What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God wasn't finshed... He continued in verses 24 & 25.

Except that's only for 'creatures' and 'beasts' of the Earth. Nothing about extensions for whales, 'water kinds' and 'winged fowl'.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Macroevolution would be like a fish turning into a bird spontaneously and laying eggs that give birth to mammals and so on and so forth.
"

No. That would be magic, like in the bible story

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that's only for 'creatures' and 'beasts' of the Earth. Nothing about extensions for whales, 'water kinds' and 'winged fowl'.

Again, how does 'and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind' not cover the water part? And He said every winged fowl after his kind. I don't understand your confusion here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, how does 'and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind' not cover the water part?

I never said it didn't. But notice how it says nothing else about what it includes. Are turtles, animals that are at home in both the sea and on land, kinds of the water or are they not? Are otters a kind of the water or a kind of the land? Are hippos? Are seals?

And He said every winged fowl after his kind. I don't understand your confusion here.

Because, as I said before, it explains nothing. 'Winged fowl' refers to virtually any bird, so did the ostrich come from the water? Did the emu? The dodo? The cassowary? The kiwi?

Anything that tries to explain everything explains nothing. And that is the problem with Kind as a definition. You want it to explain everything but you can't use it to explain anything.

 

[inquiring mind]

I never said it didn't. But notice how it says nothing else about what it includes. Are turtles, animals that are at home in both the sea and on land, kinds of the water or are they not? Are otters a kind of the water or a kind of the land? Are hippos? Are seals?



Because, as I said before, it explains nothing. 'Winged fowl' refers to virtually any bird, so did the ostrich come from the water? Did the emu? The dodo? The cassowary? The kiwi?

Anything that tries to explain everything explains nothing. And that is the problem with Kind as a definition. You want it to explain everything but you can't use it to explain anything.

Well, I don't think His purpose here was to give everything taxonomy classification.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I don't think His purpose here was to give everything taxonomy classification.

So it's not God's job to give humans taxonomy, instead letting us do that, but by letting us do that, somehow we're doing God dirty.

That's really what I get from your comments.

 

[inquiring mind]

So it's not God's job to give humans taxonomy, instead letting us do that, but by letting us do that, somehow we're doing God dirty.

That's really what I get from your comments.

I didn't say anything about His job, I just don't think it was His purpose there. We can do anything we want, but its not God we do dirty.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't say anything about His job, I just don't think it was His purpose there. We can do anything we want, but its not God we do dirty.

You seem to treat the Bible as if it is God himself, even though His own creation says very differently to a book

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, I'm gonna get this thread closed. This is just getting stupid now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you expect to debate in a Creation & Evolution Forum and not recognize 'belief' as being part of the conversation? And, you're not the only one.

Some have "belief" in this debate, some have knowledge. In reality there is no debate. There are only corrections. You should have a rough idea of what is and what is not evidence by now. Do you think that you can find any scientific evidence for your beliefs?

 

[inquiring mind]

You seem to treat the Bible as if it is God himself, even though His own creation says very differently to a book

Some have "belief" in this debate, some have knowledge. In reality there is no debate. There are only corrections. You should have a rough idea of what is and what is not evidence by now. Do you think that you can find any scientific evidence for your beliefs?

I believe it's His inspired word to us, yes. I don't try to make it a science book, I just don't like to see it discredited in the name of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it's His inspired word to us, yes. I don't try to make it a science book, I just don't like to see it discredited in the name of science.

I would say that the only ones that are discrediting the Bible are those that insist that Genesis be read at all literally. It can still be made to work as allegory and morality tales.

 

[Gottservant]

The problem with changing species (to something else), is that you need an equal partnering between the sexes of a given species to produce the young.

Without the equal partnering, you cannot syncopate the young (with the genetics of the parents).

Syncopating the young with multiple histories, on either side of the parents, creates a choice, but not one they can recognise (syncopatedly - in the sense of a rhythm).

 

[driewerf]

That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21

Nope.
Both the bible verse and your very own post lumps everything together in "the water kind". Sharks, mussels, crabs, corals, sea cucumbers, squids, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with changing species (to something else), is that you need an equal partnering between the sexes of a given species to produce the young.

Without the equal partnering, you cannot syncopate the young (with the genetics of the parents).

Syncopating the young with multiple histories, on either side of the parents, creates a choice, but not one they can recognise (syncopatedly - in the sense of a rhythm).

No band is involved.

 

[Shemjaza]

The problem with changing species (to something else), is that you need an equal partnering between the sexes of a given species to produce the young.

Without the equal partnering, you cannot syncopate the young (with the genetics of the parents).

Syncopating the young with multiple histories, on either side of the parents, creates a choice, but not one they can recognise (syncopatedly - in the sense of a rhythm).

No you don't need that.

A change in species is a long term classification. Unless it's a hybrid of two separate species, a child is never s different species to its parents.

Evolution is a long term process over populations over multiple generations.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]
A change in species is a long term classification. Unless it's a hybrid of two separate species, a child is never s different species to its parents.

It is not only a member of a specific species, it retains a rhythm that is unique to that species.

Evolution is a long term process over populations over multiple generations.

You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?

The standard is "designed" or above, not half measures until enough.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is not only a member of a specific species, it retains a rhythm that is unique to that species.

This doesn't seem to make any sense.

What is a rhythm in the context of a species?

You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?

The standard is "designed" or above, not half measures until enough.

Evolution is not a singular possession, so "an evolution" doesn't make sense.

It's just a very gradual process that isn't particularly obvious or relevant across individuals over one family.

 

[Gottservant]

This doesn't seem to make any sense.

What is a rhythm in the context of a species?


Evolution is not a singular possession, so "an evolution" doesn't make sense.

It's just a very gradual process that isn't particularly obvious or relevant across individuals over one family.

A rhythm is a pattern of instinct or essence, in principle.

But you are not answering the question:You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A rhythm is a pattern of instinct or essence, in principle.

But you are not answering the question:You can't swear that an Evolution will be adapted for all time, why would multiple generations validate it?

You haven't even made an attempt to answer the question in the thread title and OP: What is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?