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

[createdtoworship]

Evolution is the hypothesis, so why do you repeatedly claim that we have to observe it?



The same for evolution. The hypothesis comes from direct observations of biogeography, morphology, genetics, and the fossil record. From those observations we form the hypothesis that life evolved in the past. We then use further observations from biogeography, morphology, genetics, and the fossil record to test that hypothesis.

We could use ERV's as our model.

Observations: We observe that retroviruses insert randomly among many, many bases and can passed down through vertical inheritance if they insert into a germ line cell. We observe endogenized retroviruses that are passed down vertically and are found in both the chimp and human genomes.

Hypothesis: If humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor, then the vast majority of the ERV's in each genome will be found at the same spot in both genomes.

Null hypothesis: If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, then ERV's will only rarely be found at the same position, consistent with the rare even of a retrovirus inserting at the same base in two independent insertion events (about 1 in every 10,000 at most).

Test: Compare the position and sequence of ERV's in the human and chimp genome.

Results: Of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, more than 99% are found at the same location. The hypothesis is supported, and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Conclusion: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Can you please tell me why this does not follow the scientific method?



Macroevolution is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis.

Theories are nothing more than a collection of hypotheses that have passed testing.

you state macroevolution as your hypothesis but all your evidence supports micro evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure it has. We can observe it in the fossil record.

A biologist could probably explain how we can observe it in the genetic records. I am not a biologist.

okay great then you can provide an evolutionary transition that links between two separate genus in the fossil record yes?

because THAT is evolution (macro)

 

[Loudmouth]

all taxonomy is arbitrary.

Then why use genus?

But nonetheless, I respect the kinds God made in genesis. Which are closest in my opinion not to species but to genus. Which cannot interbreed with other genus. Species (some ) may interbreed. So one qualification of a genus is the ability to breed amongst itself, but there are other qualifiers in which a quick google search for taxonomy:genus would suffice.

Why would the lack of interbreeding preclude two species from sharing a common ancestor?

Now if you can provide evolutionary transitions between genus,

No such transitions should exist, even if evolution is true. Linnaean taxonomy does not allow for transitions between genera. No species is ever between genera because there is no division between species and genus. If you are asking for evidence that species from separate genera share a common ancestor, then we can supply tons of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

okay great then you can provide an evolutionary transition that links between two separate genus in the fossil record yes?

Australopithecines have a mixture of features from Pan and Homo. They are transitional.

 

[createdtoworship]

Macro or micro, whatever you want to call it, both are based on the same principles. I would call that a double in the gap on a two strike count.

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

macro and micro are way different. Micro is evolution up to species level, macro is evolution that is at species or above. I modify the definition to be ONLY above species level. It's the same difference if I said chemical evolution or abiogenesis was the same as biological evolution. There is always an uproar over that .

 

[Loudmouth]

macro and micro are way different. Micro is evolution up to species level, macro is evolution that is at species or above. I modify the definition to be ONLY above species level. It's the same difference if I said chemical evolution or abiogenesis was the same as biological evolution. There is always an uproar over that .

With macroevolution, the only additional mechanism is genetic isolation of a population which results in different mutations accumulating in two different populations. Other than that, all the mechanisms are the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

you state macroevolution as your hypothesis but all your evidence supports micro evolution.

Chimps and humans evolving from a common ancestor is microevolution?

 

[loveofourlord]

As Eric Davidson pointed out dGRN resist small changes , dGRN seem to require some serious "rewiring".

Except that it does happen, look at italian wall lizards and their cecal valves, a new feature within generations. We see variations all the time, and I'm not quiet sure how dGRN would prevent small changes. What about venom in snakes and platypus? Both of which show to be from gene duplication. And the fact that all snakes are venemous along with the very lizards that snakes would evolve from such as komodo dragon and such?

or citrite digesting ecoli that formed from two neutral mutations and one beneficial. You yourself have dozens or more mutations from your parents, these things happen all the time within evolution. Evolution is very much observable and the very things we see in nature contradict your own claims

 

[loveofourlord]

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact
In the scientific method

1. you have observation
2. you have the proposal of a question or problem
3. you have a hypothesis (educated guess)
4. you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)
5. you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
6. you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)
7. but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.

what is evolution?

evolution is none of the above, it is technically a scientific model (a way to interpret the evidence).

evolution is not a natural law (by anybody), and it is (as we will see) not even a theory.

