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

[Buzzard3]

Be precise - you mean biblical creation.

If God created different classes of organisms separately, using the same biological genetic bluprint (DNA, RNA etc), you would fully expect to find genetic similarities between them. The closer organisms are in terms of morphology or function, the more genetic similarities you would expect to find.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If God created different classes of organisms separately, using the same biological genetic bluprint (DNA, RNA etc), you would fully expect to find genetic similarities between them.

Why would we expect that?

 

[Buzzard3]

I'm glad you accept that biblical creation is no better than magic. That's a refreshing bit of honesty.

God can do "magic" - science can't (oh, unless it's evoltion science, in which case mysterious "mutations" that happened millions of years ago do all sorts of magical things ... like produce the lense of an eye or provide a spider with a web-maker machine).

For example, God instantly created a human being from inanimate matter when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44). So there's no reason for a Christian to doubt that God literally instantly created Adam from inanimate matter ("dust") ... as per Genesis 2:7

 

[Buzzard3]

Why would we expect that?

If God created the eye of a whale and the eye of a human being separately, you would expect to find a lot of genetic similarity between them, since both eyes are very similar in structure and function.

You would expect to find lots of genetic similarities between humans and chimps because their morpholgies and functions are very similar.

Conversely, you would not expect to find many genetic similarities between humans and butterflies, because they don't share much in the way of morphology and function.

 

[Shemjaza]

If God created the eye of a whale and the eye of a human being separately, you would expect to find a lot of genetic similarity between them, since both eyes are very similar in structure and function.

You would expect to find lots of genetic similarities between humans and chimps because their morpholgies and functions are very similar.

Conversely, you would not expect to find many genetic similarities between humans and butterflies, because they don't share much in the way of morphology and function.

Why would independently created created species carry genetic scars like viral insertions and atavisms with genes for traits their ancestors never possessed?

Why are all marsupials more similar to each other than all all placental mammals despite being grossly similar in form and environment?

As I said earlier, the common designer explanation is less consistent with the evidence than evolution and common ancestry.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's quite possible that the genetics similarities were noticed regardless of any notion of common descent. From that came the idea of transplants.

You wouldn't need to think of common descent to come up with the idea of trying transplanting organs from the lower-primates, for example.

You didn't tell me why scientists shouldn't search for the reason why pig organs work for xenotransplantation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If God created the eye of a whale and the eye of a human being separately, you would expect to find a lot of genetic similarity between them, since both eyes are very similar in structure and function.

You would expect to find lots of genetic similarities between humans and chimps because their morpholgies and functions are very similar.

Conversely, you would not expect to find many genetic similarities between humans and butterflies, because they don't share much in the way of morphology and function.

Using that logic, how do you explain animals like the sengi? Evolution has a logical and coherent explanation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God can do "magic" - science can't (oh, unless it's evoltion science, in which case mysterious "mutations" that happened millions of years ago do all sorts of magical things ... like produce the lense of an eye or provide a spider with a web-maker machine).

For example, God instantly created a human being from inanimate matter when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44). So there's no reason for a Christian to doubt that God literally instantly created Adam from inanimate matter ("dust") ... as per Genesis 2:7

By all means keep calling Creation magic. It's the sort of honesty mostly lacking from Creation side of debates.

 

[Buzzard3]

Using that logic, how do you explain animals like the sengi?

What's your point?

 

[Buzzard3]

By all means keep calling Creation magic. It's the sort of honesty mostly lacking from Creation side of debates.

By "magic" I mean miracles. Either way it's not a scientific explanation ... which doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Buzzard3]

I asked you to show me where in the Theory of Evolution where, to quote you, it says: "According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species."

Evolution progresses slowly in small increments, therefore disparity (eg, novel body plans and organs - ie. new phylum) cannot develop immediately by only after countless generations of diversification.

Come on, it ain't rocket science.

And no, six million years is not 'overnight'. Six million years is SIX MILLION YEARS. 6,000,000 YEARS. How is that a 'short' period of time to you? How can you call that short?

