Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Btw, on a serious note, it is not up to critics of evolution to disporve evolution, but evolutionists must prove....
Originally posted by randman
Thus far, mutations have not been shown to add to the limited potential already there.
I won't say can't add information because for instance, they can add back information that was lost in earlier mutations.
No, this is a typical question posed by evoltionists, of the kind Talkorigins uses, to set up a false dichotomy, and try to state that critics of evolution must porve that micro-evolution cannot create macro-evolution. It is a completely bogus argument, and propoganda technique.
Originally posted by tycho
This thread is addressing the claim that macroevolution is not possible. There are other threads discussing why some of us feel it has occured. Discussing that here will only inhibit the thread topic. Do you not see this or is this your point?
Originally posted by randman
Well, can micro-evolution produce an automobile? Can you prove it can't?
Quit being silly. The question implies that micro-evolution has been shown to be able to cause macro-evolutioon unless there is a mechanism to stop it.
The problem is with the assumption within the question. If you are going to contain such an assumption within a question, it is up to you to first prove that the assumption is right.
Also, use your brain. Adding to the potential is not the same as adding.
Genetic information can be added where it was once subtracted, but the make-up of the genetic material limits the possibilities.
Look again at what I posted. There is no contradiction.
Originally posted by randman
I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but have waded through some articles on both sides of the issue, some of a technical nature, but I do understand that in a argument, one side has to prove a positive, or try to, before they can egitimately demand the other disprove it.
The issue is existing potential. Evolutionists must show that mutations
Mutations have an impact on the phenotype, and depending on the environment, those changes can be adaptive, and this has been shown.can add to that potential
in a meaningful way
that can add up
to macro-evolutionary changes.
The limits then, the mechanism you ask for, is the same mechanism for change, the existing genetic material.
The question is if evolutionists have shown how that genetic material can add genes in a manner to produce macro-evolutionary changes.
Think of it like rocket propulsion. Rocket propulsion has definite limits on speeds that can be acheived. It is true that technological advances give us greater and greater speed but there appear to be limits on this type of propulsion. However, creatiing a space-time bubble theoritically could overcome those limits. Evolutionists haven't demonstrated that mutations are sufficinetly unlimited in potential to create all of life.
I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.Most of us agree that micro-evolution occurs in nature. Many of us agree further, that speciation by reproductive isolation occurs in nature.
Some hold the view that macroevolution (common descent, or the evolution of novel features) is impossible. For those, I would like this to be a thread devoted to discussing why macroevolution is impossible, or more to the point: what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution.
What if it could be shown that there are examples of "giving birth to a new genus"? Would this change your point of view, or would you just move the goal post?I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.
Each species "runs its course", then it's done.
It may go extinct, or it may exist 'as is' for all time; but regardless, giving birth to a new genus is out of the question.
I know -- here comes a lecture on ring species or triticale?What if it could be shown that there are examples of "giving birth to a new genus"? Would this change your point of view, or would you just move the goal post?
I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.
I believe God has set a boundary that microevolution cannot cross over.
Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.Where is the boundary? Can it be measured? Can it be tested?
This is surpisingly reasonable. You should have stopped here.Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.
1. since when are animals created machinery?The problem is within other types of created machinery with the capability to adapt,
such a mechanism is not requested nor is it necessary. The reason a ceiling fan does not keep adapting its speed settings until it arrives at a race car is not because there is a small man with a stop sign. Its not because the manufacturer is stopping at everybody's homes to halt adaptation when it gets too intense. It is the discovery and experimentation of adaptation within the fan which shows that there are limits, not the discovery of an actual roadblock. Even if we have found no mechanism stopping a ceiling fan from turning into a race car, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that it can, given a million years. You do not need to know what "kinds" are or which fans were created by the manufacturer to experiment and know that there is a limit to adaptation. It comes standard. The limits just are.
The only reason Darwinists ask for a tangible mechanism, is because tangible mechanisms are not needed to stop adaptation. Not in organisms and not in ceiling fans. And as long as they are not needed, and they are not there, you can keep saying that it is indefinite. But the actual way you discover limits is through testing. Every long term experiment shows that the fan has limits. A creationist doesn't have to show an implemented shut of switch in the fan for there to be limits. The limits are evident in the data collected on the fan itself.
The reason a ceiling fan does not keep adapting its speed settings until it arrives at a race car is not because there is a small man with a stop sign. Its not because the manufacturer is stopping at everybody's homes to halt adaptation when it gets too intense. It is the discovery and experimentation of adaptation within the fan which shows that there are limits, not the discovery of an actual roadblock.
Even if we have found no mechanism stopping a ceiling fan from turning into a race car, it is absolutely preposterous to suppose that it can, given a million years.
You do not need to know what "kinds" are or which fans were created by the manufacturer to experiment and know that there is a limit to adaptation. It comes standard. The limits just are.
The only reason Darwinists ask for a tangible mechanism, is because tangible mechanisms are not needed to stop adaptation.
Thats not what we say. Creationists are tasked with finding a barrier, a sort of molecular stop sign, which restricts adaptation to within conserved parameters. And unless we find this molecular mechanism, a tangible measurable mechanism, then Darwinian presuppositions can persist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?