What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[eleos1954]

Then apparently there is no such 'kind' as birds. What we have is penguins being a 'kind' of their own. Emus the same. Bees likewise. Dolphins the same. Komodo dragons, giraffes...I could go on for pages. And we'd eventually realise that 'kind' equals species. So what we had (presumably from the ark) was a 'kind' of creature which then must have then gradually evolved into another creature with which they could not reproduce (this is your argument, not mine). This is the evolutionary process.

And this development into other organisms which can't reproduce with the original is, by definition, speciation. Which is nothing more than macro evolution.

no ... that is not my argument ... I did not say they could not produce.

God created male and female (parents) fully formed and through parents there is family and then are able to reproduce within that family kind and have genetic code that produce variations within family kind.

The terms used micro evolution, variations within the genetic code is biblically acceptable, .... the term macro evolution, is the evolution teaching (I'll use your word species) above the species level and no ... the bible does not teach that.

Why are humans and apes not able to produce offspring?

or ....

how much time will it take for apes to once again "evolve" into human beings?

I ask this question .... because ultimately this is where we end up.

well ... anyways ... have a Merry Christmas, I have dinner to make ;o)

 

[Bradskii]

no ... that is not my argument ... I did not say they could not produce.

God created male and female (parents) fully formed and through parents there is family and then are able to reproduce within that family kind and have genetic code that produce variations within family kind.

The terms used micro evolution, variations within the genetic code is biblically acceptable, .... the term macro evolution, is the evolution teaching (I'll use your word species) above the species level and no ... the bible does not teach that.

Why are humans and apes not able to produce offspring?

or ....

how much time will it take for apes to once again "evolve" into human beings?

I ask this question .... because ultimately this is where we end up.

well ... anyways ... have a Merry Christmas, I have dinner to make ;o)

No, you did not say they can't reproduce. I'm saying that. A vast number of birds (and gazillions of other creatures) cannot reproduce with each other. An obvious example is a penguin and an emu. So if they evolved from an earlier species (or 'kind') then that is macroevolution.

Anyway, I'm relaxing this morning after a huge Xmas dinner last night with family down here. Get back to the kitchen, don't burn anything and have a good Christmas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no ... that is not my argument ... I did not say they could not produce.

God created male and female (parents) fully formed and through parents there is family and then are able to reproduce within that family kind and have genetic code that produce variations within family kind.

The terms used micro evolution, variations within the genetic code is biblically acceptable, .... the term macro evolution, is the evolution teaching (I'll use your word species) above the species level and no ... the bible does not teach that.

Why are humans and apes not able to produce offspring?

or ....

how much time will it take for apes to once again "evolve" into human beings?

I ask this question .... because ultimately this is where we end up.

well ... anyways ... have a Merry Christmas, I have dinner to make ;o)

It is a rather pointless question. Other species of apes besides us cannot interbreed either. Chimps cannot interbreed with gorillas or orangutans. Orangutans cannot interbreed with gorillas. They are all fully speciated. The same happened with us and our closest relative, the chimpanzee. And it would be a rather immoral experiment to even try to use artificial insemination between humans and chimps. We may be close enough for at least a fetus to form.

Though there are often wrongfully accused of doing so, very few scientists will "play God" and do such an experiment just to see what happens.

And like it or not you are a "fully formed" ape. By the way, the "fully formed" term is incredibly ignorant. All life is fully formed. And other apes cannot evolve into human beings. Now other apes could evolve and develop an intelligence that rivals or even surpasses ours. But that would not make them human beings. You are making the error of thinking of man as a goal instead of a result. And each evolutionary path for a species is unique. Others cannot follow the exact same path.

 

[Astrophile]

Most animals are indeed able to recognize their own family kind ... by sight and smell.

Not sure what your point is?

In post 143, you seemed to be implying that the distinction between kinds of birds was nominal rather than objective, that penguins and emus are different only because they have different man-made names rather than because there is a real difference.

Would a penguin have a name if man didn't call it that? Would an Emu have a name if man didn't call it that? Something new gets discovered? Hmmmm, yeah man will give it a name and classify it.

