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

[PsychoSarah]

Actually if you want to argue against something it is your job to check into the facts or lack of facts for both sides. Second there has been no rational dismissal of the tens of thousands of transitional fossils. In fact so much of the fossil record is now filled in that most fossils are transitional fossils by definition.

The only way to dismiss all of the transitional fossils in existence is irrationally.

It is actually astounding how "complete" the fossil record is.

 

[Smidlee]

It is actually astounding how "complete" the fossil record is.

It sure is which isn't good for evolution. Fred Heeren, Boston Globe

Chen enjoys seeing his fossils get the attention. But to him, the big story is not that he has discovered our earliest traceable ancestor, but that the Cambrian explosion of new body plans is proving to be real, not an illusion produced by an incomplete fossil record.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It sure is which isn't good for evolution. Fred Heeren, Boston Globe

Actually, given how advantageous a spine was, it isn't shocking that an explosion of creatures with that trait occurred soon after it first developed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually if you want to argue against something it is your job to check into the facts or lack of facts for both sides. Second there has been no rational dismissal of the tens of thousands of transitional fossils. In fact so much of the fossil record is now filled in that most fossils are transitional fossils by definition.

The only way to dismiss all of the transitional fossils in existence is irrationally.

okay then it is your job to present all the evidences for ID for and against, good luck. lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Chimps and humans are the same animal type. We are primates.

Bears and humans are the same animal type. We are mammals.

Trout and humans are the same animal type. We are vertebrates.

Sea cucumbers and humans are the same animal type. We are deuterostomes.

your talking 3 different types and you know very well I refer to genra.

 

[createdtoworship]

What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor with apes?

a monkey with bipediality is one feature. Or a dog that can swim underwater like a whale. That would be another feature. See what I am getting at?

 

[createdtoworship]

The ERVs that you and every other human being share with chimpanzees....

so what percentage difference is there between the two?

1% I am told, is this true?

and about ERV's here is a link for ya
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

 

[PsychoSarah]

a monkey with bipediality is one feature. Or a dog that can swim underwater like a whale. That would be another feature. See what I am getting at?

We have the first one, although it is an ape (no tail).

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's try again. Why do you keep making the point that one genus does not breed with another genus? I am not arguing that. Do you understand? Please give a direct yes or no answer.

I am arguing that one genus can arise form another and using the similarity of these two tyrannosaurs to illustrate the point. You think that they are too different for one to have arisen from the other based on a couple minor differences (i.e. one being larger and something about the teeth). And yet you think that all of life's diversity arose from a limited number of kinds. Actually I'm just assuming that; please tell me if that accurately reflects your beliefs. Do you think a sabertooth cat and a cheetah both arose from a created Cat kind? Did spider monkeys, squirrel monkeys and capucin monkeys all arise from within a Monkey kind?

well this one made me think for a little bit. I believe there were no more than 16000 animals (and birds) on the ark. You could fit a lot of land breathing vertebrate animals on the ark. I believe all the genra would fit, but most scholars believe that 2 of each taxonomical family were present. Even if it were every genus it would only take up 47 percent of the ark, which I personally adhere to (genus).

How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them? - Answers in Genesis

most of the animals listed in your illustrations are different genra. So a pair of each would have been present.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

well this one made me think for a little bit. I believe there were no more than 16000 animals (and birds) on the ark. You could fit a lot of land breathing vertebrate animals on the ark. I believe all the genra would fit, but most scholars believe that 2 of each taxonomical family were present. Even if it were every genus it would only take up 47 percent of the ark, which I personally adhere to (genus).

How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them? - Answers in Genesis

most of the animals listed in your illustrations are different genra. So a pair of each would have been present.

Just to be clear, do you understand that I am not trying to argue that one genus can breed with another?


