physics. Scientific proof. Before getting all jumpy up and downy about so-called transition fossils -- not an entirely inaccurate term -- the method of species transformation put in place by the Creator almost certainly relies on close bodily similarity between the transformer and the transformee.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think that if a human specific virus ended us all it would be just a matter time before monkeys or apes became like we are today? Do you think it’s at all possible that only one species becomes enlightened at a time, then destroys themselves, and then another one takes over? I suppose if several became enlightened at once it might even resemble a world like in Star Wars! Is there any evolutionary tendencies as to how many species would by chance become enlightened (like humans) at the same time, like would there be a technical explanation among biologists why it might only be one genus that is enlightened? Deep questions no matter what a person’s belief system!

It is clearly far from guaranteed. We appear to be the first intelligent species that formed a civilization. Long term we do not know if high intelligence and the ability to alter environments is a survival trait.

 

[Kylie]

Radiometric dating within the Cambrian is difficult bordering on impossible due to unsuitable dating materials.

I've never heard this, have you got a source?

Without controversy there is evidence of the sudden abundance of complex life being close to instantaneous in real time. Every phylum of complex life, with its future specializations demonstrably inherent within itself, sprang into existence in a geologic instant. Every phylum.

Hang on, the Cambrian explosion took between thirteen to twenty five million years. It was hardly an instant. From an evolutionary point of view, it lasted quite a while. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

Species in the fossil record as a rule (the geologic record of course can be plagued with gaps) as a rule appear abruptly, bursting on the scene with almost shocking verve and vitality, no hint of gradation from any other species, no evidence of development upwards during their tenure on Earth.

There are plenty of fossils in which we have sequences showing how the evolution took place. Horse and whale evolution are both quite well documented.

You may dig in the marine sands for a shell called Lingula which has remained unchanged since at least the Ordovician -- stratigraphically only a little above the Cambrian.

So? Once a species is well adapted to fit the little niche it has for itself, it's unlikely to change much unless there is some environmental pressure.

There is close on zero evidence of what Darwin suggested, (other than that life was evolved) but a mountain of evidence for what the Creator of heaven and earth states.

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. I'm not aware of any testable evidence for a creator deity of any kind that has withstood such testing.

Before getting all jumpy up and downy about so-called transition fossils -- not an entirely inaccurate term -- the method of species transformation put in place by the Creator almost certainly relies on close bodily similarity between the transformer and the transformee.

Are you suggesting that God can transform species in a way that looks like evolution because he shares bodily similarity with them?

 

[AV1611VET]

They're all still zebras in the OP.

I don't see how they can be anything else but.

 

[Kylie]

They're all still zebras in the OP.

I don't see how they can be anything else but.

You don't see how lots of little changes can add up?

If I start in Sydney and take a step, and then another step, and then another and another and keep going, do you see how I will eventually end up in Melbourne? Or would you insist I was still in Sydney?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't see how lots of little changes can add up?

Not to the point where they are no longer zebras.

What specifically did you mean by "the herd" in Question 7?

If you're using this thread as an example of macroevolution, then Question 7 will never get asked, as there will come a time when the zebras reach their quota of mutations and go extinct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

1. Yes -- Equus quagga -- all different.

2. Yes -- Equus quagga -- better eyesight.

3. Yes -- Equus quagga -- better eyesight genes.

4. Yes -- Equus quagga -- with Equus quagga children.

5. Yes -- Equus quagga -- longer life means more Equus quagga children.

6. Yes -- Equus quagga -- Equus guagga in larger herds everywhere.

7. Yes -- Equus quagga -- larger herds the norm, due to longer life being the norm.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But in any case, my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate.

OK; JFYI, this is known as a 'drive-by' in forum-speak and is considered to be a form of trolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're all still zebras in the OP.

I don't see how they can be anything else but.

Of course they are. "Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape. A species cannot evolve out of its genetic heritage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Yes -- Equus quagga -- all different.

2. Yes -- Equus quagga -- better eyesight.

3. Yes -- Equus quagga -- better eyesight genes.

4. Yes -- Equus quagga -- with Equus quagga children.

5. Yes -- Equus quagga -- longer life means more Equus quagga children.

6. Yes -- Equus quagga -- Equus guagga in larger herds everywhere.

7. Yes -- Equus quagga -- larger herds the norm, due to longer life being the norm.

Of course the names for them are human constructs. Just as calling us "men" and our nearest living cousins "chimps". Let's say that you have cousins from your paternal grandfather that were from a daughter of your grandfather. Odds are almost certain that they have a different last name than you do. Does that mean that you are more closely related to your cousins that share your last name?