My point was that penguins and emus themselves would be aware of the familial difference between them even though they do not know that humans call them by different names, and that therefore the distinction between them is not only nominal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here’s my litmus test regarding ‘Kinds’: ex., are penguins and birds the same kind? Can they breed? If yes, then they are the same kind, with penguins having a ‘fins instead of wings’ variation. If they can’t breed, then they are not the same kind, and if science says otherwise, it is yet another mistake of the man-made scientific classification system.

Is that if penguins can breed with other birds that aren't penguins or penguins breeding with penguins?

 

[eleos1954]

No, you did not say they can't reproduce. I'm saying that. A vast number of birds (and gazillions of other creatures) cannot reproduce with each other. An obvious example is a penguin and an emu. So if they evolved from an earlier species (or 'kind') then that is macroevolution.

Anyway, I'm relaxing this morning after a huge Xmas dinner last night with family down here. Get back to the kitchen, don't burn anything and have a good Christmas.

well ... there is a lot of info out there and many different interpretations of what is out there. Lots of theories and ideas.

Personally, I think it's what one's fundamental base is.

One sees intricate design (meaning there is a designer) ... others see millions of random occurrences happening over billions of years (evolution)

One chooses their "base" and then are inclined one way or another to interpret the evidence to fit within that base.

With about 1.5 million or so named and categorized living species (and possibly several times more species unnamed or categorized), we might reasonably expect to see at least some evidence of a series of transitional stages among living organisms, but such is not the case .... not found.

Things pop up every once in a while .... ie soft tissue in dinosaur bones etc. of course there will be theory put forth to provide possible explanations for this so it fits in with the evolution model.

I certainly don't claim that I am a scientist and there is so much information out there that not one person knows it all ... and information interpreted in many many ways.

So ... no ... I don't believe we evolved from animals, and see humans as being remarkably different ....

The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. One is man’s explicit mental capabilities and creative nature.

Man possesses the faculty of speech , and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals . We have the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; have an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.

We are very creative beings ... why? Sure we create things to solve problems, but also create things for pure enjoyment ... we have a extremely creative nature.

A lot of "could be's" in science, many models/theories put out there in regard to life origins ... but is theory and will remain so .... because is not observable nor testable of what happened over "million/billions" of years ... can only be theorized. No one was there.

So ... each have their base and belief .... none of which is provable without doubt. Some people believe earth was populated from aliens.

I watched a video interview with Richard Dawkins the other night .... where in that video the question of the possibility that higher intelligent life form(s) existed in the universe and was it possible that life on planet earth resulted from that type of a influence .... astonishingly he was open to the idea. Hmmmm ... ok ... open to that possibility .... but no certainly impossible for God to exist ??? I found this odd.

... and the beat goes on ;o) pick your base and go with it ... in the meantime ... we are here and life goes on .... and in the meantime could we be kind and helpful to one another regardless of our beliefs? Novel idea ;o)

Have decided to put my energy and effort in that regard as much as I am able to ... and am certainly not infallible.

So ... my friend .... I agree to disagree .... and wish you well.

 

[Bradskii]

So ... my friend .... I agree to disagree .... and wish you well.

Likewise.

 

[eleos1954]

Likewise.

Just want you to know ... I like you as a person ;o)

 

[Subduction Zone]

well ... there is a lot of info out there and many different interpretations of what is out there. Lots of theories and ideas.

Personally, I think it's what one's fundamental base is.

One sees intricate design (meaning there is a designer) ... others see millions of random occurrences happening over billions of years (evolution)

Seeing intricate design does not imply a designer. That is only a claim, it does not appear to be supported by any sort of evidence. Snowflakes are an example of intricate design without a designer.

One chooses their "base" and then are inclined one way or another to interpret the evidence to fit within that base.

Science has one of the fairest definitions of "evidence" that there is. And there is no evidence for creationism. It does not matter how one interprets it since there are clear rules as to what is and what is not evidence. it is the cowardice of creation "scientists" that there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

With about 1.5 million or so named and categorized living species (and possibly several times more species unnamed or categorized), we might reasonably expect to see at least some evidence of a series of transitional stages among living organisms, but such is not the case .... not found.