Your beliefs about the Ark and its contents bring up some questions. According to you there were about 16 000 genera of animals (not counting fish I assume) on the Ark. Yet if you follow this link, select “genus” and click “display results” you will get a list of all the extant animal genera, a list which far exceeds 16,000. There were too many to count practically, so I only counted about halfway down the list and I came up with 22,066 genera. That was half the list, so multiply by two and we get over 44,000 genera. Multiply that by two and we get 88,000 individual animals And that only includes extant genera; there are also tens of thousands of fossil genera. So now you have a problem; you must either accept the true number of genera, a number which seems unlikely to fit on the Ark, or you can maintain your figure of 16,000 and accept that the current diversity of 44,000 genera arose from that. If we go with the estimate from the scholars you mention, that's approximately 7000 individuals (number of families times two). That still strains credibility, but if we accept that figure for the sake of argument, that means that we now have 44,000 genera that all arose from 7000 individuals. It doesn't matter if we use your number or the scholars you mention; the conclusion is that modern genera must be related to certain other genera because they arose from the same progenitor.



Please ask for clarification if you didn't follow that. Here's a brief summary just in case:


-You posit 16,000 genera on the Ark, there are at least 44,000 genera (not including fossil taxa) of animals today
-That many animals could not fit on the Ark, especially if we include extinct animals

-if there were only 16,000 genera on the Ark and 44,000 today, some of those 44,000 must share common ancestors among the original 16,000
-if you accept that, you have accepted the fact that one genus can eventually give rise to a new genus

 

[biggles53]

so what percentage difference is there between the two?

1% I am told, is this true?

Do you know what you are talking about....?

We share 200,000 ERV sites with chimpanzees.....in exact locations...!

and about ERV's here is a link for ya
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

What...? Are you really going to play the 'hot spot' card...? Do you keep up to date at all with your reading...? No.... I forgot, you're a creationist....

That there are 'preferred' zones for insertion has been known for some time, but it does not explain why the insertions are in the EXACT LOCATIONS in both species...

It would be like me saying that I can tell you where 200,000 citizens of the US lived, having been told they only live in either California, Texas, Utah or Arizona. I then go ahead and tell you the EXACT STREET ADDRESS of those 200,000....!

What would be my chances, do you think...!?

Mate, you are out of your depth.....

 

[createdtoworship]

Just to be clear, do you understand that I am not trying to argue that one genus can breed with another?


Your beliefs about the Ark and its contents bring up some questions. According to you there were about 16 000 genera of animals (not counting fish I assume) on the Ark. Yet if you follow this link, select “genus” and click “display results” you will get a list of all the extant animal genera, a list which far exceeds 16,000. There were too many to count practically, so I only counted about halfway down the list and I came up with 22,066 genera. That was half the list, so multiply by two and we get over 44,000 genera. Multiply that by two and we get 88,000 individual animals And that only includes extant genera; there are also tens of thousands of fossil genera. So now you have a problem; you must either accept the true number of genera, a number which seems unlikely to fit on the Ark, or you can maintain your figure of 16,000 and accept that the current diversity of 44,000 genera arose from that. If we go with the estimate from the scholars you mention, that's approximately 7000 individuals (number of families times two). That still strains credibility, but if we accept that figure for the sake of argument, that means that we now have 44,000 genera that all arose from 7000 individuals. It doesn't matter if we use your number or the scholars you mention; the conclusion is that modern genera must be related to certain other genera because they arose from the same progenitor.



Please ask for clarification if you didn't follow that. Here's a brief summary just in case:


-You posit 16,000 genera on the Ark, there are at least 44,000 genera (not including fossil taxa) of animals today
-That many animals could not fit on the Ark, especially if we include extinct animals

-if there were only 16,000 genera on the Ark and 44,000 today, some of those 44,000 must share common ancestors among the original 16,000
-if you accept that, you have accepted the fact that one genus can eventually give rise to a new genus

well taxonomy is not perfectly organized. Some as far as family or some as far as genra. Like I said my sources view the family as what was likely on the ark, how many families does you link state? Also how did you count those? Also as far as genus barrier, the only reason why I use the illustration is that evolution does not appear on a wide scale. Across major animal types (genus). So it's evident that evolution or macro evolution doesn't happen. That is the only reason for the illustration.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you know what you are talking about....?

We share 200,000 ERV sites with chimpanzees.....in exact locations...!



What...? Are you really going to play the 'hot spot' card...? Do you keep up to date at all with your reading...? No.... I forgot, you're a creationist....

That there are 'preferred' zones for insertion has been known for some time, but it does not explain why the insertions are in the EXACT LOCATIONS in both species...