Why? Due to the fact that evolution from one genus to another is not repeatable it is not open to observation and testing. It therefore cannot be a theory at all. Creationism is in this same boat, it is not a theory but it is in fact a scientific model. Most miracles in the Bible are not repeatable and not observant. But it is in fact in the same boat evolution is. But what are federal dollars paying for? Not Creationism thats for sure.

This is why we should at least teach the controversy. ID at least has some forensic evidence for origins (which I wont get into completely here). But the fact (2nd law of thermodynamics) that the universe is winding down, It therefore must have been wind up before and must have had a beginning due to the laws of causality. We know these things, it is unprobably due to this natural law that the universe was uncaused or caused by nothign, as nothing results in nothing, never does spontanious generation occur. This is bad science and this is what I was talking about. So we see evolution, abiogenesis and many other naturalisms failing to meet the laws of science here. So again why are my tax dollars paying for this?

Actually evolution can be experimented upon it doesn't require that the original event be repeated via experiment just that the methods used to discover something can be repeated, like DNA tests, comparative anatomy and so on. Just as a crime scene investigation doens't require that the original crime be repeated, just the tests that were used to determine guilt or innocence be repeatable and testable by anyone.

 

[loveofourlord]

You say that as if bacteria was a species name, or perhaps even a genus name. It isn't. It is rather broader than that. If you refer to the taxonomic system and check out where the name 'bacteria' sits, you'll discover just how much your above statement actually undermines the point you think you are making.

I was going to make this point, saying, it's still bacteria, is like saying modern dinosaurs are still vertabrates so it's not evolution that a eagle descended from therapods.

 

[loveofourlord]

all taxonomy is arbitrary. But nonetheless, I respect the kinds God made in genesis. Which are closest in my opinion not to species but to genus. Which cannot interbreed with other genus. Species (some ) may interbreed. So one qualification of a genus is the ability to breed amongst itself, but there are other qualifiers in which a quick google search for taxonomy:genus would suffice.


Now if you can provide evolutionary transitions between genus, then we can successfully state that evolution happens on a macro level and can be considered experimental science. But until that day, we use faith to believe that evolution fills all the gaps and answers all the questions in your reply, .....faith, yes, faith.

Problem is what ever part of taxonomy you want to put kind at it won't work, because make it to broad it includes humans, make it to narrow it doesn't include things you want. Are foxes/wolves and such same kind? Because that puts them closer to family with wolves.

Kind is a meaningless word because it just means what ever someone wants it to mean to prove a point.

How do creationists explain things like chromosone 2 fusion in humans from 2 chimp chromosones?

 

[biggles53]

Actually evolution can be experimented upon it doesn't require that the original event be repeated via experiment just that the methods used to discover something can be repeated, like DNA tests, comparative anatomy and so on. Just as a crime scene investigation doens't require that the original crime be repeated, just the tests that were used to determine guilt or innocence be repeatable and testable by anyone.

This is such an excellent point, often overlooked.....

The usual bleating from the reality deniers includes the claim that "evolution isn't real science, because you can't perform an experiment to replicate the changes"...

What they fail to realise, and what biologists fail to emphasise enough, is that every time we make an observation of the evidence, we are performing an experiment...!

So, when data from the genome is seen to match the data from the fossil record, that's an experiment...!

When the morphology of a species is compared to the genome, that's an experiment...!

When the fossil observed is compared with the strata in which it was found, that'd an experiment...!

Let's put the sword to this lame objection.....

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, until it culminates at the end of the Tribulation period, when Jesus, Himself comes and puts an end to it once and for all.

