What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[sfs]

Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.

Um, what? We're talking about macroevolution -- the evolution of new species. Different species don't mate with one another.

We have fully formed human and a fully formed ape why is it that offspring is not possible? Answer that without using theory.

Because they're different species. You are not offering anything resembling an argument here. Nor are you dealing with the evidence you claim doesn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assign very little weight to posts such as this... maybe the geneticist will actually evaluate my representation.

He would tell you that I was right about evidence.

I can support my claims with proper sources. You will only be able to find dishonest ones that support you.

You really should have to think about that. Why do some Christians think that it is okay to lie for Jesus? That should cause you to do some massive soul searching when it comes to evolution and your beliefs.

Did you know that most "evolutionists" were Christians?

 

[Bradskii]

yeah and science often bases their "beliefs" on theory.

If you had this the correct way around, it would still be wrong. The fact that it's backward just shows that you don't understand the basics. Such as the fact that theories are explanations. So you should have said that scientists base their explanations on ther beliefs. Which is still wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's my problem with kinds. If God created all these different kinds such that they don't change beyond certain limits, then we should be able to classify each and every known organism into kinds. Furthermore, the ability to do so would be a serious blow to the Theory of Evolution. And yet I haven't seen creationist organizations even attempt to make such a classification. And that would be because things get messy.

Supposedly, they are working on that... baraminology. And, I'd say you're right about it getting messy. I personally don't think they need to try making it into science.

If ToE is true, then we expect things to be messy. Our taxonomy is messy. Species are not clear cut. The fuzzy boundaries support evolution theory. Populations of organisms change over the generations, and there's no known limit to how much they can change. No one has been able to find the genetic boundaries that would have to exist for kinds.

Variations equal microevolution, and I have no problem with that from the time of Creation. Who knows what changes may take place? But, projecting it backward saying man evolved from apes and wasn't created pushes the envelope imo, and not only goes against my religious view, but also against my perceptions as well.

 

[Ophiolite]

Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.

Why should we answer that when the question is meaningless? You refuse to acknowlege, but double down on your technical ignorance, by denying that humans are apes. That is not hypothesis; that is not speculation; that is fact.

We have fully formed human and a fully formed ape why is it that offspring is not possible? Answer that without using theory.

I would be happy to give a comprehensive answer, just as soon you demonstrate you have even a glimmering of an idea what is meant by "theory" in scientific discussions. (At present you are a metaphorical million away from that.) If you cannot do so then your ill-informed question should be casually dismissed.

Because thy are NOT from the same family unit ... and that is the real/true evidence that we see.

And the ignorance continues. If you want to convince anyone of your argument you have to make that an informed argument. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah and science often bases their "beliefs" on theory.

I agree everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

It is rather clear that you do not know what a theory is. In the sciences it does not get any better than a theory. Non-scientists have the mistaken idea that laws are above them. They are not. I can name scientific laws that were replaced with theories, but I cannot think of any theories that have been replaced with laws.

You are in effect saying "yeah and science often bases their 'beliefs' on observations that have always been shown to be true and are supported by massive evidence". And we say, of course, what would you base your beliefs upon? Ideas that have been shown to be wrong time after time? That makes no sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

He would tell you that I was right about evidence.

I can support my claims with proper sources. You will only be able to find dishonest ones that support you.

You really should have to think about that. Why do some Christians think that it is okay to lie for Jesus? That should cause you to do some massive soul searching when it comes to evolution and your beliefs.

Did you know that most "evolutionists" were Christians?

Yeah, well, that's them. Jesus said numerous times, 'It is written.' I don't think He said, expand on what is written or use science to interpret what is written.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think Ken Ham referred to it as family. Are you saying there are no difficulties in the ranks of taxonomy nomenclature?

There we go, same family Homo.

This little guy walked on his two legs and crafted tools from stone... but I wouldn't call him a human even from a colloquial sense.

 

[Shemjaza]

one example ...

Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.

We have fully formed human and a fully formed ape why is it that offspring is not possible? Answer that without using theory.

Because thy are NOT from the same family unit ... and that is the real/true evidence that we see.

