Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[AV1611VET]

I need some inside info:...

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

 

[gaara4158]

I'd say Naraoia nailed it --- except I wouldn't use the phrase "persecution against".

I'd go more with "attitude toward".

Haha, you and Dream can't be left to your own devices, you'll corrupt each other even more.

Naraoia was being extremely sarcastic. You are being extremely paranoid.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

Thanx for the update

It is then a pitty to see that even evolutionist does not want to split the 2 "sorts" of evolutions.

any how. Keeping a eye on this site. Some of the comments is getting good. But I think I lost my part in saying anything a long time ago.

 

[Split Rock]

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

Wow. You are just making this stuff up as you go along .. aren't you?

1. Show us some references that back up that evolutionists changed any of thier jargon because of creationists asking them questions. You cannot, because it never happened, except in your fantasies.

2. "Micro" and "Macro"evolution are still used as terms in biology. They refer to evolution within a species, and evolution resulting in new species and higher taxa, respectively.

3. Your example of "macro" evolution is what was called "saltation" theory. It was a legitamate competitor to Darwinian evolution back in the day, but never gathered much support among biologists. It never ever had anything to do with "macro" evolution.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Haha, you and Dream can't be left to your own devices, you'll corrupt each other even more.

Naraoia was being extremely sarcastic. You are being extremely paranoid.

Could you pls use the term Dream3. other wise it looks like tour talking about a dream.

 

[AV1611VET]

Keeping a eye on this site. Some of the comments is getting good. But I think I lost my part in saying anything a long time ago.

Stay in the fight, Dream3 --- don't let them make you feel inferior because your English isn't as good as theirs.

I do sometimes find your posts hard to read, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is being able to see your faith shine --- even when you are being told you are wrong or ignorant.

 

[gaara4158]

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

Actually, to my knowledge, scientists never actually used the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." It was creationists who came up with the terms when examples of populations adapting to environmental changes came up, and they were unable to deny these facts. So they came up with a sort of differentiation between the kind of evolution we can clearly demostrate with living populations over a few generations, and the kind that takes too long to observe in our lifetimes. It's really a "no true scotsman" argument, because any instance of evolution we can demonstrate becomes instantly classified as "microevolution."

Stop feeding people this trash.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Wow. You are just making this stuff up as you go along .. aren't you?

1. Show us some references that back up that evolutionists changed any of thier jargon because of creationists asking them questions. You cannot, because it never happened, except in your fantasies.

2. "Micro" and "Macro"evolution are still used as terms in biology. They refer to evolution within a species, and evolution resulting in new species and higher taxa, respectively.

3. Your example of "macro" evolution is what was called "saltation" theory. It was a legitamate competitor to Darwinian evolution back in the day, but never gathered much support among biologists. It never ever had anything to do with "macro" evolution.

OK

I just asked for an fact answer. Now you are all going again. Can an evolutionist explain this then. Comming from a creationist mouth I think I will only get a theory.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Actually, to my knowledge, scientists never actually used the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." It was creationists who came up with the terms when examples of populations adapting to environmental changes came up, and they were unable to deny these facts. So they came up with a sort of differentiation between the kind of evolution we can clearly demostrate with living populations over a few generations, and the kind that takes too long to observe in our lifetimes. It's really a "no true scotsman" argument, because any instance of evolution we can demonstrate becomes instantly classified as "microevolution."

Stop feeding people this trash.

What? Creationist created the terms. That sounds like we are doing the jobs for the evolutionists? That sort of sucks when you think about it.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, to my knowledge, scientists never actually used the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." It was creationists who came up with the terms when examples of populations adapting to environmental changes came up, and they were unable to deny these facts. So they came up with a sort of differentiation between the kind of evolution we can clearly demostrate with living populations over a few generations, and the kind that takes too long to observe in our lifetimes. It's really a "no true scotsman" argument, because any instance of evolution we can demonstrate becomes instantly classified as "microevolution."

Stop feeding people this trash.

Actually, the terms are used in biology, though not very often. I have noticed evolution supporters here often making the mistake in thinking they were made up by creationists... they were not. Much like the second law of thermodynamics, however, they have been perverted by professional creationists (ie L.C.W.s).

Biologists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution within a species. They use "Macroevolution" to describe evolution leading to new species, and higher taxa.

