Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.Except when we're trying to have a conversation about biological science.
Honestly, this just sounds like a semantic nitpicking. If you aren't going to make an attempt to answer the OP question, please leave.
Oh, I think variation and adaptations continue to a degree, just not to the degree you do. Just because a flipper gets longer doesn't mean it will turn into a leg. According to the Bible all things mating according to their kind stops the process of significant change.But you haven't explained why small incremental changes don't add up to huge significant changes. And then small incremental changes from that point onwards until we get another large significant change. Rinse and repeat.
What's to stop the process?
Oh, I think variation and adaptations continue to a degree, just not to the degree you do. Just because a flipper gets longer doesn't mean it will turn into a leg. According to the Bible all things mating according to their kind stops the process of significant change.
Apparently, because the "kind" of a creature is not a scientific concept.What's with the 'spontaneously'?
How about a fish that can develop the ability to breathe air and move about on land. And even climb trees. If it never went back to living under water, could it still be classed as a fish?
Apparently, because the "kind" of a creature is not a scientific concept.
I provided an answer already... if you believe as I do then Genesis 1:26-28 is a barrier to macroevolution even existing (that is one kind changing into another kind, ape to man, etc). Why would God tell us He created something in His image and then have it change? Did apes ever rule over ever living creature? I know you don't believe the Bible, but I do, and so far there has been no agreement among all scientists that there is an absence of cracks in the door that many macroevolutionists try to close on the subject.
You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.
The barrier between macro and micro evolution is that microevolution would be a fish swimming faster, adaptation.
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.
The barrier that I am aware of is the idea of an animal not transgressing the barrier of their "kind."
I provided an answer already... if you believe as I do then Genesis 1:26-28 is a barrier to macroevolution even existing (that is one kind changing into another kind, ape to man, etc). Why would God tell us He created something in His image and then have it change? Did apes ever rule over ever living creature? I know you don't believe the Bible, but I do, and so far there has been no agreement among all scientists that there is an absence of cracks in the door that many macroevolutionists try to close on the subject.
The quoted Genesis 1:26-28 doesn't say creatures can't change, so reasoning that it prevents macroevolution is puzzling.You are questioning Creationists, their evidence comes from the Bible. Then you ask them to leave.
A tree climbing fish, sounds like a fish man...No. It's a biblical term. We aren't talking about biblical definitions. We are discussing science. So is something that is air breathing, walks on land and climbs trees a fish? The standard definition of a fish is: a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins living wholly in water.
Doesn't seem to match the definition to me but I'll let you make the call. And if you could give me the definition of a fish as it relates to kind.
Need video evidence of evolution occurring, and of millions of years and so forth.Would a salmon, an eel and a herring being descended over millions of years from a common marine vertebrate ancestor be micro-evolution or macro-evolution?
It is a recurring thing that I see often in threads on this forum when evolution is brought up and someone invariably from the Creationist side tries to go "Well, that's microevolution, no macroevolution?"
But I've never seen anyone make an attempt to actually explain what the barrier is that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.
So, can anyone from Creationist side of the debate answer the question: what is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?
To a point... within its kind.Anything mating means automatic incremental changes to the next generation. Variations that are beneficial propogate through a population. And the process continues. Mating doesn't prevent changes. Mating is a combination of genetic information which means that the next generation is an imperfect copy of the previous one. It doesn't orevent changes. It's the reason why changes happen.
I'd say we're all limited to a degree. I respect your explanation and opinion, but you're right, that doesn't equate to my acceptance of it.I'm begining to realise that you have a limited understanding of the process which is going to make any explanation of that process something of a waste of time.
Ahh, the famed Tic tac. "Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to those of a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The fossil discovered in 2004 did not include the rear fins and tail." Tiktaalik - Wikipediand incidently, there are countless examples of fins becoming legs. Here's one: Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals
I have found it a "better" (better in the sense that just saying "the Bible says so" is never sufficient to answer satisfactorily to the specificity of the question and they usually stop responding, not that they actually give an answer ) approach to give creationists specific scenarios of relatedness and have them explain them from a creationist POV.
For instance:
Are Horses and Zebra the same "kind"? Why? How do you know, scientifically?
If they don't accept genetics, you have to get through that first. That is usually the sticking point. Most of their claims to hold up to genetics, but if they don't understand or accept that genetics is accurate then you can't really move forward.
To a point... within its kind.
Yes, if two animals can produce a hybrid they are generally considered the same kind.Are horses and donkeys the same kind?
Yes, if two animals can produce a hybrid they are generally considered the same kind.
According to science’s classification system, yes.So you've got Kind as being the Family, with horses being Equus Ferus Caballus and donkeys being Equus Africanus Asinus.
But they are not the same thing. A horse is a different species to a donkey.
According to science’s classification system, yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?