Heh, I like your honesty. You accept that the evidence for evolution is strong and getting stronger, you just happen to believe that when Jesus will come back and prove it wrong. At least you are not so blinded that you can't see the evidence supports evolution. You know the observable facts don't align with the Bible and you don't care because you have your faith. I much prefer your attitude to others like dad's; he has invented his former state to explain why none of the evidence fits the Bible while at the same time insisting that the evidence fits the Bible. Obviously I don't agree with you, but your stance is at least honest.

 

[Riberra]

I know what I wrote.

The universe has only been in existence for 6000 years.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Gen 1:1
1 In the beginning*1 God created the heaven and the earth.*2​

Embedded notes in Scripture (by #):

*1). In the beginning. It states: "In the beginning," but it doesn't say when that was. We know from archeology that this earth is billions of years old. Scientific Carbon Dating does not contradict this verse! ​

There is no date given in the above Scripture, why try to affix one? It is impossible, for there is no reference point given. We can however pick up a date when Adam will later in the Scriptures be formed, because all his ancestor's ages are given in the Scriptures themselves, and the age that they were when they had the next child chronologically in the list. There was a reason that God saw to it that this, seemingly redundant and unimportant information, was handed down through the Millennia whereby we may simply add the numbers up together and deduct them from any certain date in secular history. But Adam's being formed is long after this verse transpires. This is a substantial point often overlooked by those whom, for whatever reasons of their own, seek to cast doubt on the Bible. It didn't say that God created the Earth when He formed Adam. So while with certainly we may date Adam, we cannot do the same with the date of the creation of the world. Why charge God and His Bible with error when the real problem is our inability to read what is written and to not read into it that which is not written?
*2). We notice that there is a period at the end of this sentence. That means that this thought is complete and the next sentence is a new thought. In reality there is unknown eons of time between this verse and the next.
Source
When was The beginning
http://biblestudysite.com/begin.htm

 

[PsychoSarah]

The way people get that 6,000 is actually rather clever. They add up the ages of people, such as Adam, when they died and when they were born in respects to each other. The bible keeps a good enough death and birth timeline that, if Adam was born literally in the same week the earth was created, it would lead to us concluding that, at the time scripture was written, the earth was about 6,000 years old. However, given that more than one thousand years have passed since then, it would be more accurate for creationists to claim. The earth was about 8-9 thousand years old.

 

[Riberra]

The way people get that 6,000 is actually rather clever. They add up the ages of people, such as Adam, when they died and when they were born in respects to each other. The bible keeps a good enough death and birth timeline that, if Adam was born literally in the same week the earth was created, it would lead to us concluding that, at the time scripture was written, the earth was about 6,000 years old.

The verse about the Genealogy of Adam and descendants relate only about when Adam was *formed*an placed in the Garden of Eden not the age of the Earth .That is the point being made by that Bible study...and there is more...
When was The beginning
http://biblestudysite.com/begin.htm

(The author) mentioned that there were dinosaurs in God's Word, and if you draw the creature that God speaks to Job about, you will find that you are well on your way to drawing one species of dinosaur, perhaps one of the very largest; Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus? It grew up to ninety-eight feet in length and weigh tons. In the Old Testament book of Job, God describes a creature to Job. The only reason God was telling Job about the behemoth (dinosaur), was to humble Job, and to say to him that God is the creator of even the most awesome, gigantic creatures.
Some Bible versions substitute the word 'behemoth' with 'hippopotamus', this is an incorrect translation and can be cleared up easily by referring to verse 17; verse 17 describes a tail like a Cedar tree; a hippo has a little 'pig tail'. God states in Job 40:17 "He moveth his tail like a cedar." A Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) has a tail like the mighty Cedar tree, the Brontosaurus' tail grew to some thirty feet long, weighing over five tons. You've all seen the assembled skeletal remains in the museums.
The Behemoth, with the description from God in the Scripture:

Job 40:15-2415 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (KJV)
​

Explanation and description of Job 40:15-24. Below, in verse number:

• 15, he was created in the first earth age, when God made the souls of man.
• 16, it describes a large muscular body.
• 17, it describes a tail like a Cedar tree; long and mighty.
• 17, the "sinues of his stones" are stout strong legs.
  
