Micro to Macro

[Darkness27]

Evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution explains that fact. For some reason many creationists like to separate evolution into two categories when there really isn't a difference. Micro and macro evolution. Not a lot of people reject what creationists are calling micro evolution, but many creationists still reject what they call macro evolution. My question to creationists is what prevents accumulated micro changes to turn into what you would consider to be macro evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

My question to creationists is what prevents accumulated micro changes to turn into what you would consider to be macro evolution?

God does --- He is a God Who set boundaries --- boundaries that even nature herself cannot cross.

Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:..

Nature can only go so far, then must stop.

 

[MoonLancer]

boundaries can be understood and perceived by science. Your going to have to do better then that.

so far there have been no perceived boundaries. In fact scientists have observed micro changes that have accumulated to macro changes. so your wrong.

 

[Hespera]

The saddest thing of all is that he actually believes that to be true, where he got the idea from God only knows, he didn't think it up on his own, someone must have planted that idea in his head and I don't think it was a Muslim.

Well of course in a sense, AV is right. There are things that are not physically possible. Boundaries all over the place, the physical properties of matter.

Its easy to figure out what and where those boundaries are. There is no magic in the tensile strength of steel, say.

Evolution has some boundaries too, they just are not where AV imagines that they are. Deliberate ignorance combined with a rigid ideology may seem like a formula for understanding things, but its intellectually dishonest and, really the lazy way out.

 

[atomweaver]

God does ---

He is a God Who set boundaries ---

boundaries that even nature herself cannot cross.

Nature can only go so far,

then must stop.

Not only does it not stop, ever, it can do loop-the-loops;

Tamaskan Dog

 

[Hespera]

Ah yes! They will say; but it is still a dog. No matter how long you keep breeding it , it will never be another species, it will always be a dog. I guess if in ten million years you developed a kind that climbed trees, ate fruit and had a grasping tail, you could still call it a dog if you wanted to. Could even call it cow if you like.

I guess in a sense they are right. No matter how long you keep breeding reptiles, even tho they get feathers and wings and so forth, they are still reptiles. Sorta.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They've got you there, AV: there doesn't appear to be any boundary evolution cannot cross. That humans and fungi are both descended from the same organism is as big a boundary as you could ever hope to cross.

That said, the terms 'microevolution' (evolution within a species) and 'macroevolution' (evolution between species; speciation) were first coined by evolutionists. They were simply co-opted by creationists.

 

[atomweaver]

Ah yes! They will say; but it is still a dog. No matter how long you keep breeding it , it will never be another species, it will always be a dog.

The day a dog gives birth naturally to anything other than another dog is the day I renounce the theory of evolution as valid and embrace Creationism.

 

[Hespera]

The day a dog gives birth naturally to anything other than another dog is the day I renounce the theory of evolution as valid and embrace Creationism.

kinda like which came first chicken or egg

 

[atomweaver]

kinda like which came first chicken or egg

Naw, that one's easy; egg.

 

[Hespera]

Naw, that one's easy; egg.

True, that is easier to work out than how you get from dog to non dog when every parent and every offspring is dog.

 

[Bombila]

Off topic completely, Hespera, i love your avatar. I can now make the dancer change direction at will - it is such a neat illusion.

 

[Hespera]

Off topic completely, Hespera, i love your avatar. I can now make the dancer change direction at will - it is such a neat illusion.

Thanks, i was enjoying it and wanted to share.

 

[AV1611VET]

They've got you there, AV: there doesn't appear to be any boundary evolution cannot cross.

Not hardly --- one genus cannot give rise to another genus --- it just doesn't happen.

That humans and fungi are both descended from the same organism is as big a boundary as you could ever hope to cross.

Not even close --- the biggest boundary in existence that is against evolution is time.

But that aside, even if fungi had eternity to operate, I don't believe it would eventually lead to mankind.

That said, the terms 'microevolution' (evolution within a species) and 'macroevolution' (evolution between species; speciation) were first coined by evolutionists.

That makes sense.

They were simply co-opted by creationists.

To be truthful, I never heard of Theistic Evolution until I came here; and I notice now when my pastor or visiting missionaries speak, they haven't made mention of them, either.

I can't, to this day, fathom why anyone would mix the Creation with evolution --- or even want to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Off topic completely, Hespera, i love your avatar. I can now make the dancer change direction at will - it is such a neat illusion.

There's a flaw in it though --- do you see it?

(QV the pony tail.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not hardly --- one genus cannot give rise to another genus --- it just doesn't happen.

True, but some Creationists hold that there are some things that evolution just can't do (e.g., cetaceans could never have evolved from land animals). Some even hold that God imposes a 'genetic barrier' such that some mutations will never occur.

Not even close --- the biggest boundary in existence that is against evolution is time.

Fortunately, we've had plenty of that. Bacteria can evolve to ingest and metabolise new, and even artificial, food sources in a matter of decades: E. coli have been seen to evolve the ability to ingest citric acid in two decades, and there exists a type of bacteria that can metabolise nylon.

But that aside, even if fungi had eternity to operate, I don't believe it would eventually lead to mankind.

Actually, if they had an eternity, they would inevitably evolve into a species that is indistinguishable from humans. It would take an unimaginably long time, but they would do it.

Even if we put a time constraint on things, they are still capable of evolving sentience and sapience on par with, or even exceeding, humans.

To be truthful, I never heard of Theistic Evolution until I came here; and I notice now when my pastor or visiting missionaries speak, they haven't made mention of them, either.

I can't, to this day, fathom why anyone would mix the Creation with evolution --- or even want to.

Judging from those I've talked to, they generally want to reconcile their religious beliefs with established scientific knowledge. The evidence is overwhelming, and how Creationists react to it tells us a lot about them. Some stick their fingers in their ears and spread a load of half-baked lies (hello, Mr. Hovind), some cave completely and throw out their religious beliefs, and some strike a compromise.

 

[Gracchus]

Not hardly --- one genus cannot give rise to another genus --- it just doesn't happen.

But one species can give rise to two, and each of the new species may give rise to two more, and thus their will be two genera where there was one.

Not even close --- the biggest boundary in existence that is against evolution is time.

Time has one boundary. Time is only bounded by now.

But that aside, even if fungi had eternity to operate, I don't believe it would eventually lead to mankind.

Nor would anyone with any real knowledge of biology.

That makes sense.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. A creationist, less often.

To be truthful, I never heard of Theistic Evolution until I came here; and I notice now when my pastor or visiting missionaries speak, they haven't made mention of them, either.

Color me unsurprised.

I can't, to this day, fathom why anyone would mix the Creation with evolution --- or even want to.

Well, evolution is pretty much undeniable to reasoning persons, but even reasoning persons might be unable or unwilling to rid themselves of all their delusions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Judging from those I've talked to, they generally want to reconcile their religious beliefs with established scientific knowledge.

So do I.

The difference is: I give God the preeminence, whereas they give science the preeminence.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[Hespera]

So do I.

The difference is: I give God the preeminence, whereas they give science the preeminence.

Another way to put it is, some would give fantasy the preeminence, others would give preeminence to observation and measurement.

That would explain the pi=3.0 as literally correct Or i guess that is "truncatedly" correct. Never did learn the difference between "truncated" and "approximate" in this connection. Or why if the book is approximate in one place you can be sure it isnt approximate (inaccurate) elsewhere.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So do I.

The difference is: I give God the preeminence, whereas they give science the preeminence.

Though you're both trying to understand God and the past, you give the Bible preeminence, and they give nature preeminence. You take the Bible over Creation, and they take Creation over the Bible. Go figure.