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

[Bungle_Bear]

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

You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.

Creation is miracles.

Evolution is science -- junk science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Creation is miracles.

I was talking to a creationist who appeared to have an honest claim about creation, not you.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.

 

[Buzzard3]

You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.

Strictly speaking, creation is miracles, which to a atheist seems like magic and superstition ... which is why I referred to creation as "magic".

As for the theory of evolution, it is based on science, but then it seems to me that a whole lot of pseudo-science and fantasy are often added to it.
By "pseudo-science and fantasy" I mean hypotheses that can't be tested ... which may as well be called magic or superstition, since they are just as scientifically worthless.

 

[Shemjaza]

Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.

...Buzzard3 ...genetic evidence... you know the drill by now.

 

[Buzzard3]

Creation is miracles.

Evolution is science -- junk science.

I think an hypothesis that can't be tested qualifies as junk science, and it seems to me that there's a lot of that going on in the cult of evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think an hypothesis that can't be tested qualifies as junk science, and it seems to me that there's a lot of that going on in the cult of evolution.

...patterns of genetic similarities.
...patterns of fossil comparison.

No one is claiming that every step of the way is known precisely... but if you find fingerprints on a bank vault, a broken door and a guy on camera up the road from the bank, we can convict him of robbery without showing exactly where he crossed the road.

 

[Buzzard3]

Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.

...Buzzard3 ...genetic evidence... you know the drill by now.

Yes, thanks for the reminder.


The poster in post#900 said the sengi
Is genetically closer to elephants than shrew, which makes perfect sense bcoz it's also called an "elephant shrew".

 

[Buzzard3]

These ideas sound contradictory. Given that a precursor would be identified by cladistic patterns. What do you mean?

I really don't know enough about his views on evolution to comment.

 

[Buzzard3]

Quotes from essays, very impressive. Which creationist website did you find that on? Curious - as I know you never read the whole essay, would you like to? Gould was a great author. I saw him giv

Thanks all the same, but I read the whole essay several years ago.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, thanks for the reminder.

Please keep it in mind next time you make a claim about there being no evidence for evolutionary relatedness.

The poster in post#900 said the sengi
Is genetically closer to elephants than shrew, which makes perfect sense bcoz it's also called an "elephant shrew".

Care to explain your point?

it has a cute little trunk:

This guy also has a trunk and is called an elephant seal, yet is not more related to elephants than other seals.

The Tasmanian tiger isn't more similar to a tiger than any other Australian mammal.
A marsupial mouse isn't more related to a mouse than to other marsupials.

 

[Buzzard3]

Please keep it in mind next time you make a claim about there being no evidence for evolutionary relatedness.


Care to explain your point?

it has a cute little trunk:
View attachment 315289

This guy also has a trunk and is called an elephant seal, yet is not more related to elephants than other seals.

View attachment 315290

The Tasmanian tiger isn't more similar to a tiger than any other Australian mammal.
A marsupial mouse isn't more related to a mouse than to other marsupials.

Sorry, but an elephant, and elephant shrew and an elephant seal look EXACTLY THE SAME to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really don't know enough about his views about evolution to comment.

Proponents of ID and YECism often tend not to know the views of the people they quote. Of course the authors of these books themselves never clarify on their own views, lest they allow themselves to be opened up to more scrutiny. As long as they can sell books and give an appearance of being credible, that's all they need.

 

[Buzzard3]

Hardy archaea can reproduce every 20 minutes or so. Let's say every hour. That is 8,760,000,000 'generations' in 1 million years. If an organism can only reproduce 2 a year, that is 2,000,000 generations - each generation experiencing the changes in their genomes that introduce diversity.

I noticed you used evolution's favourite word - "if". Darwinism is IF-science.

Evidence shows that by the Cambrian, of course, we had multicellular eukaryotes and such already.

Big deal. The fact of the matter is, there's a massive evolutionary gap between the organisms that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion and the organisms that preceded it.

Given your rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science, tell me how long it should have taken to generate the diversity preserved for us in the Burgess Shale and other sites during and prior tot he Cambrian 'explosion.'

What a pity all those scientists who were/are surprised by the Cambrian explosion don't possess the rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science that you do.

Take Gould for example, who said,
“The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
Evidently he wasn't as smart or as well-educated as you.

 

[Buzzard3]

Proponents of ID and YECism often tend not to know the views of the people they quote. Of course the authors of these books themselves never clarify on their own views, lest they allow themselves to be opened up to more scrutiny. As long as they can sell books and give an appearance of being credible, that's all they need.

Scrutiny is a damned nuisance!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.

It doesn't, it looks like a shrew. Please explain.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry, but an elephant, and elephant shrew and an elephant seal look EXACTLY THE SAME to me.

I suspect your text choice is representing humour or sarcasm... but your implications are unclear.

Given that your personal belief appears to be:
"Mainstream biological research is a deluded attempt to prop up atheistic preconceptions."
You need to clarify what unusual beliefs you actually hold about animals and their appearance.

You initial comments seemed to me to indicate that the names and genetic similarity between elephants and elephant shrews was due to them being extremely similar animals.

My opinion is that they are not particularly similar animals, much like the elephant seal... who despite the name and trunk is not genetically similar to an elephant.

 

[Shemjaza]

I noticed you used evolution's favourite word - "if". Darwinism is IF-science.

Big deal. The fact of the matter is, there's a massive evolutionary gap between the organisms that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion and the organisms that preceded it.

What a pity all those scientists who were/are surprised by the Cambrian explosion don't possess the rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science that you do.

Take Gould for example, who said,
“The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
Evidently he wasn't as smart or as well-educated as you.

Puzzling and mysterious do not equal impossible.

 

[Buzzard3]

And once again you are ignoring genetic evidence.

The pattern of genetic similarities indicates a branching pattern of family relationships.

Can you tell me more about this "branching pattern" in genetics, please?