God used Evolution to create man

EternalDragon said:

Beyond the species? You are dreaming or making stuff up.

Click to expand...

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Click to expand...

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As wonderful as it is, the Bible is not a substitute for an education. They serve different needs.


Dizredux

DogmaHunter said:

Speciation:

noun, Biology
1.the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

Species:
2.
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

So yes, speciation is a process that takes variation BEYOND the species level. Dictionaries are quite handy sometimes.

Click to expand...

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever actually seen a dinosaur population become birds? Or an ape population become men? Or any of the other supposed examples?

Classifying species does not equal "evolution". Variation in birds, insects, etc. does not equal "evolution". The above definitions describe variation within a genus which is not "evolution".

EternalDragon said:

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever actually seen a dinosaur population become birds? Or an ape population become men? Or any of the other supposed examples?

Classifying species does not equal "evolution". Variation in birds, insects, etc. does not equal "evolution". The above definitions describe variation within a genus which is not "evolution".

Click to expand...

No one can directly observe processes that take longer than our own lifespans. To expect us to do so is as unreasonable as me asking you to make god appear before me and do a dance of my choosing; it's not happening. However, we can see evolution on a smaller scale, and see the big picture to the fossil record that would have no reason to exist were evolution an invalid process.

Evolution is small changes, and it occurs constantly. In fact, an equation was performed showing it is impossible for evolution to ever stop and leave populations stagnant in nature, and it is neigh impossible still for us to even slow it to a crawl in a lab setting. We can also speed it up a bit through artificial selection, hence the variety seen in dogs despite them being a more recent species than humans.

EternalDragon said:

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever actually seen a dinosaur population become birds?

Click to expand...

Birds ARE dino's ED...
It's impossible to come up with a defintion that includes all (what you understand to be) dinosaurs that excludes birds.

Or an ape population become men?

Click to expand...

Ditto. Humans ARE apes. It's impossible to come up with a definition that includes all (what you understand to be) apes that excludes humans.

Just like it is impossible to come up with a definition of mammals that includes all mammals but excludes humans.

Having said that, we don't need to observe events to know that they happened ED. You agree to this, because you don't require to SEE a murder take place to be able to conclude - purely by the evidence of a crime scene - that a murder took place.

I don't need to observe a truck crashing into a car to know that a truck crashed into a car. I can conclude that simply from seeing the aftermath.

Events leave a trace of evidence and evolutionary "events" aren't any different. I use quotes, because the process of evolution is a gradual phenomena.

We can look at our collective DNA, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record,... and draw the obvious conclusion.

Just like we can look at a dead body, the knife sticking in the back, the finger prints on the knife, the bloodstains on a t-shirt, etc etc etc and draw the obvious conclusion.

And we can test that conclusion as well.

Classifying species does not equal "evolution".

Click to expand...

I merely clarified what "speciation" means. I didn't classify species. Speciation is when one species splits into several distinct new species.
It's variation "beyond the species level".

Variation in birds, insects, etc. does not equal "evolution"

Click to expand...

Except that it does. No matter how hard you deny it.
You don't get to (re)define what evolution is and isn't.

The above definitions describe variation within a genus which is not "evolution".

Click to expand...

Except that it is.

Evolution is ANY change past on to off spring. All changes are necessarily small. "Big changes" are no more or less then the accumulation of small changes. At no point does a member of species A give birth to a member of species B. Instead, the poluation of A slowly accumulates small changes until it is so different that we might as well call it population B.

There is no "line" where on the one side they are A and B on the other. It doesn't work that way.

Just like there is no point at which a human is a child one second and an adult the next second (not talking about the artificial distinction determined by law). It's a gradual process.

You completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that evolution is small changes accumulating over generations. That's on you, not on me.

I don't get how people believe that they can argue against a theory by misrepresenting it.

Two things.

1) Small changes over time has never been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor.

2) The viewpoint that only naturalistic mechanisms have been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor has absolutely no support.

AV1611VET said:

It's interesting that someone with 1.17 posts per day would be collecting other peoples' remarks.

Almost as if you're scared someone will collect one of yours?

Click to expand...

Quality, not quantity.

justlookinla said:

Two things.

1) Small changes over time has never been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor.

2) The viewpoint that only naturalistic mechanisms have been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor has absolutely no support.

Click to expand...