Creationists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution they cannot deny. This may or may not include speciation, depending on whether of not the creationist in question accepts speciation. "Macroevolution" is evolution that creationists want to deny occurs. While this invariably includes human evolution, there is little else in the definition that creationists can agree upon. Sometimes they claim "Macroevolution" is a lizard giving birth to a bird (as AVET is suggesting) sometimes it is the evolution of different "kinds," though they cannot define what a different "Kind" actually is.

 

[gaara4158]

Actually, the terms are used in biology, though not very often. I have noticed evolution supporters here often making the mistake in thinking they were made up by creationists... they were not. Much like the second law of thermodynamics, however, they have been perverted by professional creationists (ie L.C.W.s).

Biologists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution within a species. They use "Macroevolution" to describe evolution leading to new species, and higher taxa.

Creationists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution they cannot deny. This may or may not include speciation, depending on whether of not the creationist in question accepts speciation. "Macroevolution" is evolution that creationists want to deny occurs. While this invariably includes human evolution, there is little else in the definition that creationists can agree upon. Sometimes they claim "Macroevolution" is a lizard giving birth to a bird (as AVET is suggesting) sometimes it is the evolution of different "kinds," though they cannot define what a different "Kind" actually is.

I stand corrected, sir. But I guess I wasn't too far off.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just asked for an fact answer. Now you are all going again.

That's usually the way it is, Dream3.

You ask a question, then they wait until someone else answers it, then they come out of the woodwork to tell the person answering the question he is wrong.

I don't know of any one person here who stands out as proactive at answering questions around here outside of myself.

Cabal comes close.

And a couple of newbies (loveisallaround [or something] and LifeToTheUtmost [?]), but they're newbies and don't have a clue as to what I've ever said over the years here.

The rest you have to pry with a crowbar to get an answer.

If you're proactive, they call you a "troll".

 

[gaara4158]

What? Creationist created the terms. That sounds like we are doing the jobs for the evolutionists? That sort of sucks when you think about it.

They made up their own definitions for the terms. Which says nothing about evolution, but a lot about creationists.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Stay in the fight, Dream3 --- don't let them make you feel inferior because your English isn't as good as theirs.

I do sometimes find your posts hard to read, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is being able to see your faith shine --- even when you are being told you are wrong or ignorant.

I'm hanging.


Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[gaara4158]

That's usually the way it is, Dream3.

You ask a question, then they wait until someone else answers it, then they come out of the woodwork to tell the person answering the question he is wrong.

I don't know of any one person here who stands out as proactive at answering questions around here outside of myself.

Cabal comes close.

And a couple of newbies (loveisallaround [or something] and truth[somebody]), but they're newbies and don't have a clue as to what I've ever said over the years here.

The rest you have to pry with a crowbar to get an answer.

I know, it's such a drag to be called out when you're making it all up, isn't it?

 

[mpok1519]

Thanx for the update

It is then a pitty to see that even evolutionist does not want to split the 2 "sorts" of evolutions.

any how. Keeping a eye on this site. Some of the comments is getting good. But I think I lost my part in saying anything a long time ago.

nothing AV ever says is accurate or true; he didn't even explain macro and micro evolution correctly; animals don't birth differt species; different species take many long long generational transistions over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to become different species.

They're the same thing; they're words made up by creationists that actually have no definitin bc they dont even exist.

theres just evolution.

Future advice; anything AV says isn't accurate. Its all apart of his entertainment. These forums basically keep him from succombing to boredom without a twinge of scientific debate or discussion.

 

[Dream3wb723]

nothing AV ever says is accurate or true; he didn't even explain macro and micro evolution correctly; animals don't birth differt species; different species take many long long generational transistions over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to become different species.

They're the same thing; they're words made up by creationists that actually have no definitin bc they dont even exist.

theres just evolution.

Future advice; anything AV says isn't accurate. Its all apart of his entertainment. These forums basically keep him from succombing to boredom without a twinge of scientific debate or discussion.

Correct me if Im wrong: But that means if I want to get a catdog, I have to wait a very long time before its going to happen? (If this claimes to be true?)

 

[Split Rock]

OK

I just asked for an fact answer. Now you are all going again. Can an evolutionist explain this then. Comming from a creationist mouth I think I will only get a theory.

