What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Oneiric1975]

Would you feel that way, if I thought it was Hebrew?

Yes. Because there isn’t evidence for THAT claim either.... even in your own Bible.

See? Making stuff up doesn’t cut no matter what you make up. I thought that would be obvious

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I hope you realize that no biologists say this, and it makes you look absurd to those of us who actually understand ToE?

The term microevolution was first used by botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette in 1909, addressing what he called the "mystery" of how formlessness gives rise to form.[49]

..The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in any significant measure. This microevolution forms an integral part of the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we shall have to understand the minor process before we can thoroughly comprehend the more general one...
However, Leavitt was using the term to describe what we would now call developmental biology; it was not until Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko used the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, Variabilität und Variation, that it attained its modern usage. The term was later brought into the English-speaking world by Filipchenko's student Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937).[1]
Microevolution - Wikipedia

Do you know very much about the history of science? I am well-aware of the evidences presented for evolution, which are subject to interpretation. I took anthropology in college and had to write papers on the evidences presented for common descent.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I can read it, but I can't write it very well.

I suspect you don't understand it as well as you think, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Because there isn’t evidence for THAT claim either.... even in your own Bible.

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

You would claim there's no evidence for Jesus walking on water, since His footprints haven't been found on the sea of Galilee ... right?

And therefore anyone who does say He did, is thinking they are "superior to all others"?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Do you consider evolution from a single cell oganism to a multicell marcoevolution.

Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism

Does that demonstrate the capability of natural selection acting on random mutation to account for such largescale changes as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc.?

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

 

[AV1611VET]

I suspect you don't understand it as well as you think, either.

Well you're certainly entitled to my opinion.

 

[Astrid]

I hope you realize that no biologists say this, and it makes you look absurd to those of us who actually understand ToE?

Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger effect? It describes creationists perfectly. To have a legitimate PhD (unlike Hovind’s book report “PhD” from a church), and to then espouse creationist claptrap would literally cause their mental health to be questioned.

It has happened.

Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology

QUOTE

"...even if every piece of evidence turned against yec, I
would still be yec as that is what the biblecseems to
say".

Abandoning scientific integrity, and
embracing intellectual dishonesty.

But he nicely illustrates that it is simply
impossible to be a well informed and intellectually
honest yec.

Not sure of his mental health as such but I
think he now works for some creationism mill like
the discovery institute.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If there had been " created kinds" the fossil record would show it.

Dog kind suddenly appears-a wolf maybe- then foxes,
coyotes etc rapidly evolve from there.

Nothing like that actually exists in the fossil
record.

I believe it's only young earth creationists who suppose rapid evolution of species from created kinds, because their understanding of Biblical chronology requires it.

Old earth creationists, on the other hand, look at the fossil record for what it is, long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new forms of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure of his mental health ...

Since this thread has degenerated into what educated people really think of us, I have a good question that you won't answer:

How would you personally score a person who consistently sees Christian symbols during a Rorschach test?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It appears you are not particularly familiar with how science is done. Not all things in science are done "in the lab".

I was speaking colloquially. You should be able to understand that we are not able to observe in the present the capability of evolution to produce largescale changes like fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc.

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

Rather than just assuming that I am ignorant of science, perhaps you should consider the possibility that there are many well-educated, well-informed people, including scientists, who doubt that natural selection acting on random mutation accounts for all of life's complexity and diversity.

 

[Astrid]

Does that demonstrate the capability of natural selection acting on random mutation to account for such largescale changes as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc.?

Large scale?
Perhaps you could define the exact differrnce
between a fish and an amphibian.

No fair looking anything up. We will know you
did, so no cheating.
You are the one who said there is a large
scale change. So tell us about it.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

You would claim there's no evidence for Jesus walking on water, since His footprints haven't been found on the sea of Galilee ... right?

And therefore anyone who does say He did, is thinking they are "superior to all others"?

Only if they said their RELIGIOUS belief as ipso facto correct but DEMANDED others support their positions with hard evidence.

See the distinction there?

No one says you are disallowed from having your beliefs but by the same token don’t command others to provide hard evidence as if that is a weakness of theirs thus making yours somehow superior

 

[Astrid]

Rather than just assuming that I am ignorant of science...

You are invited to show you are not ignorant by telling
us about the "large scale" change from fish to amphibian.

Go ahead.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Large scale?
Perhaps you could define the exact differrnce
between a fish and an amphibian.

No fair looking anything up. We will know you
did, so no cheating.
You are the one who said there is a large
scale change. So tell us about it.

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

No one has actually observed that natural selection acting on random mutation is capable of producing such large-scale changes as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc. I don't know why that would be hard to understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe it's only young earth creationists who suppose rapid evolution of species from created kinds, because their understanding of Biblical chronology requires it.

Old earth creationists, on the other hand, look at the fossil record for what it is, long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new forms of life.

I agree.

This is what I mean, when I say they accordion-out the fossil record, then label long periods of time between the fossils.

As I said before, draw a line between a T. Rex on one side of a balloon, and a man on the other side, then blow that balloon up to a mile in diameter and label that [now dotted] broken line as representing millions of years.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

You are invited to show you are not ignorant by telling
us about the "large scale" change from fish to amphibian.

Go ahead.

You tell me how natural selection acting on random mutation could account for it.

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

 

[AV1611VET]

No one says you are disallowed from having your beliefs but by the same token don’t command others to provide hard evidence as if that is a weakness of theirs thus making yours somehow superior.

All I said was "keep looking".

Something I've been doing for over a decade.

In fact, if you run a search on me saying KEEP LOOKING, you'll get 219 results.

Here's one of them:

Fair enough.

The only alternative I can suggest then, is to keep looking.

Maybe if you dig down another 10 feet or so, you'll find a correlated layer.

 

[Astrid]

You tell me how natural selection acting on random mutation could account for it.

You said there is a LARGE SCALE change.
You were challenged to show you are not ignorant
by telling us the difference between fish and amphibian.

Refusing to even try is answer enough, not
that we ever thought you could do it.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I am not naming names, but there might be atheists and agnostics on this forum who are insecure about their beliefs, or who are internally conflicted by unrepentant sins, and therefore feel the need to debate anonymous theists on the internet to assuage their insecurity.

I trust that, if God wants you to be saved, He will convict your heart, which is beyond my ability to do. I hope that, if He speaks to your heart, you will listen.

 

[Astrid]

Xx