It would be like me saying that I can tell you where 200,000 citizens of the US lived, having been told they only live in either California, Texas, Utah or Arizona. I then go ahead and tell you the EXACT STREET ADDRESS of those 200,000....!

What would be my chances, do you think...!?

Mate, you are out of your depth.....

I think there are problems with this view, here is a video that may explain things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RO8MP3wMvqg

from :

Revisiting an Old Chestnut: Retroviruses and Common Descent (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

More Points on ERVs - Evolution News & Views

 

[Atheos canadensis]

well taxonomy is not perfectly organized. Some as far as family or some as far as genra. Like I said my sources view the family as what was likely on the ark, how many families does you link state? Also how did you count those? Also as far as genus barrier, the only reason why I use the illustration is that evolution does not appear on a wide scale. Across major animal types (genus). So it's evident that evolution or macro evolution doesn't happen. That is the only reason for the illustration.

Again, it doesn't really matter if we use your figure of 16,000 or the number of families your sources mention. Taxonomy is not so variable that you can make at at least 44,000 genera fit into 16,000 genera. And of course there are far more than that if you count extinct animals. Do you think extinct animals were on the Ark? If we use families, we get something over 3000. If you had representatives of each of the 3000 or so families, you still need to evolve the separate genera within those families which means that you must accept that two genera can share the same ancestor; in other words genera evolve.

There were too many genera to count effectively so I pasted about half the list into MS Word and then did a find and replace on the word "Genus" and was told that the word had been found 22,066 times. Because that was only half of them, I multiplied by two (rounding it down to 22,000 to be more conservative) to get the full number.

Do you understand the problem you have? You beliefs about the Ark do not fit with your beliefs about the immutability of genera. All the current genera could not fit on the ark, therefore many of them must have evolved afterwards.

 

[Delphiki]

Do you understand the problem you have? You beliefs about the Ark do not fit with your beliefs about the immutability of genera. All the current genera could not fit on the ark, therefore many of them must have evolved afterwards.

Yeah, but with God, anything is possible, so ark=TARDIS. Problem solved.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, it doesn't really matter if we use your figure of 16,000 or the number of families your sources mention. Taxonomy is not so variable that you can make at at least 44,000 genera fit into 16,000 genera. And of course there are far more than that if you count extinct animals. Do you think extinct animals were on the Ark? If we use families, we get something over 3000. If you had representatives of each of the 3000 or so families, you still need to evolve the separate genera within those families which means that you must accept that two genera can share the same ancestor; in other words genera evolve.

There were too many genera to count effectively so I pasted about half the list into MS Word and then did a find and replace on the word "Genus" and was told that the word had been found 22,066 times. Because that was only half of them, I multiplied by two (rounding it down to 22,000 to be more conservative) to get the full number.

Do you understand the problem you have? You beliefs about the Ark do not fit with your beliefs about the immutability of genera. All the current genera could not fit on the ark, therefore many of them must have evolved afterwards.

good point but you would have to count how many of those genra are land based vertebrates to solidify your point. I assume the numbers come down when excluding water based genra. As I mentioned a few posts ago.

 

[PsychoSarah]

good point but you would have to count how many of those genra are land based vertebrates to solidify your point. I assume the numbers come down when excluding water based genra. As I mentioned a few posts ago.

Untrue, due to changes in pH and salinity, most water based life would have died in such an event as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think there are problems with this view, here is a video that may explain things:

HIV Replication 3D Medical Animation - YouTube

from :

Revisiting an Old Chestnut: Retroviruses and Common Descent (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

More Points on ERVs - Evolution News & Views

What are these problems? Explain it to us.

 

[Loudmouth]

well taxonomy is not perfectly organized. Some as far as family or some as far as genra. Like I said my sources view the family as what was likely on the ark, how many families does you link state? Also how did you count those? Also as far as genus barrier, the only reason why I use the illustration is that evolution does not appear on a wide scale. Across major animal types (genus). So it's evident that evolution or macro evolution doesn't happen. That is the only reason for the illustration.

Where is your evidence for these claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

so what percentage difference is there between the two?

1% I am told, is this true?

Sequence differences, LTR divergence, or loci differences? You need to be specific.

and about ERV's here is a link for ya
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

Why don't you cite the actual scientific papers instead of citing a creationist lying about the actual scientific papers?