Hi Dream3

OK. I went back to your original question... which seems to ask what is the difference between Micro- and Macro evolution.. correct? As I have already indicated, there are different definitions used by biologists and creationists. I will try to explain using the definition we biologists use.

First, the terms are not used very often. Second, the basic mechainsms for micro and macro evolution are the same: Natural Selection, Genetic Drift and Gene Flow. If you have questions about these terms, let me know, or you can Google them. Some biologists think that other mechanisms are important in the evolution of higher taxa, though none doubt that higher taxa are formed via speciation. In other words, species beget new species, which beget new species, etc., until a new species evolves with is different enough to be called a new Genus, or eventually a new Family, etc.

One important process that increases the rate of macro-evolution is Mass Extinction. there have been a number of times during the history of life on earth that large numbers of taxa at the Genus level and higher have quickly become extinct. The most famous such event occurred at the end of the Cretaceous Period and resulted in the extinction of the (non-avian) dinosaurs among others. This left a number of ecological niches open, especially among large vertebrates. These were filled by rapid, large scale adaptive radiation of mammals, who until then, were restricted in the number of ecolgical niches they could occupy. The effect of such extinctions on the history of evolution has recently become more apprecated by biologists. This is why "macro-evolution" has been talked about more frequently lately amonmg biologists.

I hope that helps. Here is a website I strongly recommend for learning more about evolution. It is very user and non-scientist friendly: Understanding Evolution

 

[Split Rock]

Correct me if Im wrong: But that means if I want to get a catdog, I have to wait a very long time before its going to happen? (If this claimes to be true?)

One method of speciation, and one that can potentially jump a new species into a new genus is Hybridization. This is when two differnt species mate and produce viable offspring. This is rare, but does happen in plants. It generally does not happen with animals.

Interestlingly, there are examples of Beardogs in the fossil record. There were animals with the dentition of dogs, but the stocky body of bears. Their evolutionary line eventually led to both dogs and bears that exist today. Rather than bears and dogs producing beardogs, the beardogs were ancestrial to both dogs and bears. However, there were never any "catdogs," nor should you expect to see any in the future.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hello Dream3wb723,

I gather you are new here and therefore not used to dealing with AV1611VET. Here's the 411 on him: nothing he says is ever right. Ever. I know you have questions and I understand that for somebody who isn't exactly familiar with the topic, what he says looks insightful and logical. Needless to say, it's not. AV1611VET has no idea of what he is talking about when it comes to science (if you think I'm rude, ask him - he will tell you the same) and I wager that you and him wouldn't have too much common ground on Christian issues either.

To demonstrate why you shouldn't listen to him, I'll do a refutation of his post now.

Here's the 411 on this, Dream.

In the beginning, evolutionists used to teach that evolution occurred on two scales: a small scale and a big scale.

On the small scale --- called "microevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another species of dog.

On the large scale --- called "macroevolution" --- a dog would give birth to another genus of animal.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody ever claimed that a dog would or did give birth to anything but the most minuscule variation of another dog, let alone a different genus. A sentence you will hear often in discussions about this subject is "individuals don't evolve, populations do".

Creationists challenged evolutionists on this to a debate, and asked them to produce one animal that ever gave rise to an animal in another genus --- for instance, a dog giving birth to a cat.

A blatant lie. No such debate ever took place, and AV1611VET knows it. I asked him once already about this supposed event, and he couldn't remember when this supposedly happened. Ask him if you don't trust me. In any case, this is a strawman argument anyway, because no scientists ever claimed that such a thing was either necessary for evolution or even possible.

When the evolutionists could not do this, the evolutionists reorganized their theory in a way that lets them go from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of all creatures --- man.

Needless to say, no such reorganisation ever happened either.

Then did away with the prefixes "micro" and "macro" --- and I notice they even downplay what a genus is too.

That is why they just call it "evolution" today, instead of "macroevolution" or "microevolution".

SplitRock already explained that both "micro-" and "macroevolution" are terms that are still in use, so this claim is wrong too - and how could AV1611VET know any better? He flat out refuses to read anything that could potentially contradict his weltanschauung, not even if it's not contradicting any Christian belief at all.