And that is not true. We currently have an abundance of transitional fossils The first clear example was discovered while Darwin was still alive. He lived to see his theory confirmed by the fossil record.

Things pop up every once in a while .... ie soft tissue in dinosaur bones etc. of course there will be theory put forth to provide possible explanations for this so it fits in with the evolution model.

And the Christian lady that discovered "soft tissue" was also the first that came up with a mechanism for its preservation. It is an error to assume that evolution is an atheistic belief. It is no more atheistic than gravity.

I certainly don't claim that I am a scientist and there is so much information out there that not one person knows it all ... and information interpreted in many many ways.

So ... no ... I don't believe we evolved from animals, and see humans as being remarkably different ....

The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. One is man’s explicit mental capabilities and creative nature.

We are different, but You ae an animal. You move around too much to be a plant and you are far larger than a bacteria. All of the scientific evidence supports the fact that we share a common ancestor with other life.

Man possesses the faculty of speech , and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals . We have the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; have an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.

We are very creative beings ... why? Sure we create things to solve problems, but also create things for pure enjoyment ... we have a extremely creative nature.

A lot of "could be's" in science, many models/theories put out there in regard to life origins ... but is theory and will remain so .... because is not observable nor testable of what happened over "million/billions" or years ... can only be theorized. No one was there.

So ... each have their base and belief .... none of which is provable without doubt. Some people believe earth was populated from aliens.

I watched a video interview with Richard Dawkins the other night .... where in that video the question of the possibility that higher intelligent life form(s) existed in the universe and was it possible that life on planet earth resulted from that type of a influence .... astonishingly he was open to the idea. Hmmmm ... ok ... open to that possibility .... but no certainly impossible for God to exist ??? I found this odd.

... and the beat goes on ;o) pick your base and go with it ... in the meantime ... we are here and life goes on .... and in the meantime could we be kind and helpful to one another regardless of our beliefs? Novel idea ;o)

Have decided to put my energy and effort in that regard as much as I am able to ... and am certainly not infallible.

So ... my friend .... I agree to disagree .... and wish you well.

Okay, a bunch of claims that you cannot support.

Would you care to learn what is and what is not evidence? It is an easy idea to understand and it is very fair.

Also I could help you with the concept of transitional species. It is quite easy to spot them once you understand the concept. Creationists are not stupid. They merely lack an education in the subject that they try to debate against. That all but guarantees that they continually lose by being shown to be wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

Seeing intricate design does not imply a designer. That is only a claim, it does not appear to be supported by any sort of evidence. Snowflakes are an example of intricate design without a designer.



Science has one of the fairest definitions of "evidence" that there is. And there is no evidence for creationism. It does not matter how one interprets it since there are clear rules as to what is and what is not evidence. it is the cowardice of creation "scientists" that there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.



And that is not true. We currently have an abundance of transitional fossils The first clear example was discovered while Darwin was still alive. He lived to see his theory confirmed by the fossil record.



And the Christian lady that discovered "soft tissue" was also the first that came up with a mechanism for its preservation. It is an error to assume that evolution is an atheistic belief. It is no more atheistic than gravity.



We are different, but You ae an animal. You move around too much to be a plant and you are far larger than a bacteria. All of the scientific evidence supports the fact that we share a common ancestor with other life.



Okay, a bunch of claims that you cannot support.

Would you care to learn what is and what is not evidence? It is an easy idea to understand and it is very fair.

Also I could help you with the concept of transitional species. It is quite easy to spot them once you understand the concept. Creationists are not stupid. They merely lack an education in the subject that they try to debate against. That all but guarantees that they continually lose by being shown to be wrong.

All baloney… macroevolution theory itself is second-rate (real science + speculation), but it has masterfully piggy-backed science to build and maintain its presence in academia and the world (probably its most notable accomplishment), and I would argue even used religion through a contrarian position, which has had its desired effect. It usurped Biblical Kinds with a man-made classification system and utilized a tree of life as the metaphorical representation for speciation. Is it just a coincidence that a tree of life is in the Eden account?