??? You seem to have missed the point, which is that most known animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian without much evidence of evolutionary history (ie, disparity before diversification - the opposite of what ToE predicts).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution progresses slowly in small increments, therefore disparity (eg, novel body plans and organs - ie. new phylum) cannot develop immediately by only after countless generations of diversification.

Come on, it ain't rocket science.

Where does the theory of evolution say that?

??? You seem to have missed the point, which is that most known animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian without much evidence of evolutionary history (ie, disparity before diversification - the opposite of what ToE predicts).

Except that has been explained to you repeatedly that that is not the case. Pre-Cambrian lifeforms are found and the Cambrian lifeforms that we do have fossils of show that your claim is incorrect.

 

[Buzzard3]

Common designers don't create nested hierarchies

ToE doesn't create separated, disconnected phyla. The nested hierarchies are confined to their respective phylum, but the phyla themselves don't form a nested hierarchy, contrary to ToE.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ignoring the possibility is easy. Hard evidence for showing that evolution is an incorrect theory is a completely different matter.

ToE is a simplistic 19th-century idea that attempts to explain what humans will never be able to explain ... although it does provide a solid platform for mass fantasy and delusion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ToE is a simplistic 19th-century idea that attempts to explain what humans will never be able to explain ... although it does provide a solid platform for mass fantasy and delusion.

Except that you've never once show any reason why it should be discarded and replaced with anything else.

 

[Buzzard3]

A proposition that doesn't appear to make testable predictions or have practical applications.

You're comparing creation to science?

This ignores the pattern of genetic similarities demonstrating familial relationships between species.

The first xenotransplantations were attempted well before the discovery of DNA:

"The first serious attempts at xenotransplantation (then called heterotransplantation) appeared in the scientific literature in 1905, when slices of rabbit kidney were transplanted into a child with chronic kidney disease.[8] In the first two decades of the 20th century, several subsequent efforts to use organs from lambs, pigs, and primates were published." (Wikipedia, "Xenotransplantation")

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution progresses slowly in small increments, therefore disparity (eg, novel body plans and organs - ie. new phylum) cannot develop immediately by only after countless generations of diversification.

Come on, it ain't rocket science.

Except you have repeatedly ignored that the evidence of Pre-Cambrian life indicates that the fossils of the Cambrian explosion indicate a change in the visibility of fossils, rather then the appearance of life itself.

??? You seem to have missed the point, which is that most known animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian without much evidence of evolutionary history (ie, disparity before diversification - the opposite of what ToE predicts).

Limited evidence, not none.

ToE doesn't create separated, disconnected phyla. The nested hierarchies are confined to their respective phylum, but the phyla themselves don't form a nested hierarchy, contrary to ToE.

Untrue. You have ignored yet again the genetic evidence connecting the various phyla.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the diversification by evolution of the phyla found at the beginning of the Cambrian to the modern era to be a reasonable conclusion?

ToE is a simplistic 19th-century idea that attempts to explain what humans will never be able to explain ... although it does provide a solid platform for mass fantasy and delusion.

Lie.

Genetics.
Radiometric dating.
Plate tectonics.

And many more discoveries that affirm the Theory of Evolution as the most significant explanation for biology as a whole.

You're comparing creation to science?

No, you were.

You proposed that it should be considered an alternative to scientific research.

 

[AV1611VET]

Be precise - you mean biblical creation. It is not the only alternative, it is the one you have decided is correct. Now support that decision - how is it a better explanation than evolution?

It gives honor to a Common Creator, not a common ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, God instantly created a human being from inanimate matter when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44). So there's no reason for a Christian to doubt that God literally instantly created Adam from inanimate matter ("dust") ... as per Genesis 2:7

Yes indeed.

Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What's your point?

You said genetics should match morphology. The sengi looks (morphology) so much like a shrew it was called "elephant shrew", but genetically it is closer to elephants and manatees than shrew. Please explain how that happened using your model.