• 18, his bones are very strong and solid, large bone is strong.
• 19, he is chief of all of God's kingdom, he is the mightiest of all animals (has no natural predator).
• 20, they climb into the mountains.
• 23, he doesn't have to be in fear of predators at the watering hole.
• 23, when he drinks, he drinks allot, as though he could drink up the river Jordan.
• 24, nothing can snare (trap) him, he is the chief of all creatures (see verse 19), and even his very nose is larger and more powerful than any trap that could be laid for him.

 

[Loudmouth]

I (the author) mentioned that there were dinosaurs in God's Word, and if you draw the creature that God speaks to Job about, you will find that you are well on your way to drawing one species of dinosaur, perhaps one of the very largest; Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus? It grew up to ninety-eight feet in length and weigh tons. In the Old Testament book of Job, God describes a creature to Job. The only reason God was telling Job about the behemoth (dinosaur), was to humble Job, and to say to him that God is the creator of even the most awesome, gigantic creatures.
Some Bible versions substitute the word 'behemoth' with 'hippopotamus', this is an incorrect translation and can be cleared up easily by referring to verse 17; verse 17 describes a tail like a Cedar tree; a hippo has a little 'pig tail'. God states in Job 40:17 "He moveth his tail like a cedar." A Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) has a tail like the mighty Cedar tree, the Brontosaurus' tail grew to some thirty feet long, weighing over five tons. You've all seen the assembled skeletal remains in the museums.
The Behemoth, with the description from God in the Scripture:

Job 40:15-2415 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (KJV)
​

Explanation and description of Job 40:15-24. Below, in verse number:

• 15, he was created in the first earth age, when God made the souls of man.
• 16, it describes a large muscular body.
• 17, it describes a tail like a Cedar tree; long and mighty.
• 17, the "sinues of his stones" are stout strong legs.
  
• 18, his bones are very strong and solid, large bone is strong.
• 19, he is chief of all of God's kingdom, he is the mightiest of all animals (has no natural predator).
• 20, they climb into the mountains.
• 23, he doesn't have to be in fear of predators at the watering hole.
• 23, when he drinks, he drinks allot, as though he could drink up the river Jordan.
• 24, nothing can snare (trap) him, he is the chief of all creatures (see verse 19), and even his very nose is larger and more powerful than any trap that could be laid for him.

Why don't we find a single non-avian dinosaur fossil above the 65 million year old K/T boundary?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hate to be nitpicky, but it is just apatosaurus now. The brontosaurus was an accident when people put the head of one species accidentally on the body of another. Sometimes they goof up, but it was an honest mistake, how were they to know the head right by the body was from another dinosaur and that the actual head was way off away from the body before they dug up the right head?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Riberra.

Nice to meet you and welcome to CF!

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Yes, I am absolutely sure of that.

But Adam's being formed is long after this verse transpires.

No, it isn't.

Adam was formed five days later.

Notice that "heaven" is singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural in Genesis 2:1?

This is because first, second, and third heavens were created on three different days.

If there was a substantial gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, then "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 should be plural ... not singular.

 

[AV1611VET]

The way people get that 6,000 is actually rather clever.

What's so clever about it? it's simple addition.

They add up the ages of people, such as Adam, when they died and when they were born in respects to each other.

Correct.

The bible keeps a good enough death and birth timeline that, if Adam was born literally in the same week the earth was created, it would lead to us concluding that, at the time scripture was written, the earth was about 6,000 years old.

No, it wouldn't.

Try 4000 years.

And for the record, it wouldn't be 4000 years old, it would be 4000 years in existence.

However, given that more than one thousand years have passed since then, it would be more accurate for creationists to claim. The earth was about 8-9 thousand years old.

It has been 2000 years since the Scriptures were completed in AD 96.

This would make it closer to 6000 years, than 8000.