For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[SLP]

Creationists cannot even stay on topic when the intent of the OP was to clarify a misunderstanding...

 

[tas8831]

Darwinism had some very unfortunate 'real-world applications' according to many eugenics projects conducted worldwide over the last century , I certainly don't want to tar all, or even most believers in ToE with that brush.. but it has not all been positive

Are you serious?
Pathetic....
You think religious fanatics like you are all nice folks???

 

[tas8831]

This forum software allows for adaptation yes?, you can tweak parameters for text size , shape and color. Just as we can tweak control genes for the size shape and color of dogs.

Yup.... exactly the same

But you understand why you can never create a new feature, far less a new software application, by randomly tweaking the text parameters- it's not just a matter of how long you have, or how lucky you are- , the more definitive problem is that you are not accessing the proper part of the hierarchy.

A more crude example of the principle would be a radio- it comes with a capacity to adapt by tuning the dials in different environments, but a trillion years of tuning will never create a CD player

The hard wiring of the radio to constrain adaptation within a limited and viable range, is represented in DNA by the gene regulatory network- i.e. from this perspective adaptation is a design feature, not a design mechanism

From the perspective of the admitted non-biologist who relies on analogies...

All vertebrates are, in effect, variations on a theme. It helps to understand the system (biology) you are trying to critique rather than relying on the crude caricatures and such of a layman, yes?

 

[tas8831]

You are taking your analogy to truly absurd levels. Can you give an example of how you can translate a computer -engineering article into a molecular biology article? I would suggest that you can't learn anything at all about living organisms by reading computer engineering articles.

When one has but a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[tas8831]

Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Darwinists who long maintained that 'JUNK DNA' served no purpose, where skeptics long suspected it did?

You are wrong - creationists hopped on the bandwagon after the fact and tried to claim it was their idea, for one. Creationists began claiming that the entire genome is functional (I suppose before they heard about pufferfish and Polychaos) around 1990.
For another, most noncoding DNA fits the basic bill of 'junk'.
Stop getting your info from creationist websites.

 

[tas8831]

agreed, so birds from dinos is at least debatable- and if it ultimately fails, it will not be the first time for a previously widely accepted example of Darwinian transition.

' ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time'

David Raup, Chicago Field Museum

I find it amusing whenever folks like you come along - pretending to be above the fray, just "skeptical" and inquisitive, and such.
And then, you go full creationist - Darwin=eugenics, out of context quotes, unsavory implications, etc.
So predictable.

 

[tas8831]

“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1

(1) Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, On the Origin of Organismal Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), p.7.


This statement was from '03, but Gerd opened the meeting in 2016

Overview
Scientific discussion meeting organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright FBA, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland.

Well clearly Mueller is the ultimate authority - get all that from Mazur, did you?

The Royal Society, London
Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution[

Hmmm...do you think they will invoke God-magic and poofery?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:

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".​

Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

QV please:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

SOURCE

And what is the next level above the species level? Genus.

Note that both CreationWiki and Berkely say the same thing: "above the species level."

 

[Yttrium]

QV please:

SOURCE

And what is the next level above the species level? Genus.

Note that both CreationWiki and Berkely say the same thing: "above the species level."

It's nice that you, unlike most creationists, stick to a specific definition for macroevolution. As far as I can tell, most creationists pretty much define it as the amount of evolution that can't be observed. And then they complain that we can't observe it.

But my problem with that CreationWiki quote is the line: "Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms."

There is no such process. There is the process of evolution. A small amount of evolution is considered to be microevolution. A lot of evolution adds up to macroevolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

But my problem with that CreationWiki quote is the line: "Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms."

There is no such process. There is the process of evolution. A small amount of evolution is considered to be microevolution. A lot of evolution adds up to macroevolution.

To this end, I agree with you.

Macroevolution's "product" comes via a LONG series of microsteps.

New genuses don't pop up overnight.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Macroevolution's "product" comes via a LONG series of microsteps.

New genuses don't pop up overnight.

Well that was certainly the original Darwinian prediction..

But the more complete the fossil record has become, the less we see evidence of such slow smooth transitions through many 'microsteps'. And the more we see -not just genera- but entire phyla popping up overnight, in geological timescales.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that was certainly the original Darwinian prediction..

But the more complete the fossil record has become, the less we see evidence of such slow smooth transitions through many 'microsteps'. And the more we see -not just genera- but entire phyla popping up overnight, in geological timescales.

Well it's about time science starts catching up to the Bible.

It's not Darwin's Tree -- it's God's Orchard.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well it's about time science starts catching up to the Bible.

It's not Darwin's Tree -- it's God's Orchard.

I'd say it already has done in many ways- not so long ago, even the universe having a beginning was dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' in mainstream cosmology.

Ideological resistance to ideas can help strengthen the evidence for them, I think we are seeing the same happening in biology/ natural history. All part of the plan perhaps!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd say it already has done in many ways- not so long ago, even the universe having a beginning was dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' in mainstream cosmology.

Ideological resistance to ideas can help strengthen the evidence for them, I think we are seeing the same happening in biology/ natural history. All part of the plan perhaps!

One thing I do believe though is that the theory of evolution is going to wax stronger and stronger, until it culminates in the Tribulation Period by an act of the Antichrist demonstrating abiogenesis.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One thing I do believe though is that the theory of evolution is going to wax stronger and stronger, until it culminates in the Tribulation Period by an act of the Antichrist demonstrating abiogenesis.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

It has room to grow yes; Gallup puts belief in evolution (unguided by God) at about 22% in the U.S. i.e. probably quite a bit lower than one might perceive from popular media.. or online forums?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gallup puts belief in evolution (unguided by God) at about 22% in the U.S. i.e. ...

Amen to that!

That doesn't surprise me though for two reasons:

1. We're a Christian nation.
2. The Antichrist is due to come from an European coalition of some sort.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Amen to that!

That doesn't surprise me though for two reasons:

1. We're a Christian nation.
2. The Antichrist is due to come from an European coalition of some sort.

Where is #2 prophesized? (Not being argumentative- I'm no Biblical scholar..)

 

[AV1611VET]

Where is #2 prophesized? (Not being argumentative- I'm no Biblical scholar..)

In Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The two legs of the statue represent the Roman Empire, and the ten toes, a coalition that forms out of it.

Daniel 8 identifies the Antichrist coming from that coalition.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Amen to that!

That doesn't surprise me though for two reasons:

1. We're a Christian nation.

That's great for the Christians in America. At least America doesn't make non-Christians pay a special tax to enjoy all the benefits provided by the Christians who are the TRUE Americans.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's great for the Christians in America. At least America doesn't make non-Christians pay a special tax to enjoy all the benefits provided by the Christians who are the TRUE Americans.

That reminds me, my property tax is due. Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what Phil Collins, Sean Connery, and Mick Jagger have in common?