Elos is right about man’s distinctions… so the question to you is why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

 

[Frank Robert]

All baloney… macroevolution theory itself is second-rate (real science + speculation), but it has masterfully piggy-backed science to build and maintain its presence in academia and the world

There is nothing masterful about evidence. You either have it or you don't and creationists don't.

Elos is right about man’s distinctions… so the question to you is why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

There is a consilience of evidence for common descent from fossils, anatomy, embryos, DNA, etc. in spite of creationists' peculiar beliefs.

I am not claiming that such evidence takes away from a belief in deities only there is no evidence for deities and that science could not progress w/o evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All baloney… macroevolution theory itself is second-rate (real science + speculation), but it has masterfully piggy-backed science to build and maintain its presence in academia and the world (probably its most notable accomplishment), and I would argue even used religion through a contrarian position, which has had its desired effect. It usurped Biblical Kinds with a man-made classification system and utilized a tree of life as the metaphorical representation for speciation. Is it just a coincidence that a tree of life is in the Eden account?

Elos is right about man’s distinctions… so the question to you is why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

Totally wrong. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. And you have been answered as to how nature did it. You simply do not like the answer.

You should be trying to learn what is and what is not evidence. Are you too afraid to do so?

 

[eleos1954]

There is nothing masterful about evidence. You either have it or you don't and creationists don't.


There is a consilience of evidence for common descent from fossils, anatomy, embryos, DNA, etc. in spite of creationists' peculiar beliefs.

I am not claiming that such evidence takes away from a belief in deities only there is no evidence for deities and that science could not progress w/o evidence.

Intelligence IS the evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Intelligence IS the evidence.

The evidence for evolution is evident for common descent. The evidence for intelligence is totally lacking, claiming w/o evidence that intelligence can be detected does not dismiss the overwhelming evidence for common descent.

 

[eleos1954]

The evidence for evolution is evident for common descent. The evidence for intelligence is totally lacking, claiming w/o evidence that intelligence can be detected does not dismiss the overwhelming evidence for common descent.

intelligence is the elephant in the room ...

the fact that there is intelligence is evidence ... and if not seen as such ... well then .... one isn't using their intelligence. It doesn't have to be "detected" ... it's there as plain as day. There is more to living beings other than their physical existence ... a lot more.

 

[Frank Robert]

intelligence is the elephant in the room ...

the fact that there is intelligence is evidence ... and if not seen as such ... well then .... one isn't using their intelligence. It doesn't have to be "detected" ... it's there as plain as day. There is more to living beings other than their physical existence ... a lot more.

The main ID argument is that intelligence can be detected which can be argued. On the other hand arguing against a belief is seldom if ever productive.

 

[inquiring mind]

Totally wrong. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. And you have been answered as to how nature did it. You simply do not like the answer.

You should be trying to learn what is and what is not evidence. Are you too afraid to do so?

Well, I don't remember getting an answer... but, I'm sure that I probably didn't like it if I got one.

 

[eleos1954]

The main ID argument is that it can be detected which can be argued. On the other hand arguing against a belief is seldom if ever productive.

so why are you arguing? LOL because you have a different belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I don't remember getting an answer... but, I'm sure that I probably didn't like it if I got one.

Which is why you need to learn more of the basics of science first. Right now you will reject any explanation unjustly.

 

[sfs]

All baloney… macroevolution theory itself is second-rate (real science + speculation), but it has masterfully piggy-backed science to build and maintain its presence in academia and the world (probably its most notable accomplishment), and I would argue even used religion through a contrarian position, which has had its desired effect.

Interesting. The National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization in the US, think evolutionary biology is sound science. So does the American Association for the Advancement of Science. So does every scientific publisher, every major research university, all of the major professional organizations for scientists, and every philosopher, historian, and sociologist of science. But you know different. Have you considered the possibility that you're not really in a position to judge what constitutes good science?

Is it just a coincidence that a tree of life is in the Eden account?

No, it's probably not. The tree of life is a powerful symbol, and one easily adapted by scientists.