Proof that Creationist belive in Evolution.

[corvus_corax]

However, it is not macro evolution.

At what instant does "micro evolution" become "macro evolution"?
Skin color is not speciation, in that you are correct (assuming that's what you mean by "macro evolution"). It is, however evolution in action.
Adaptation is a wonderful thing

And if it is evolution, then it would imply that one day caucasians will one day be a different species to Africans, who will be a different species to Asians.

What?!?
How is this implied?
Eventually, certain populations of Homo Sapiens sapiens might speciate. However, the only thing that is "implied" is that certain populations might speciate. This in no way implies that skin color has anything to do with it.

Differing skin colour isn't really a change of species anymore than a German Shepherd is a different species to a Border Collie.

Quite correct.
Was that actually stated? Did someone say that skin color dictates species? Because if they did, then they are obviously wrong.
However, if they didn't then I dont yet understand how you can say that differing skin color isn't a result of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

[bible]Psalm 74:17[/bible]

Please explain the context of the text.

The Psalmist is petitioning God for an answer as to why He seems to be so aloof, while they are being oppressed by their enemies.

He seems to be saying that since God set boundaries, why is it their enemies are crossing them?

God has set boundaries; not just geographic boundaries, but political, ecclesiastical, and natural boundaries as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have to remember, AV, that Judge Raulston was the one that accepted biblical statements (and so-called "evidence") from the prosecution.

No --- you have to remember, Corvus, that the remark I was replying to was this:

Bible isn't science and simply cannot be presented as evidence.

I wasn't going to let that go, as the Bible was already presented as evidence years ago.

The intricacies of the trial itself are not a part of the point I was making.

You also have to remember, AV that Raulston rejected "all defense testimony of the Bible" and stated that such so-called evidence (from the Defense only) should not be presented to the jury.

Once again, that is tangent to my point.

Creationists have not changed since the Scopes Trial.

Praise the Lord!

[bible]Jeremiah 6:16[/bible]

 

[Loudmouth]

oh dear , clearly the arbitrary term "evolution" can therefore be used to prove or disprove anything, and its terms of reference are associated with infinite boundaries.

Evidence either supports or disproves a definition. If creationists would start focusing on the evidence they would realize this.

Evolution predicts a twin nested hierarchy, the twins being morphology and DNA. This is easily falsifiable. For example, a bat with feathers or a cheetah with elephant cytochrome C would falsify this "definition". But of course, you aren't interested in the evidence, are you?

This is not evolution as the term is clearly used in everyday conversation,it is only variation within a definite kind or species;

Until creationists develop a testable and falsifiable set of criteria for "kind", scientists will continue to use the current system. Chimps and humans are variations of the ape kind. Humans and lemurs are variations of the primate kind. Humans and bears are variations of the eutherian kind. Humans and echidnas are variations of the mammal kind. Humans and frogs are variations of the amniote kind. Humans and sea squirts are variations of the vertebrate kind. Humans and plants are variations of the eukaryote kind.

it does not prove or even remotely suggest (unless you already believe this for non scientific reasons) that one kind of species develops into another .

The direct observation of speciation in the lab and in the field has proven that speciation occurs. Another set of observations that creationists must hide from.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

However, it is not macro evolution.

I would love to see a justification of the distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' beyond, "the highest taxon observed to form".

And if it is evolution, then it would imply that one day caucasians will one day be a different species to Africans, who will be a different species to Asians.

If and only if Asians, Africans, Caucasians, and all the rest, didn't interbreed. As it happens, interracial coupling is becoming more and more common: it is more likely that racial differences will be all but eradicated in the middle-distant future.

Differing skin colour isn't really a change of species anymore than a German Shepherd is a different species to a Border Collie.

Indeed. The former can, and do, breed with the latter.

It is only with the formation of a breeding barrier that speciation occurs (notice that Madagascar's land species are very similar to East Africa's land species, but they are ultimately different species, and that the air species and aquatic species are the same: the channel that seperates populations of land animals is no barrier for those of the air or sea).