The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[AV1611VET]

Actually, evolution, in and of itself, would still hold true in the universe as long as there are populations whose alleles shift around from generation to generation. It doesn't matter if the creatures materialized out of nothing; evolution would still occur.

This is correct.

This would constitute the "micro" part of evolution.

It's why my Roundup™ has to be stronger every year.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except I didn't ask for NON-biological barriers....I asked for biological ones...

But you know that quite well don't you...?

Yes, I know that quite well.

But why would there be a need for biological barriers?

 

[AV1611VET]

I could have sworn that in prior threads, AV said that the universe was 14 billion years old...

13.7

 

[biggles53]

This is correct.

This would constitute the "micro" part of evolution.

It's why my Roundup™ has to be stronger every year.

And you have yet to suggest any biological limits to that "micro"...

 

[biggles53]

Yes, I know that quite well.

But why would there be a need for biological barriers?

Because it's a biological process, enabled by biological mechanisms....

 

[AV1611VET]

And you have yet to suggest any biological limits to that "micro"...

Microevolution (aka adaption) can and does occur.

Macroevolution has not and does not occur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's a biological process, enabled by biological mechanisms....

Evolution is the change in the alleles of a population over time.

Δ(alleles)/T

Therefore technically evolution occurs.

Macroevolution would be deep changes over deep time.

Therefore technically macroevolution has never occurred.

It's not a matter of biology, it's a matter of time.

 

[biggles53]

Evolution is the change in the alleles of a population over time.

Δ(alleles)/T

Therefore technically evolution occurs.

Macroevolution would be deep changes over deep time.

Therefore technically macroevolution has never occurred.

It's not a matter of biology, it's a matter of time.

Thank you....you can see no biological limits to evolution....

Next....!

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you....you can see no biological limits to evolution....

Next....!

Didn't I "say that" in Post 4?

 

[driewerf]

I don't care about all that.

So you don't care about the truth. And in that case I can't trust you in matters of Truth.

 

[driewerf]

In the old days, we would receive sequencing runs as paper hard copies. We would read the bases aloud while the other person checked it against a database. If you think it is hard on the eyes, it is even harder on the ears and tongue to go through thousands of bases of DNA that way.

I can immdediatly think of a much simpler way: print one sequence on paper and one on transparant plastic (or any other transparant material). Put the transparant print on top of paper print so that the letters (the bases) match. See were it doesn't.

 

[CabVet]

Evolution is the change in the alleles of a population over time.

Δ(alleles)/T

Therefore technically evolution occurs.

Macroevolution would be deep changes over deep time.

Therefore technically macroevolution has never occurred.

It's not a matter of biology, it's a matter of time.

Yeah, sure, 1+1=2 is true, but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 is not. Right.

But let me ask you this, if (and only if) the Bible said that the earth had existed for 5 billion years, do you think macroevolution would be possible? Yes or no?

 

[driewerf]

I think what you are looking for are "developmental gene regulatory networks " (dGRN).

Here's a quote from biologist Eric Davidson "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN sub-circuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the sub-circuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." (Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bio-science as Regulatory Systems Biology," Developmental Biology, 357 (September 1, 2011): 40.)

Evolutionist Marshall believes dGRN had to be a lot more flexible in the past since this has to be so in order for evolution to be true.

Googling that quotes gives almost noyhing else but creatinist sites as results.

But here is the original paper:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY

We, of course wouldn't think that Smidlee is using a quote mine, would we?

 

[Sayre]

13.7

So why do you say that the earth is only 6000 years old? Or that it has only revolved around the sun 6000 times?

I know we can't accuse anyone of being a troll. But I can appreciate that sometimes it is really hard to take your posts seriously when they contain stuff like this.

 

[biggles53]

So why do you say that the earth is only 6000 years old? Or that it has only revolved around the sun 6000 times?

I know we can't accuse anyone of being a troll. But I can appreciate that sometimes it is really hard to take your posts seriously when they contain stuff like this.

Some nonsense about "embedding age" in things that are actually much younger...

He would obviously like to portray your god as a liar or deceiver...

I think he and dad and Aman share notes...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't care about the truth.

World truth hangs from a goalpost on skates.

Was it true 1930-2006 that Pluto was our 9th planet?

Was it true that Thalidomide was a pre-natal wonder drug?

Was it true that Phlogiston once existed?

 

[Sayre]

World truth hangs from a goalpost on skates.

Was it true 1930-2006 that Pluto was our 9th planet?

Was it true that Thalidomide was a pre-natal wonder drug?

Was it true that Phlogiston once existed?

We decided as a group that you can no longer mention Thalidomide. Please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, sure, 1+1=2 is true, but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 is not. Right.

But let me ask you this, if (and only if) the Bible said that the earth had existed for 5 billion years, do you think macroevolution would be possible? Yes or no?

Do you guys like asking these kinds of questions?

If the Bible says 2+2=5 ...

If the Bible says Earth has existed for 5 billion years ...

Answering these kinds of questions just results in page after page of needless yakking.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why do you say that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Link please?

Or that it has only revolved around the sun 6000 times?

Because I believe the earth has only gone around the sun some 6000 times.

I know we can't accuse anyone of being a troll. But I can appreciate that sometimes it is really hard to take your posts seriously when they contain stuff like this.

It's remarks like this that tell me you're not interested in what people believe; you're only interested in calling them names.

For the record -- and I don't believe I owe you an explanation; but this troll will, because this troll is a nice guy ---

For the record, I believe God embedded age into His creation, so the earth is:

1. 4.57 billion years old physically
2. 6000 years old existentially

Your reluctance to 'take my posts seriously' is really your ... um ... lack of being here long enough to know everything I stand for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some nonsense about "embedding age" in things that are actually much younger...

Thank you.

Sayre just lost a lot of credibility with me -- not that she probably cares, though.