As an analogy, English, German and Dutch all come from Proto-Germanic... but they aren't mutually intelligible. German and Dutch are closer related and can kind of understand each other, but have some difficulty.

A lion, a tiger and a cheetah are all cats, but while a lion and a tiger can sort of produce offspring (they are mostly sterile and have some unfortunate genetic interactions) neither can breed with a cheetah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, well, that's them. Jesus said numerous times, 'It is written.' I don't think He said, expand on what is written or use science to interpret what is written.

How is that supposed to apply to the fact of evolution? He did sometimes say that, but he did not always say that. And when he did you need to check context..

By the way, it was early Christian geologists that first debunked the Noah's Ark story. Clearly it was not meant to be taken literally. We know that it never happened. And the reason that they came to this conclusion is because they believed that the Earth was God's creation. The Earth tells us that it never happened. Since then that has been confirmed by biology, history, and even mythology.

 

[Bradskii]

...and not only goes against my religious view, but also against my perceptions as well.

You accuse scientists of basing their explanations on beliefs when you have actually been shown an article written by a forum member (who actually is a scientist) that shows that theories are developed from readily obtainable facts and then you have the temerity to say that what you claim is based on nothing but your beliefs. Oh, and your perceptions.

 

[inquiring mind]

How is that supposed to apply to the fact of evolution? He did sometimes say that, but he did not always say that. And when he did you need to check context..

By the way, it was early Christian geologists that first debunked the Noah's Ark story. Clearly it was not meant to be taken literally. We know that it never happened. And the reason that they came to this conclusion is because they believed that the Earth was God's creation. The Earth tells us that it never happened. Since then that has been confirmed by biology, history, and even mythology.

I don't think anyone really knows... that's why I go with the bible.

 

[inquiring mind]

You accuse scientists of basing their explanations on beliefs when you have actually been shown an article written by a forum member (who actually is a scientist) that shows that theories are developed from readily obtainable facts and then you have the temerity to say that what you claim is based on nothing but your beliefs. Oh, and your perceptions.

Well, I do have a keen perception, but I did have to look-up temerity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think anyone really knows... that's why I go with the bible.

That appears to be only true for you. We do know. You might want to find out how we know what we know. By the way, you have just contradicted your user name. Do you ever wonder why people believe the Bible and what the evidence is that supports it? A person with an inquiring mind would follow the evidence. Yet you do not even seem to want to know that is and what is not evidence.

By the way, you could always ask people "how do you know that". That is a legitimate question if one claims to know. Asking them why they believe that is actually a bit of an insult If one knows one can demonstrate how and why one knows. If one has a mere belief one cannot do that properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I do have a keen perception, but I did have to look-up temerity.

If your perception was keen you would now why using the word "beliefs" was an error on your part. You appear to have mere beliefs. That does not mean that others only have beliefs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think Ken Ham referred to it as family. Are you saying there are no difficulties in the ranks of taxonomy nomenclature?

To be honest, @Yttrium beat me to it on what to say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I do have a keen perception, but I did have to look-up temerity.

No you don't.

 

[Frank Robert]

I think Ken Ham referred to it as family. Are you saying there are no difficulties in the ranks of taxonomy nomenclature?

Ken Ham defined "kinds" to make ALL kinds to fit on Noah's Ark.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

KJV Dictionary Definition: kind
kind
KIND, n.

1. Race; genus; generic class; as in mankind or humankind. In technical language, kind answers to genus.

OK, that suggests that the idea that a 'kind' means creatures that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring is mistaken, as the common taxonomic definition of species is the largest inclusive group of creatures that can produce fertile offspring, and 'genus' is a rank above species.

But how is that relevant to my post about @eleos1954's 'family unit' that can interbreed being the equivalent of 'species'?

 

[inquiring mind]

OK, that suggests that the idea that a 'kind' means creatures that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring is mistaken, as the common taxonomic definition of species is the largest inclusive group of creatures that can produce fertile offspring, and 'genus' is a rank above species.

But how is that relevant to my post about @eleos1954's 'family unit' that can interbreed being the equivalent of 'species'?

I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.