What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

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

The problem with ID, as well as other variations of creationism, is that there is no scientific evidence for it.

 

[inquiring mind]

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

In other words, you have no answer to the question.

 

[sfs]

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)

Your thought here is, unfortunately, demonstrably wrong. Christian biologists see intricate design and believe in a designer -- and overwhelmingly conclude that God created that design via evolution, incorporating millions of random occurrences. Atheist biologists who look at the same data reach the same conclusion about evolution, but without belief in God.

 

[inquiring mind]

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?

Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you have no answer to the question.

No, that is false. Your user name is Inquiring Mind. Do you want to learn or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"

The better question is why couldn't it?

 

[eleos1954]

Your thought here is, unfortunately, demonstrably wrong. Christian biologists see intricate design and believe in a designer -- and overwhelmingly conclude that God created that design via evolution, incorporating millions of random occurrences. Atheist biologists who look at the same data reach the same conclusion about evolution, but without belief in God.

well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.

outside of that .... answer this question that another poster put forth ....

how/could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusion with science ... it's on going ...
(the end or finish of an event or process)

What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner .... Theory of Evolution and will always be. Nobody was there.

 

[sfs]

Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"

It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.

 

[sfs]

What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner

I'm talking about evolution, not the origin of life.

Theory of Evolution and will always be.

Just like the theory of gravitation is and always will be a theory. It's still a fact that gravity exists, just as it's a fact that existing life evolved from earlier common ancestors. Evolution provides explanations for how that happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.

outside of that .... answer this question that another poster put forth ....

how/could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusion with science ... it's on going ...
(the end or finish of an event or process)

What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner .... Theory of Evolution and will always be. Nobody was there.

No, they are not "dismissing" it. If anything if God did create the Earth his creation dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Earth itself tells us that life did not begin that way.

And both you and @inquiring mind are trying to use an argument from ignorance fallacy. If we do not know the answer to something one hundred percent yet that is not evidence for God. Luckily it is not evidence against God either. It only means that there are unanswered questions.

 

[sfs]

well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.

Have you considered asking them what they're doing, rather than just making up stuff and attributing it to them? Speaking as one of them, I'm not dismissing the Genesis account as it is written, since to me it is patently obvious that it's written in mythological terms appropriate for its ancient Near East origin. The idea that it's an historical statement about anything strikes me as dismissing what's actually there and replacing it with some kind of account that didn't exist at the time -- regardless of whether evolution is true.

 

[eleos1954]

It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.

Why does matter and energy exist? Without using theory ... Where does matter and energy come from?

 

[sfs]

Why does matter and energy exist? Without using theory ... Where does matter and energy come from?

We don't know. Maybe they were direct divine creations. What does that have to do with whether living things have evolved or not?

 

[eleos1954]

I'm talking about evolution, not the origin of life.

Just like the theory of gravitation is and always will be a theory. It's still a fact that gravity exists, just as it's a fact that existing life evolved from earlier common ancestors. Evolution provides explanations for how that happened.

The origin of life means the emergence of heritable and evolvable self-reproduction.

No ... evolution puts forth theory of how it MIGHT have happened.

 

[sfs]

The origin of life means the emergence of heritable and evolvable self-reproduction.

Right -- evolution takes over after the origin of life. We're talking about evolution here -- micro and macro evolution. Why do you keep trying to change to subject to the origin of life?

No ... evolution puts forth theory of how it MIGHT have happened.

Evolutionary biology puts forth a theory (actually multiple, connected theories) about how it did happen -- and then goes on to test those theories against data. Over and over and over again.

How many evolutionary biology papers have you read in the scientific literature? Do you have even the faintest idea what actual evolutionary biologists do?

 

[eleos1954]

We don't know. Maybe they were direct divine creations. What does that have to do with whether living things have evolved or not?

well .... necessary to have a planet capable to support life .... or for life to "evolve" on.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, that is false. Your user name is Inquiring Mind. Do you want to learn or not?

enlighten me.

 

[eleos1954]

Right -- evolution takes over after the origin of life. We're talking about evolution here -- micro and macro evolution. Why do you keep trying to change to subject to the origin of life?

Evolutionary biology puts forth a theory (actually multiple, connected theories) about how it did happen -- and then goes on to test those theories against data. Over and over and over again.

How many evolutionary biology papers have you read in the scientific literature? Do you have even the faintest idea what actual evolutionary biologists do?

One doesn't need a Harvard education to understand what theory is.

So you consider yourself the authority on ALL that science has put forth? You know it all?

Because you have read "X" amount of papers? An you pre-suppose that me and others haven't?

Nobody knows it all my friend.

How many evolutionary biology papers have you read in the scientific literature?

How many have you read? so .... we can all be impressed with the claimed knowledge you evidentially claim to possess

 

[sfs]

well .... necessary to have a planet capable to support life .... or for life to "evolve" on.

Sure, it's necessary for life to evolve. Again, how does that tell us anything about whether evolution is an accurate description of the history of life on this planet?

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.

About what I expected.