Bananas are a human invention and the result of artificial, not natural, selection. Besides, you believe that a deity would talk through a burning bush and destroy most of what it created in a rage quit; anyone can make a position sound ridiculous with the right wording.

bhsmte said:

Quality, not quantity.

Click to expand...

Well he wasted his quality on me today.

I would think there would be better posts to address than mine.

But then, maybe that's not why he's here?

Dunno.

PsychoSarah said:

Bananas are a human invention and the result of artificial, not natural, selection. Besides, you believe that a deity would talk through a burning bush and destroy most of what it created in a rage quit; anyone can make a position sound ridiculous with the right wording.

Click to expand...

Ok, pine tree and human. Or elephant and flea.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- then I suppose gravitational theory should explain how disease processes work. Different theories for different things, no scientific theory that currently exists explains literally everything by itself. Your expectation is equivalent to someone expecting Song of Songs to describe the biblical flood and every other event in the bible by itself.

Click to expand...

My point is that evolution, based on "The origin of the species" can't even explain the origin of the life that is necessary for the species, how is it going to explain the origin of the spiritual realm as well.

I guess denying the existence of a spiritual realm or another dimension would solve that though.

justlookinla said:

Ok, pine tree and human. Or elephant and flea.

Click to expand...

Made an entire universe just for one little occupied planet; took the same amount of time to make all the stars as it did to make the sun and the moon. This is why emotional appeals in debates are a low tactic

PsychoSarah said:

Made an entire universe just for one little occupied planet; took the same amount of time to make all the stars as it did to make the sun and the moon. This is why emotional appeals in debates are a low tactic

Click to expand...

These aren't emotional appeals, they're real claims.

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

Euler said:

Then you need to get out more, or get better glasses. Many examples are on record, both in the lab and in the field, of speciation.

Click to expand...

Please give me an example of any observable evolving of one species to another. Not the hybrid of dogs or horses etc. An actual, natural, observable transition from one species evolving into another species, like a fish to a lizard....

justlookinla said:

These aren't emotional appeals, they're real claims.

Click to expand...

I am purposely wording them to sound ridiculous though, I am shocked you didn't notice that. It is called the wording effect; you can make people have different reactions to the same information depending on how you present it.

AV1611VET said:

Does that include the angels?

If so, what substance did angels consist of before God breathed life into them?

Dirt? clay? ectoplasm? unobtainium?

Click to expand...

Angels were created by God and are of another dimension. They are not flesh and bone as we are, they do not die. T

JacksBratt said:

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

In the history of man, we have not seen any new developments or Jacksbratt said...."changes of human men to something different. I believe we may have taller periods, shorter, etc. But all in all still men and women. I don't see any animals changing in any way to form new species."
​

Please give me an example of any observable evolving of one species to another. Not the hybrid of dogs or horses etc. An actual, natural, observable transition from one species evolving into another species, like a fish to a lizard....

Click to expand...

In your mind then, wouldn't it be true, that no person should be convicted of a crime, unless someone observed them doing the actual crime?

JacksBratt said:

Angels were created by God and are of another dimension. They are not flesh and bone as we are, they do not die. T

Click to expand...

Hmm, hard to say though. The bible never states explicitly that they are completely immortal, or actually alive for that matter. I would imagine god should have the ability to destroy them.

PsychoSarah said:

I am purposely wording them to sound ridiculous though, I am shocked you didn't notice that. It is called the wording effect; you can make people have different reactions to the same information depending on how you present it.

Click to expand...

I realize using words like "magic" when speaking of how God created His creation is to elicit certain emotional reactions, but to ask for evidence that a pine tree and a whale has the same common ancestor, and evidence they were created by only naturalistic mechanisms isn't worded to elicit emotional reactions. It's a valid request.

Granted, the responses to the request is usually one of mockery from those who hold to the faith based view of creation by only naturalistic mechanisms.

Euler said:

All of those have undergone some form of evolutionary change. But even if they hadn't, so what?

Click to expand...

So, what?.. this would mean that some species or organisms suddenly stopped morphing for billions of years while others continued to change and morph through numerous stages without any evidence, at all, of any of the numerous stages that would have been necessary for the original species to finish up with the resultant species.

Again, there should be thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils of the numerous stages of "evolving" species.

JacksBratt said:

An actual, natural, observable transition from one species evolving into another species, like a fish to a lizard....

Click to expand...

Have you done no reading or study of biology at all? I find it hard to believe that anyone with any education at all into biology would make a statement like this. All I can really say is "Wow".


Dizredux