Macroevolution:

[bhsmte]

Evolution is a belief. Religion is a belief.
Between the two religion is the most useful for the average person, as well as the most needed worldwide.

I don't think you would want to erase all of the knowledge gleaned from the TOE and how it has helped other parts of science. Don't think that would look pretty.

 

[mark kennedy]

Phylogenetic tree:

It's the thing that creationists want to pretend is fiction, yet it's the very thing that has real-world application.

There is a major gap between the reality of modern evolutionary biology and what creationists choose to believe about modern evolutionary biology.

What your chart lacks is real world proof, it's an a priori assumption and a random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes. We are not talking about evolution, this is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

 

[mark kennedy]

First, invent a time machine. Then travel about 50 million years into the past.

Then find a pet store.

Yea get yourself a time machine and then use your scientific acumen to identify the molecular mechanisms capable of this mythical transition assumed at every turn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What your chart lacks is real world proof, it's an a priori assumption and a random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes. We are not talking about evolution, this is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

No, it is a testable model.

Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the terms "a priori" and "assumption".

 

[pitabread]

What your chart lacks is real world proof, it's an a priori assumption and a random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes. We are not talking about evolution, this is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

Uh-huh.

Well that "random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes" is an applied science, whether you like it or not.

 

[Obliquinaut]

1. Is just a theory.
2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.
3. Is anathema to the Bible.
4. Cannot be observed.
5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.
6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.
7. Is a lie of the Devil.
8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.
9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

So lemme ask you: if Creationists are now "OK" with the concept of microevolution do they somehow think the changes involved in microevolution are "simple" and not astounding in any way and could in no way possibly accumulate and scale to "macroevolution"?

Just curious. It seems like the minute the Creationists accepted microevolution their entire objection structure completely disintegrated.

Next thing we know they'll accept "meso-evolution".

(Oh, btw, there's plenty of evidence of Macroevolution. But reading it would contaminate the purity of the pious and remove their ability to claim no such evidence exists. So by all means do NOT, repeat, DO NOT read this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent)

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh-huh.

Well that "random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes" is an applied science, whether you like it or not.

No it's not, it's just a chart. You need a cause or it doesn't count, evolution is an effect.

 

[driewerf]

The reason most people (who) don't believe in evolution is that they don't think we can get here from there through 'natural' processes. It's just too......fantastic.

Than, that says more about these people than about the theory.

 

[mark kennedy]

Than, that says more about these people than about the theory.

You need a cause and an effect, it's as simple as that.

 

[pitabread]

No it's not, it's just a chart. You need a cause or it doesn't count, evolution is an effect.

*sigh*

What is a phylogenetic tree, mark?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I have to admit that evolution theory, while not convincing, is pretty.......slick.

Huh. Funny you should say that. When I was getting my BS, MS and PhD in geology I had to look at a lot of fossils and see that life changed over time (even had a paleontology class!) And there was a lot of time to work with. When I took my biochem and biology classes it all sort of fit together quite nicely.

But you don't find it convincing. Well, well, well. Gosh. I wonder why you and I came to different conclusions?

Any chance you could fill me in on your academic experience that resulted in you not being convinced?

 

[Obliquinaut]

No it's not, it's just a chart. You need a cause or it doesn't count, evolution is an effect.

Huh? This line of attack on evolution is novel. Of course there are many predicate causes that lead to evolution. Namely environmental/ecological stressors.

The fact that you are here breathing oxygen is a direct adaptation of life to the rise of photosynthetic organisms who started pumping out O2 into the atmosphere and killing off much of the life that previously around ("The Oxygen Holocaust"). But it opened up a niche for life that could survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere and ultimately to creatures who respired oxygen rather than just produced it as a polluting compound.

 

[Non sequitur]

I just wanted to throw this out here.

If anyone is looking for a breather from this, yet still a similar conversation, you should check out the Flat Earth forum about the Solar Eclipse.

It's very much like this.

 

[mark kennedy]

Huh? This line of attack on evolution is novel. Of course there are many predicate causes that lead to evolution. Namely environmental/ecological stressors.

That's not the cause, the cause is molecular, ever hear of genetics.

The fact that you are here breathing oxygen is a direct adaptation of life to the rise of photosynthetic organisms who started pumping out O2 into the atmosphere and killing off much of the life that previously around ("The Oxygen Holocaust"). But it opened up a niche for life that could survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere and ultimately to creatures who respired oxygen rather than just produced it as a polluting compound.

Which leads to the confusing question of how the oxygen got there in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

*sigh*

What is a phylogenetic tree, mark?

A chart

 

[pitabread]

A chart

A chart of what exactly?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Huh. Funny you should say that. When I was getting my BS, MS and PhD in geology I had to look at a lot of fossils and see that life changed over time (even had a paleontology class!) And there was a lot of time to work with. When I took my biochem and biology classes it all sort of fit together quite nicely.

But you don't find it convincing. Well, well, well. Gosh. I wonder why you and I came to different conclusions?

Any chance you could fill me in on your academic experience that resulted in you not being convinced?

Why the qualifier?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Why the qualifier?

So you aren't going to answer the question?

OK. Got it.

Do you have any educational reason for you position?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you aren't going to answer the question?

OK. Got it.

Do you have any educational reason for you position?

Sure. I've read a lot of evolution stuff. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't put the pieces together and come up with the same conclusions that science does. Special creation makes more sense to me.

There's more involved in rejecting evolution than meets the eye.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution cannot be observed. Fortunately metamorphosis can be, and it's still a complete mystery.

Not a complete mystery - How Does A Caterpillar Turn Into a Butterfly?